Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe key word is 'finally'. I see nothing here that rules out input from others; all he means is that each person ultimately decides his own principles for himself. This includes weighing the philosophies of others and rejecting or accepting them.
"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.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAs Paine (without basis) dismissed revelation as hearsay, what situation would be necessary in order for him to accept the supernatural... if not first-hand experience? According to him, Christ would have to reveal His wounded hands and side to every man in order for the crucifixion to be binding.
If 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 t "rely" on someone else IF his experience gave him confidence in their assertion.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYou'll have to read Paine in all of his antagonistic glory to appreciate just how narrow-minded (and self-contradictory) his views were. Hardly the stuff of purported enlightenment.
The key word is 'finally'. I see nothing here that rules out input from others; all he means is that each person ultimately decides his own principles for himself. This includes weighing the philosophies of others and rejecting or accepting them.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI hope he does read Paine. He'll soon realize how narrow minded, dogmatic and ignorant you are to dismiss him.
You'll have to read Paine in all of his antagonistic glory to appreciate just how narrow-minded (and self-contradictory) his views were. Hardly the stuff of purported enlightenment.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLMAO! Perhaps now you realize why the Declaration of Independence referred to "Nature's God", not "Superduper, HocusPocus God".
As Paine (without basis) dismissed revelation as hearsay, what situation would be necessary in order for him to accept the supernatural... if not first-hand experience? According to him, Christ would have to reveal His wounded hands and side to every man in order for the crucifixion to be binding.
EDIT: As to Jesus, Paine says this:
He may believe that such a person as is called Jesus (for Christ was not his name) was born and grew to be a man, because it is no more than a natural and probable case. But who is to prove he is the son of God, that he was begotten by the Holy Ghost? Of these things there can be no proof; and that which admits not of proof, and is against the laws of probability and the order of nature, which God Himself has established, is not an object for belief. God has not given man reason to embarrass him, but to prevent his being imposed upon.
It is not merely because he didn't specifically observe the resurrection that he rejects it, but because it is "and that which admits not of proof, and is against the laws of probability and the order of nature, which God Himself has established, is not an object for belief". See the difference?
EDIT2: He says of Deism:
It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.
There is nothing contradictory at all in Paine's belief system.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, we must not dismiss Mr. Paine, rather, we should dismiss the 53 of the 56 signers of the Declaration who were reported to be of the Christian faith.
I hope he does read Paine. He'll soon realize how narrow minded, dogmatic and ignorant you are to dismiss him.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhether you are right and they were only refering to a Deist God or I am right and they were referring to a Christian God, one thing is clear. The culture of the United States, beginning with the Pilgrims until recent times, has changed from one that had religious roots to one that has increasingly become more secular and increasingly hostile to religion. There were no second thoughts about allowing prayer in schools or religious symbols being portrayed on public property until recent times. The morality and culture our Founding Fathers invisioned and sprang from is much different from the one that actually exists today. If not, it begs the question as to why they did not speak out against such issues as prayer in school. And yes, I think it reasonably safe to assume that this prayer was directed towards the Christian God.
LMAO! Perhaps now you realize why the Declaration of Independence referred to "Nature's God", not "Superduper, HocusPocus God".
EDIT: As to Jesus, Paine says this:
He may believe that such a person as is called Jesus (for Christ was not his name) was born and grew to be a man, because it is no more than a natural and probable case. But who i revelation.
There is nothing contradictory at all in Paine's belief system.
1 edit
Originally posted by David CNot so fast, David. You charged that every person of the Christian persuasion has an agenda, namely their salvation. How does this qualify as an agenda?
I'm sorry if you feel I've mischaracterized you. Perhaps you could share, then...what is your motivation for believing in "the work" of Jesus?
Originally posted by David CHere are your original comments. Now support your charge of the "specific agenda."
You 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.