Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 01-23-2004, 09:47 AM

Don't misunderstand me. I admire Paine greatly. I think he was very courageous. I also think, despite my dismissive sounding rant, his effort to analyze the bible was commendable. The problem I have is that AOR is not a great work of biblical criticism and offers little in the way of valuable insight. And yet I often see critics of Xianity and the bible point to AOR.

Malachi151 · 01-23-2004, 03:00 PM

I think his analysis is very good given what he had to work with. His perspective on the origins of the stories of Christ as being a melding of pagan myths and the Jewish tradition I thought was excellent, I never saw it quite like that before.

The major point is though that Paine referred to God frequently as "the God of Nature", and "the Creator", yet these are not used in the Bible, well, the Creator is a couple of times. It was not common useage, but it was Paine's usage, and that is what is in the Declaration, which says to me that the Declaration is NOT referring to, or not necessecarily referring to the Christian God.

nermal · 01-24-2004, 03:35 AM

Having never read AOR, but having read and heard many references to it, I'll just say this:

No one takes "The Origin of the Species" seriously as an academic work today. You'll never take a class on evolution which uses it as a text.
It's observations are better explained in thousands of basic biology texts given the scholarship and enormous accumulation of biological information since.

This in no way detracts from the value of TOOTS (Ha!). It is because of that work that such a preponderance of biological scholarship exists.

AOR should be seen in a similar light. Something can certainly be anachronistic and still be monumental.

Ed

Cretinist · 01-24-2004, 05:11 AM

There are some gems to be found in AOR:

Quote:

EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2004, 09:47 AM	#11
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	Don't misunderstand me. I admire Paine greatly. I think he was very courageous. I also think, despite my dismissive sounding rant, his effort to analyze the bible was commendable. The problem I have is that AOR is not a great work of biblical criticism and offers little in the way of valuable insight. And yet I often see critics of Xianity and the bible point to AOR.

01-23-2004, 03:00 PM	#12
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I think his analysis is very good given what he had to work with. His perspective on the origins of the stories of Christ as being a melding of pagan myths and the Jewish tradition I thought was excellent, I never saw it quite like that before. The major point is though that Paine referred to God frequently as "the God of Nature", and "the Creator", yet these are not used in the Bible, well, the Creator is a couple of times. It was not common useage, but it was Paine's usage, and that is what is in the Declaration, which says to me that the Declaration is NOT referring to, or not necessecarily referring to the Christian God.

01-24-2004, 03:35 AM	#13
nermal Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,969	Having never read AOR, but having read and heard many references to it, I'll just say this: No one takes "The Origin of the Species" seriously as an academic work today. You'll never take a class on evolution which uses it as a text. It's observations are better explained in thousands of basic biology texts given the scholarship and enormous accumulation of biological information since. This in no way detracts from the value of TOOTS (Ha!). It is because of that work that such a preponderance of biological scholarship exists. AOR should be seen in a similar light. Something can certainly be anachronistic and still be monumental. Ed

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.