when I did a search on the Jefferson Bible (which I didn't know existed until today), I noticed that "people who bought this book also bought" books on Unitarian Universalism.
That's a religious group that I had checked out before. Found nothing immediately objectionable about them but I didn't pursue the idea any.
Now I'm wondering - how much of Jefferson is Unitarian? How much of Unitarian is Jefferson?
And what of both of those ideologies are Deist?
How do they differ? How are they connected?
Posts: 6 | Location: USA | Registered: 13 December 2004
"if we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion." -noam chomsky<br /><br />"i'll take this knife out of my back and stab it stright into the heart, <br />of a country that was built on lies and murder from the start."- death by stereo
Posts: 65 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 08 August 2004
The big difference is that the Deists - like Jefferson - believe/acknowledge that there is *something* out there - some intelligence of God or whatever (a Diety) that created the universe, but then hasn't interfered with it since then. The Unitarians, OTOH, consider the idea of a deity an open question, or avoid addressing it altogether. Or at least that's my understanding - I may be wrong (and if I am, somebody here will hopefully set me straight).
Thom
Posts: 1351 | Location: Portland, OR | Registered: 16 January 2006
I hesitate to post here since I'm far from an expert, but I think it's a mistake to confuse the Unitarians of Jefferson's time with the Unitarian-Universalists of today. Early 18th century Unitarians were monotheists. They were Christian in the sense of seeing Christ as a great teacher, or perhaps prophet, but not as a "person" of a trinitarian godhead. Read some of Willeam Ellery Channing or check the American Unitarian Conference web site for more information.
Contemporary Unitarian-Universalists believe a wide range of things. About a third call themselves "Christian"; others are atheists, neo-pagans, Buddhists etc. Hope this helps just a bit.
Posts: 2 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 25 December 2004
"I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience neither to kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of the only true God is reviving; and I trust there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."
The Unitarians can, or have, called themselves whatever they want--but they have never been classified as Christian even by the most liberal of terms. In the immediate sense, they exist as a negation of orthodox Christendom, as does Mormonism. They deliberately set themselves apart as a sect which rejected any sense of orthodoxy which had the weight of 18 or so centuries behind it. Even the National Council of Churches excludes Unitarianism from the ranks of Christianity. Unfortunately, too many use the word Christian to suit their own purpose -- to add legitimacy where there is none.
What Lenin, Stalin, and Kruschev only hoped to accomplish with fired weapons -- Dell, Gerstner, and Fiorini have accomplished with fired workers.
Posts: 12 | Location: North | Registered: 30 January 2005
I consider myself a Deist. I believe God is very much in a interactive relationship with the Universe. The foolishness that has evolved from all of the "revealed religions" is just overwhelming evidence that the only source of receiving Gods purpose for you and all of us is through your own sense of reason and the God given wisdom that only you poses and every other religion tries to take away. God Gave us reason not religion.
I'm a life long Unitarian so perhaps I can add some information. Unitarians are traditionally those who use reason and logic with regards to religion, God, etc. In the days of our founding, many of the upper class were either Freemasons (Washington, Franklin, Revere) who believe in a Supreme Being or were Unitarians (Jefferson, Adams, Paine) which grew from the belief that Jesus Christ was a man of great wisdom but not God. Unitarians believe in one God and find the idea of a Holy Trinity, hell, virgin birth, etc. unreasonable and/or historically influenced (e.g., Council of Nicea 325 a.d.). Jefferson, while a Unitarian, did not regularly attend a Unitarian church because there wasn't one near his home. He did, however, attend one in the DC area as did Washington when they served in the White House.
I would say that Freemasons are more deistic (God put the laws of the universe in motion and has been hands off since) while Unitarians are simply monotheistic (one God who is an active part of the universe in some form or manner to be explored by the individual Unitarian). Both Freemasonry and Unitarianism have the common elements that no religion or beliefs are the "truth" but rather, each individual must explore on his/her own to develop their own set of beliefs in their search for "truth".
The Jefferson Bible is the result of Jefferson's 12 year project of going through 4 different versions of the new testament and remove, and I paraphrase here, the diamonds from the dung heap. In other words, he wanted to remove all those things that he reasoned were not the teachings of JC but were, instead, insertions by others for some other purpose. The Jefferson Bible is very popular with Unitarians who come from a Christian background and the traditiona bible for the swearing in the US President or used in the Senate or somewhere (I can't remember which) is an original version of the Jefferson Bible.
Posts: 2 | Location: Singapore | Registered: 22 December 2005
"Learn. Think. Believe & Act."<br />"Love."<br />---<br />"A civilization unable to differentiate between Illusion & Reality is usually believed to be at the tail end of its existence."-J.R.Saul
Posts: 23 | Location: Toronto | Registered: 20 December 2005
Although, Jefferson's religious convictions would be arguably much in line with modern Unitarianism, the reason that the search for the Jefferson Bible can up associated with Unitarian-Universalism is most likely because Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian-Universalist Association (UUA), publishes the currently available version, primarily due the efforts of Dr Forrest Church, a UU minister, and son of the late Frank Church, United States Senator from Idaho from 1957 to 1981. Dr Church is the minister of All Souls Church, NYC.
Originally posted by DieboldMustDie: I hesitate to post here since I'm far from an expert, but I think it's a mistake to confuse the Unitarians of Jefferson's time with the Unitarian-Universalists of today. Early 18th century Unitarians were monotheists. They were Christian in the sense of seeing Christ as a great teacher, or perhaps prophet, but not as a "person" of a trinitarian godhead.
The history of Unitarianism goes back much further than the 18th century. It came about as a result of the Counsel of Nicea, in which the Catholic church decreed the doctrine of the Trinity. The first Unitarian was Michael Servetus who was burned for heresy for speaking out against this doctrine. It is something of an irony to some that the Unitarian Church in Romania maintains a very close relationship with American Unitarians, even though the Romanian Unitarians are indeed firm believers in God in a more traditional way. The two come together in that they both believe that reason and logic go hand in hand with faith, or in my words, faith without reason is just superstition.
I was raised a strict jehovah's witness, and although I value the morals and theological knowledge that my upbringing gave me I have been at kind loss as to how to raise my children in such a way that they aren't little heathens or idiots since rejecting organized Christianity.
This discussion is great, being as my favorite quote of all time is Jefferson's.
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
The focus on fearing god in organized Christianity, especially Jehovah's Witnesses, even though they do not believe in hell.. Is a major deal breaker for me.
Thanks for bringing Jefferson's Bible to my attention.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Agent11,
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Posts: 127 | Location: Keizer OR | Registered: 16 June 2006
I think the 'distinctive' element between Jefferson's form of 'Unitarianism/Deism' and modern Unitarianism is founded on the idea that the 'rationalism' of today allows the thinker to conclude that there is no God--whereas, in Jefferson's time, a strict adherence to atheism was not a 'formulated belief', yet--however, I have read in Jefferson's writings a concession that that, too, is a 'rational answer'...
I've quoted some of Jefferson's thoughts on religion and Jesus in other posts--the main ones seemed to have dropped off--and I don't have my resources (primarily Stephen Mitchell's book, The Gospel According to Jesus--For Believers and Unbelievers) with me at this time...
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Originally posted by Agent11: I was raised a strict jehovah's witness, and although I value the morals and theological knowledge that my upbringing gave me I have been at kind loss as to how to raise my children in such a way that they aren't little heathens or idiots since rejecting organized Christianity.
Check out some of the eastern philosophies. At their root, they are identical to Christ's teachings, Golden Rule, etc. Any "dogma" understood leads to personal growth rather than a subservience to doctrine. Taoism, Bhuddhism, etc. aren't diety based.
Krishnamuti would be a good start or some of the writings of Alan Watts.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
These are some of Jefferson's comments on Jesus and religion posted in the Appendix of Stephen Mitchell's book, The Gospel According to Jesus:
quote:
My views of the Christian religion are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am Christian, in the only sense in which he wanted anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other. (emphasis in the original)
quote:
The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the text of other books relating to them, that we have right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. The matter of the first was such as would be preserved in the memory of the hearers, and handed on by tradition for a long time; the latter such stuff as might be gathered up, for imbedding it, anywhere, and at any time.
quote:
We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists; select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.
quote:
You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile, or death in furea.
Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision. I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists, because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge of their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics.
quote:
The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fantasy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist are not identical. The church I attended in my youth was Unitarian. I can't say exactly how Unitarianism has changed since in became merged with Universalism, but it feels different to me.
Regarding Jefferson's views on Christianity, try his letter to Peter Carr:
4. Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates. For example, in the book of Joshua, we are told, the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said, that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, and the second by exile, or death "in furea"....
Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision. I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists. Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics. Most of these are lost. There are some, however, still extant, collected by Fabricius, which I will endeavor to get and send you.
Also find the context in which Jefferson made the statement: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
What is quoted above is certainly not inconsistent with Unitarian beliefs. As for what Deists believed, try Thomas Paine's, The Age of Reason.
If you ever figure out what Unitarians believe let me know. The only thing that comes to mind is my Karma ran over your dogma. We learned about Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Evolution (which was the obvious 'technical' explanation for human existence), and just about any religious belief system you might imagine. My father is an Atheist, and I proudly followed suit until I just started to believe in some spiritual essence to existence. I don't believe any single religion has a patten on ultimate Truth. I also don't believe that genuine science and genuine spirituality are capable of being at odds. As a matter of fact, the study of pure physics and mathematics is religious, not in the sense of believing that the existing physics is the final Truth, but in the sense of seeking higher Truth in these fields. I do not believe the historical Jesus ever lived. I do not believe Pontius Pilate ever existed. And Herod did not coincide with the time attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Nonetheless, I believe there is a great deal of symbolic worth in the Christian Bible. Some of the variants which didn't make the cut would probably shock the modern Christian. For example the Gospel of Thomas. Unfortunately there was an incredible amount of historical correctivism in the past century.
By the time Charlemagne was crowned Emperor and the savage barbarian Germans were finally civilized, the city of Maiz was already more than 800 years old.
I bring this up only to call attention to the fact that there was a huge sophisticated interconnected civilized world stretching from China to Britain during the first century. Buddhism was huge in much of what is now considered the middle east. Zoroastrianism was also prominent. Dionysus had at least as many fans in Roman Palestine as did YHVH. We find Isis in Mainz at the time. The idea of the One True God(tm) was foreign to just about everybody. The idea that all Gods were manifestations of a unitary Godhead was present in different cultures, but that was an inclusive rather than an exclusive "monotheism".
Thanks for the added words to Jefferson's quote Epimanes.
I've read much of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. I recall that Paine felt the 'prophets' were just the 'poets of the Biblical age'--and 'artists' do oftentimes coincide 'emotional elements' to popular events in a way we all can 'understand'. For now, I'll leave it at that.
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
You might be interested to know that the author of the book I keep mentioning about Jefferson's writings on Christianity, The Gospel According to Jesus--A New Translation and Guide to His Essential Teachings For Believers and Unbelievers, Stephen Mitchell, was born a Jew but converted to Buddhism and became a monk. His perspective is far from 'orthodox' and, as he says in the beginning of the book, one of the icons on the wall of his study is a Rembrandt Peale reproduction of Thomas Jefferson.
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Another long-time UU here. Thought I'd throw a couple more coals into the fire.
Modern-day UU, while it has two basic "heritage streams" of radical-Protestant thought and faith (Unitarian and Universalist), is essentially a whole new animal. It's more attitudinal than doctrinal...more defined by "shared attitude" than by commonality of doctrine. The attitude is distinctly democracy-oriented more than authoritarian. It stresses free-agency, critical thinking, and utmost intellectual honesty in the quest for truth and meaning, emphasizes humility and ethical action over unquestioned acceptance of pre-packaged religious dogma, love over fear, and unity over uniformity. The freedoms we embrace are not without a context of discipline and responsibility, so it's highly improper to say that UU's can "believe anything we want to." (Like all democracy, its freedoms come with mutual expectations and responsibilities.)
In a way, modern-day Unitarian Universalism is closer to the "Enlightenment faith" of people like Paine, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson than was the Unitarianism and Universalism of their time. To us, the "Reformation" is a continuous, still-unfolding process of human liberation and cooperation...so "stubbornly protestant" that it can't be confined within the boundaries of any one religious tradition, any one holy book or prophecy...past or present. At its best, the phrase "e pluribus unum" (of many, one) describes the "diversity within unity" emphasis of our "Faith of the Free" just as much as it does (ideally) in the so-called "Land of the Free."
-- For anyone who would like to know more about us, I've recently started a UU message-board that contains links to a lot of introductory UU websites (and about its ongoing "Enlightenment/Radical-Protestant" heritage. You can find it over at http://FaithoftheFree.informe.com
(Still under construction...be careful of the nails, loose boards, etc.)
Interesting thread! Hopefully I've added a little something of value to it.
Ron, have you read any of the books by Dr. F. Forrester Church, the son of former Idaho senator Frank Church and minister of New York City's Unitarian Church? The two I've read are short books, The Devil and Dr. Church and The Seven Deadly Virtues--both written in the mid to late 1980's after the 'Reagan revolution' had firmly taken hold.
I liked The Devil and Dr. Church better--and have discussed what I remember of its theme here. While being a Unitarian, Dr. Church explains that many of his congregation, which, on a whole, is a more educated congregation that most, don't believe in 'the Devil', he does. Dr. Church goes on to use Jesus' premise that 'the Devil' is 'the father of all lies'--and, then, associates that to the 'lying manuvers' of Reagan's 'righteous revolution'. The image I remember most from the book was Dr. Church's explanation that since, 'the Devil', being 'the father of lies', is also the 'master of deception'--'the Devil's' best lie would pass off as 'the truth'. So, 'the Devil' won't come as everyone would expect--with horns breathing fire--that would be too obvious. 'The Devil' will disguise himself as a gentleman with exquisite etiquette knowing all the rules....perhaps even a 'church goer'....
In a similar issue, I have conceptualized 'Satan' as being 'The Accuser' (which is one English translation of the Hebrew word 'satan'--the other being 'adversary'). In being 'The Accuser', and in following this 'divine dichotomy' Western thought has formulated between 'Satan and God', 'Satan' is the ruler when unresolved accusations dictate the behavior of the day and time. A world controlled by 'unresolved accusations' is not a world controlled by 'God'--but by 'Satan'. Aided by 'the Devil' in disguising it as 'good' in the constant battle between 'good and evil'....
To avoid this illusion, we must reduce our motives of 'good' and 'evil' to their basic components--and I use Jesus' 'Two Commandments' to do this (as Jesus stated in the Gospels, 'love your neighbor as yourself', the 'second commandment', is, as Jesus associated, like 'love God with all your heart, mind, and soul'). Anything else can be misconstrued and misapplied....
Keep the faith...
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Discussion Community 
