Was Thomas Jefferson a Deist?

[seer]

Jefferson was an Irreligious Theist.

I agree.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I'm still waiting for references from that time that showed that Deism could include a God that intervenes in human history, not just winds it up and let's it go.

Definitions and voluminous citations by Thomas Jefferson provided. Your thin ice has broken. The definition I gave which is an accepted definition that clearly defines Thomas Jefferson as a Deist.

[shunyadragon]

I can't believe I'm doing this.

Theism) belief in at least one deity: Includes Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, pantheism, Panentheism, Panendeism, and some forms of Agnosticism.

I can't believe I am doing this. Deists believe in a Deity, but do not believe in Revelation. Definition provided.

Jefferson was an Irreligious Theist.

False,

Some Buddhists, not all do not believe in God(s).

[shunyadragon]

Did they believe that God interfered in human history to judge people for immoral behavior?

Some did.

[shunyadragon]

A definition of Deism, notice the bolded part:

"A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation."

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism

Jefferson did not believe in miracles, nor supernatural Revelation

[Sea of red]

Deism is a form of theism.

[shunyadragon]

Deism is a form of theism.

Not according to the dictionary. There is a distinction between the two beliefs.

[seer]

Some did.

Who did? That is what I have been asking - references from that time that showed Deists believe that God would interact in human history, to actually punish men for immoral acts.

[robrecht]

Not according to the dictionary. There is a distinction between the two beliefs.

Surely you realize, Shuny, that there is no single neo-Platonic definition of theism or deism. And there are many more nuances of these terms as used by various proponents (and opponents) of ideologies and philosophical and theological schools and systems of thought. You conveniently left out a second definition of theism from your own source: "2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)." According to this definition, Jefferson was a theist as were many deists. According to some definitions of deism, Jefferson was a deist, but there may be other aspects of deism that do not apply so well to Jefferson. You appear to have started this thread with a false dichotomy based on the belief that seer claimed Jefferson was a traditional Christian, which he has not claimed here, rather he agrees in this thread that he was not. But his working definition of deism focuses upon other forms of God's putative intervention in the affairs of men. It would be more helpful if you could focus on his specific questions for you and leave aside questionable appeals to authority, such as selective use and appeal to 'the dictionary'.

[shunyadragon]

Surely you realize, Shuny, that there is no single neo-Platonic definition of theism or deism. And there are many more nuances of these terms as used by various proponents (and opponents) of ideologies and philosophical and theological schools and systems of thought. You conveniently left out a second definition of theism from your own source: "2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)." According to this definition, Jefferson was a theist as were many deists. According to some definitions of deism, Jefferson was a deist, but there may be other aspects of deism that do not apply so well to Jefferson. You appear to have started this thread with a false dichotomy based on the belief that seer claimed Jefferson was a traditional Christian, which he has not claimed here, rather he agrees in this thread that he was not. But his working definition of deism focuses upon other forms of God's putative intervention in the affairs of men. It would be more helpful if you could focus on his specific questions for you and leave aside questionable appeals to authority, such as selective use and appeal to 'the dictionary'.

Surely you realize there is some reasonable consistency on how we communicate in the English language despite some variation individual interpretations.

Too high a fog index, and too much Blue Smoke and Mirrors to be real. Our language is based on reasonable definitions of words. Theism and Deism have been adequately defined by two sources cited in this thread. Theist and Deists believe in God. Deists do not believe in Miracles nor Revelation from God as do Jewish, Christian and Islamic Theists. Deism is heavily if not totally humanist appealing to humanist origins of morals, ethics and laws. Priestley, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were classic Deists of their time. The Deist influence on others like George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin are well documented.

There may be some difference on what individuals believe, Jefferson indicated that God may intervene in human affairs, but not through miracles nor supernatural Revelation. The following is adequate based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Pain, Priestley, and others of the time . . .

Source: Source: [url

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism][/url]

"A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation."

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism

[seer]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism][/url]

"A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation." [/cite]

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism

But Jefferson did in fact believe that God did intervene in human affairs. So your own definition does not apply.

[shunyadragon]

But Jefferson did in fact believe that God did intervene in human affairs. So your own definition does not apply.

The definition given here applies, because Jefferson did not believe that God intervened by miracles nor Revelation.

[robrecht]

Surely you realize there is some reasonable consistency on how we communication the English language despite some variation individual interpretations.

Too high a fog index, and too much Blue Smoke and Mirrors to be real. Our language is based on reasonable definitions of words. Theism and Deism have been adequately defined by two sources cited in this thread. Theist and Deists believe in God. Deists do not believe in Miracles nor Revelation from God as do Jewish, Christian and Islamic Theists. Deism was heavily humanist at the tie appealing to humanist origins of morals, ethics and laws. Priestley, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were classic Deists of their time. The Deist influence on others like George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin are well documented.

There may be some difference on what individuals believe, Jefferson indicated that God may intervene in human affairs, but not through miracles nor supernatural Revelation. The following is adequate based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Pain, Priestley, and others of the time . . .

Source: Source: [url

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism][/url]

"A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation."

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism

Of course I realize this, but that cannot justify selective appeal to one definition as 'according to the dictionary'. When Sea of Red says that, "Deism is a form of theism," he is surely right in speaking of many, perhaps most, forms of deism. For you to respond, "Not according to the dictionary. There is a distinction between the two beliefs," is silly. First, it is certainly possible for there to be a distinction between the two beliefs and for one to be a form of the other. Secondly, as already stated, you selectively removed part of the definition of 'theism' from your own source: "2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)." This definition certainly can include many, perhaps most, forms of deism as indeed a form of 'theism'. Likewise, the definition of deism provided by Kristian, which you also quote here, also clearly identifies 'deism' as a form of 'theism' in that it makes direct appeal to 'God having created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws'.

[shunyadragon]

Of course I realize this, but that cannot justify selective appeal to one definition as 'according to the dictionary'. When Sea of Red says that, "Deism is a form of theism," he is surely right in speaking of many, perhaps most, forms of deism. For you to respond, "Not according to the dictionary. There is a distinction between the two beliefs," is silly. First, it is certainly possible for there to be a distinction between the two beliefs and for one to be a form of the other. Secondly, as already stated, you selectively removed part of the definition of 'theism' from your own source: "2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)." This definition certainly can include many, perhaps most, forms of deism as indeed a form of 'theism'. Likewise, the definition of deism provided by Kristian, which you also quote here, also clearly identifies 'deism' as a form of 'theism' in that it makes direct appeal to 'God having created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws'.

Actually the definition DOES NOT define Deism as a form of Theism. That is an interpretation on your part and not the definition.Being a form of Theism is not help here. Deism is in reality defined as separate from Theism. A further difference at the time was the Deists Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Priestley DID NOT believe God established Laws rationally comprehensible moral, ethical codes nor revealed commandments. They did not believe in Revelation, Revealed Laws, nor Miracles.

They consider Jesus a philosopher, and his works were not from God, but rational human teachings with humanist origins.

[robrecht]

Actually the definition DOES NOT define Deism as a form of Theism. That is an interpretation on your part and not the definition.Being a form of Theism is not help here. Deism is in reality defined as separate from Theism. A further difference at the time was the Deists Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Priestley DID NOT believe God established Laws rationally comprehensible moral, ethical codes nor revealed commandments. They did not believe in Revelation, Revealed Laws, nor Miracles.

They consider Jesus a philosopher, and his works were not from God, but rational human teachings with humanist origins.

I think the great majority of people would agree that a belief that 'God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws' is indeed a theistic belief. That you may not agree may be related to your own idiosyncratic view and role in this discussion. Or can you make a case that most people would not agree that a belief that 'God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws' is indeed a theistic belief?