It's funny how the Athiest claims Jefferson as one of their own and for that matter Franklin but it is anything but the truth.  You'll be hard pressed to find writtings of his regarding a disbelief in God.  He did question Christ as the savior but accepted his teachings as truth.

---- To W. Short, 1820

The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to the right or left might place him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. They were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle him in the web of the law. He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, by misconstructions and misapplications of scraps of the prophets, and in defending himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient ad homines, at least. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible. The whole religion of the Jew, inculcated in him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration. The fumes of the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious code, as special communications of the Deity . . . Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and pure heart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not been taught him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of his own fine genius for inspirations of an higher order. This belief carried, therefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that himself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian Daemon.

----- To C. Thompson, 1816

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics of deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.

One of my personal favorite quotes of Jefferson's is.......

I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I am satisfied that yours must be an excellent religion to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged.

   1816, in a letter to Mrs. H. Harrison Smith

The proof is in the pudding.

Tj

Quoted: I believe that Jefferson wrote the phrase 'Cult of Jesus' in one of his letters.  Clearly he did believe in a god, but he didn't believe in the things that make Christianity Christianity.

I don't know if didn't believe is as true but as had serious doubt or didn't see the revalence.  That's a difficult concept for many who take either a pro or con approach to Chistianity.   Raised an Anglican and regular fincial supporter of many of the Christian Churches in his area, one could be pretty confident to say he suspected maybe.  As you read his writings however you get the distinct impression especially The Jefferson Bible that he saw the divinity aspect of Christianity not important to the message.  

On a personal note, I'm sure you have seen the same thing in many of the discussion on this forum, its the divinity aspect of Christianity that many who do not follow the lifestyle pro and con use to justify their behaviour.  Jefferson would say it had no revalence since the morals taught by Christ are  a universal truth.  

He obviously wholy accepted the universal truths of Christianity which btw falls in line with many other major religions, however his disdain for organized religion and political fear of the same is also very prevalent.  This couldn't be more pronounced than his association with the Unitarians though there is no eveidence he ever joined. Joining would have been against his concious.  

Today we see much of his religous philisophies in the non-denominational Christian movement which has a more open theological approach around the individual rather than church doctrine and universal opposition to organized religion.   Many non-denominational Christians for example don't even have a building.  Topics that one would never see in a organized Christian religion such as the virginity of Mary (Jesus' mother), the morality of Judus (God's will or his own), and even was the ressurection real and their relevance to life are often discussed.  The premise of blind faith is more often not a requirement of non-denominational Christian movements.  

Tj

Quoted: Jefferson was a Deist who viewed Jesus as a wise human teacher.     Atheists try to claim many Deists for political gain, the same can be said of Christians who try the very same thing. Interestingly, during his election there were many Christian organizations campaigning against him due to his being a heathen....

I don't know bud, kind of hard for fundalmentalist Christian faith to claim any Diest to make their point.  The basic premise of Dieism is that there is a God but universaly deny a special race or people within his grace or any human divinity past or present.  Now if you follow that logic, there is no heaven or hell.

Jefferson on the otherhand fell neither fully into the definition of Diest no more than he did Christian despite his writing of the Jefferson bible.  It still put him clearly somewhere inbetween the two.

Here's a decent link to the Jefferson Bible.

www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/jeff_bible.htm

I usually take about as much exception to historians that claim Jefferson was a Deist as I do those who claim he was an atheist or Christian for he simply didn't fit the mold of any of the above.  In this world of categorization, it’s hard to accept the unique.  In the case of Jefferson, he valued individualism above all other things and an unique individual he was.

Tj

Actually I would consider that a fair assesment Dino.  We tend to group people into the nitch we feel they best fit, however when that comes to religion, religion is a personal thing.  If Jefferson didn't see himself as a Diest then why should I or anyone else?  From what I've read of the Franklin letters old Ben came pretty close to bringing Jefferson over and they viewed many things in common but to my knowledge I have found no writings of Jefferson claiming himself a Diest.  

Keeping in mind, Jefferson fit more into the Diest classificaton of the late 17th century and 18th century defintion than todays, Jefferson never did find it necessary to list himslef with the Unitarian Universalist Association which was common with many if not well known Diest, Humanist, and Freethinkers of the period.  Some like to think it was primarily due to his reluctance to relinquish his early life Anglican background however by his writings, I tend it had more to do with his strong feelings on individualism with association if only in name being the first step away from it.  

Good discussion btw.  Its not too often I get to discuss my veiws on my sceenname and enjoy it even if it is limited to religion.  I find his political veiws much more entertaining.  

Tj

Not to highjack this thread but intersting alternate history scenario is Jefferson as the first president and the Wiskey Rebellion and what impact that would have had on the countries future..