The Age of Reason: A Reccomendation and Warning

Haha, classic Buck! The only thing I would say is that the first noble truth of Buddhisim is that shit happens and you can deal with it.

Hah, here's something ya'll might enjoy...

And another...

Boy, after skimming the book again, I really pitty the foo' that wants to argue with Paine's logic...

Please help me on this. Don't call me names or bring my religion into this either.

"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."


Keywords would be 'revelation' and 'immediately'
He states it(revelation) means "something communicated immediately from God to man"

I know he wrote this a long time ago. But I searched through alot of dictionarys(http://www.onelook.com/?w=revelation&ls=a). I keep getting the definition of revelation as "something that is revealed by God to humans." There is no 'immediately' in there. It sounds like he used his interpretation of the word to fit his ideas or thoughts.

"Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth of which man is himself the actor or the witness; and consequently all the historical and anecdotal part of the Bible, which is almost the whole of it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word revelation, and, therefore, is not the word of God."

But with the definiton of revelation without 'immediately' the above statement couldn't justified.

Another thing caught my eye.

"offer some observations on the word 'revelation."

Doesn't that mean that is what He/Others thought the word meant? Which means he could of interpreted the word wrong?

Any thoughts?

In this context the word you should be looking up is immediately.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=immediately

The intended meaning is "without intermediary".

Even with your information Cua Curie that would not be the definition of revelation as I have found. It seems like he interpreted wrong. Or maybe during the time of his writing this is what it was interpreted as. Although he does state "offer some observations on the word 'revelation."

The idea behind this quote is that the bible is mostly "eye witness" testimony, vs the actual word of a god told to humans.

Which quote?

The quote you posted Kano. Cua is right. The point Paine is making is that everything in the bible is second hand. None of the authors had the "word of god" revealed to them directly. It's all hearsay related by other people so it doesn't fit the definition of revelation really.

Here's a definition from Eatons 1897 Bible Dictionary...

"Revelation is the supernatural communication of truth to the mind; inspiration (q.v.) secures to the teacher or writer infallibility in communicating that truth to others. It renders its subject the spokesman or prophet of God in such a sense that everything he asserts to be true, whether fact or doctrine or moral principle, is true, infallibly true."

Even that definition contradicts what the bible actually is. None of the authors of the bible claims to be receiving inspiration directly from God. Instead they're recounting eye witness testimony or things told to them by other people. That definition is even sillier when you consider that there are different versions of many of the gospels that predate the versions in the bible, not to mention all the contradictions within the bible itself.

Well Darwin, thanks for the recommendation. I love reading about religion and it's flaws. I have just ordered a copy at my local bookstore and will get it in 2 weeks. I hope I enjoy it. As you can see, from my quote below, the book will be a good read for me! Thanks!

Woohoo! Got a copy on order at my local bookstore. Should have it by next weekend. I'm really looking forward to reading this book, and will probably come back to this post with my opinions when I'm done.

Right now I'm almost finished reading The Da Vinci Code. I've been enjoying it a lot. Seems my tastes in reading materials right now are centered around religions and history. Though the non-fiction I find even more enjoyable. I'm having fun running with this current theme.

You might find this article interesting then http://www.cesnur.org/2004/davinci_nyt.htm

Thanks Chip, interesting article! I know there are lot of similar ones out there as well, but that one was pretty well written, if not a little more harsh than I would be.

I knew going into The Da Vinci Code that it was a work of fiction. And while there are some errors in his references to ancient beliefs and rituals, some are very close to the truth. As someone who has study about a variety of religions, and am now coming back into studying them again, I loved having a great fiction book to stir my imagination again. It does make you want to go look up the truth. At least it did for me. I'd read a reference and think that it was close, but that can't be right. So off I'd go researching. hehe..

Anyway, I very much enjoyed the book. Now I'm ready for something very deep, so I'm really looking forward to starting the Age of Reason.

From the syopsis it sounds like a really interesting book, and knowing that the priory of scion is actually a hoax makes it all the more interesting You might also dig Umberto Eco's "Focault's Pendulum"