Originally posted by no1marauderWe do not have the autographs, but that is hardly a noteworthy issue, now is it? Given what we do have, we have confidence in the veracity of the manuscripts in our possession. Is our understanding complete? Obviously not, but whereas a deistic view of the world leaves more unanswered (or unanswerable) than it satisfies, one can hardly call the stance supportable or satisfactory.
Actually you've placed your trust in what other men have told you about God in a series of writings and in other men's interpretation of these author's writings.
EDIT: Or as Paine said:
But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the ...[text shortened]... cene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.
With a skewed view of a small portion of the evidence, Paine rejects the Bible as revelation, embracing instead the church of his own mind. With a clear conscience unencumbered by agenda, there are millions more who accept the Bible as it presents itself: the word of God.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPaine insisted upon no such thing. A rational man evaluates all information received based on Reason and experience. That is what the "Age of Reason" and the "Enlightenment" were all about; the replacing of unreasoning faith with modern science. Sorry you didn't get the memo.
Paine insisted that man should never rely on anyone other than himself. Therefore, even Paine's descriptions of various tidbits of knowledge--- if not gained as a result of his own effort--- is all suspect, all hearsay.
His biblical knowledge was woefully inadequate for him to surmise anything but contradiction, caught as he was in a trap he set for hi ...[text shortened]... addresses. Agendas have a way of doing funny things to our thinking, so it's to be expected.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEat s**t; a hundred billion flies can't be wrong.
We do not have the autographs, but that is hardly a noteworthy issue, now is it? Given what we do have, we have confidence in the veracity of the manuscripts in our possession. Is our understanding complete? Obviously not, but whereas a deistic view of the world leaves more unanswered (or unanswerable) than it satisfies, one can hardly call the stance s ...[text shortened]... by agenda, there are millions more who accept the Bible as it presents itself: the word of God.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou cannot possibly be serious. Unencumbered by agenda? I think not. Each member of the millions in your ad populum has a very, very specific agenda in "believing" the veracity of the bible and the NT.
With a clear conscience unencumbered by agenda, there are millions more who accept the Bible as it presents itself: the word of God.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHere's one of ol' Tom's insistences:
Paine insisted that man should never rely on anyone other than himself. Therefore, even Paine's descriptions of various tidbits of knowledge--- if not gained as a result of his own effort--- is all suspect, all hearsay.
His biblical knowledge was woefully inadequate for him to surmise anything but contradiction, caught as he was in a trap he set for hi ...[text shortened]... addresses. Agendas have a way of doing funny things to our thinking, so it's to be expected.
"Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or any thing else; not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his own writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground."
Originally posted by FreakyKBHhere's more of Ol' Tom's writing:
We do not have the autographs, but that is hardly a noteworthy issue, now is it? Given what we do have, we have confidence in the veracity of the manuscripts in our possession. Is our understanding complete? Obviously not, but whereas a deistic view of the world leaves more unanswered (or unanswerable) than it satisfies, one can hardly call the stance s ...[text shortened]... by agenda, there are millions more who accept the Bible as it presents itself: the word of God.
"Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is"
Originally posted by no1marauderPaine insisted upon no such thing.
Paine insisted upon no such thing. A rational man evaluates all information received based on Reason and experience. That is what the "Age of Reason" and the "Enlightenment" were all about; the replacing of unreasoning faith with modern science. Sorry you didn't get the memo.
"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."
Gee, I really muffed that one, now didn't I?
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince your claim was a general one: "Paine insisted that man should never rely on anyone other than himself" and Paine here is discussing only the specific issue what is a revelation, yes you did.
[b]Paine insisted upon no such thing.
"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 secon ...[text shortened]... nly his word for it that it was made to him."
Gee, I really muffed that one, now didn't I?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauder"Every person of learning is finally his own teacher, the reason of which is that principles, being a distinct quality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their place of mental residence is the understanding and they are never so lasting as when they begin by conception."
Since your claim was a general one: "Paine insisted that man should never rely on anyone other than himself" and Paine here is discussing only the specific issue what is a revelation, yes you did.
You betcha.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou continue to give quotes that in no way support your conclusion.
"Every person of learning is finally his own teacher, the reason of which is that principles, being a distinct quality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their place of mental residence is the understanding and they are never so lasting as when they begin by conception."
You betcha.
EDIT: Which is, again: "Paine insisted that man should never rely on anyone other than himself"
Originally posted by FreakyKBH.
"Every person of learning is finally his own teacher, the reason of which is that principles, being a distinct quality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their place of mental residence is the understanding and they are never so lasting as when they begin by conception."
You betcha.
believe me when I tell you that was the begining of your bible.
Originally posted by no1marauderI believe that even a child can surmise the intent of the quotes. It is unfortunate that you're having such difficulty understanding their straight-forward meaning. If Paine says every man is his own teacher, in what other manner is that to be taken, if not 'every man is his own teacher?' According to Paine, no teacher is necessary other than the principles of nature. And, if every man is to instruct himself from the principles in nature, where is the room for him to accept another's take on the same?
You continue to give quotes that in no way support your conclusion.
EDIT: Which is, again: "Paine insisted that man should never rely on anyone other than himself"
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you mean that Paine didn't believe that a man should accept uncritically an assertion by another man without applying his own reason as to whether it was true, then you are correct. I have already addressed this: "A rational man evaluates all information received based on Reason and experience. " One may "accept another take" if that appears rational to the person evaluating the "take". That is what any rational man does; are you arguing that people should unthinkingly accept claims made by others?
I believe that even a child can surmise the intent of the quotes. It is unfortunate that you're having such difficulty understanding their straight-forward meaning. If Paine says every man is his own teacher, in what other manner is that to be taken, if not 'every man is his own teacher?' According to Paine, no teacher is necessary other than the princi ...[text shortened]... om the principles in nature, where is the room for him to accept another's take on the same?
EDIT: I prefer not to be drawn into semantics, but my dictionary defines "rely" as "to have confidence based on experience". Nothing in your quotes supports the idea that Paine wouldn't "rely" on someone else IF his experience gave him confidence in their assertion.