RaisingPaine Split from December 2006 Screwballs [Archive]

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 10:00 AM

ROFL, you ignored what was posted at that link!

Already have. Explain how your pitiful little response addresses point for point all the essays at the link I provided, which I will do so again: Click me and pay attention this time (http://www.tektonics.org/classics/painerelief.html).

Do you believe ignoring what is posted there is an example of rational thinking?

LOL, I didn't ignore them...but JP uses most of their arguments (as well as new ones the detractors of Paine's age didn't invoke), so by addressing the latest, I was addressing them all. But I'd be glad to break any or all of them that pertain to Age of Reason) down for you, if you don't get it.

Most of the older arguments were answered by Paine himself in his day, including the landmark "Apology for the Bible" (of which I proudly own a copy).

Several of these links are just commentary and character assasination, which hardly testify as a rebuttal. The others, I'll be happy to reseach to see if they address Paine's three core premises, namely that the Word of God, by its very nature, should be eternal, unchangeable, and universal. If they don't, they're just wasted ink since, once conceded, human language becomes an pitiful vehicle for that Word.

And with respect to the Bible, the other biggie for him -- anonymous testimony to supernatural events.

It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the world as a mass of truth and as the word of God; they have disputed and wrangled, and anathematized each other about the supposed meaning of particular parts and passages therein; one has said and insisted that such a passage meant such a thing; another that it meant directly the contrary; and a third, that it meant neither one nor the other, but something different from both; and this they call understanding the Bible.

It has happened that all the answers which I have seen to the former part of the Age of Reason have been written by priests; and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and pretend to understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.

:lol:

jpholding

December 18th 2006, 10:58 AM

ROFL, you've got to be kidding! (http://members.aol.com/raisingpaine/AR/painet01.htm)

Yes, I ignored that garbage completely. Here is an example of why:

[The Bible, by assuming the mantle as the Word of God, is liable to a higher standard than other "ancient Greco-Roman biographies". One of those standards, according to Paine (and a point that hasn't been argued), is the universal and eternal understanding it must provide. That standard would not apply to those other "ancient Greco-Roman biographies". No one undoubtedly today, or even in Paine's time, would confuse a collection of detached anecdotes, which omit at least half of the subject's lifespan with anything remotely resembling a biography. When Paine says the Gospels "do not give a history of the life of Jesus Christ", he is not suggesting what was or wasn't an acceptable standard at the time they were written. He's talking about right now, as he reads from the Bible and writes The Age of Reason, it does not provide what him (or the common man) would constitute as an acceptable history. ]

Summation: Paine was an ignorant dolt who knew nothing about the genre of Greco-Roman bioi. Your excuse is that a) it is OK to arbitrarily decide that the Word of God should meet some nebulous, undefined "standard" of universal understanding (however THAT would be accomplished in a way that satisifes everyone from Tom "Drunken Sot" Paine to a Maori tribesman, without turning the Bible into something big enough to be moved in a fleet of Mayflower vans), which allows Paine to not have to think for himself and lets him be as stupid as he wants to be; b) Paine's own view of things "right now" automatically trumps all, simply because you can't go five steps with kissing Paine's rear end repeatedly.

I don't answer this kind of stupidity any more, because only stupid people think it is a good argument. In fact, I'll give you a Screwball Award right now just for this.

jpholding

December 18th 2006, 11:11 AM

I'm going to pile some more on Paine-kisser's head since I'm in a good mood. Here's his next screwy comment:

There were over 200 gospels, epistles, and other books concerning the life of Jesus Christ and only 27 were accepted by the Church. The others were considered "pious frauds". Paine's statement that "the probability is at least equal, whether (any of the NT documents) are genuine or forged" is more than borne out by the numbers. The mere presence of such an asundry of Apocrypha supports the notion that forgeries were not only possible but probable. Next, Paine in no way is "snobbish" towards ancient cultures and in AR mentions specific appreciation for Homer, Euclid, Tacitus and others.]

1) Stupid comment regarding "200" documents. As if merely throwing the number in the air proves or argues for anything. So what do you want to do, Dum Dum? Argue for us here that something like the Gospel of Judas was worthy of consideration for inclusion in the canon?

I bet he prefers the Gospel of Thomas. :lol:

2) Stupid, lazy argument re "borne out by the numbers". It arbitrarily sets a category ("gospels, epistles, etc" concerning the life of Jesus, written by anyone at all). Why not expand the category of all Greco-Roman bioi and epistles written on anyone? Why not make the sample smaller by excluding heretical works like the Gospel of Judas? All of this because Paine is too stupid and lazy to evaluate documents on a case basis, which is what REAL, credentialed scholars do.

3) Paine is indeed a snob towards ancient cultures. That he praises some ancient writers is about as good a reply as, "Hey, I'm not prejudiced. I have friends who are black."

You really think stupid answers like these are a defense, and that makes you look even stupider as a result.

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 11:27 AM

Yes, I ignored that garbage completely. Here is an example of why:

Summation: Paine was an ignorant dolt who knew nothing about the genre of Greco-Roman bioi. Your excuse is that a) it is OK to arbitrarily decide that the Word of God should meet some nebulous, undefined "standard" of universal understanding (however THAT would be accomplished in a way that satisifes everyone from Tom "Drunken Sot" Paine to a Maori tribesman, without turning the Bible into something big enough to be moved in a fleet of Mayflower vans), which allows Paine to not have to think for himself and lets him be as stupid as he wants to be;

Even a Maori tribesman watches the sun rise every day, thus God's Word as he speaks to us through his creation, is, in fact, available to everyone.

b) Paine's own view of things "right now" automatically trumps all, simply because you can't go five steps with kissing Paine's rear end repeatedly.

LOL, JP...you're a piece of work. Paine says the gospels "do not give a history of the life of Jesus Christ", to which you reply "so it was with all Greco-Roman biography" as though you somehow addressed Paine's point. I'm not sure why I continue to bother with you...amusement, I guess.

And, no, I didn't say it trumps all. There are no such thing as "trumps" in issues of theology since, by definition, its subject is a matter of faith. I have not asserted Paine is correct in his view -- there is no way for any of us to know for certain. I do maintain that nothing written since has refuted Paine's viewpoints, despite how widely (and loudly!) their authors have proclaimed.

The biggest problem I have is how various authors misrepresent his theological writings to those that haven't taken the time to read them for themselves.

In fact, I'll give you a Screwball Award right now just for this.
Cool. I'm making a bid for the Screwie Hall of Fame. :lol:

jpholding

December 18th 2006, 11:46 AM

Even a Maori tribesman watches the sun rise every day, thus God's Word as he speaks to us through his creation, is, in fact, available to everyone.

Only someone as mind-numbingly stupid as you would suggest that a sunrise, lacking as it is any informational content, is comparable to a Greco-Roman bioi.

No, I didn't say it trumps all.

Yes, you did, because you set Tom "Samuel Adams is My Bud" Paine's understanding as equal to that of *GOD ALMIGHTY* and use it as the standard by which ALL interpretation is to be performed.

There are no such thing as "trumps" in issues of theology since, by definition, its subject is a matter of faith

Psst....you also don't know how to define "faith" any more than that last email. But I am sure Tom "Pass Me An Ale" Paine has a proper definition for you to use in defiance of Greco-Roman scholarship concerning client-patron relationships. :lolo:

I have not asserted Paine is correct in his view -- there is no way for any of us to know for certain. I do maintain that nothing written since has refuted Paine's viewpoints, despite how widely (and loudly!) their authors have proclaimed.

:rofl: I guess that's the best excuse of all! Nothing can be known for certain (which means all those credentialed scholars are just whistling in their boots) while Tom "Snort a Few For My Sake" Paine gets a ribald defense from you, even though we can't be certain he's right. :lolo:

The biggest problem I have is how various authors misrepresent his theological writings to those that haven't taken the time to read them for themselves.

Cool. I'm making a bid for the Screwie Hall of Fame. :lol:

You're not imaginative enough to make Platinum, which the highest possible honor. Yelling, "Paine is GOD!" at the top of your lungs is screwy, but it just isn't funny after the third time you make such a fool of yourself responding to credentialed scholarship.

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 12:53 PM

I'm going to pile some more on Paine-kisser's head since I'm in a good mood. Here's his next screwy comment:

1) Stupid comment regarding "200" documents. As if merely throwing the number in the air proves or argues for anything. So what do you want to do, Dum Dum? Argue for us here that something like the Gospel of Judas was worthy of consideration for inclusion in the canon?

I bet he prefers the Gospel of Thomas. :lol:

2) Stupid, lazy argument re "borne out by the numbers". It arbitrarily sets a category ("gospels, epistles, etc" concerning the life of Jesus, written by anyone at all). Why not expand the category of all Greco-Roman bioi and epistles written on anyone? Why not make the sample smaller by excluding heretical works like the Gospel of Judas? All of this because Paine is too stupid and lazy to evaluate documents on a case basis, which is what REAL, credentialed scholars do.

3) Paine is indeed a snob towards ancient cultures. That he praises some ancient writers is about as good a reply as, "Hey, I'm not prejudiced. I have friends who are black."

You really think stupid answers like these are a defense, and that makes you look even stupider as a result.

It's always extremes with you, isn't it? If the canon were so obvious, there would have always been 100% agreement on what makes it up. Revelation, Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, Second and Third Epistles of John, Canons of the Apostles and the list goes and on....of controversial and disputed books that might easily have ended up part (or not part) of the modern canon.

Paine is not a snob about ancient cultures, as I've demonstrated in my post (http://members.aol.com/raisingpaine/AR/painet01.htm) and more than once in other places. Your saying it over and over doesn't make it any more true.

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 01:15 PM

Only someone as mind-numbingly stupid as you would suggest that a sunrise, lacking as it is any informational content, is comparable to a Greco-Roman bioi.

:rofl: If you believe that a Greco-Roman bioi holds more insight into the nature of God than a sunrise...I can't even go on...there's no hope for you.

Yes, you did, because you set Tom "Samuel Adams is My Bud" Paine's understanding as equal to that of *GOD ALMIGHTY* and use it as the standard by which ALL interpretation is to be performed.

That's not true. I'm saying his understanding is no more equal to that of God Almighty than yours is.

Psst....you also don't know how to define "faith" any more than that last email. But I am sure Tom "Pass Me An Ale" Paine has a proper definition for you to use in defiance of Greco-Roman scholarship concerning client-patron relationships. :lolo:

Faith? No problem...

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Does that help you out?

:rofl: I guess that's the best excuse of all! Nothing can be known for certain (which means all those credentialed scholars are just whistling in their boots) while Tom "Snort a Few For My Sake" Paine gets a ribald defense from you, even though we can't be certain he's right. :lolo:

Nothing prevents those scholars from being certain about their beliefs. However, they ultimately can be no more certain of the truth value of those beliefs than Paine was of his.

You're not imaginative enough to make Platinum, which the highest possible honor. Yelling, "Paine is GOD!" at the top of your lungs is screwy, but it just isn't funny after the third time you make such a fool of yourself responding to credentialed scholarship.
Hmm...if I'm responding to credentialed scholarship, then I've made a mistake somewhere. As Paine doesn't enlist it to make his points in AR, I certainly need not enlist it in defending him. AR is about so much more than the Bible, so when Apologetics attempt to reduce it to such, it's just a sad, ugly thing to watch.

Did I yell "Paine is GOD" somewhere? I don't think so. One guy, one opinion, (seemingly) misrepresented moreso today than in his own time. Shame on you! :lol:

jpholding

December 18th 2006, 01:27 PM

It's always extremes with you, isn't it? If the canon were so obvious, there would have always been 100% agreement on what makes it up.

Spare me your ignorance of these matters. 20 of the 27 books had agreement to the 90-95% range; the remaining 7 went through disputes relative to EVIDENCE, and if there were no dispute hacks like you and Tom "Gimme a Snootful" Paine would have whined that they were accepted uncritically by Christian sheep who just did what they were told.

of controversial and disputed books that might easily have ended up part (or not part) of the modern canon.

More ignorance on your part. There were less than 5 that would even have had a meaningful chance at being in the canon that did not make it.

More laziness, inasmuch as you have not the intelligence, any more than Tom "Booze and More Booze" Paine did, to discuss specifics.

Paine is not a snob about ancient cultures, as I've demonstrated in

Paine is a snob about ancient cultures, and your excuses for his bigotry, which I amply demonstrated, don't change that one bit. Your making excuses for it over and over doesn't make it any less true.

If you believe that a Greco-Roman bioi holds more insight into the nature of God than a sunrise...I can't even go on...there's no hope for you.

In other words, you have no answer, as usual.

That's not true. I'm saying his understanding is no more equal to that of God Almighty than yours is.

Sure, that's why you obsessively defend Tom "More Scotch, Less Soda" Paine as though he were your own daddy or as if he had cured cancer or discovered the Titanic. :ahem:

Faith? No problem...

Quote: Originally posted by url=Faith: American Heritage Dictionary

That wins you a Screwie all by itself -- checking an ENGLISH dictionary to answer an article on the meaning of a GREEK word....

However, they ultimately can be no more certain of the truth value of those beliefs than Paine was of his.

And you and Tom "Wine is My Best Friend" Paine are CERTAIN about that, are you?

Hmm...if I'm responding to credentialed scholarship, then I've made a mistake somewhere. As Paine doesn't enlist it to make his points in AR, I certainly need not enlist it in defending him.

In response to that kind of stupid comment, there's only one thing to say...

Bob Ross has a message for you:

[attachment=1]

lilpixieofterror

December 18th 2006, 01:29 PM

It's always extremes with you, isn't it? If the canon were so obvious, there would have always been 100% agreement on what makes it up. Revelation, Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, Second and Third Epistles of John, Canons of the Apostles and the list goes and on....of controversial and disputed books that might easily have ended up part (or not part) of the modern canon.

That's only the end letters of the Bible, The Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters received no argument. The 'gospels' and 'letters' of the gnostics were rejected and not even given a second thought. Most of the arguing was between the Eastern and western half disagreeing about the letters of Peter and John, as well as James, Jude, and Revelations... Today, there is almost no argument about construction of the NT cannon. Catholics, Orthdox, and Protestants use the exact same NT. I think you are just making issues where none exist.

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 02:53 PM

That's only the end letters of the Bible, The Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters received no argument. The 'gospels' and 'letters' of the gnostics were rejected and not even given a second thought. Most of the arguing was between the Eastern and western half disagreeing about the letters of Peter and John, as well as James, Jude, and Revelations... Today, there is almost no argument about construction of the NT cannon. Catholics, Orthdox, and Protestants use the exact same NT. I think you are just making issues where none exist.

Crystal

I agree with respect to present day, obviously -- its a fact. However, Paine's point was there was nothing in the books themselves that established one book's divinity over another. The Church set forth the criteria for which ones would be included, which ones wouldn't, and those in gray (disputed) areas were eventually reconciled as in or out.

lilpixieofterror

December 18th 2006, 03:08 PM

I agree with respect to present day, obviously -- its a fact. However, Paine's point was there was nothing in the books themselves that established one book's divinity over another.

For starters... I never knew that a book is 'divine'. I thought it was coincidered 'the word of God'... and second... there was plenty used to establish what books went into the canon and what didn't.... Know anything about the canon?

The Church set forth the criteria for which ones would be included, which ones wouldn't, and those in gray (disputed) areas were eventually reconciled as in or out.

Yes, they developed a method, just like I would expect anybody to. Historians and scientist have a method, the church also developed a method of determining what books to include. Did you notice that early orthdox Christian letters were not included (such as Polycarp or Clement's letters)? Did you stop to wonder what their method was and what they used to determine what one's were canon and what ones were not?

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 03:41 PM

For starters... I never knew that a book is 'divine'. I thought it was coincidered 'the word of God'...

Paine posits that Christianity extends to us the Bible as the divinely-inspired Word of God. His problem is that we find no evidence of that divinity within it. In fact, with respect to parts of the Old Testament, he finds it abhorrent.

and second... there was plenty used to establish what books went into the canon and what didn't.... Know anything about the canon?

Yes, they developed a method, just like I would expect anybody to. Historians and scientist have a method, the church also developed a method of determining what books to include. Did you notice that early orthdox Christian letters were not included (such as Polycarp or Clement's letters)? Did you stop to wonder what their method was and what they used to determine what one's were canon and what ones were not?

Crystal

Paine's point is that the method, regardless of the manner chosen to discriminate, is of human choosing. Ultimately, a committee of men (no matter how learned) are discerning what is "divinely-inspired" and what is not. By what authority, except that granted by yet other men, does their judgement warrant special consideration?

lilpixieofterror

December 18th 2006, 03:52 PM

Paine posits that Christianity extends to us the Bible as the divinely-inspired Word of God. His problem is that we find no evidence of that divinity within it. In fact, with respect to parts of the Old Testament, it is abhorrent.

So you mean such verses as, "All scripture is God breathed..." is not a statement? I'd like to know... what is the critera for determine divinity???

Paine's point is that the method, regardless of the manner chosen to discriminate, is of human choosing.

Don't you find it funny that the early church fathers accepted what we know of as the NT today, just about right away? We can construct almost all of the NT, just by the letters of the early church fathers... that's how much they quoted what became the NT. We also find an early rejection of what we know of today as the Gnostic gospels.... they didn't just come together one day and decided 'these books are canon, these ones are not', their choices reflect the earliest of Christian teachings... :wink:

Ultimately, a committee of men (no matter how learned) are discerning what is "divinely-inspired" and what is not.

Yet you are able to tell us that there is no evidence of the NT or OT being divinely inspired? I'm sorry, but why are you allowed to tell us what is and isn't 'divinely-inspired' but Christians are not? Seems like to me you want to have your cake and eat it too... not going to work here. :ahem:

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 04:19 PM

So you mean such verses as, "All scripture is God breathed..." is not a statement?

Yes it is. But written (or orally-traditioned) by man.

I'd like to know... what is the critera for determine divinity???

Something that provides eternal, universal and unchangeable insight into God's nature. Being able to identify the authors to determine the credibility of their testimony, would likewise help.

Don't you find it funny that the early church fathers accepted what we know of as the NT today, just about right away?

Nope. Paine does not debate the time it took church fathers to reach consensus. Only that the method of choosing was of human invention.

We can construct almost all of the NT, just by the letters of the early church fathers... that's how much they quoted what became the NT. We also find an early rejection of what we know of today as the Gnostic gospels.... they didn't just come together one day and decided 'these books are canon, these ones are not', their choices reflect the earliest of Christian teachings... :wink:

Understood. And who developed those teachings?! :wink:

Yet you are able to tell us that there is no evidence of the NT or OT being divinely inspired? I'm sorry, but why are you allowed to tell us what is and isn't 'divinely-inspired' but Christians are not? Seems like to me you want to have your cake and eat it too... not going to work here. :ahem:

Crystal

Paine didn't say they were or weren't divinely-inspired. He said there was no evidence that they were. You can accept that they were on faith. But he feels no obligation to do so. He would say the church, making the claim that the gospels are divinely-inspired, would bear the burden of demonstrating that, other than just saying so. Especially, since the testimony recounts supernatural events.

I find it crazy that Paine is so villified by Christians as being arrogant. Yet, the intro of AR, before even getting into the meat of his argument, he discourses:

PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

And he ends it with the same defense of "to each his own":

It is certain that, in one point, all the nations of the earth and all religions agree — all believe in a God; the things in which they disagree, are the redundancies annexed to that belief; and, therefore, if ever a universal religion should prevail, it will not be by believing anything new, but in getting rid of redundancies, and believing as man believed at first. Adam, if ever there were such a man, was created a Deist; but in the meantime, let every man follow, as he has a right to do, the religion and the worship he prefers.

He professes his views, but supports everyone's right to find the spiritual way of their choice, one of the precepts of American's creation.

jpholding

December 18th 2006, 05:56 PM

I find it crazy that Paine is so villified by Christians as being arrogant. Yet, the intro of AR, before even getting into the meat of his argument, he discourses:

And you're actually dumb enough to think that this excuses him and shows him to not be arrogant?

Tom "Margaritaville" Paine simply ignored or dismissed arguments contrary to what he wanted to be true, never did a lick of serious research, and excused his laziness by saying he had "no obligation" to see if he made mistakes.

If he were around today, you'd be his "enabler" helping him come up with excuses for consuming alcohol like a swine.

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 06:08 PM

Sorry I missed this post...it was hysterical

Spare me your ignorance of these matters. 20 of the 27 books had agreement to the 90-95% range; the remaining 7 went through disputes relative to EVIDENCE...

Riiight...so even among the most theologically-educated of their day, they couldn't find unananymity, which only furthers Paine's point.

and if there were no dispute hacks like you and Tom "Gimme a Snootful" Paine would have whined that they were accepted uncritically by Christian sheep who just did what they were told.

Paine makes no comment on the process, other than to say they were voted. You just so miss the point...that is one dim bulb. The fact that words written by men were further to be judged as divinely-inspired by men is what dooms the process in Paine's eyes -- not the criteria or the vote count.

More ignorance on your part. There were less than 5 that would even have had a meaningful chance at being in the canon that did not make it.

LOL, how many ways can I spell "irrelevant"?

More laziness, inasmuch as you have not the intelligence, any more than Tom "Booze and More Booze" Paine did, to discuss specifics.

Let's see..."i-r-r-e-v-e-l-e-n-t"? Hmm...no, that won't do. :lol:

Paine is a snob about ancient cultures, and your excuses for his bigotry, which I amply demonstrated, don't change that one bit. Your making excuses for it over and over doesn't make it any less true.

My link was already posted, so anyone interested can see for themselves.

In other words, you have no answer, as usual.

I'd have to say no...I'm speechless. :lol:

Sure, that's why you obsessively defend Tom "More Scotch, Less Soda" Paine as though he were your own daddy or as if he had cured cancer or discovered the Titanic. :ahem:

I defend him because people like you continue to misrepresent his views. Worse than that, you broadcast the misrepresentation, so instead of dealing with one knucklehead, I have to deal with hundreds. Thanks a lot. :smile:

That wins you a Screwie all by itself -- checking an ENGLISH dictionary to answer an article on the meaning of a GREEK word....

Sorry...my ancient Greek dictionary was inadvertently destroyed in the bonfire I made from your previous anti-Paine posts.

And you and Tom "Wine is My Best Friend" Paine are CERTAIN about that, are you?

Being certain your beliefs are true doesn't make them so. Not for Paine or anyone else. That's why they're called beliefs.

In response to that kind of stupid comment, there's only one thing to say...

Bob Ross has a message for you:

LOL, who is Bob Ross and why should I care?

RaisingPaine

December 18th 2006, 06:24 PM

And you're actually dumb enough to think that this excuses him and shows him to not be arrogant?

Tom "Margaritaville" Paine simply ignored or dismissed arguments contrary to what he wanted to be true, never did a lick of serious research, and excused his laziness by saying he had "no obligation" to see if he made mistakes.

I see. Except for the fact that AR part 2 was a specific response to arguments presented about Part 1, and the unpublished "Part 3" would have done the same for Part 2. He sure does write a lot for someone that ignores or dismisses arguments.

If he were around today, you'd be his "enabler" helping him come up with excuses for consuming alcohol like a swine.
Although Paine was not the drinker you're having fun making him out to be, if he were my advice would be the same as Lincoln's with regard to the legendary drinking of Ulysses S. Grant .... "Whatever he's drinking, make sure my other generals get some".

BronzeArcher

December 18th 2006, 07:50 PM

Sorry...my ancient Greek dictionary was inadvertently destroyed in the bonfire I made from your previous anti-Paine posts.

If you were somewhat competent in biblical studies you wouldn't even have thought of using a modern English dictionary.

Dang, man. You're incredible.

Mountain Man

December 18th 2006, 08:58 PM

I like how RaisingPaine thinks that scholarship can be disregarded in favor of so-called "common sense". I wonder how he'd respond if a creationist used that same tactic to refute evolution?

Teallaura

December 18th 2006, 09:24 PM

I like how RaisingPaine thinks that scholarship can be disregarded in favor of so-called "common sense". I wonder how he'd respond if a creationist used that same tactic to refute evolution?Thing is disregarding facts/scholarship/research is not common sense - it's just stupid.

jpholding

December 18th 2006, 09:48 PM

The stupidity continues....after this he's on Ignore, which will make him sound much more intelligent.

Riiight...so even among the most theologically-educated of their day, they couldn't find unananymity, which only furthers Paine's point.

WHAT point? That Tom "Happy Hour" Paine can set an arbitrary rule for what he thinks should have happened (Magic Happy Fun Canon Go POOF!), based on nothing but his own goofy expetcations, and then make an argument over that it didn't happen that way?

Paine makes no comment on the process, other than to say they were voted.

Which again, shows that when it comes to the critical matter of scholarship, a choice between the works of Tom "Red Nose" Paine and a Where's Waldo book reveals the clear choice: Find Waldo. That he idiotically thinks there is some actual PROBLEM with the process, based on his on-the-spot expectations he created while face down in a shot glass, doesn't make for a problem.

LOL, how many ways can I spell "irrelevant"?

In your case, D-U-H is a good one. So is I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T.

I defend him because people like you continue to misrepresent his views.

I represent him with complete accuracy. You simply make excuses for him like a good little obsessed twit.

Sorry...my ancient Greek dictionary was inadvertently destroyed in the bonfire I made from your previous anti-Paine posts.

And you do one thing as well as Tom "Boozy Poo" Paine: You make excuses for your mistakes.

Being certain your beliefs are true doesn't make them so.

I'm sure you're certain of that as well.

I see. Except for the fact that AR part 2 was a specific response to arguments presented about Part 1,

Paine didn't respond to anything in any of his works except the gremlins he saw when he tipped the bottle for the 1,000,000th time.

Although Paine was not the drinker you're having fun making him out to be, if he were my advice would be the same as Lincoln's with regard to the legendary drinking of Ulysses S. Grant .... "Whatever he's drinking, make sure my other generals get some".

It's clear you're drinking the same number of rounds, at any rate. That's likely why he seems to be a genius to you. :lolo:

Mountain Man

December 18th 2006, 10:00 PM

Thing is disregarding facts/scholarship/research is not common sense - it's just stupid.
Hence my calling it "so-called 'common sense' ". :smile:

lilpixieofterror

December 19th 2006, 12:13 AM

Yes it is. But written (or orally-traditioned) by man.

Still no answer. How do we test for what is divine scripture? Why should I accept your test?

Something that provides eternal, universal and unchangeable insight into God's nature.

The Bible does that... next objection.

Being able to identify the authors to determine the credibility of their testimony, would likewise help.

Authors identifyed and known. Next objection...

Nope. Paine does not debate the time it took church fathers to reach consensus. Only that the method of choosing was of human invention.

Yet agian, why does that matter? There was little to no argument and we have demonstratable proof that there was hardly any argument among the church fathers about the canon... The Gnostic Gospels were rejected without second thought and the Orthdox Gospels were accepted without a second thought. Like JPH and everyone else has pointed out to you... there was very little arguement... The church from the very begining appears to have accepted the NT without much argument. You are just making excuses and attempting to throw out the conclusion by syaing 'human invention' which we can still say that God lead men to choose the NT canon. Yet again you are left not answer anything and making excuses for your hero.

Understood. And who developed those teachings?! :wink:

Why does that matter? Can you show us that they are wrong or why it matters who developed them? Please explain why God can't lead men to develop those teachings. :wink:

Paine didn't say they were or weren't divinely-inspired. He said there was no evidence that they were.

Where does Paine give us an acceptable answer of what constitutes as evidence to being 'divinely inspired'. Do you understand what I'm asking? What is your critera for finding out what is 'divinely inspired' and why should I accept it?

You can accept that they were on faith. But he feels no obligation to do so. He would say the church, making the claim that the gospels are divinely-inspired, would bear the burden of demonstrating that, other than just saying so.

Are you going to answer me yet? Please tell me:

1. What method do I use to determine what is and isn't 'divinely-inspired'?
2. What counts as evidence?
3. Why should I accept your method?

You're the one making the objection, so on what grounds do you make this objection?

Especially, since the testimony recounts supernatural events.

The old biasness against the supernatural... :ahem: So predictable... :teeth:

The rest of your post is simply more excuse making... so I will not bother with it, enjoy yourself and please answer me this time...

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 09:36 AM

If you were somewhat competent in biblical studies you wouldn't even have thought of using a modern English dictionary.

Dang, man. You're incredible.

I love how JP and other theologicians of his ilk can hold Paine up as arrogant when their replies typically contain venom such as this, even in his day. Paine's point, which no one seems to get, is why should he pay homage to scholarship of something that hasn't shown itself first to be an authority of anything in the first place? Get real.

I like how RaisingPaine thinks that scholarship can be disregarded in favor of so-called "common sense". I wonder how he'd respond if a creationist used that same tactic to refute evolution?

First of all, its not I, but Paine you are criticizing, since its his view I'm defending.

Secondly, it's more than common-sense he's employing -- it's reason, as in The Age of Reason.

Lastly, as I recall, the Bible only accounts for 5000-6000 years, while we have discoveries that show the planet to be much older than that. However, I don't think the two theories collide because they purport to understand the same subject through two different, non-transferable rule-sets (faith versus science). 'Nuff said.

jpholding

December 19th 2006, 10:04 AM

This message is hidden because RaisingPaine is on your ignore list.

And he never sounded more intelligent! :thumb:

Mountain Man

December 19th 2006, 10:42 AM

First of all, its not I, but Paine you are criticizing, since its his view I'm defending.
And you obviously believe his views are defensible, hence my criticism falls squarely into your lap.

Secondly, it's more than common-sense he's employing -- it's reason, as in The Age of Reason.
Of course, ignoring scholarship in favor of one's own ignorant "reasoning" is hardly reasonable.

Lastly, as I recall, the Bible only accounts for 5000-6000 years, while we have discoveries that show the planet to be much older than that.
And those "discoveries" depend in large part on the presumption that God does not exist and that the earth is, in fact, millions of years old. Not to mention it is a misconception to think that there are facts that exclusively support evolution. The same facts that support evolution can equally support creation. It's just a matter of how they're interpreted (see: Searching for the "Magic Bullet" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp), AnswersInGenesis.com).

However, I don't think the two theories collide because they purport to understand the same subject through two different, non-transferable rule-sets (faith versus science). 'Nuff said.
You still have no clue what Biblical faith is, do you?

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 10:47 AM

The stupidity continues....after this he's on Ignore, which will make him sound much more intelligent.

Excellent. Now wer're making progress, evidently. :lol:

WHAT point? That Tom "Happy Hour" Paine can set an arbitrary rule for what he thinks should have happened (Magic Happy Fun Canon Go POOF!), based on nothing but his own goofy expetcations, and then make an argument over that it didn't happen that way?

To have a group of men, ultimately decide what is and isn't the divinely-inspired Word of God, makes it the choice of the men, not the choice of God.

Which again, shows that when it comes to the critical matter of scholarship, a choice between the works of Tom "Red Nose" Paine and a Where's Waldo book reveals the clear choice: Find Waldo. That he idiotically thinks there is some actual PROBLEM with the process, based on his on-the-spot expectations he created while face down in a shot glass, doesn't make for a problem.

Your character assassination aside (evidently much of your argument reduces to this, since you seem to employ it every chance you get). Launching an attack against Paine's lack of Biblical scholarship (which was the common theme, even in his day) doesn't change the fact that to have a group of men ultimately decide what is and isn't the divinely-inspired Word of God, makes it the choice of the these men, not the choice of God.

In your case, D-U-H is a good one. So is I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T.

I represent him with complete accuracy. You simply make excuses for him like a good little obsessed twit.

And you do one thing as well as Tom "Boozy Poo" Paine: You make excuses for your mistakes.

I'm sure you're certain of that as well.

As you like. My original words speak for themselves.

Paine didn't respond to anything in any of his works except the gremlins he saw when he tipped the bottle for the 1,000,000th time.

It's clear you're drinking the same number of rounds, at any rate. That's likely why he seems to be a genius to you. :lolo:
I love it when this is the best you can do.

Teallaura

December 19th 2006, 10:48 AM

[Hint: faith does not equal belief. Two separate things - looks stupid when you equate them.]

Piebald

December 19th 2006, 10:56 AM

Paine's point, which no one seems to get, is why should he pay homage to scholarship of something that hasn't shown itself first to be an authority of anything in the first place? Get real.

That is remarkably dim. If I was going to start publishing material about Islam or the Latter Day Saints, i'd do actual research using Islamic and LDS scholarship.

Its baffling. Why should I do research on a subject I believe is false.

Viva La Freethought

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 11:51 AM

Still no answer. How do we test for what is divine scripture? Why should I accept your test?

Paine would say that he doesn't proclaim them to be divinely-inspired, so doesn't bear that burden of proof. That would be up to the church fathers that proclaim it so.

The Bible does that... next objection.

Really? The fact that Biblical scholarship has itself evolved is direct evidence that the interpretation is not eternal. That rather, those interpretations have changed over time, and are certainly not universal (pick any Biblical verse you want where there is present-day disagreement over the meaning).

The fact that the term "interpretation" is even germaine, suggests it is neither unchangeable, eternal, nor universal.

Authors identifyed and known. Next objection...

Again, really? Are you 100% certain about the author of Genesis? of Revelations? Deuteronomy?

Yet agian, why does that matter? There was little to no argument and we have demonstratable proof that there was hardly any argument among the church fathers about the canon... The Gnostic Gospels were rejected without second thought and the Orthdox Gospels were accepted without a second thought. Like JPH and everyone else has pointed out to you... there was very little arguement... The church from the very begining appears to have accepted the NT without much argument. You are just making excuses and attempting to throw out the conclusion by syaing 'human invention' which we can still say that God lead men to choose the NT canon. Yet again you are left not answer anything and making excuses for your hero.

As replied to JP, to have a group of men, ultimately decide what is and isn't the divinely-inspired Word of God, makes it the choice of the men, not the choice of God.

Paine is not my hero, just a villified patriot whose who's writing I respect.

Why does that matter? Can you show us that they are wrong or why it matters who developed them? Please explain why God can't lead men to develop those teachings. :wink:

There's nothing that stops God from leading these men. Except that we only have their testimony this is so. Faith allows one to accept this. Paine, with respect to reason, does not.

Where does Paine give us an acceptable answer of what constitutes as evidence to being 'divinely inspired'. Do you understand what I'm asking?

I think so.

What is your critera for finding out what is 'divinely inspired' and why should I accept it?

Are you going to answer me yet? Please tell me:

1. What method do I use to determine what is and isn't 'divinely-inspired'?
2. What counts as evidence?
3. Why should I accept your method?

You're the one making the objection, so on what grounds do you make this objection?

Again, that burden of demonstrating divine inspiration is on those that claim it to be.

Something that illuminates the nature of God, not just writable by any man, and is unchangeable, universal and eternal would probably qualify for Paine. In my view, if the Bible had been a modern physics textbook, Paine would have said..."Now, we have something!".

Did I make an objection?

The old biasness against the supernatural... :ahem: So predictable... :teeth:

Paine regards the critical books of the Bible as anonymous and the supernatural events within as derivative of Greek mythology. He has no opinion on anonymous testimony to the degree they recount non-supernatural historical events. When we begin to speak of virgin conception, resurrection, and other miracles, the standard is higher since you have no way of assessing the credibility of the testifier.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 11:55 AM

[Hint: faith does not equal belief. Two separate things - looks stupid when you equate them.]

I'm not equating them. I believe I already presented the definition from American Heritage for JP's amusement. Faith can embody a set of beliefs.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 12:05 PM

That is remarkably dim. If I was going to start publishing material about Islam or the Latter Day Saints, i'd do actual research using Islamic and LDS scholarship.

Its baffling. Why should I do research on a subject I believe is false.

Viva La Freethought

LOL, good for you. Paine lumps all revealed religions into the same boat -- revelations made to individuals, acting as emissaries of the Almighty, with no credible testimony other than the say-so of the institutions that propogate the belief system.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 12:14 PM

And you obviously believe his views are defensible, hence my criticism falls squarely into your lap.

I have no problem defending Paine. I don't agree with all of views, but understand his point and don't like to see them misrepresented.

Of course, ignoring scholarship in favor of one's own ignorant "reasoning" is hardly reasonable.

No, but 2+2 is still 4, no matter how much scholarship one enlists.

And those "discoveries" depend in large part on the presumption that God does not exist and that the earth is, in fact, millions of years old. Not to mention it is a misconception to think that there are facts that exclusively support evolution. The same facts that support evolution can equally support creation. It's just a matter of how they're interpreted (see: Searching for the "Magic Bullet" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp), AnswersInGenesis.com).

Fine. My point is that they argue from two different rule sets, so one need not convince the other.

You still have no clue what Biblical faith is, do you?

I'm not a Biblical scholar and nor do I play one on TV. If the difference something other than the definitions extended by the American Heritage dictionary (and thus in common understanding by most of the English-speaking world), I have no problem with being enlightened.

Mountain Man

December 19th 2006, 12:17 PM

Paine would say that he doesn't proclaim them to be divinely-inspired, so doesn't bear that burden of proof.
You just don't get it. For Paine to say, "There is no evidence that they're divinely inspired" implies that he knows exactly what such evidence would look like. Otherwise, how can he reasonably say it doesn't exist? Since Paine isn't here to offer his insight and since you have taken up the cause of defending him, why don't you tell us what the evidence should look like?

Teallaura

December 19th 2006, 12:24 PM

I'm not equating them. I believe I already presented the definition from American Heritage for JP's amusement. Faith can embody a set of beliefs.That's no improvement - actually, it's worse. That has nothing to do with biblical faith. If you're gonna discuss a topic meaningfully, ya gotta use the accepted definition(s) of the field - not the popular definition(s). Same problem people in American Studies have talking to folks from IR - liberal/conservative don't have the same meanings in those two fields. If you wanna refute the point you have to use the correct definition - and you aren't doing that.

And it looks really silly...

Mountain Man

December 19th 2006, 12:25 PM

I have no problem defending Paine. I don't agree with all of views, but understand his point and don't like to see them misrepresented.
Meaning you don't like to see your hero exposed as the ignorant hack he really is.

No, but 2+2 is still 4, no matter how much scholarship one enlists.
Sorry, but nothing Paine has written counts as self-evident truth on par with 2+2=4. When peer reviewed scholarship goes against Paine's "reasoning" then it is foolish to continue to defend his views.

I'm not a Biblical scholar...
That's the understatement of the year. But kudos for at least admitting that much.

If the difference something other than the definitions extended by the American Heritage dictionary (and thus in common understanding by most of the English-speaking world), I have no problem with being enlightened.
Then be enlightened:

What is Faith? (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html) by JP Holding

Teallaura

December 19th 2006, 12:26 PM

LOL, good for you. Paine lumps all revealed religions into the same boat -- revelations made to individuals, acting as emissaries of the Almighty, with no credible testimony other than the say-so of the institutions that propogate the belief system.:twitch: Are you really trying to defend Paine? 'Cause you just made him look like a total fool.

Did the guy actually know anything about theology at all? Dang, that one's so stupid that I can spot it! Hint: his base assumption is dead wrong.

Teallaura

December 19th 2006, 12:31 PM

...
Fine. My point is that they argue from two different rule sets, so one need not convince the other...

Which is utterly illogical in light of the discussion... :no: You were using one to contradict the other - you can't weasel out this way without looking stupid.

:sad: Dang, I used to have some respect for Paine at least in the political realm - but now I'm beginning to wonder if he knew the time of day....

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 12:36 PM

You just don't get it. For Paine to say, "There is no evidence that they're divinely inspired" implies that he knows exactly what such evidence would look like.

Paine's position is that the Bible contains nothing that could not have been written by men that were NOT "divinely-inspired". How are we to discern, other than because the Church tells us it is so?

Otherwise, how can he reasonably say it doesn't exist?
Paine doesn't say that it doesn't exist -- they may well, in fact, be "divinely inspired". He is simply under no obligation to take another man's word for it...all the moreso in the case of anonymous authorship.

Since Paine isn't here to offer his insight and since you have taken up the cause of defending him, why don't you tell us what the evidence should look like?
I've mentioned it before. It would have to be something that demonstrably transcended the existing body of experience, that was timeless, unchangeable, and universally understood. The works of Isaac Newton would more qualify for Paine as "divinely-inspired" than the works of the Bible.

Although, precisely because of its limitations in expressing such eternal, unchangeable, universal concepts, it appears to Paine human language is an insufficient vehicle for His expression, since that human language, just by its nature, is none of the above.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 12:49 PM

That's no improvement - actually, it's worse. That has nothing to do with biblical faith. If you're gonna discuss a topic meaningfully, ya gotta use the accepted definition(s) of the field - not the popular definition(s). Same problem people in American Studies have talking to folks from IR - liberal/conservative don't have the same meanings in those two fields. If you wanna refute the point you have to use the correct definition - and you aren't doing that.

And it looks really silly...

I'm using the definition that Paine would have used. And I wasn't particularly interested in the discussing the idea of Biblical Faith...I never bought that up, any distinction wasn't particularly relevant to how Paine was using it.

But I have no problem discussing "Biblical faith", if you like, but since I have nothing to add to the discussion, I'm not sure what the point would be.

And if looks silly, that's fine. Wouldn't be the first time. :lol:

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 12:57 PM

Meaning you don't like to see your hero exposed as the ignorant hack he really is.

Sorry, but nothing Paine has written counts as self-evident truth on par with 2+2=4. When peer reviewed scholarship goes against Paine's "reasoning" then it is foolish to continue to defend his views.

Really? But everyone keeps introducing scholarship to rebut Paine's argument, while not addressing any flaws his reasoning. So until someone does that, I guess we're where we stand.

That's the understatement of the year. But kudos for at least admitting that much.

ROFL, it hardly matters, because as mentioned, for Paine, it's not about Biblical scholarship...for that matter, not even about the Bible. Just one of many...lump the Koran, the Torah and any other "revelationary" books onto the same heap.

Then be enlightened:

What is Faith? (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html) by JP Holding
Fine. Faith=proof. Got it. Paine would say "so what?".

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 01:06 PM

:twitch: Are you really trying to defend Paine? 'Cause you just made him look like a total fool.

Did the guy actually know anything about theology at all? Dang, that one's so stupid that I can spot it! Hint: his base assumption is dead wrong.

Well, I kind of nut-shelled it for those that insist on debating his work without reading it.

Mountain Man

December 19th 2006, 01:08 PM

for Paine, it's not about Biblical scholarship...
Obviously.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 01:10 PM

Which is utterly illogical in light of the discussion... :no: You were using one to contradict the other - you can't weasel out this way without looking stupid.

:sad: Dang, I used to have some respect for Paine at least in the political realm - but now I'm beginning to wonder if he knew the time of day....

I would say they don't contradict each other. One is based on science, the other based on "faith (by the popular definition of the term) in things unseen", as the expression goes. Different rules, different conclusions.

LOL, I guess we can now see how publication of such a work as "Age of Reason" can change a country's viewpoint. When he died, no cemetary would even accept his bones. Poor guy. :sigh:

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 01:14 PM

Obviously.

Great. So hopefully we can stop debating it in that context. Pass that nugget of wisdom, along to JP (assuming I'm still on his ignore list -- an honor to be sure!).

If Apologetics insist on continually framing their arguments against AR that way, then I'll continually insist on unframing them, because they're missing the bigger point.

These criticisms against lack of Biblical scholarship aren't new. Paine dealt with them for the most part in his day as I have in his defense. Age of Reason was written for a popular audience, not theologicians.

Piebald

December 19th 2006, 01:55 PM

LOL, good for you.

"You would do research on a subject before publishing works on it? HRUMPH, good for you! I have no patience for such trivialities! *wipes monocle*"

Paine lumps all revealed religions into the same boat -- revelations made to individuals, acting as emissaries of the Almighty, with no credible testimony other than the say-so of the institutions that propogate the belief system.

Yes, and the Earth is 10,000 years old, and I have no patience for your so-called "scientific" research.

everyone keeps introducing scholarship to rebut Paine's argument, while not addressing any flaws his reasoning

lawl

1. All dogs can fly
2. Roger is a dog
3. Therefore Roger can fly.

Now, I don't actually know anything about dogs, but my reasoning is air tight!

Just because a person's thoughts are coherent, it doesn't mean they correspond with reality.

Mountain Man

December 19th 2006, 02:01 PM

So hopefully we can stop debating it in the [context of Biblical scholarship].
You'd love that, wouldn't you, because when Paine's ignorant nonsense-passed-off-as-"reasoning" is held up to the light of informed opinion, he fails every time.

Age of Reason was written for a popular audience, not theologians.
In other words, it was written for gullible rubes who don't know any better.

lilpixieofterror

December 19th 2006, 02:39 PM

I see the excuses keep comming. :smile: It does make it eaiser when the screwball comes here. I enjoyed this comment the most:

I'm not a Biblical scholar and nor do I play one on TV. If the difference something other than the definitions extended by the American Heritage dictionary (and thus in common understanding by most of the English-speaking world), I have no problem with being enlightened.

I guess to him only the most popular defination is what the Bible says faith is. :lol: Too bad even the American Hertage Dictionary gives a more accurate defination for the Bible says faith is. Will he ever read it or pop open some commentaries or a lexicon? I doubt it!

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 03:24 PM

"You would do research on a subject before publishing works on it? HRUMPH, good for you! I have no patience for such trivialities! *wipes monocle*"

Why research something that has no authority, anyway, as it was written by men under "divine inspiration" according to who? The authority of the church, yet another group of men! :rofl:

Yes, and the Earth is 10,000 years old, and I have no patience for your so-called "scientific" research.

As though scientific research will establish "divinity" from words and stories authored by ... who knows?

lawl

1. All dogs can fly
2. Roger is a dog
3. Therefore Roger can fly.

Now, I don't actually know anything about dogs, but my reasoning is air tight!

Just because a person's thoughts are coherent, it doesn't mean they correspond with reality.

Bingo, Piebald...you do a better job of at least exploring grounds to attack Paine's work than a thousand scholarly JP's put together. Admittedly, there is no affirmative proof of Paine's core premises, namely that His Word is, a) eternal, b) universal, and c) unchangeable. However, he would argue that it is tenfold more difficult to presume to opposite.

If God's word is not eternal, this means it is only available to those of us living within a specified time period. What period is that? How are we to know whether we are in that era of genuine interpretation or not? Also, does that mean that those that lived before the window won't have access to His Word? What of those that come after?

If God's word is not universal, that means it is only available to certain people. Even if it is eternal, if not universal that means certain peoples will not be capable of receiving it. Has God favored one group over another, even though both may serve Him the same way? And why confine the discussion to Earth...does each planet have their own version of Adam and Eve?

If God's word is changeable, how are we to know that it has not been changed? How do we detect forgeries from the real thing, given we have no test that allows us to look into the hearts of men? And changed from what to what? Is God fallible? Why would He need to change it in the first place? Will it change again?

Paine considers these questions tenfold more difficult to fathom than accepting that His Word, like God himself, would be eternal, universal and unchanging. And if his premises stand, then so might his argument based on them.

Kudos, again, though for exploring, what I believe to be the basis for refuting Paine's theology. "The Age of Reason" is a document of inference and opinion, to which we are all entitled. We are not, however, entitled to our own facts -- so if you can undermine the truth value of his premises, you might well have something.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 03:29 PM

I see the excuses keep comming. :smile: It does make it eaiser when the screwball comes here. I enjoyed this comment the most:

You ask for answers, I give you answers. More than once, actually. If you prefer to disregard them or characterize them as excuses, its certainly your prerogative. The posts speak for themselves and there aren't too many other ways to say it.

I guess to him only the most popular defination is what the Bible says faith is. :lol: Too bad even the American Hertage Dictionary gives a more accurate defination for the Bible says faith is. Will he ever read it or pop open some commentaries or a lexicon? I doubt it!

Crystal

I'm not sure I get where you're coming from, nor even that the discussion of the word "faith", regardless of how it is defined, is particularly relevant, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you make a good point...whatever it is.

Piebald

December 19th 2006, 03:52 PM

Why research something that has no authority

Listen to what you're saying and gather the full implication of it.

Here's a chain of reasoning for you:

- Things with no authority are not worth researching
- Paine did not research the bible before he commented on it.
- Because Paine did not research the bible, Paine is not an authority on the bible
- Therefore Paine's views on the bible are not worth researching.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 04:01 PM

You'd love that, wouldn't you, because when Paine's ignorant nonsense-passed-off-as-"reasoning" is held up to the light of informed opinion, he fails every time.

No. Its holding up revealed religion to a commonsense standard of reason and, in his view, it hasn't measured up. If the Church disagrees with his positions, one would think it would be better to ignore him than to lend credence to his arguments through debate.

Or to ban the printing and owning of Age of Reason altogether....oh, I forgot. They already did that. Perhaps they could humiliate, exile, and discredit him, thereby discrediting his message. Whoops...did that too. Or maybe, if all else fails, they could just eliminate his contributions from history books. Dag...I keep forgetting...the did do that already.

Oh, well. Guess Paine's here to stay. :lol:

In other words, it was written for gullible rubes who don't know any better.

And this from the same objectors that call Paine "arrogant". "Common Sense" was also written for the masses, and his views expressed therein still seem to be working out OK, as best I can tell.

That his theological works are infinitely more popular today than the era in which they were written, speaks volumes IMHO.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 04:05 PM

Listen to what you're saying and gather the full implication of it.

Here's a chain of reasoning for you:

- Things with no authority are not worth researching
- Paine did not research the bible before he commented on it.
- Because Paine did not research the bible, Paine is not an authority on the bible
- Therefore Paine's views on the bible are not worth researching.

Paine's "The Age of Reason" is a work of opinion and carries no authority other than its own. He expressly says this in the introduction.

To be so critical of Paine, you guys don't even bother to read page 1 -- forget about the rest of the work.

Mountain Man

December 19th 2006, 04:10 PM

No. Its holding up revealed religion to a commonsense standard of reason and, in his view, it hasn't measured up.
No, it's Paine erecting an arbitrary standard against which to measure Christianity then crying that it doesn't meet the standard.

"Common Sense" was also written for the masses, and his views expressed therein still seem to be working out OK, as best I can tell.
Not surprising considering that you admit to being ignorant of Biblical scholarship.

That his theological works are infinitely more popular today than the era in which they were written, speaks volumes IMHO.
It sure does. It tells us that today's "masses" are apparently more ignorant and gullible than yesterday's. And since you are Paine's self-appointed staunch defender, I guess that makes you among the most gullible of the gullible.

Piebald

December 19th 2006, 04:19 PM

Paine's "The Age of Reason" is a work of opinion and carries no authority other than its own

...

Why research something that has no authority

why should he pay homage to scholarship of something that hasn't shown itself first to be an authority of anything

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 04:49 PM

No, it's Paine erecting an arbitrary standard against which to measure Christianity then crying that it doesn't meet the standard.

He's not measuring Christianity itself, but rather the Bible upon which it is based. The "Holy Book" for him, provides no evidence of being holy, having been written by men and the assessment of what is and isn't of divine inspiration being made by men. There's nothing arbitrary about the standard.

It sure does. It tells us that today's "masses" are apparently more ignorant and gullible than yesterday's.

Or more enlightened.

And since you are Paine's self-appointed staunch defender, I guess that makes you among the most gullible of the gullible.
Thanks for the compliment.

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 04:55 PM

...

Thanks for consolidating my argument. Now, if the bible-authors would only be as up front to categorize their work as a work of opinion...we'd be in full accord!

lilpixieofterror

December 19th 2006, 05:36 PM

You ask for answers, I give you answers.

No you don't, you make excuses for people's ignorance. Matthew Henry's commentary was around in the late 18th centery, along with Augstine's and several other works. Paine, just like yourself, is too lazy to do any reading. Paine at least as the excuse that it would of taken him alot of time to go do the proper research... the same can't be said about you.

More than once, actually. If you prefer to disregard them or characterize them as excuses, its certainly your prerogative. The posts speak for themselves and there aren't too many other ways to say it.

I was going to respond to your lengthy post to me. But it seems you are more intresting in making up excuses than finding answers to these questions... you seem to want to wave off your burden of proof by saying that 'I need to prove something' but all along you never give me a clue what would count to you as evidence... :ahem:

I'm not sure I get where you're coming from, nor even that the discussion of the word "faith", regardless of how it is defined, is particularly relevant, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you make a good point...whatever it is.

Bibical faith is based upon past performence. It's not blindly believing something like you seem to want to warp it into. Now stop looking for excuses and take 15 minutes to look something up before you open your mouth.

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 19th 2006, 06:59 PM

No you don't, you make excuses for people's ignorance. Matthew Henry's commentary was around in the late 18th centery, along with Augstine's and several other works. Paine, just like yourself, is too lazy to do any reading. Paine at least as the excuse that it would of taken him alot of time to go do the proper research... the same can't be said about you.

I'm quite well-read, I assure you. However, in this topic, Biblical scholarship is unnecessary, as Paine did not employ it in the meat of his attack upon the bible in The Age of Reason. The bible was attacked, as were all "holy" books of revelationary religions, on the basis that they contain no internal evidence of such holiness. Consequently, he finds no reason to believe them so.

In the case of the Bible, he finds it even moreso, since the church is unable to ascribe authorship with any degree of certainty to key books that contain supernatural events, whose beliefs strike at the heart of Christian doctrine. Further, there is the hearsay problem, as none of the gospel is written by Jesus himself, nor even Joseph or Mary. In the case of virgin conception, he regards it, in fact, as hearsay upon hearsay.

Since Paine had no need to introduce such scholarship due to the principle manner in which he was assaulting the Bible, there is likewise no need for me to enlist it in his defense.

I was going to respond to your lengthy post to me. But it seems you are more intresting in making up excuses than finding answers to these questions... you seem to want to wave off your burden of proof by saying that 'I need to prove something' but all along you never give me a clue what would count to you as evidence... :ahem:

Let's see if I can put our dialogue into a nutshell.

Question:

I'd like to know... what is the critera for determine divinity???

Answer:

1763953[/post]]
Something that provides eternal, universal and unchangeable insight into God's nature. Being able to identify the authors to determine the credibility of their testimony, would likewise help.

Rebuttal:

The Bible does that [provides eternal, universal and unchangeable insight into God's nature]... next objection.

Response:

1765143[/post]]
Really? The fact that Biblical scholarship has itself evolved is direct evidence that the interpretation is not eternal. That rather, those interpretations have changed over time, and are certainly not universal (pick any Biblical verse you want where there is present-day disagreement over the meaning).

Re-rebuttal: Silence

Rebuttal:

Authors identifyed and known. Next objection...

Response:

1765143[/post]]
Again, really? Are you 100% certain about the author of Genesis? of Revelations? Deuteronomy?

Re-rebuttal: Silence

Rebuttal:

Still no answer. How do we test for what is divine scripture? Why should I accept your test?

Response:

1765143[/post]]
Paine would say that he doesn't proclaim them to be divinely-inspired, so doesn't bear that burden of proof. That would be up to the church fathers that proclaim it so.

Re-rebuttal: Excuses! :rofl:

Question:

Yet agian, why does that [agreement in canon selection] matter? There was little to no argument and we have demonstratable proof that there was hardly any argument among the church fathers about the canon... The Gnostic Gospels were rejected without second thought and the Orthdox Gospels were accepted without a second thought. Like JPH and everyone else has pointed out to you... there was very little arguement... The church from the very begining appears to have accepted the NT without much argument. You are just making excuses and attempting to throw out the conclusion by syaing 'human invention' which we can still say that God lead men to choose the NT canon. Yet again you are left not answer anything and making excuses for your hero.

Response:

1765143[/post]]
As replied to JP, to have a group of men, ultimately decide what is and isn't the divinely-inspired Word of God, makes it the choice of the men, not the choice of God.

Question:

Can you show us that they are wrong or why it matters who developed them? Please explain why God can't lead men to develop those teachings

Response:

1765143[/post]]
There's nothing that stops God from leading these men. Except that we only have their testimony this is so. Faith allows one to accept this. Paine, with respect to reason, does not.

Question:

What is your critera for finding out what is 'divinely inspired' and why should I accept it?

Are you going to answer me yet? Please tell me:

1. What method do I use to determine what is and isn't 'divinely-inspired'?
2. What counts as evidence?
3. Why should I accept your method?

Response: (2nd time)

1765143[/post]]
Again, that burden of demonstrating divine inspiration is on those that claim it to be.

Something that illuminates the nature of God, not just writable by any man, and is unchangeable, universal and eternal would probably qualify for Paine. In my view, if the Bible had been a modern physics textbook, Paine would have said..."Now, we have something!".

In response to the question 3 above, the obvious answer is: you don't. Neither does the church. Neither do Paine's critics. However, Paine would argue, without such passages having the characteristics described, how can it be possible to separate those that are "divinely-inspired" from those written (perhaps even at the same time and place, to satisfy archaelogical objections) by anyone that a had a hankering to?

Bibical faith is based upon past performence. It's not blindly believing something like you seem to want to warp it into. Now stop looking for excuses and take 15 minutes to look something up before you open your mouth.

Too bad, lilangelofterror...for a while you were leading the civility sweepstakes, until the remark above. With the possible exception of JP (whose goat I just love to get), I believe I've been courteous with all my responses to everyone...while that can be said of virtually no one in reply. I think I'm going to extend that honor to Piebald now, who likewise may put me in favor of winning another screwie, a nomination for which I am humbly indebted.

lilpixieofterror

December 19th 2006, 08:38 PM

As we'll see below Paine seems to think he's the smartest man alive. Let's see how smart he really is.

I'm quite well-read, I assure you. However, in this topic, Biblical scholarship is unnecessary, as Paine did not employ it in the meat of his attack upon the bible in The Age of Reason. The bible was attacked, as were all "holy" books of revelationary religions, on the basis that they contain no internal evidence of such holiness. Consequently, he finds no reason to believe them so.

Translation: I'm still not going to give a standard of what to measure 'holiness' by or how to prove it. I'll just cry for a while without any real answers.

Care to tell us what it would take to convience you or Paine otherwise?

In the case of the Bible, he finds it even moreso, since the church is unable to ascribe authorship with any degree of certainty to key books that contain supernatural events, whose beliefs strike at the heart of Christian doctrine.

There is quite a strong case... :shrug: Have you looked into it yet?

Further, there is the hearsay problem, as none of the gospel is written by Jesus himself, nor even Joseph or Mary. In the case of virgin conception, he regards it, in fact, as hearsay upon hearsay.

Could it at all be possible that Matthew and Luke interviewed Joseph and Mary about what happened? Why does Jesus need to write the Gospels??? Alexander did not write his biography... neither do most people in history... Also, what is your defination of hearsay? All it appears to me you simply slaped the label 'hearsay' into something to keep you from having to look futher into your claims.

Since Paine had no need to introduce such scholarship due to the principle manner in which he was assaulting the Bible, there is likewise no need for me to enlist it in his defense.

Oh yeah, thus you throw everything out that disagrees with you.. without once having to asnwer anything you say...

Blah blah blah...

More excuse making and pulling things together out of context... done with your excuse making now?

Too bad, lilangelofterror...for a while you were leading the civility sweepstakes, until the remark above. With the possible exception of JP (whose goat I just love to get), I believe I've been courteous with all my responses to everyone...while that can be said of virtually no one in reply. I think I'm going to extend that honor to Piebald now, who likewise may put me in favor of winning another screwie, a nomination for which I am humbly indebted.

If you showed me that you gave a wooden nickle about finding the truth... I might put more effort into it... it seems you simply want to make excuses and pass off your burden of proof as "This is not what Paine was going for, so I don't need to give any reasons." Please get to work on telling me your reasons for posting the above, besides the fact you disagree with the Bible.

Crystal

Mountain Man

December 19th 2006, 09:13 PM

RaisingPaine

December 20th 2006, 02:34 AM

As we'll see below Paine seems to think he's the smartest man alive. Let's see how smart he really is.

Translation: I'm still not going to give a standard of what to measure 'holiness' by or how to prove it. I'll just cry for a while without any real answers.

Care to tell us what it would take to convience you or Paine otherwise?

Paine's standards were provided in the previous post.

There is quite a strong case... :shrug: Have you looked into it yet?

Yes. With regard to Paine's standards, there are questions of authorship in several of the critical books, a few of which I elaborated on earlier.

Could it at all be possible that Matthew and Luke interviewed Joseph and Mary about what happened?

Sure. But just because it "could be" doesn't make it so.

Why does Jesus need to write the Gospels???

He doesn't "need" to write the gospels, although his own testimony could add credibility to the nature of his relationship with God.

Alexander did not write his biography... neither do most people in history...

No one ever writes their own biography. When they do, its called an autobiography.

Also, what is your defination of hearsay? All it appears to me you simply slaped the label 'hearsay' into something to keep you from having to look futher into your claims.

I didn't introduce the idea of such testimony being hearsay; Paine did. He regards hearsay, not in its legal sense (which includes many exceptions), but rather the general notion of acts or events being conveyed by a first party to a second party who did not witness them. In this event, the testimony of the first party is hearsay as it relates to the second.

Oh yeah, thus you throw everything out that disagrees with you.. without once having to asnwer anything you say...

I answered all the outstanding questions, as I recall, in the previous post. If there are any new ones you'd like to posit, I'm all "ears".

More excuse making and pulling things together out of context... done with your excuse making now?

Evidently, whenever anyone frames an argument in a way you would not like it to be framed, they are "making excuses". But yet, all the questions were answered in the previous post, so I'm not sure what the harping is all about.

If you showed me that you gave a wooden nickle about finding the truth... I might put more effort into it... it seems you simply want to make excuses and pass off your burden of proof as "This is not what Paine was going for, so I don't need to give any reasons." Please get to work on telling me your reasons for posting the above, besides the fact you disagree with the Bible.

The fact is, it is not "what Paine is going for". You seem to wish that Paine had enlisted more Biblical scholarship into his treatise so that you would have grounds to refute it. He didn't. And thus you can't. Sorry 'bout that.

RaisingPaine

December 20th 2006, 02:52 AM

It's fun watching RaisingPaine's ever shrinking defense of his sacred cow. When it's pointed out that Thomas Paine's argument fails on a scholarly level, he responds by claiming that that's O.K., because it was never supposed to be a scholarly argument, and besides, Paine's reasoning is internally sound.

Thanks for the analysis, MM, however its incorrect. Paine's work was never intended to be a scholarly discourse, because it wasn't intended for a scholarly audience. It's not retreating...it's a fact.

Paine, to his credit, in the Part 2 introduction of "The Age of Reason" pokes quite a bit of fun at biblical scholars who, a) don't agree among themselves the meaning of biblical passages, and b) can mount no logical assault on his reasoning.

When it's pointed out (through Piebald's humorous example of flying dogs) that even the most internally consistent reasoning is worthless if it's based on false premises, RaisingPaine does his hero no favors by desperately retreating to the last refuge of the discredited, more commonly known as the "It's just an opinion!" defense, as if opinions exist in some unassailable realm where they need not be supported by sound reasoning based on facts.

No, opinions aren't unassailable. Quite to the contrary, I mention in the reply to Piebald that while we're all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Opinions are quite assailable.

Further, contrary to your charge, I launched into a discourse on the truth value of Paine's assumptions, and for the logical integrity to be Paine's arguments to be breached, Piebald would need to establish they were false. He never responded on that account.

I also congratulated Piebald for being on the right track.

None of this, of course, excuses either Thomas Paine's or RaisingPaine's ribald ignorance of theology.

I would be the first one to admit my ignorance is appalling. That being the case, it was still quite an easy task to take the wind out of most of JP's explicit scholarship criticisms of the document. That commentary is here (http://members.aol.com/raisingpaine/AR/painet02.htm).

What specific part of Paine's knowledge of theology as exhibited in "The Age of Reason" would you like to take issue with that JP didn't? It was almost paragraph-by-paragraph critique, as were my replies. I'd be more than happy to address new criticisms, should you have them.

But hey, at least RaisingPaine can take comfort in the fact that Age of Reason is selling better than ever right along side works by other popular hacks such as Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code) and Tim Lahaye (Left Behind).

I absolutely take comfort in that!

Mountain Man

December 20th 2006, 10:28 AM

I launched into a discourse on the truth value of Paine's assumptions, and for the logical integrity of Paine's arguments to be breached, Piebald would need to establish they were false.
On the contrary, you need to show that Paine's assumptions are true! Paine is the primary claimant in this case, so he - or rather you, as his self-styled defender - bears the burden of proof. Claiming yours as the default position and attempting to pass the burden of proof to your opponents is a coward's tactic and betrays a lack of confidence in your own arguments.

Now go ahead and show us that a divinely inspired work must necessarily bear the marks that Paine claims it should. Namely, you need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the premise "human language is not a suitable vehicle for the Word of God", keeping in mind the fact that an omnipotent God would be perfectly capable of revealing the essentials of his perfect truth through the limitations of human communication (picture an adult trying to convey something relatively complex to a child).

Of course, you might argue, "But there are other ways he could have revealed it!" Surely. But that doesn't prove that the way he chose is in any way inadequate, not to mention the simple fact that for thousands of years, countless people have found God's revealed truths to be perfectly accessible and comprehensible (but of course, you and your drunken hero are smarter than any of us could ever hope to be, right? :ahem:).

And no cowardly retreats to "It's just an opinion!" either. Christianity has withstood considerable scrutiny for two thousand years, so it's going to take more than one man's uninformed "opinion" to tear it down.

RaisingPaine

December 20th 2006, 11:32 AM

Thanks for your reply MM. I snatched the civility award back from Piebald and you are now the proud owner.

On the contrary, you need to show that Paine's assumptions are true! Paine is the primary claimant in this case, so he - or rather you, as his self-styled defender - bears the burden of proof. Claiming yours as the default position and attempting to pass the burden of proof to your opponents is a coward's tactic and betrays a lack of confidence in your own arguments.

As I mentioned in the reply to Piebald, there is no affirmative evidence that any of Paine's premises are true. However, the myriad of problems associated with his premises being false (of which I only touched on several of the most obvious in the post), are even more vexing.

There's nothing cowardly about the position. The fact that it is logically less troublesome to grant Paine's premises than to presume the contraries does not constitute proof of their truth value, to which I have no problem (nor would I believe Paine) readily admitting.

Now go ahead and show us that a divinely inspired work must necessarily bear the marks that Paine claims it should. Namely, you need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the premise "human language is not a suitable vehicle for the Word of God", keeping in mind the fact that an omnipotent God would be perfectly capable of revealing the essentials of his perfect truth through the limitations of human communication (picture an adult trying to convey something relatively complex to a child).

I understand your point, however I don't believe the analogy is apt. The communication between a parent and a child is constrained by context. The parent's message is not intended for every child in the universe at all times, but rather to a specific child at that moment.

Of course, you might argue, "But there are other ways he could have revealed it!" Surely.

Absolutely. Paine would say he already has, through his creation (nature), which is universal, eternal, and unchangeable.

But that doesn't prove that the way he chose is in any way inadequate, not to mention the simple fact that for thousands of years, countless people have found God's revealed truths to be perfectly accessible and comprehensible (but of course, you and your drunken hero are smarter than any of us could ever hope to be, right? :ahem:).

Except that the countless wars relating to religion, almost since there WAS religion, were fought over one group's belief that their version "God's truths" was superior to their neighbors.

And no cowardly retreats to "It's just an opinion!" either. Christianity has withstood considerable scrutiny for two thousand years, so it's going to take more than one man's uninformed "opinion" to tear it down.

None necessary.

Teallaura

December 20th 2006, 12:03 PM

...
Except that the countless wars relating to religion, almost since there WAS religion, were fought over one group's belief that their version "God's truths" was superior to their neighbors.

...This is commonly held belief - and pure crap. Wars are fought over power - period. A variety of things, including religion, have been used to justify war - but in point of fact justice or some variant on that theme is the most common justification of war - not religion.

At the bare bones of any war is power - someone trying to take, assert and/or maintain it. Who is in the 'right or wrong' of the situation varies (don't take it as a 'all wars are evil because both/all sides are equally wrong' argument - that's stupid) but at the very core power is always, without exception, the issue.

Mountain Man

December 20th 2006, 12:05 PM

As I mentioned in the reply to Piebald, there is no affirmative evidence that any of Paine's premises are true.
Bingo, and since his reasoning is only as good as the premises on which it's based, I'd say that's a major problem for his position, wouldn't you agree?

However, the myriad of problems associated with his premises being false (of which I only touched on several of the most obvious in the post), are even more vexing.
By which I assume you mean this:

If God's word is not eternal, this means it is only available to those of us living within a specified time period. What period is that? How are we to know whether we are in that era of genuine interpretation or not? Also, does that mean that those that lived before the window won't have access to His Word? What of those that come after?

If God's word is not universal, that means it is only available to certain people. Even if it is eternal, if not universal that means certain peoples will not be capable of receiving it. Has God favored one group over another, even though both may serve Him the same way? And why confine the discussion to Earth...does each planet have their own version of Adam and Eve?

If God's word is changeable, how are we to know that it has not been changed? How do we detect forgeries from the real thing, given we have no test that allows us to look into the hearts of men? And changed from what to what? Is God fallible? Why would He need to change it in the first place? Will it change again?
While the reasoning might arguably be internally consistent, you have yet to establish God's word as conveyed through the limits of human communication is necessarily finite, non-universal, and changeable. Since I see no valid reason to accept that premise, I see no valid reason to accept any reasoning derived from it. After all, wouldn't an omnipotent God be wholly capable of maintaining the essential truths he wished to convey regardless of the medium through which they were conveyed?

I understand your point, however I don't believe the analogy is apt. The communication between a parent and a child is constrained by context. The parent's message is not intended for every child in the universe at all times, but rather to a specific child at that moment.
You're arguing the analogy rather than the point being made which is this: a higher being communicating with a lower being is necessarily constrained to using language that the lower being is capable of understanding.

Absolutely. Paine would say he already has, through his creation (nature), which is universal, eternal, and unchangeable.
In what way is nature eternal and unchangeable?

At the same time, this argument is a bit like saying that to learn about an artist, it is more profitable to study his paintings than to read his biography.

Except that the countless wars relating to religion, almost since there WAS religion, were fought over one group's belief that their version of "God's truths" was superior to their neighbors.
I think you'll find that it is politics masquerading as religion that is most responsible for social strife.

jpholding

December 20th 2006, 12:32 PM

I have PaineInTheRear on Ignore, but I wanted to note that I went back over his FIRST thread here...and it's clear he's just as dumb and just as obsessed with Paine now as he was then. In other words, he hasn't learned a thing.

RaisingPaine

December 20th 2006, 01:25 PM

Bingo, and since his reasoning is only as good as the premises on which it's based, I'd say that's a major problem for his position, wouldn't you agree?

It would be a problem if the premises were false, certainly.

By which I assume you mean this:

While the reasoning might arguably be internally consistent, you have yet to establish God's word as conveyed through the limits of human communication is necessarily finite, non-universal, and changeable.

I would argue that to change the nature of a thing is to change the thing itself, since its nature is an intrinsic aspect of how we come to separate one thing from another.

For an eternal, universal and unchangeable message to be communicated through a vessel that is by its very nature none of these, would require changing the nature of human communication. In my estimation it becomes something else, transcending human communication. The question is, do we find any evidence of such a transcension in the Bible? Paine would say...nope. To him, it looks like an anthology of stories, anecdotes, and dictums that anybody could write.

Since I see no valid reason to accept that premise, I see no valid reason to accept any reasoning derived from it. After all, wouldn't an omnipotent God be wholly capable of maintaining the essential truths he wished to convey regardless of the medium through which they were conveyed?

While I don't profess any deep understanding of God's nature, I presume an omnipotent God could do anything he wanted to, including violate the laws of both logic and physics, if he were so inclined.

You're arguing the analogy rather than the point being made which is this: a higher being communicating with a lower being is necessarily constrained to using language that the lower being is capable of understanding.

Paine would say God speaks to all of us, equally, everday through nature.

In what way is nature eternal and unchangeable?

In the sense that 2+2=4 and E=MC2. In that man is unable to change the time of sunrise or sunset, to prevent hurricanes, or to alter the time it takes an apple falling from a tree to hit the ground.

At the same time, this argument is a bit like saying that to learn about an artist, it is more profitable to study his paintings than to read his biography.

Except there are many religions (on this planet alone!), so which biography is correct? The common denominator between these religions is the existence of God himself (herself?) , in whatever form(s), or absence of form, they purport the Almighty to take. But what of Jesus? or Mohammet? or Moses? or any other ancillary figures acting on Earth as an agent of the Almighty?

And again, do we take the earth-centric position that life only exists here? Should developed life on other planets somehow be able to discern that evidence of the "true" religion is not even in their galaxy? Can we, for that matter?!

Paine would say its all craziness. By God speaking to us through his creation, he provides the ability for every being to study and understand His nature, without need of intermediary or agent proclaiming to represent Him. Or Her. :wink:

I think you'll find that it is politics masquerading as religion that is most responsible for social strife.

Perhaps. Islamic extremists of today might not, however, agree.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

December 20th 2006, 02:29 PM

Perhaps. Islamic extremists of today might not, however, agree.

I think if you study history you'll find the modern verision of Islamic extremeism has its roots in the establishment of the modern nation of Isreal. When we decided to kick all of the Muslims out and hand the land over the Jews(who, up to that point were living in reletive peace with each other)

RaisingPaine

December 20th 2006, 03:07 PM

I think if you study history you'll find the modern verision of Islamic extremeism has its roots in the establishment of the modern nation of Isreal. When we decided to kick all of the Muslims out and hand the land over the Jews(who, up to that point were living in reletive peace with each other)

Possibly. I believe it has its roots in the oil-rich despotism of Middle East regimes, like Saudi Arabia, who fund madrassas all over the world that preach a particularly vehement form of Islam, Wahabi'ism. Such a distraction for their own oppressed people provide a steam valve against revolution by redirecting the rage of its citizenry towards Israel and the west.

No doubt, the 1948 establishment of Israel is a factor. But also decades of humiliation suffered by Arabs since WWI, the subsequent colonialization by the west, and several spectacular military defeats at the hands of Israel have contributed to present-day frustrations.

Darth Executor

December 20th 2006, 03:15 PM

I think if you study history you'll find the modern verision of Islamic extremeism has its roots in the establishment of the modern nation of Isreal. When we decided to kick all of the Muslims out and hand the land over the Jews(who, up to that point were living in reletive peace with each other)

I think you'll find that the moder version of Islamic extremism has its roots in the fact that a majority of muslims in non-western countries are insane.

I believe it has its roots in the oil-rich despotism of Middle East regimes, like Saudi Arabia,

Hopefully those despots stay there. The population they rule under an iron fist is much worse than they are. Long live the House of Saud.

Mountain Man

December 20th 2006, 03:51 PM

It would be a problem if the premises were false, certainly.
And since it has been shown that many of his premises are false and the rest unsupported at best, the phrase "final nail in the coffin" comes to mind.

For an eternal, universal and unchangeable message to be communicated through a vessel that is by its very nature none of these, would require changing the nature of human communication.
That's the assertion. Now let's see you support it.

The question is, do we find any evidence of such a transcension in the Bible?
No, the question is, is it reasonable to expect there to be?

While I don't profess any deep understanding of God's nature, I presume an omnipotent God could do anything he wanted to, including violate the laws of both logic and physics, if he were so inclined.
Physics, yes, seeing as the laws of physics were created by him. But to postulate a God who can defy logic is nonsensical. Otherwise you would have to accept that he could exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense which basically removes any theistic discussion from the realm of rational discourse.

So let's just say that God is capable of doing anything that is logically possible and leave it at that. And since you've agreed that it would be wholly possible for an omnipotent God to communicate his essential truths through what we know today as the Bible, you've left yourself with nowhere to go in this argument since you've conceded that we really have no reason to expect the qualities which Thomas Paine says we should expect.

In the sense that 2+2=4 and E=MC2. In that man is unable to change the time of sunrise or sunset, to prevent hurricanes, or to alter the time it takes an apple falling from a tree to hit the ground.
Fair enough. Now how do you know the universe is eternal? It could end tomorrow for all you know. Or do you just assume it's eternal and say good enough?

Except there are many religions (on this planet alone!), so which biography is correct? The common denominator between these religions is the existence of God himself (herself?) , in whatever form(s), or absence of form, they purport the Almighty to take. But what of Jesus? or Mohammet? or Moses? or any other ancillary figures acting on Earth as an agent of the Almighty?
Well, that's quite another topic entirely, but my short answer is to start with the historical person of Jesus Christ and work from there. I say start with Jesus because he's the only religious figure I know of who is named by multiple religions (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) so it seems logical to start your search with the person who is regarded as a wise and benevolent teacher by such a diverse collection of world views.

And again, do we take the earth-centric position that life only exists here? Should developed life on other planets somehow be able to discern that evidence of the "true" religion is not even in their galaxy? Can we, for that matter?!
Perhaps when ET shows up on our doorstep, we can ask him. But until then, I'm really not going to concern myself with it.

Paine would say its all craziness. By God speaking to us through his creation, he provides the ability for every being to study and understand His nature, without need of intermediary or agent proclaiming to represent Him.
Assuming that creation meets your "eternal" criteria, to say that God can only reveal himself through his creation is to limit an omnipotent God. I can't accept that.

Islamic extremists of today might not, however, agree.
There's a reason they're called "extremists".

lilpixieofterror

December 20th 2006, 04:03 PM

Paine's standards were provided in the previous post.

And Paine's standards has been shown to be utterly absured. Do try to keep up. :teeth:

Yes. With regard to Paine's standards, there are questions of authorship in several of the critical books, a few of which I elaborated on earlier.

And his objections only show his own biasness. I see no reason to doubt what the early Christians told us about the authorship of the NT. If they were trying to add some authority to their words, they did a poor job, because two are not witnesses to ministry of Jesus and one of them was a former tax collector (who's testmony would have serious doubts due to this fact). Like Paine before, you make assumptions without merit simply because you want another excuse to be a skeptic.

Sure. But just because it "could be" doesn't make it so.

Kind of like your "could be's" and "should of's" eh?

He doesn't "need" to write the gospels, although his own testimony could add credibility to the nature of his relationship with God.

His testmony is given to us by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John... why sould I doubt them? I don't see any reason for them to lie about it... :shrug:

No one ever writes their own biography. When they do, its called an autobiography.

I know that little one, but notice that most people do not write their own biographies... people generly write them for them after their deaths. Also, why don't you go read how biographies were written in the ancient world... Alexander's biographies very simular elements that we find in the Gospels (such as foreshadowing). Do you even know that the reason why we call the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

I didn't introduce the idea of such testimony being hearsay; Paine did. He regards hearsay, not in its legal sense (which includes many exceptions), but rather the general notion of acts or events being conveyed by a first party to a second party who did not witness them. In this event, the testimony of the first party is hearsay as it relates to the second.

Where did Paine dig up this bit of nonsense? Sounds like to me he simply threw the word 'hearsay' in for it's emotional impact... with little or no mind paied to actual fact of what hearsay is. Isn't it funny that people tack the word 'hearsay' onto things that disagree with their opinions or for the emotional impact the word makes? :ahem:

I answered all the outstanding questions, as I recall, in the previous post. If there are any new ones you'd like to posit, I'm all "ears".

So you can make more excuses for your hero... I don't think so... :wink:

Evidently, whenever anyone frames an argument in a way you would not like it to be framed, they are "making excuses". But yet, all the questions were answered in the previous post, so I'm not sure what the harping is all about.

Yep, the 'questions' were answered by trying to tack the phrase, "This is not what Paine was going for." Sounds like all Paine is doing is tacking words and phrases together such as 'hearsay' for the emotional impact it makes... with no real reason why to call it that. Keep making excuses for your hero... because we know you can't think for yourself :thumb:

The fact is, it is not "what Paine is going for". You seem to wish that Paine had enlisted more Biblical scholarship into his treatise so that you would have grounds to refute it. He didn't. And thus you can't. Sorry 'bout that.

:lol: Yep, that right there has to be the stupidest reason I've seen yet. Just say, "Paine is ignorant, so you can't refute him for being ignorant." I'm sorry, but the resources could of been eaisly found if Paine took a trip down to a church with a good libary. Matthew Henry's Commentary as well as several other commentaries, lexicons, and theological works existed in Paine's time and would of been avaible if he bothered to take the time to go find some. Keep making those excuses for your hero... it's giving me a great laugh reading it. :hehe:

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 20th 2006, 05:02 PM

And since it has been shown that many of his premises are false and the rest unsupported at best, the phrase "final nail in the coffin" comes to mind.

LOL, whoa...did I miss something? I haven't seen where any of those premises are shown to be false. And, if by unsupported you mean "probably true" (since the contraries to Paine's premises create logical conundrums) then, yes, I suppose they are.

That's the assertion. Now let's see you support it.
No, the question is, is it reasonable to expect there to be?

If God decided to deliver his word by a kazoo, I think its unreasonable to expect it to sound like the New York Philharmonic. If he wants it to sound like the New York Philharmonic, I presume him to be capable of using them for His purposes.

None of that precludes God from delivering His word by kazoo. But you asked whether it was reasonable to expect a divine message to be limited by the instrument. I believe it is reasonable, given that God has no restrictions on His choice of delivery instruments -- it makes sense to use an instrument whose nature is already suited for it, as opposed to one whose nature is not.

Physics, yes, seeing as the laws of physics were created by him. But to postulate a God who can defy logic is nonsensical. Otherwise you would have to accept that he could exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense which basically removes any theistic discussion from the realm of rational discourse.

So let's just say that God is capable of doing anything that is logically possible and leave it at that.

We can make that presumption if you prefer (although personally I prefer to reserve judgement on what an omnipotent being can and can't do). Further, the idea that He can change the laws of physics, but *not* defy logic seems inconsistent, since the expression of those laws are built on mathematical relationships whollly dependent on logic.

At any rate, since you've agreed that it would be wholly possible for an omnipotent God to communicate his essential truths through what we know today as the Bible, you've left yourself with nowhere to go in this argument...

How so? The fact that one can admit that its possible doesn't make it true. Paine would say, on one hand, I am to accept that God uses a vessel whose nature is totally unsuitable to the transferrence of His eternal Word, but changes it's very nature in this ONE case to suit his purposes. On the other hand, I can accept that there is no inherent proof at all that this is His Word, the only testament being the Church Fathers who tell me it is so.

Hmm...I guess that's why they call it skepticism. :wink:

Fair enough. Now how do you know the universe is eternal? It could end tomorrow for all you know. Or do you just assume it's eternal and say good enough?

The universe need not be eternal for 2+2 to always be 4.

Well, that's quite another topic entirely, but my short answer is to start with the historical person of Jesus Christ and work from there. I say start with Jesus because he's the only religious figure I know of who is named by multiple religions (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) so it seems logical to start your search with the person who is regarded as a wise and benevolent teacher by such a diverse collection of world views.

I see. So we should thus take it that the emissaries presented in the other religions are frauds?

Perhaps when ET shows up on our doorstep, we can ask him. But until then, I'm really not going to concern myself with it.

Perhaps he already has (spooky X-Files music playing in the background...).

Assuming that creation meets your "eternal" criteria, to say that God can only reveal himself through his creation is to limit an omnipotent God. I can't accept that.

No problem. Nor could Paine accept that God's eternal word would be delivered through an instrument as changeable and non-universal as human language. In fact, Paine would find it hard to think of a worse instrument.

There's a reason they're called "extremists".
True dat. But most religions have had their extremists, at one time or another, along with the resulting crusade, jihad, or whatever you wanna call it.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

December 20th 2006, 05:35 PM

I think you'll find that the moder version of Islamic extremism has its roots in the fact that a majority of muslims in non-western countries are insane..

well there's that too.

Ishmael

December 20th 2006, 05:49 PM

Please....! (http://www.tektonics.org/classics/painerelief.html)
Haha! The unadultered arogance of JP. Come on JP, you should know better...

"Our (imperial we.. scofffff) our rebutal of Thomas Paine." Give me a break. :lol: At least the article is shorter than your others, you know, the articles where you actually know your stuff and have something to contribute...

jpholding

December 20th 2006, 05:53 PM

Please....! (http://www.tektonics.org/classics/painerelief.html)
Haha! The unadultered arogance of JP. Come on JP, you should know better...

I do. When will you learn better?

Better yet, when will you actually answer anything?

"Our (imperial we.. scofffff) our rebutal of Thomas Paine." Give me a break. :lol:

I think your skull has enough breaks in it already. :thumb:

Ishmael

December 20th 2006, 06:01 PM

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. It's hard to say what Paine's point is here, since none of these religions is at all exclusivist. The way is open for any man to join any of these. Paine is falsely carrying over the idea of "we have the unique revelation, and no one else does" to "no one can get it but us." In light of that all three of the named religions cross cultural and social boundaries, Paine's snobbery is completely unjustified. He may well have been shocked to see Christianity and Islam crossing so many borders. He also hypocritically misses the critical point that he, in his own arrogance, declares all three of these faiths false in favor of HIS "one way" that is right.
Nah, the point is that everyone thinks he is right, including you, Paine and everybody else... hardly helps your cause in the slightest and makes a very poor first stab at Paine's work... these are generalizations about religion that still generally apply, even though all these religions (and others, and other forms of your religion) have crossed many borders. IMO this first comment sets the tone for your whole laughable "dissection."

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. Fair enough. Either one is right and the others are wrong, or none are right. At least Paine is consistent here; but that is in contrast to how he contradicts himself as before, hypocritically, in that he certainly thinks he is right.

Paine believed he was right, of course, but it is in no way hypocritical in sense that you are trying to construe it. Paine’s Deism was the result of his own sense of Rationalism, the idea that the Universe is so complex that there must be a designer, coupled with the fact that the Church (in all its religious manifestation) has wrecked “mischief” on the world. He lays out that fact in his own confession of faith:

Soon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.

Further, while Paine believes he is right but gives every person the same right to believe they are right, unlike his adversaries, unlike yourself:
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

RaisingPaine

December 20th 2006, 06:31 PM

And Paine's standards has been shown to be utterly absured. Do try to keep up. :teeth:

Well, looking at the recap of our dialog, that doesn't seem to be the case. MM and Paine (through me) are debating that issue right now.

And his objections only show his own biasness. I see no reason to doubt what the early Christians told us about the authorship of the NT. If they were trying to add some authority to their words, they did a poor job, because two are not witnesses to ministry of Jesus and one of them was a former tax collector (who's testmony would have serious doubts due to this fact). Like Paine before, you make assumptions without merit simply because you want another excuse to be a skeptic.

Paine would say then by all means, don't doubt them.

His testmony is given to us by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John... why sould I doubt them? I don't see any reason for them to lie about it... :shrug:

I see. You're suggesting that the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the pen-to-paper authors of the gospels that bear their name?!

I know that little one, but notice that most people do not write their own biographies... people generly write them for them after their deaths. Also, why don't you go read how biographies were written in the ancient world...

None of which claim to be the Word of God, nor many (I presume) that lay claim to supernatural events such as virgin conception or resurrection.

Alexander's biographies very simular elements that we find in the Gospels (such as foreshadowing). Do you even know that the reason why we call the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

If there is a special reason beyond them containing apostolic testimony of their name-bearers, no. As stated to Piebald, I love to be enlightened.

Where did Paine dig up this bit of nonsense? Sounds like to me he simply threw the word 'hearsay' in for it's emotional impact... with little or no mind paied to actual fact of what hearsay is. Isn't it funny that people tack the word 'hearsay' onto things that disagree with their opinions or for the emotional impact the word makes? :ahem:

I've defined the term as Paine used it. If you want to substitute another word more to your liking, feel free. It doesn't change the objection.

So you can make more excuses for your hero... I don't think so... :wink:

This "excuse" thing is getting old. Please provide me a quote from one of my earlier posts that constitutes an "excuse" (as you define it to be).

Yep, the 'questions' were answered by trying to tack the phrase, "This is not what Paine was going for." Sounds like all Paine is doing is tacking words and phrases together such as 'hearsay' for the emotional impact it makes... with no real reason why to call it that. Keep making excuses for your hero... because we know you can't think for yourself :thumb:

I think Paine would be satisfied with my defense, but critical of my continued courtesy and patience. :lol:

While it sounds to you like Paine is "tacking words and phrases together", it sounds to me that my ignorance of Biblical scholarship is only surpassed by your ignorance of the "The Age Of Reason". Investing a few hours here (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm) might make our exchanges more productive. Otherwise, I am condemned to keep enlightening you on the fly, and there doesn't become much to truly debate since you and I are largely dealing with apples and oranges.

:lol: Yep, that right there has to be the stupidest reason I've seen yet. Just say, "Paine is ignorant, so you can't refute him for being ignorant." I'm sorry, but the resources could of been eaisly found if Paine took a trip down to a church with a good libary. Matthew Henry's Commentary as well as several other commentaries, lexicons, and theological works existed in Paine's time and would of been avaible if he bothered to take the time to go find some. Keep making those excuses for your hero... it's giving me a great laugh reading it. :hehe:

Firstly, I don't have any evidence, pro- or con- that he didn't make the library trip you suggest. Secondly, whether he did or not is irrelevant since Paine's arguments don't generally crossover into the realm of Biblical scholarship. Any areas where they do have already been addressed in my response (http://members.aol.com/raisingpaine/AR/painet02.htm) to JP's "A Greater Paine in the Posterior". If there are any other objections you specifically have, instead of just harping on what references Paine didn't use (incidentally, FYI, Part 1 of AR was written in post-revolutionary France where Paine had access to neither a bible nor a church, during which many priests were massacred, in the period known as Dechristianization -- but of course, had you even glanced at AR part 1...you would know this). AR Part 2, written in 1796, was written with the benefit of a bible, but would still not be confused with scholarship -- although Paine gets in his share of jabs.

"The Age of Reason" wasn't banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_books#A-B) without reason. The church was under tremendous pressure to answer Paine's arguments, a task that continues to the present day.

RaisingPaine

December 20th 2006, 06:37 PM

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. It's hard to say what Paine's point is here, since none of these religions is at all exclusivist. The way is open for any man to join any of these. Paine is falsely carrying over the idea of "we have the unique revelation, and no one else does" to "no one can get it but us." In light of that all three of the named religions cross cultural and social boundaries, Paine's snobbery is completely unjustified. He may well have been shocked to see Christianity and Islam crossing so many borders. He also hypocritically misses the critical point that he, in his own arrogance, declares all three of these faiths false in favor of HIS "one way" that is right.
Nah, the point is that everyone thinks he is right, including you, Paine and everybody else... hardly helps your cause in the slightest and makes a very poor first stab at Paine's work... these are generalizations about religion that still generally apply, even though all these religions (and others, and other forms of your religion) have crossed many borders. IMO this first comment sets the tone for your whole laughable "dissection."
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. Fair enough. Either one is right and the others are wrong, or none are right. At least Paine is consistent here; but that is in contrast to how he contradicts himself as before, hypocritically, in that he certainly thinks he is right.
Paine believed he was right, of course, but it is in no way hypocritical in sense that you are trying to construe it. Paine’s Deism was the result of his own sense of Rationalism, the idea that the Universe is so complex that there must be a designer, coupled with the fact that the Church (in all its religious manifestation) has wrecked “mischief” on the world. He lays out that fact in his own confession of faith:
Soon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.
Further, while Paine believes he is right but gives every person the same right to believe they are right, unlike his adversaries, unlike yourself:
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

For the most part, I exposed that "dissection" here (http://members.aol.com/raisingpaine/AR/painet02.htm).

Your last point is one that I have made quite often to this group, to the laughable response that Paine was arrogant (talk about the pot calling kettle black) and lazy (since he didn't indulge in what they consider to be biblical scholarship, to any acceptable standard). Of course, if you take a look at the thread, their various arguments have been effectively rebutted.

Ishmael

December 20th 2006, 06:40 PM

For the most part, I exposed that "dissection" here (http://members.aol.com/raisingpaine/AR/painet02.htm).
Oh cool, I'll read it before I make any more comments...

Teallaura

December 20th 2006, 08:25 PM

For the most part, I exposed that "dissection" here (http://members.aol.com/raisingpaine/AR/painet02.htm).

Your last point is one that I have made quite often to this group, to the laughable response that Paine was arrogant (talk about the pot calling kettle black) and lazy (since he didn't indulge in what they consider to be biblical scholarship, to any acceptable standard). Of course, if you take a look at the thread, their various arguments have been effectively rebutted.
You're just flat out weaseling now. You were asked what standards should be applied - since the argument Paine makes necessarily touches on biblical scholarship - heck, he creates (from thin air evidently judging from your defense to date) standards of biblical scholarship in that he creates a standard by which the Bible should be judged - but you refuse to tell us why that standard is appropriate or valid. Instead you tell us it has nothing to do with his point (flat out wrong given the topic) or later that it's just his opinion (that was where you self refuted big time. If it's just his opinion then his standard has no validity and his thesis is hogwash).

So, if Paine's thesis is to be taken seriously, why are his standards valid and why should they be applied? If you can't defend that point (with something better than 'because') then you cannot defend his thesis and you're making the man look like an imbecile. My reading of Paine is rather sparse - bits of Common Sense mostly, but he never struck me as the total doofus you are making him out to be with all this hedging.

Answer the silly point and quit trying to debate Lil on biblical scholarship - she's running rings around you and you don't seem to realize it. You look stupid doing that because it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. Stick to defending Paine and answer the question of standards.

Man, I hope I never came off this idiotic when I was an atheist... :gack:

Ishmael

December 20th 2006, 09:02 PM

You're just flat out weaseling now. You were asked what standards should be applied - since the argument Paine makes necessarily touches on biblical scholarship - heck, he creates (from thin air evidently judging from your defense to date) standards of biblical scholarship in that he creates a standard by which the Bible should be judged - but you refuse to tell us why that standard is appropriate or valid. Instead you tell us it has nothing to do with his point (flat out wrong given the topic) or later that it's just his opinion (that was where you self refuted big time. If it's just his opinion then his standard has no validity and his thesis is hogwash).

So, if Paine's thesis is to be taken seriously, why are his standards valid and why should they be applied? If you can't defend that point (with something better than 'because') then you cannot defend his thesis and you're making the man look like an imbecile. My reading of Paine is rather sparse - bits of Common Sense mostly, but he never struck me as the total doofus you are making him out to be with all this hedging.

Answer the silly point and quit trying to debate Lil on biblical scholarship - she's running rings around you and you don't seem to realize it. You look stupid doing that because it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. Stick to defending Paine and answer the question of standards.

Paine's standards are common sense and they aren't "standards" in the sense you are trying to construe this. From my reading RaisingPaine isn't hedging at all, he is simply not accepting your ridiculous demands concerning foundational standards and other such churchy philosophical necessities.

lilpixieofterror

December 20th 2006, 09:03 PM

Well, looking at the recap of our dialog, that doesn't seem to be the case. MM and Paine (through me) are debating that issue right now.

I don't need to cover something if you are already being destroyed on by somebody else... :teeth:

I see. You're suggesting that the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the pen-to-paper authors of the gospels that bear their name?!

I'm suggesting that somebody told us they are the ones who wrote them. The only defense that skeptics like yourself seem to have is that, they don't tell us directly in the gospels who wrote them... but that is an absured point because many books both fact and fiction make no mention of the author anyway. Even books wirtten in logical format with a formal debate style rarely (if at all) mention the authors by name. Again, you're caught looking for excuses... :lol:

None of which claim to be the Word of God, nor many (I presume) that lay claim to supernatural events such as virgin conception or resurrection.

:lol: Earth to Paine... Zeus was said to be Alexander's father in the biographies of his life we have today. :rofl: Have you even read anything about ancient liturature or do you open your mouth before you look up something? It seems to me you are hung up on miricles and claiming that they somehow made them up, why would they do that?

If there is a special reason beyond them containing apostolic testimony of their name-bearers, no. As stated to Piebald, I love to be enlightened.

I'm not doing your homework for you... I'll point you to Polycarp, go see what he wrote about the authorship of the Gospels.

I've defined the term as Paine used it. If you want to substitute another word more to your liking, feel free. It doesn't change the objection.

The objection is absured... it's simply tacking on the word 'hearsay' for the emotional impact without no reason to call it that. I don't care if that is the term Paine used or not, I want a reason why I should accept that term as proper...

This "excuse" thing is getting old. Please provide me a quote from one of my earlier posts that constitutes an "excuse" (as you define it to be).

Everything else in here can see you're excuse making... why can't you? :ahem:

I think Paine would be satisfied with my defense, but critical of my continued courtesy and patience. :lol:

Too bad Paine is not a scholar on any level and the only defense you have left is turning it into 'opinions' that can't be attacked because they are opinions. Pretty poor argument on your part. :wink:

While it sounds to you like Paine is "tacking words and phrases together", it sounds to me that my ignorance of Biblical scholarship is only surpassed by your ignorance of the "The Age Of Reason"...

:lol: I don't care about "The Age Of Reason" I care about it's value as being truthful. If something does not work on the pratical level... than it is false. It's already been pointed out to you... you now simply reduce it to, "It's just opinions," as if that changes the fact he's wrong... :teeth:

Firstly, I don't have any evidence, pro- or con- that he didn't make the library trip you suggest. Secondly, whether he did or not is irrelevant since Paine's arguments don't generally crossover into the realm of Biblical scholarship.

And thus... you try to reduce the burden of proving Paine's absured claims by trying to put them into the catagory of "opinions"... like that really makes them suddently unable to be examed, studied, and refuted... simply because they are opinions. Yep, another example of you making excuses...

Blah blah blah...

Same as above... no use responding to...

"The Age of Reason" wasn't banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_books#A-B) without reason. The church was under tremendous pressure to answer Paine's arguments, a task that continues to the present day.

Wow... what inconstency you display here... on the one hand you say... "Common sense is only opinions... and should not be examed against top notch bibical scholarship." Yet here you say... "Thomas Paine was banned because he answers top notch bibical scholarship." When somebody does answer him and show that he was wrong... you say, "It's not met to be bibical scholarship, just opinions"... yet you maintain... "the church could not answer him, so it was banned." Anyone want to guess how many more inconstencies and excuses RaisingPaine'sExcuses will make on the next exciting post? Stay tuned!

Crystal

FYI I did read your 'response' to JPH on Thomas Paine... same thing you did here... make excuses for him that fit your heart's desire... :lol:

Mountain Man

December 20th 2006, 09:51 PM

LOL, whoa...did I miss something?
Probably.

I haven't seen where any of those premises are shown to be false.
Even you have admitted that Paine's arguments fail on a scholarly level.

And, if by unsupported you mean "probably true"...
No, I mean exactly what I said: unsupported.

If God decided to deliver his word by a kazoo, I think its unreasonable to expect it to sound like the New York Philharmonic. If he wants it to sound like the New York Philharmonic, I presume him to be capable of using them for His purposes.

None of that precludes God from delivering His word by kazoo. But you asked whether it was reasonable to expect a divine message to be limited by the instrument. I believe it is reasonable, given that God has no restrictions on His choice of delivery instruments -- it makes sense to use an instrument whose nature is already suited for it, as opposed to one whose nature is not.
Then might I propose that human language is perfectly suited for God's purposes?

We can make that presumption if you prefer (although personally I prefer to reserve judgement on what an omnipotent being can and can't do). Further, the idea that He can change the laws of physics, but *not* defy logic seems inconsistent, since the expression of those laws are built on mathematical relationships wholly dependent on logic.
Mathematical equations are simply a language we use to describe physics. They are not physics in and of themselves anymore than a poem about a beautiful sunrise is the sunrise itself. Thus, the laws of physics are not immutable in any absolute sense. Logic, on the other, can not be disregarded if there is to be any kind of rational discourse.

The fact that one can admit that its possible doesn't make it true.
No, but what it does is force you to eliminate it as a possibility leaving only your proposition.

Paine would say, on one hand, I am to accept that God uses a vessel whose nature is totally unsuitable to the transference of His eternal Word...
Actually, you can stop right there. You keep asserting this without taking pains (no pun intended) to support it. If human language is sufficient for God's purposes then why would he not use it?

The universe need not be eternal for 2+2 to always be 4.
I'm not sure how this answers my question about your certainty that the universe is eternal.

I see. So we should thus take it that the emissaries presented in the other religions are frauds?
If what I said was unreasonable then feel free to point it out, but these vacuous rejoinders are getting rather tiresome.

Perhaps he already has (spooky X-Files music playing in the background...).
The truth is out there...

Nor could Paine accept that God's eternal word would be delivered through an instrument as changeable and non-universal as human language. In fact, Paine would find it hard to think of a worse instrument.
And Paine would obviously know better than an omnipotent being. :ahem:

True dat. But most religions have had their extremists, at one time or another, along with the resulting crusade, jihad, or whatever you wanna call it.
How about the 3rd Reich? :wink: Point being you could say the same of any other world view you would care to mention.

Teallaura

December 20th 2006, 10:31 PM

Paine's standards are common sense and they aren't "standards" in the sense you are trying to construe this. From my reading RaisingPaine isn't hedging at all, he is simply not accepting your ridiculous demands concerning foundational standards and other such churchy philosophical necessities.
*emphasis mine

LOL! :lol: You didn't seriously just call them 'necessities'? I love when people self-refute...

Common sense and wrong is still wrong. Besides, they aren't particularly rational, let alone common sense. The assumptions underlying them are false - building your house on sand is far from 'common sense'. He's made a strawman argument - not impressive in the least to those who know enough to recognize it.

That's why that scholarship thing is kinda important - otherwise you're trying to reinvent the wheel without even looking to see that the last two guys who tried the square model weren't real sucessful...

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 09:33 AM

Teal, angel, MM, et. al. While I'm responding to Teal's paragraph, the questions are really intended for all.

You're just flat out weaseling now. You were asked what standards should be applied - since the argument Paine makes necessarily touches on biblical scholarship - heck, he creates (from thin air evidently judging from your defense to date) standards of biblical scholarship in that he creates a standard by which the Bible should be judged - but you refuse to tell us why that standard is appropriate or valid. Instead you tell us it has nothing to do with his point (flat out wrong given the topic) or later that it's just his opinion (that was where you self refuted big time. If it's just his opinion then his standard has no validity and his thesis is hogwash).

OK. Let's try this one more time. For about the 50th time.

Paine challenges the Church's method of establishing, with respect to the Bible, what constitutes "divine inspiration" and what doesn't. While I don't think that's an issue of "Biblical scholarship" perhaps you do, and maybe therein lies our disconnect. This seems to be the prickly point that has respondents here up in arms. Can we agree on that?

If we can, then the Church Fathers have their own standard (and this is where, I suppose, Biblical scholarship would come into play) for determination of what is "divinely-inspired" and what isn't. Can we agree on that?

If we can, then we can say that Paine contests that standard on several fronts. Given that the Church's method of determination relies on Biblical scholarship (in some way, shape, form or fashion), what gives Paine (admittedly not a scholar, nor employing any of the scholarship/theological resources one might minimally expect) the right to challenge that methodology? And why should any alternate methodology such an ignoramus might propose be taken as superior to that of a more learned body on the subject?

If I'm not on the right track here, there's no point going any further, so I'll give everyone a chance to respond.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 10:06 AM

*emphasis mine

LOL! :lol: You didn't seriously just call them 'necessities'? I love when people self-refute...

I called them "churchy necessities" because I don't are agree that what you are getting at is a philosophical necessesity, especially in the case of Age of Reason. His disclaimer in his confession of faith ought to be enough for any person to understand that his position is his position, based on a Rational pursuit of religion.

Common sense and wrong is still wrong. Besides, they aren't particularly rational, let alone common sense. The assumptions underlying them are false - building your house on sand is far from 'common sense'. He's made a strawman argument - not impressive in the least to those who know enough to recognize it.

meh... I just don't agree with this, flat out. Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

That's why that scholarship thing is kinda important - otherwise you're trying to reinvent the wheel without even looking to see that the last two guys who tried the square model weren't real sucessful...
Humbug, I've got a Seminary degree with a major in Biblical studies, been down the road of biblical scholarship, so its hard to fool me when talking about how important "scholarship" is. Having said that, Paine is not, obviously, an expert apologist for his infant Deism by any means, but he does know something about the Old Testment, far more than any person who wasn't explicitly schooled in the text would know. He shouldn't have to defend his criticism of the Bible, those should be answered by others with apologetics, theology, whatever... on the other hand, he should have to defend his Rational Religion-- I believe he does this, maybe not to the liking of serious Christian apologist, but I don't see any reason to get into a hissy fit about that, Christian apologists hardly agree with each other, even on the most mundane of points.

But Paine is not trying to be a bible scholar, he has only pointed out what is offensive about the bible based on a rational common reading, one that challeneges the assumption of "inspiration" for such a vile text-- that is whole point of the pamphlet and why is resonates with modern secular, rationalists.

I also want to quote Raising Paine from his post above this one:

Teal, angel, MM, et. al. While I'm responding to Teal's paragraph, the questions are really intended for all.

[quote=RaisingPaine]
OK. Let's try this one more time. For about the 50th time.

Paine challenges the Church's method of establishing, with respect to the Bible, what constitutes "divine inspiration" and what doesn't. While I don't think that's an issue of "Biblical scholarship" perhaps you do, and maybe therein lies our disconnect. This seems to be the prickly point that has respondents here up in arms. Can we agree on that?

If we can, then the Church Fathers have their own standard (and this is where, I suppose, Biblical scholarship would come into play) for determination of what is "divinely-inspired" and what isn't. Can we agree on that?

If we can, then we can say that Paine contests that standard on several fronts. Given that the Church's method of determination relies on Biblical scholarship (in some way, shape, form or fashion), what gives Paine (admittedly not a scholar, nor employing any of the scholarship/theological resources one might minimally expect) the right to challenge that methodology? And why should any alternate methodology such an ignoramus might propose be taken as superior to that of a more learned body on the subject?

If I'm not on the right track here, there's no point going any further, so I'll give everyone a chance to respond.

RaisingPaine has said this well. Age of Reason is not really being attacked here, what is being attacked here is a strawman made to sorta look like Age of Reason-- I'll call it the JPAOR just for fun.

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 10:33 AM

RaisingPaine has said this well. Age of Reason is not really being attacked here, what is being attacked here is a strawman made to sorta look like Age of Reason-- I'll call it the JPAOR just for fun.

Thanks, Ish...likewise well said.

Mountain Man

December 21st 2006, 10:36 AM

Paine challenges the Church's method of establishing, with respect to the Bible, what constitutes "divine inspiration" and what doesn't.
That's just it, though, they didn't try to detect anything esoteric like "divine inspiration". The criteria was more accessible than that, namely was the authorship known and authoritative, and did they agree with church doctrine as established by already accepted writings. Note, for example, that 20 of the 27 books that comprise the New Testament were widely accepted as canon virtually without debate, and the rest were accepted or rejected on the basis of how well they conformed to those 20.

You can read more at the links below if you're interested (both written by JP Holding):

How Was the OT Canon Formed? (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)
How Was the NT Canon Formed? (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html)

If you wish to dispute the canon then you need to do better than "I don't trust the Church Fathers". As JP so wonderfully put it:

Human beings will never agree unanimously on anything, even the canon of Scripture. Even today, many groups (such as the Mormons) seek to add to what has been written. This, of course, is their right; but the fact remains that the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself. As Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade." (ibid., 275) The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history."(ibid., 286) We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature [MacD.FormCB, 257], and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus. Nevertheless, we have our canon. We are each free to take it or leave it; and if it offend thee - take up scissors and paste, and make what thou considerest a better effort than others!

jpholding

December 21st 2006, 11:02 AM

Further, while Paine believes he is right but gives every person the same right to believe they are right, unlike his adversaries, unlike yourself:
[u]I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise;

You mean he had AR printed just so he could make thousands of small furry animals homeless, and wasn't actually out to change anyone's mind?

I have one question, Ish....how high was the tree you fell out of that caused that brain damage? :lolo:

Humbug, I've got a Seminary degree with a major in Biblical studies, been down the road of biblical scholarship,

Did you plan on actually using it anytime soon? Or did you prefer to stick with uneducated people like "RaisinBraine" here?

You've never answered a single argument I have ever made, Ish. Anywhere. I don't think you do have a seminary degree -- or if you do, it was in counseling, or else obtained at Fundy Fussy U. All you do is posture. That's how it has always been.

Tell us: If you used Paine as a source for ANYTHING in a seminary paper, other than in rebuttal, what kind of grade would you get?

RaisingPaine has said this well. Age of Reason is not really being attacked here, what is being attacked here is a strawman made to sorta look like Age of Reason-- I'll call it the JPAOR just for fun.

The simple fact is that Paine was too lazy and stupid to provide any sort of systematic argument in AR; it is nothing but drunken reader-response. So there's no strawman, Ishy baby....there's just people like you brainwashed into thinking Paine actually said something worthwhile.

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 11:03 AM

That's just it, though, they didn't try to detect anything esoteric like "divine inspiration". The criteria was more accessible than that, namely was the authorship known and authoritative, and did they agree with church doctrine as established by already accepted writings. Note, for example, that 20 of the 27 books that comprise the New Testament were widely accepted as canon virtually without debate, and the rest were accepted or rejected on the basis of how well they conformed to those 20.

You can read more at the links below if you're interested (both written by JP Holding):

How Was the OT Canon Formed? (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)
How Was the NT Canon Formed? (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html)

If you wish to dispute the canon then you need to do better than "I don't trust the Church Fathers". As JP so wonderfully put it:

Human beings will never agree unanimously on anything, even the canon of Scripture. Even today, many groups (such as the Mormons) seek to add to what has been written. This, of course, is their right; but the fact remains that the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself. As Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade." (ibid., 275) The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history."(ibid., 286) We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature [MacD.FormCB, 257], and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus. Nevertheless, we have our canon. We are each free to take it or leave it; and if it offend thee - take up scissors and paste, and make what thou considerest a better effort than others!

Great, MM...thanks for the enlightenment. I read both links. The fact that the documents are authoritative (as the church defines it), authentic, and in keeping with doctrine and dogma certainly does not suggest a search for anything intrinsically "divine" or "divinely-inspired". What, then, distinguishes the Bible from being the word of man, as opposed to the Word of God?

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 11:45 AM

You mean he had AR printed just so he could make thousands of small furry animals homeless, and wasn't actually out to change anyone's mind?

No, I believe Thomas Paine wrote Age of Reason to persuade others. And yet, he gave them the right to disagree with him both in the essay itself and be his actions and words in France and in the American Revolution.

I have one question, Ish....how high was the tree you fell out of that caused that brain damage? :lolo:

It wasn't a tree and you know it :)

Did you plan on actually using it anytime soon? Or did you prefer to stick with uneducated people like "RaisinBraine" here?

You've never answered a single argument I have ever made, Ish. Anywhere. I don't think you do have a seminary degree -- or if you do, it was in counseling, or else obtained at Fundy Fussy U. All you do is posture. That's how it has always been.

Would like like a faxed copy of the documents? Since I am in my office its just a matter of putting in on the copier and then faxing them to your basement office.

Tell us: If you used Paine as a source for ANYTHING in a seminary paper, other than in rebuttal, what kind of grade would you get?

Paine is not a piece of scholarly biblical criticism, so of course, I wouldn't do that in a paper dealing with the text in order to get at the exact meaning or anything like that. Would I use Paine as a benchmark to perhaps challenge the whole notion that the Bible is the Word of God? You bet I would.

Are his criticisms valid? not all, but its the job of Christian apologetics to prove that his criticisms are not valid, it not Paine's job to defend anything but his Rational Religion, which he does wonderfully, imo.

The simple fact is that Paine was too lazy and stupid to provide any sort of systematic argument in AR; it is nothing but drunken reader-response. So there's no strawman, Ishy baby....there's just people like you brainwashed into thinking Paine actually said something worthwhile.
Nah, you made a strawman, sorry about that. You don't even seem to understand the genre that Paine wrote in or the basic point he was trying to make. It seems to me that you want to discredit Paine's work out of spite towards Atheist, Agnostic, and Deists and do so at the expense of basic decency of consideration for what Paine's actual purpose was in AOR.

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 11:58 AM

I don't need to cover something if you are already being destroyed on by somebody else... :teeth:

As you like.

I'm suggesting that somebody told us they are the ones who wrote them. The only defense that skeptics like yourself seem to have is that, they don't tell us directly in the gospels who wrote them... but that is an absured point because many books both fact and fiction make no mention of the author anyway. Even books wirtten in logical format with a formal debate style rarely (if at all) mention the authors by name. Again, you're caught looking for excuses... :lol:

Except that those books don't make claim to being the Word of God.

:lol: Earth to Paine... Zeus was said to be Alexander's father in the biographies of his life we have today. :rofl: Have you even read anything about ancient liturature or do you open your mouth before you look up something? It seems to me you are hung up on miricles and claiming that they somehow made them up, why would they do that?

Neither Paine (nor I) am claiming that they were made up. Perhaps they happened. Perhaps they didn't. Who knows? What credibility does the author have? To the degree the author has credibility, I may be more (or less) inclined to believe him. That the miracles were witnessed by thousands is of no consolation, since we don't have the testimony of the thousands -- only of the one (whoever he may be)

I'm not doing your homework for you... I'll point you to Polycarp, go see what he wrote about the authorship of the Gospels.

I have no "homework"to do on that front. You posited the question to me, not the other way around.

The objection is absured... it's simply tacking on the word 'hearsay' for the emotional impact without no reason to call it that. I don't care if that is the term Paine used or not, I want a reason why I should accept that term as proper...

As I said, don't accept, then. Substitute the term you consider "proper" according the definition. The argument is still the same.

Everything else in here can see you're excuse making... why can't you? :ahem:

Uh...because everything's been answered.

Too bad Paine is not a scholar on any level and the only defense you have left is turning it into 'opinions' that can't be attacked because they are opinions. Pretty poor argument on your part. :wink:

Why one would need to be a scholar when they aren't writing a book pertaining to biblical scholarship is ... unclear.

:lol: I don't care about "The Age Of Reason" I care about it's value as being truthful. If something does not work on the pratical level... than it is false. It's already been pointed out to you... you now simply reduce it to, "It's just opinions," as if that changes the fact he's wrong... :teeth:

I see. You want to direct me to do research, while you refuse even to read the work you purport to be arguing against.

AR is a work of opinion. Paine uses commonsense and reason to support his rationale for holding that opinion. You are arguing that he should have used scholarship instead -- despite that scholarship is largely irrelevant to the argument he is extending to support his opinion.

And thus... you try to reduce the burden of proving Paine's absured claims

What claims might those be?

...by trying to put them into the catagory of "opinions"... like that really makes them suddently unable to be examed,

As though you've "examed" them...

...studied, and refuted... simply because they are opinions. Yep, another example of you making excuses...

Since Paine's argument is based in reason and not in scholarship, any refutation (as Piebald initiated and MM has probed) will be a consequence of demonstrating faulty reasoning.

However, Paine's arguments are persuasive, because if no hole can be found in the reasoning, his conclusions follow. So, like, JP, you continue to rebut AR on the wrong grounds.

Wow... what inconstency you display here... on the one hand you say... "Common sense is only opinions... and should not be examed against top notch bibical scholarship."

I think you're misquoting me. Yes, its a work of opinion. That doesn't insulate it from being attacked, since if the reasoning used to support it is flawed, the opinion (which is a conclusion) is likewise flawed.

Yet here you say... "Thomas Paine was banned because he answers top notch bibical scholarship."

That's NOT what I said. You keep (irrelevantly) introducing the notion of scholarship. What I said was:

"The Age of Reason" wasn't banned without reason. The church was under tremendous pressure to answer Paine's arguments, a task that continues to the present day.

If you're going to paraphrase me, at least do it correctly.

When somebody does answer him and show that he was wrong... you say, "It's not met to be bibical scholarship, just opinions"...

Your notion of "just opinions..." suggest it is unsupported. Paine's position is supported by logical reasoning rather than Biblical scholarship.

...yet you maintain... "the church could not answer him, so it was banned."

I never said that either. There were over over fifty published theological replies (that I'm aware of) to "The Age of Reason", parts 1 and 2.

Anyone want to guess how many more inconstencies and excuses RaisingPaine'sExcuses will make on the next exciting post? Stay tuned!

I'm somehow not surprised that someone who is innately inconsistent has a problem judging consistency.

Please take a look at this post and reply. Its my last attempt to break the logjam here, since we (you and I) haven't advanced this argument one iota since its begun.

jpholding

December 21st 2006, 12:06 PM

No, I believe Thomas Paine wrote Age of Reason to persuade others. And yet, he gave them the right to disagree with him both in the essay itself and be his actions and words in France and in the American Revolution.

Um, these are two mutually exclusive options, Ish. If you want to persuade someone, then any blatter about "right to disagree" is just a bunch of self-serving nonsense designed to cover an ample butt in case you get spanked. Paine no doubt inserted that covering device because he knew he couldn't consistently stand for principles of freedom at the same time he also wanted to claim to be right in what he said. It's all a lot of oatmeal-mouthing.

It wasn't a tree and you know it :)

Oh right. It was the Sears Tower. :ahem:

Would like like a faxed copy of the documents?

I don't have a fax I can receive on, but it doesn't matter. I'll do the Paine option and say you forged them.

Since I am in my office its just a matter of putting in on the copier and then faxing them to your basement office.

We don't have basements in FL. :doh:

Paine is not a piece of scholarly biblical criticism, so of course, I wouldn't do that in a paper dealing with the text in order to get at the exact meaning or anything like that. Would I use Paine as a benchmark to perhaps challenge the whole notion that the Bible is the Word of God? You bet I would.

You don't see a glaring problem here? You would never dare use him in the context of scholarship, but you'd use him to persuade others anyway?

That's called dishonesty. If he's not a reliable, credible source, and indeed if there are others better than he is, he should not be used. Period.

Are his criticisms valid? not all, but its the job of Christian apologetics to prove that his criticisms are not valid, it not Paine's job to defend anything but his Rational Religion, which he does wonderfully, imo.

It's never hard to defend yourself when you say nothing at all.

Nah, you made a strawman, sorry about that. You don't even seem to understand the genre that Paine wrote in or the basic point he was trying to make.

Nah, I pinned him to the wall, sorry about your problem. But if you mean he wrote in the "genre" of "stupid, misinformed reader response criticism" and that his point was "to show how stupid Tom 'Scotch Bottle' Paine" can be, then that's fine. He succeeded admirably. If he were around today he'd probably be making YouTube videos with Penn and Teller. And you'd be using them out of one side of your mouth while admitting they were worthless out of the other side of your mouth, right?

It seems to me that you want to discredit Paine's work out of spite towards Atheist, Agnostic, and Deists and do so at the expense of basic decency of consideration for what Paine's actual purpose was in AOR.

It seems to me that you want to ascribe such a motive to me out of spite for tanning Paine's pathetic posterior and leaving you hapless in debate as well. :lol: How's that for a Filet O Whale sandwich?

OK. If Paine's purpose was to be an idiot, I'll go with that. :thumb:

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 12:16 PM

Mountain Man

December 21st 2006, 12:34 PM

What, then, distinguishes the Bible from being the word of man, as opposed to the Word of God?
The resurrected Jesus Christ of whom the gospels speak, the accuracy of which was affirmed by the early church using the criteria that has been discussed (known and authoritative authorship and consistency with church doctrine as established by the apostolic founders, many of whom knew Jesus personally).

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 01:14 PM

Um, these are two mutually exclusive options, Ish. If you want to persuade someone, then any blatter about "right to disagree" is just a bunch of self-serving nonsense designed to cover an ample butt in case you get spanked. Paine no doubt inserted that covering device because he knew he couldn't consistently stand for principles of freedom at the same time he also wanted to claim to be right in what he said. It's all a lot of oatmeal-mouthing.

We disagree here. Paine wasn't using some sort of covering device he radically believed in the principle of religious Freedom. The established Church was a threat to religious freedom and his opinion piece gave a voice to the many, many, obsurd things that the bible teaches on the surface.Now it might be that Paine's hermaneutic was a disaster and that the aburdities that he points out are not absurd at all in the proper context, but that was not his problem nor is it mine, it's methphorically speaking, yours. He was giving you the freedom of conscience that he was exercising in the writing of the essay, drunk or not. (I hear tell the people like Luther enjoyed drinking just a much...)

I think it's reasonable for me or Paine or anyone else to insist that a holy book be consistent if its really from God. It shouldn't, on the surface, contradict what the Church teaches about the nature of God, etc. Oh the Bible never does contradict what we know about God when we use your genre, context, historical setting trilemna, but we know it does with only casual reading. And we know that their are diverse opinions on all matters when it comes to the Bible. Anyway, this point calls into question the idea that the Scripture is "inspired" by whatever way you want to suggest that this inspiring came about. (I've read your canonization materials.)

Oh right. It was the Sears Tower. :ahem:

Try again.

I don't have a fax I can receive on, but it doesn't matter. I'll do the Paine option and say you forged them.

okay, that is your right.

We don't have basements in FL. :doh:

Nooo... you misunderstand. I meant to imply that you were likely working in some dingy, forgotten lair-- that you don't have need for a fax machine is telling... :tongue:

You don't see a glaring problem here? You would never dare use him in the context of scholarship, but you'd use him to persuade others anyway?

No I wouldn't. But I would use him in a class that challenged the basic assumptions made by all religions. The second part of his AOR would fail in some areas of biblica schalorship but it makes very little difference. What's more, I reject the idea that he would have even had access to some of the higher critical works we take for granted today-- not that that gets Paine off the hook, as one can be descredited beyong the grave. But all this misses the point of the book, once again.

That's called dishonesty. If he's not a reliable, credible source, and indeed if there are others better than he is, he should not be used. Period.

Bull. What was Paine's purpose? To lay out facts about the Bible to stand up under the scrutiny of higher criticsm or to point out inconsistencies and atrocities in the Old Testament that are obvious to a common reading? I think that latter and my position is that a holy book should not require higher critcism to in order to pass the test of common decency, sense, and morality. I think it was Paine's position too.

It's never hard to defend yourself when you say nothing at all.

Lots of time I disagree with you at a seminal level and I just don't care to go back and forth with the minutiae that you think proves your point. You can't even seem to acknowledge your presupositions on a lot of issues. Also, we agree on a large number of things concerning the Bible, we just disagree on the overarching issues. That is why I am happy that you wrote your article on Paine, it demonstrates clearly how you operate...

Nah, I pinned him to the wall, sorry about your problem. But if you mean he wrote in the "genre" of "stupid, misinformed reader response criticism" and that his point was "to show how stupid Tom 'Scotch Bottle' Paine" can be, then that's fine. He succeeded admirably. If he were around today he'd probably be making YouTube videos with Penn and Teller. And you'd be using them out of one side of your mouth while admitting they were worthless out of the other side of your mouth, right?

more meh... you did beat up your strawman fairly well...

It seems to me that you want to ascribe such a motive to me out of spite for tanning Paine's pathetic posterior and leaving you hapless in debate as well. :lol: How's that for a Filet O Whale sandwich?

OK. If Paine's purpose was to be an idiot, I'll go with that. :thumb:
Good one. Why didn't you deal with Paine's main thesis btw?

Here is your whole problem imo ("revelation"):
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. Of course this is why Deut. 18:22 speaks of testing the prophets. The Bible is well aware of the need to test things (1 Th. 5:21) and would not expect Paine to just believe simply because someone says so (though Paine is also in error about hearsay -- this is perhaps where Skeptics get their beef against hearsay, rather than from studying actual legal writings). Beyond that it would have been interesting to know what parts of the Bible Paine classed as "revelation". Beyond any idea of inspiration, texts like the Gospels report history. Now we also wonder whether Paine was any more consistent in rejecting the works of, say, Josephus or Tacitus on these same grounds, regardless of whether they were reporting miracles or private conversations. Today most resolve this inevitable leading to a panic-button view of knowledge and knowing by remaining inconsistent. They are doubters on religious matters only, or at best on things far removed from their life -- but never have such doubts when they buy groceries or go to the drivers' license office.

You mean to tell me you can't figure out what Paine means by revelation? I rather doubt that. He obviously means the whole Bible in a general way. The biblical text claims for itself a special inspiration and purpose from God in a way that other historical texts do not.

Mountain Man

December 21st 2006, 01:24 PM

We disagree here. Paine wasn't using some sort of covering device he radically believed in the principle of religious Freedom. The established Church was a threat to religious freedom and his opinion piece gave a voice to the many, many, obsurd things that the bible teaches on the surface.Now it might be that Paine's hermaneutic was a disaster and that the aburdities that he points out are not absurd at all in the proper context, but that was not his problem nor is it mine, it's methphorically speaking, yours. He was giving you the freedom of conscience that he was exercising in the writing of the essay, drunk or not. (I hear tell the people like Luther enjoyed drinking just a much...)

I think it's reasonable for me or Paine or anyone else to insist that a holy book be consistent if its really from God. It shouldn't, on the surface, contradict what the Church teaches about the nature of God, etc. Oh the Bible never does contradict what we know about God when we use your genre, context, historical setting trilemna, but we know it does with only casual reading. And we know that their are diverse opinions on all matters when it comes to the Bible. Anyway, this point calls into question the idea that the Scripture is "inspired" by whatever way you want to suggest that this inspiring came about. (I've read your canonization materials.)
I can't quite figure out if Ishmael is simply doing a poor job of defending the writings of Thomas Paine or if he's trying to covertly refute them.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 01:30 PM

I can't quite figure out if Ishmael is simply doing a poor job of defending the writings of Thomas Paine or if he's trying to covertly refute them.
Honesty concerning a favored book must be very frightening for Fundamentalists.

jpholding

December 21st 2006, 02:14 PM

Snifff...snifff....

Hmm. Beached whale. :glare:

We disagree here. Paine wasn't using some sort of covering device he radically believed in the principle of religious Freedom.

Of course he was using a covering device. He wanted to destroy Christianity, but he had to do it in a way that didn't violate the principles of freedom he was fighting for on another front. So he opened both sides of his mouth at once and offered contrarian ideologies.

When you drink too much, consistency is not one of your priorities.

Now it might be that Paine's hermaneutic was a disaster and that the aburdities that he points out are not absurd at all in the proper context, but that was not his problem nor is it mine, it's methphorically speaking, yours.

:hrm:

Um, you've been drinking too, then?

And using your seminary degree as a paper cup, I suspect.

I mean, that just wins a Screwball Award right there. It's not his problem if he bungles over and over again and spreads falsehood, huh.

Say, do you mind if I write a biography of you in which you're an anti-Semitic necrophiliac? It wouldn't be my problem or yours.

Also, how about we write a health book together in which we claim that eating toxic waste is good for you? Wouldn't be our problem, right? We would be giving readers the freedom of conscience that we were exercising in the writing of the book.

essay, drunk or not. (I hear tell the people like Luther enjoyed drinking just a much...)

I don't approve of him either, whether Martin or his brother Lex. :rasberry:

I think it's reasonable for me or Paine or anyone else to insist that a holy book be consistent if its really from God. It shouldn't, on the surface, contradict what the Church teaches about the nature of God, etc. Oh the Bible never does contradict what we know about God when we use your genre, context, historical setting trilemna, but we know it does with only casual reading.

Yeah, so, this gives Paine freedom from criticism of his own idiocies how?

And we know that their are diverse opinions on all matters when it comes to the Bible.

Ad we also know your chance of actually defending on or against any one of them is zilch, don't we?

Anyway, this point calls into question the idea that the Scripture is "inspired" by whatever way you want to suggest that this inspiring came about.

How? Because people like Paine are too stupid and lazy to do a little discipleship?

Did they ever explain to you in seminary that a disciple is someone who learns? Or did you miss that class while out skateboarding?

Oh right. It was the Sears Tower.

Try again.

The World Trade Center, and it also fell on your head?

Nooo... you misunderstand. I meant to imply that you were likely working in some dingy, forgotten lair-- that you don't have need for a fax machine is telling...

There's this thing called email attachments that are a lot more efficient these days...you might want to try them. They're so simple even you can use them.

No I wouldn't. But I would use him in a class that challenged the basic assumptions made by all religions. The second part of his AOR would fail in some areas of biblica schalorship but it makes very little difference. What's more, I reject the idea that he would have even had access to some of the higher critical works we take for granted today-- not that that gets Paine off the hook, as one can be descredited beyong the grave. But all this misses the point of the book, once again.

Like I said, I'll agree that if the point was for him to spew idiotic reader-response criticism, that's fine. None of that means he can't be taken down by me or anyone else, and as I have in that collection of responses to him shown, there was plenty of stuff he could have checked but didn't. He was more interested in boozing.

So are you saying he was kind of like the Howard Stern of his day? Is that it?

Bull. What was Paine's purpose? To lay out facts about the Bible to stand up under the scrutiny of higher criticsm or to point out inconsistencies and atrocities in the Old Testament that are obvious to a common reading? I think that latter and my position is that a holy book should not require higher critcism to in order to pass the test of common decency, sense, and morality. I think it was Paine's position too.

Then perhaps it fails to occur to you that "common decency" is a least common denominator that comes of overwhelming moral and factual ignorance. Like the Mormon who once wrote to me claiming the Bible ought to be "simple to understand" you've just moved the goalposts of understanding and are now whining because God didn't move everything 50 yards downfield so you could score an intellectual touchdown at an easier level. Paine could have used that time he spent in the bottle doing some real checking, so he has no right to complain. You have even fewer excuses as an alleged former seminarian. At the very least Paine could have kept his tone more respectful and admitted he didn't know things (there were critics of the Bible then who DID do this) rather than making inane comments such as that Joshua should have taken his pants off as well as his sandals. But it was precisely because he was lazy, stupid, and self-centered that he resorted to cheap, hackneyed reader-response retorts.

Lots of time I disagree with you at a seminal level and I just don't care to go back and forth with the minutia that your think proves your point. You can't even seem to acknowledge your presuposition on a lot of issues. Also, we agree on a large number of things concerning the Bible, we just disagree on the overarching issues. That is why I am happy that you wrote your article on Paine, it demonstrates clearly how you operate...

That you can't or won't answer a single point, and just blatter vaguely about "presupposition" as if this answers anything, shows clearly where you're coming from too. It's the black space on the wheel that says BANKRUPT.

more meh... you did beat up your strawman fairly well...

Paine made his house of straw, what can I say? He tried sticks too and that didn't work. He thought he'd try bricks next but he made them out of straw.

Good one. Why didn't you deal with Paine's main thesis btw?

I did. You just didn't like the answer.

You mean to tell me you can't figure out what Paine means by revelation?

It's his problem -- he never defines it. He never describes the mechanics of it. He's even less specific than the Chicago Statement.

The biblical text claims for itself a special inspiration and purpose from God in a way that other historical texts do not.

So what? God is a person. Tacitus is a person. If we meet Tacitus and he inspires us to write a history (as he may have done with Pliny), what's the difference? The source is the only difference.

You really still are a fundy, aren't you?

Honesty concerning a favored book must be very frightening for Fundamentalists.

Actually, it's ignorance that is more of the problem here.

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 02:24 PM

The resurrected Jesus Christ of whom the gospels speak, the accuracy of which was affirmed by the early church using the criteria that has been discussed (known and authoritative authorship and consistency with church doctrine as established by the apostolic founders, many of whom knew Jesus personally).

How can consistency with Church doctrine be used as proof that the tenets of the doctrine itself are true? And as far as apostolic authorship of the Gospels, how would you answer Paine's objections? JP did an awful job in his critique, as you can verify in my rebuttal. Mostly supposition and conjecture on his part, but no genuinely cogent explanations.

Or, as lilangelofterror would put it..."Excuses!" :lol:

Mountain Man

December 21st 2006, 03:06 PM

How can consistency with Church doctrine be used as proof that the tenets of the doctrine itself are true?
It's about trusting the people closest to the source. In other words, there's a good reason why those tenets even became doctrine in the first place.

And as far as apostolic authorship of the Gospels, how would you answer Paine's objections? JP did an awful job in his critique, as you can verify in my rebuttal. Mostly supposition and conjecture on his part, but no genuinely cogent explanations.
Says the guy who admits that he doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to Biblical scholarship.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 03:07 PM

Snifff...snifff....

Hmm. Beached whale. :glare:

Not even close to beached. As angry and as nasty as you are becoming you haven't even landed one harpoon because you fail miserably on finding the right target with Age of Reason or with me.

Of course he was using a covering device. He wanted to destroy Christianity, but he had to do it in a way that didn't violate the principles of freedom he was fighting for on another front. So he opened both sides of his mouth at once and offered contrarian ideologies.

When you drink too much, consistency is not one of your priorities.

Nice little fantasy you have there about a covering device. Too bad that his record as a minor statesman committed to religious freedom tells a different story.

:hrm:

Um, you've been drinking too, then?

And using your seminary degree as a paper cup, I suspect.

Yeah, keeps me from becoming a mean-spirited fundy apologist...

I mean, that just wins a Screwball Award right there. It's not his problem if he bungles over and over again and spreads falsehood, huh.

Say, do you mind if I write a biography of you in which you're an anti-Semitic necrophiliac? It wouldn't be my problem or yours.

Also, how about we write a health book together in which we claim that eating toxic waste is good for you? Wouldn't be our problem, right? We would be giving readers the freedom of conscience that we were exercising in the writing of the book.

Thanks for another strawman. I don't think his observations about the text are "falsehoods" at all. They might be passages, stories, etc. that you can make pallatable with higher criticism, but those places still have tremendous problems on grounds of reason, morality, and common sense. If they didn't we wouldn't need you at all, would we?

Yeah, so, this gives Paine freedom from criticism of his own idiocies how?

Never said that, I have said that your article fails because its applies a standard to Paine that Paine never intended to rise to. I just didn't think he was all that interested in the countless apologies of Churchmen-- apologies for a book that was sold as the Word of God for a modern, scientific, and rational age. I agree with Paine and I might even make my own non-scholarly comments on the Old Testament without any regard for how you construe passages to be historical, moral, etc. You still fail at forcing the text into the modern world, just as the polytheists failed at selling their version of the divine once Christianity took hold of the west.

Ad we also know your chance of actually defending on or against any one of them is zilch, don't we?

Scoff.

How? Because people like Paine are too stupid and lazy to do a little discipleship?

Did they ever explain to you in seminary that a disciple is someone who learns? Or did you miss that class while out skateboarding?

Not at all, Paine did enough discipleship to know to see plainly the absurdities in the Old Testment and he (and I) are under no obligation to explain those absurdities away with higher criticism-- all of which amount of a conspiracy of conjecture which colludes to clean up the utter nonsense found in the text. What I mean is that even if in context (ANE) the bald man was justified to send the bear to slaughter the children (teenagers, young men, whatever), that action doesn't make that absurd story any less reprehensible under a test of common decency and morality. You lose this battle not on the grounds of understanding the text but on the grounds of the very nature of a theology that would need to do apologetics for such a story. This is, and always has been, one of the points of Age of Reason.

The World Trade Center, and it also fell on your head?

Wrong.

There's this thing called email attachments that are a lot more efficient these days...you might want to try them. They're so simple even you can use them.

Most people don't have scanners in their offices.

Like I said, I'll agree that if the point was for him to spew idiotic reader-response criticism, that's fine. None of that means he can't be taken down by me or anyone else, and as I have in that collection of responses to him shown, there was plenty of stuff he could have checked but didn't. He was more interested in boozing.

So are you saying he was kind of like the Howard Stern of his day? Is that it?

Howard Stern? I don't get it.

again, meh,

Then perhaps it fails to occur to you that "common decency" is a least common denominator that comes of overwhelming moral and factual ignorance. Like the Mormon who once wrote to me claiming the Bible ought to be "simple to understand" you've just moved the goalposts of understanding and are now whining because God didn't move everything 50 yards downfield so you could score an intellectual touchdown at an easier level. Paine could have used that time he spent in the bottle doing some real checking, so he has no right to complain. You have even fewer excuses as an alleged former seminarian. At the very least Paine could have kept his tone more respectful and admitted he didn't know things (there were critics of the Bible then who DID do this) rather than making inane comments such as that Joshua should have taken his pants off as well as his sandals. But it was precisely because he was lazy, stupid, and self-centered that he resorted to cheap, hackneyed reader-response retorts.

It's interesting how part of your dialectic is towads defaming the man's character. I would think that would involve you in a duel in his day...

At any rate, there is no moral and factual ignorance. Your whole position is based on what you trust as actual historical documents and alleged reliable eyewitness accounts, just like any other religious movement-- this is your historical and factual evidence of the extrodinary claims and immoral actions found in the Old Testament!! Fail.

So your scholarly "cheap, hackneyed" criticisms of his reasonable objections to a plain reading of the Bible are just as inconclusive and "stupid" as you say.

At the very least Paine could have kept his tone more respectful and admitted he didn't know things (there were critics of the Bible then who DID do this) rather than making inane comments such as that Joshua should have taken his pants off as well as his sandals.

More respectful like you?

That you can't or won't answer a single point, and just blatter vaguely about "presupposition" as if this answers anything, shows clearly where you're coming from too. It's the black space on the wheel that says BANKRUPT.

No I think that presupposition is a very good word for you. A mind like yours has to have a healthy dose of it, with all the studying you allegedly do. Not that I am claiming that I don't have any presuppositions myself, I just think you have a lot more of the sort of "persuposition" that makes men seek for the answers they want, no matter the cost to the eyes or the consience. This is probably why you like the "white whale" metaphor so much....

I did. You just didn't like the answer.

Answer the question of Divine Revelation again, I didn't get a plain answer, I got something about how, over the course of history, the Bible proved itself to be divine because of usage in the church. Using that logic I am sure that Windows will become the divine operating system sometime in the distant future for the corporate world. ( I know, its a ridiculous comparison )

It's his problem -- he never defines it. He never describes the mechanics of it. He's even less specific than the Chicago Statement.

You know what he means; you are simply dodging his real meaning in order to stick with the issues that you are most capable of dealing with. Good strategey and one that you have laid out on your webpage as the strategy used for any good Christian apologist.

So what? God is a person. Tacitus is a person. If we meet Tacitus and he inspires us to write a history (as he may have done with Pliny), what's the difference? The source is the only difference.

God is a person? That might be true but I can't see him or her. Tacitus never claimed he was a god, did he? Plain history is not the same as divinely inspired history; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof of their validity. You know all this...

You really still are a fundy, aren't you?

Not in terms of the academic understanding I have of the term as defined by Karen Armstrong in The Battle for God.

Teallaura

December 21st 2006, 03:32 PM

I called them "churchy necessities" because I don't are agree that what you are getting at is a philosophical necessesity, especially in the case of Age of Reason. His disclaimer in his confession of faith ought to be enough for any person to understand that his position is his position, based on a Rational pursuit of religion.Not really since his criteria are what is at issue - hence the problem.

The question is why are those criteria valid. 'Because they are reasonable' is NOT an answer. It's perfectly reasonable to decide to have French toast in the morning - but that tells us nothing of why the choice was made. Mere preference will not have any persuasive power here.

meh... I just don't agree with this, flat out. Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.
Be back - gotta look at it again to remember what you're talking about. :shrug:

Humbug, I've got a Seminary degree with a major in Biblical studies, been down the road of biblical scholarship, so its hard to fool me when talking about how important "scholarship" is.
Garbage in, garbage out - the importance lies in what he's trying to do. He's set up criteria to judge Scripture by - now he needs to prove them valid. Sans Biblical scholarship of any sort that's virtually impossible to do.

You'd have a better shot convincing me that a kindergartner can correctly interpret the Constitutionality of a given law.

Having said that, Paine is not, obviously, an expert apologist for his infant Deism by any means, but he does know something about the Old Testment, far more than any person who wasn't explicitly schooled in the text would know.Actually, for his period, this is malarkey. Biblical literacy would have been much higher then. And knowing the OT still isn't the problem - defending his criteria is.

He shouldn't have to defend his criticism of the Bible, those should be answered by others with apologetics, theology, whatever... on the other hand, he should have to defend his Rational Religion-- I believe he does this, maybe not to the liking of serious Christian apologist, but I don't see any reason to get into a hissy fit about that, Christian apologists hardly agree with each other, even on the most mundane of points. This, too, is flawed - the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion, not the other way around. Paine makes the assertion; as his defender, the burden has been taken up by RP to defend it.

In point of fact, were the discussion going that far, both assertions would need to be defended. At the moment, I'd just like to see the first defended - especially since the thesis seems to derive from it.

Your inability to see the need doesn't reduce the need. If you make an assertion be ready to back it up. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

But Paine is not trying to be a bible scholar, he has only pointed out what is offensive about the bible based on a rational common reading, one that challeneges the assumption of "inspiration" for such a vile text-- that is whole point of the pamphlet and why is resonates with modern secular, rationalists.And the fact that his underlying assumptions are erroneous makes this seem rational to you?

He is being a Biblical scholar - that's a necessity of the argument. He's arguing for a specific exegesis if you are correct here. You've refuted yourself - he can't attack a work rationally without being by definition a scholar of that work. Having done so, it's now perfectly valid to require a defense of the assertions made - and to question the extent and capability of his scholarship.

And bear in mind, you are the one defending the idea that his work is rational. It's not rational to condemn a document you have not studied - so to argue he is no Bible scholar immediately undermines the credibility of his findings.

I also want to quote Raising Paine from his post above this one:

[QUOTE=RaisingPaine]Teal, angel, MM, et. al. While I'm responding to Teal's paragraph, the questions are really intended for all.

RaisingPaine has said this well. Age of Reason is not really being attacked here, what is being attacked here is a strawman made to sorta look like Age of Reason-- I'll call it the JPAOR just for fun.
Heck, we haven't gotten that far along - RP keeps dodging the validity question. You can't establish either proof or disproof of thesis without establishing the validity of the supporting rationale first.

To do so is both disingenuous and inherently irrational.

LilPunkishOfTerror

December 21st 2006, 03:40 PM

What I mean is that even if in context (ANE) the bald man was justified to send the bear to slaughter the children (teenagers, young men, whatever),

And you claimed to have a degree with a major in biblical studies?!? :lol:

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 03:46 PM

Not really since his criteria are what is at issue - hence the problem.

His criteria is a Rational, plain reading of the text. I have suggested time and again that that should be good enough given the supernatural claims of the Bible. Heck, I have even heard people say that by reading the text, one will come to conversion because the Bible is powerful in that way. Hogwash. And its hogwash that anyone would have to be an expert in higher criticism to note the absurdities of the Old Testament on the face.

The question is why are those criteria valid. 'Because they are reasonable' is NOT an answer. It's perfectly reasonable to decide to have French toast in the morning - but that tells us nothing of why the choice was made. Mere preference will not have any persuasive power here.
Since you love logic so much how about trying the this as you point of validity: self-evident (truism). I know you and JP like to use piles of "scholarship" to prove that what is obviously is in fact, not obvious, but you fail, fail, fail. In fact, the only people that even bother to discuss this failure are people interested in debating theology... the rest of the world just yawns at your dying religion.

I snipped the rest because it looks like it is all about validity of Paine's arguments.... if there is so other point I need to address just let me know.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 03:51 PM

And you claimed to have a degree with a major in biblical studies?!? :lol:

I don't get it.

I guess you know some secret knowledge about this passage that only people who actually had a degree in biblical studies could know and since from that one little sentence I apparently don't have that knowledge I don't have a degree?

Good one. :lol:

Teallaura

December 21st 2006, 03:53 PM

Common sense and wrong is still wrong. Besides, they aren't particularly rational, let alone common sense. The assumptions underlying them are false - building your house on sand is far from 'common sense'. He's made a strawman argument - not impressive in the least to those who know enough to recognize it.

Quote: Originally posted by Ishmael

meh... I just don't agree with this, flat out. Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

Okay, had to see it again. What part don't you agree with? That the underlying assumptions are false? That's what we've been trying to get RP to defend this whole bleeping time! Paine makes up criteria based on what he thinks God oughta do - but those assumptions regarding 'oughta' have no basis in fact.

If you cannot say definitively that God ought/must to do X, then you cannot rationally demand that God ought/must do X. But Paine's underlying assumption is that he can say God ought to do X without any supporting rationale, let alone proof, for why God ought/must do X - which is blatantly false. The guy is supposed to be championing reason yet comes up with an argument that is inherently unreasonable.

Then you describe the argument made as if it is one based on an argument of outrage. If that is correct (I don't know and am not asserting that it is) then Paine's argument fails as it is based on a logical fallacy - and it is hardly reasonable to argue otherwise.

O

Teallaura

December 21st 2006, 04:01 PM

His criteria is a Rational, plain reading of the text. I have suggested time and again that that should be good enough given the supernatural claims of the Bible. Heck, I have even heard people say that by reading the text, one will come to conversion because the Bible is powerful in that way. Hogwash. And its hogwash that anyone would have to be an expert in higher criticism to note the absurdities of the Old Testament on the face.

Since you love logic so much how about trying the this as you point of validity: self-evident (truism). I know you and JP like to use piles of "scholarship" to prove that what is obviously is in fact, not obvious, but you fail, fail, fail. In fact, the only people that even bother to discuss this failure are people interested in debating theology... the rest of the world just yawns at you dying religion.

I snipped the rest because it looks like it is all about validity of Paine's arguments.... if there is so other point I need to address just let me know.

Then your argument fails - it is not an accepted truism in any but rationalist (defined politically/ideologically here) circles and is therefore not self-evident. To be self-evident it must be apparent to all reasonable/rational persons. There is nothing irrational about questioning its basis so that line of reasoning will also fail - and since it would be irrational to debate with an irrational person, you can't weasel by calling me or the others irrational.

You just pinned yourself into a corner here. Either you are irrational for debating with us, in which case your argument fails simply because an irrational person cannot by definition give a rational defense, or we're all rational and the thing isn't self-evident - which puts you back at square one.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 04:02 PM

Okay, had to see it again. What part don't you agree with? That the underlying assumptions are false? That's what we've been trying to get RP to defend this whole bleeping time! Paine makes up criteria based on what he thinks God oughta do - but those assumptions regarding 'oughta' have no basis in fact.

If you cannot say definitively that God ought/must to do X, then you cannot rationally demand that God ought/must do X. But Paine's underlying assumption is that he can say God ought to do X without any supporting rationale, let alone proof, for why God ought/must do X - which is blatantly false. The guy is supposed to be championing reason yet comes up with an argument that is inherently unreasonable.

Then you describe the argument made as if it is one based on an argument of outrage. If that is correct (I don't know and am not asserting that it is) then Paine's argument fails as it is based on a logical fallacy - and it is hardly reasonable to argue otherwise.

O
This is more about the validity of Paine's arguments... Paine deduces what God ought to be like and do based on what he knows about morailty, decency, and "common sense." This is the tradition of Rationalism and its self-evident to me that any reasonable person should be able to read the Bible without the aide of 1000 commentaries and come to a unified conclusion about God, his character, and his plan for humanity. One cannot do this with the Old Testament and even if Paine is technically incorrect in some of his biblical scholarship, his examples make a good point of this the overall problem he, I, and thousands of others have with the Old Testament.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 04:07 PM

Then your argument fails - it is not an accepted truism in any but rationalist (defined politically/ideologically here) circles and is therefore not self-evident. To be self-evident it must be apparent to all reasonable/rational persons. There is nothing irrational about questioning its basis so that line of reasoning will also fail - and since it would be irrational to debate with an irrational person, you can't weasel by calling me or the others irrational.

You just pinned yourself into a corner here. Either you are irrational for debating with us, in which case your argument fails simply because an irrational person cannot by definition give a rational defense, or we're all rational and the thing isn't self-evident - which puts you back at square one.
Nah.... I am not at square one, I believe these things are self-evident just like you believe that God is self-evident, only thing is that you are increasingly in the minority in the world, even among those, like myself, who believe that there probably is a God.

Nah... I don't think you guys are either rational or irrational, I think that in the matter of defending and cleaning up your religion you are irrational. Obviously you are rational in the since that you are able to put forward a defense of your religion, obvious also to me, that your presupositions held for wanting to do such a things are irrationally based in a faith-worldview that is an absurd anachronism.

Why then would I debate? I enjoy it. Perhaps I am irrational too; perhaps I am wrong about all this. Either way, we all get to find out one day.

Teal: step away from the logic book please.

LilPunkishOfTerror

December 21st 2006, 04:08 PM

I don't get it.

I guess you know some secret knowledge about this passage that only people who actually had a degree in biblical studies could know and since from that one little sentence I apparently don't have that knowledge I don't have a degree?

Good one. :lol:
No, I'm saying what you said [children, teenagers, young men, whatever (!)] is inconsistent with someone who claims to have a degree in the relevant field...as if it does not matter what the Hebrew words used mean.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 04:12 PM

No, I'm saying what you said [children, teenagers, young men, whatever (!)] is inconsistent with someone who claims to have a degree in the relevant field...as if it does not matter what the Hebrew words used mean.
Actually genius, most laypeople don't even know there is any kind of debate about what the word used there actually is refering too, but thanks for the out-of-hand, off-topic, underhanded, and quite WRONG insult.

I have simply decided not to throw in my lot with any of the opinions for the purpose of my comments to JP so that I don't give him any ground in the discussion.

Have a nice day.

jpholding

December 21st 2006, 04:13 PM

It's a beeeeached whaaaaale! :whistle:

Not even close to beached. As angry and as nasty as you are becoming you haven't even landed one harpoon because you fail miserably on finding the right target with Age of Reason or with me.

I doubt that. Your tone is starting to waver and sharpen which means you're getting nervous. :whistle:

Nice little fantasy you have there about a covering device. Too bad that his record as a minor statesman committed to religious freedom tells a different story.

Too bad you're not adept at explaining how. Or defending his blatant inconsistency.

Thanks for another strawman. I don't think his observations about the text are "falsehoods" at all.

Well, make up your mind. Is he good scholarship or isn't he?

It looks like you just like him because his bad attitude turns you into Mr. Happypants, so it doesn't matter if he says things like "the Bible teaches you to burp loudly in church" to you.

They might be passages, stories, etc. that you can make pallatable with higher criticism, but those places still have tremendous problems on grounds of reason, morality, and common sense. If they didn't we wouldn't need you at all, would we?

If there were not ignorant people, we wouldn't need colleges either. That's a swell bit of reasoning, Ish. :lolo:

Never said that, I have said that your article fails because its applies a standard to Paine that Paine never intended to rise to.

In short, you think he does not deserve my criticism, just as I said you said. In any event we're still not past why this is respectable while publishing a book encouraging consumption of toxic waste is not.

I just didn't think he was all that interested in the countless apologies of Churchmen-

Precisely. He wasn't interested in ascertaining truth or answering arguments, he just wanted to run his big fat drunken mouth. Is that really who you want as a hero?

agree with Paine and I might even make my own non-scholarly comments on the Old Testament without any regard for how you construe passages to be historical, moral, etc

We can see THAT! In other words, you appreciate the freedom to be irresponsible.

You still fail at forcing the text into the modern world, just as the polytheists failed at selling their version of the divine once Christianity took hold of the west.

As usual, you fail to show how...and I have no idea what you mean here by polytheists. I hope you're not following those silly lines about the Trinity as a pagan concept.

Scoff.

Precisely. Zilch.

Not at all, Paine did enough discipleship to know to see plainly the absurdities in the Old Testment and he (and I) are under no obligation to explain those absurdities away with higher criticism

In short you re-classify his level of ignorance and refusal to answer contrary arguments as "scholarship" because it makes you Mr Happypants. If not, then when do you plan to answer in detail mine and Miller's comments on the Elisha story? You never will, because you like the delusion you're in.

You lose this battle not on the grounds of understanding the text but on the grounds of the very nature of a theology that would need to do apologetics for such a story. This is, and always has been, one of the points of Age of Reason.

It's an exercise in circular reasoning is all it is. The work should have been titled Circle of Reason, not Age of Reason.

The World Trade Center, and it also fell on your head?

Wrong.

The Hale-Bopp comet then?

Most people don't have scanners in their offices.

I do....it's how I get to post those sexy anthropomorphs that make you go gaga. :rasberry:

Howard Stern? I don't get it.

Look him up. One of a recent class of miseducated loudmouths.

It's interesting how part of your dialectic is towads defaming the man's character.

It's interesting how his character was as deficient as it was.

I would think that would involve you in a duel in his day...

I would think I'd kick his butt in such an affair as he would be too drunk to aim well.

At any rate, there is no moral and factual ignorance. Your whole position is based on what you trust as actual historical documents and alleged reliable eyewitness accounts, just like any other religious movement-- this is your historical and factual evidence of the extrodinary claims and immoral actions found in the Old Testament!! Fail.

At any rate, there is no actual answer here, only a restatement of what you want to be true, with no specifics whatsoever engaged.

Is this how you wrote seminary papers too?

No I think that presupposition is a very good word for you. A mind like yours has to have a healthy dose of it, with all the studying you allegedly do.

It's a dream that keeps you comforted, I am sure.

This is probably why you like the "white whale" metaphor so much....

Says the man who asked me to draw him one....

Answer the question of Divine Revelation again, I didn't get a plain answer,

You got one, you just don't like it. The answer is it doesn't matter one hill of beans. It's a red herring. Information theory doesn't worry about sources and most of the argument simply creates an artificial dichotomy between the human and the divine to force an "argument" that doesn't exist.

You know what he means; you are simply dodging his real meaning in order to stick with the issues that you are most capable of dealing with.

It's just hard to admit that the man had no idea what he is talking about, isn't it? Why not show us from the text of AR what he thinks "revelation" means as per what I said?

God is a person? That might be true but I can't see him or her.

So what? You can't see Tacitus either.

Tacitus never claimed he was a god, did he?

So what? Imposing an artificial dichotomy between human and divine on this point doesn't do anything.

Plain history is not the same as divinely inspired history; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof of their validity. You know all this...

I know that it was invented by Carl Sagan and is not used as an evidentiary legal standard. So it's just made up trash to create an excuse, and Hume was iced on this ages ago.

Not in terms of the academic understanding I have of the term as defined by Karen Armstrong in The Battle for God.

Oh of course. Another person who never addresses actual arguments. :ahem:

His criteria is a Rational, plain reading of the text.

The criteria arbitrarily assumes plain reading = rational. At its heart it is tremendously egocentric.

Heck, I have even heard people say that by reading the text, one will come to conversion because the Bible is powerful in that way.

No one here argues for that either. What's your point?

And its hogwash that anyone would have to be an expert in higher criticism to note the absurdities of the Old Testament on the face.

We are glad stating this silliness makes you feel better, but it won't make it any more true. The stupid person comforts themselves by thinking they know more than they do. Please explain why Paine is not stupid and hence why he deserves a hearing.

I know you and JP like to use piles of "scholarship" to prove that what is obviously is in fact, not obvious, but you fail, fail, fail.

It's too bad you never show how, how, how.

In fact, the only people that even bother to discuss this failure are people interested in debating theology... the rest of the world just yawns at you dying religion.

I suppose we should count ourselves priviliged to have you continually return here to yawn at us. :zzz:

I snipped the rest because it looks like it is all about validity of Paine's arguments.... if there is so other point I need to address just let me know.

Need? More like "want".

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 04:14 PM

It's about trusting the people closest to the source. In other words, there's a good reason why those tenets even became doctrine in the first place.

This recircles to my original point. That Paine is not accepting the Church's affirmation of a "special connection" (since we won't use "divinity" or "divinely-inspired" anymore) between these works and the Almighty just on their say-so.

Says the guy who admits that he doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to Biblical scholarship.

Touche! But it doesn't take that degree of scholarship to rebut it. It's common-sense stuff...like look at this exerpt, a classic example of our contentious exchanges on these points (Paine's original writing in black, JP's comments in green, my replies in blue:

The story of the angel announcing what the church calls the immaculate conception, is not so much as mentioned in the books ascribed to Mark, and John; And doesn't need to be, and Paine does not tell us why it would need to be, other than, "Gawrsh, I think it should!" [Well, Paine, for one, didn't see angels every day. And if he did, he might consider it noteworthy to make a record of it, regardless of whether another guy did or not. It's not to say his including it would have made the event any more believable, but by not including it, it makes the other accounts less so. And, sure, I can hear JP now, that such an assessment is easy to make in modern-day where paper and pen are plentiful. But if they were going to collaborate on other stories, why NOT in the relation of something miraculous, where consistent testimony would be at its most valuable?!] If Mark had put it in he would have left out something else that Paine would say is in Matthew, and Mark should have mentioned. Paine would not be happy unless all four said 100% the same thing, and then he would claim there was a conspiracy! [Not true. Paine simply opines that if they're going to collaborate on anything, the accounting of miraculous events (one would think) should be at the top of the list!] and is differently related in Matthew and Luke. The former says the angel, appeared to Joseph; the latter says, it was to Mary; See here (http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html) for reply [JP's "reply" is a presentation of theories that "harmonize" these gospel accounts. In the end, they attempt to explain how the accounts could be reconciled -- but again, Paine would say, why should the Word of God require such harmonization? How can the Almighty, through His Creation, that clearly demonstrates order on the most profound level, harmonization between opposing forces requiring more delicate balance than is even perceptible by man with all his science, and yet provide a guidepost that is so occluded?! Not that any of this matters, since Paine proceeds to show these gospels to be of anonymous authorship anyway, and consequently of unknown credibility.] but either Joseph or Mary was the worst evidence that could have been thought of; for it was others that should have testified for them, and not they for themselves. I see. And who was going to give Mary a DNA test? Of course we do say that the VB is one example that can't ever be "proven" historically, so Paine is beating a dead horse, and one that was easy for him to kill. Even if a third or fifth party saw the angel, Paine would whine that that would not prove that they too were not deluded, and/or that the conception inside Mary was virginal. [His problem would more be that unless it was one of three or five writing, we would be taking the word of the writer (whoever he is) that such a witnessessing even took place at all. Or in this instance, even worse, since the writer not being present at the birth, he would have to believe what Joseph or Mary told him was witnessed by three or five people -- our familiar "hearsay upon hearsay" problem. ] Were any girl that is now with child to say, and even to swear it, that she was gotten with child by a ghost, and that an angel told her so, would she be believed? Certainly she would not. It's not that simple, of course. Paine lays out this Simple Simon situation, but the data should be examined to see whether the explanation is plausible, if we have reason to think that the girl would never behave so badly. If Paine had a niece who was a "good girl" and she said this, his tune might change under certain circumstances. [ROFL, it might -- but I doubt it!] Why then are we to believe the same thing of another girl whom we never saw, told by nobody knows who, nor when, nor where? As if giving Paine a picture of Mary, a recording of her telling the story, and giving the scoop that it happened in Nazareth on January 23 at 3 PM, would he change his mind? No, he's just making up excuses to make a psychological disconnect in the mind of the reader. [Actually, as Paine has said, Mary herself might not be the best witness. But even so, a firsthand recording, directly attributable to her, would carry more weight than what we have now. Not necessarily enough weight to convince otherwise, by itself -- but certainly more so. And, in any event, JP goes on as if Paine is encouraging people to surrender their faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paine would say believe what you want to believe -- this is why I choose not to.] How strange and inconsistent is it, that the same circumstance that would weaken the belief even of a probable story, should be given as a motive for believing this one, that has upon the face of it every token of absolute impossibility and imposture. By whom? Paine doesn't say whom he refers to here, nor what they argue. [By nearly anyone that had it explained to them that a child's birth was the product of a virgin conception.].

While admittedly difficult to follow because of the interruptions, these arguments don't have any bearing on "scholarship" per se. It's common sense and reason -- nothing more is really necessary.

If you read our NT exchanges they are all like this...with JP having to stretch to the moon to explain absurdities and contradictions, against a common-sense assessment that is inline with a reader's experience and thoroughly inoffensive to his intellect.

Teallaura

December 21st 2006, 04:15 PM

Nah.... I am not at square one, I believe these things are self-evident just like you believe that God is self-evident, only thing is that you are increasingly in the minority in the world, even among those, like myself, who believe that there probably is a God.

Nah... I don't think you guys are either rational or irrational, I think that in the matter of defending and cleaning up your religion you are irrational. Obviously you are rational in the since that you are able to put forward a defense of your religion, obvious also to me, that your presupositions held for wanting to do such a things are irrationally based in a faith-worldview that is an absurd anachronism.

Why then would I debate? I enjoy it. Perhaps I am irrational too; perhaps I am wrong about all this. Either way, we all get to find out one day.

Teal: step away from the logic book please.
Good grief - you aren't serious?

RP better find someone else to back him up. "We're being reasonable just not logical" as if they were separable - that's inherently both unreasonable and irrational.

Thesis DOA if that's your defense.

Well, nice wasting time with you - but it's obvious that you're not debating, you're just arguing to amuse yourself.

LilPunkishOfTerror

December 21st 2006, 04:15 PM

Actually genius, most laypeople don't even know there is any kind of debate about what the word used there actually is refering too, but thanks for the out-of-hand, off-topic, underhanded, and quite WRONG insult.

I have simply decided not to throw in my lot with any of the opinions for the purpose of my comments to JP so that I don't give him any ground in the discussion.

Have a nice day.
I am absolutely certain that "whatever" does not appear in any credentialled paper on the subject - the meaning of yeled!

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 04:27 PM

Good grief - you aren't serious?

RP better find someone else to back him up. "We're being reasonable just not logical" as if they were separable - that's inherently both unreasonable and irrational.

Thesis DOA if that's your defense.

Well, nice wasting time with you - but it's obvious that you're not debating, you're just arguing to amuse yourself.

Hi, Teal (and MountainMan and lilangelofterror)...

Could you reply to this post when you get a chance, so we might advance the debate a little? It seems we're thoroughly disconnected, and I didn't want to invest any more time in going in circles unless we can come to some agreement about what we're disagreeing on.

BTW, I think Ish would say I'm representing Paine's positions pretty accurately (as he is). Because we both understand the nature of Paine's arguments, its amazing how we don't need to back each other up. Now those on the other side of the discussion...ahem... :lol:

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 04:32 PM

Good grief - you aren't serious?

RP better find someone else to back him up. "We're being reasonable just not logical" as if they were separable - that's inherently both unreasonable and irrational.

Thesis DOA if that's your defense.

Well, nice wasting time with you - but it's obvious that you're not debating, you're just arguing to amuse yourself.
Exactly why in the world you would think that it has to be either irrational or rational is beyond my comprehension? A person can be rational in one area and irrational in another-- even two closely related topics.

Your religion is probably false, that you don't know that is irrational in my view. On the other hand, because your worldview has been so well established and defended for the last 6000 years I don't find it all that amazing that you are able to use a mountain of "scholarship" to defend your Bible in a way that is logically coherent and rational.

You and Paine are in the same boat.

Mountain Man

December 21st 2006, 04:33 PM

This recircles to my original point. That Paine is not accepting the Church's affirmation of a "special connection" (since we won't use "divinity" or "divinely-inspired" anymore) between these works and the Almighty just on their say-so.
So it's an argument from incredulity then. Fair enough.

If you read our NT exchanges they are all like this...with JP having to stretch to the moon to explain absurdities and contradictions, against a common-sense assessment that is inline with a reader's experience and thoroughly inoffensive to his intellect.
It's funny that you'd call citing the works of credentialed experts and framing Biblical writings in their proper context a "stretch to the moon" while a stubbornly ignorant and deliberately unscholarly reading is a "common sense assessment".

Seriously, dude, there's nothing "common sense" about wallowing in ignorance.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 04:34 PM

I am absolutely certain that "whatever" does not appear in any credentialled paper on the subject - the meaning of yeled!
What I meant by "whatever" is "one of those."

Are you done professor?

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 04:52 PM

So it's an argument from incredulity then. Fair enough.

No. Just because Paine doesn't believe its possible, doesn't mean it can't be true. His position is that I have no particular reason to believe it is true, since they have presented no evidence (other than their say-so) that it is.

And given that supernatural events are recounted, Paine would extend he has even less reason to believe based simply on their word.

It's funny that you'd call citing the works of credentialed experts and framing Biblical writings in their proper context a "stretch to the moon" while a stubbornly ignorant and deliberately unscholarly reading is a "common sense assessment".

If we were debating a work of Biblical scholarship, we'd be in full agreement. We're not. There are no "issues of scholarship" on display here.

Seriously, dude, there's nothing "common sense" about wallowing in ignorance.
Amen, brother. And nothing could make Paine's point any better than to suggest that only scholars were qualified to make sense of the Bible.

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 05:21 PM

Except that those books don't make claim to being the Word of God.

That matters why? :shrug: Please give us a test for determining the word of God than. :ahem:

Neither Paine (nor I) am claiming that they were made up. Perhaps they happened. Perhaps they didn't. Who knows? What credibility does the author have?

Quite a bit, have you taken the time to find out for yourself?

To the degree the author has credibility, I may be more (or less) inclined to believe him. That the miracles were witnessed by thousands is of no consolation, since we don't have the testimony of the thousands -- only of the one (whoever he may be)

Most people during that era could not read or write... even today... we don't have written accounts of 'thousands' of events people witnessed. There were thousands who witnessed battles of the civil war such as Gettsyberg... how many first hand accounts exist today? Give you a hint... you can count them on your fingers. :wink: Even today I do not expect to find thousands of written accounts of any event, why should we expect thousands than?

I have no "homework"to do on that front. You posited the question to me, not the other way around.

Yes you do, because it appears that you don't seem to understand that there is no reason we should find hundereds of accounts...

As I said, don't accept, then. Substitute the term you consider "proper" according the definition. The argument is still the same.

Umm ok than... :ahem:

Why one would need to be a scholar when they aren't writing a book pertaining to biblical scholarship is ... unclear.

Perhaps so you don't sound ignorant... :whistle:

I see. You want to direct me to do research, while you refuse even to read the work you purport to be arguing against.

I've heard enough of it from this thread of yours to see that it's a waste of time. If I ever do find a copy of it in a libary or book store... I'll make sure to pick it up and read the parts that I need to.

AR is a work of opinion. Paine uses commonsense and reason to support his rationale for holding that opinion. You are arguing that he should have used scholarship instead -- despite that scholarship is largely irrelevant to the argument he is extending to support his opinion.

:lol: What moron told you that idea? See when you're writing something, even an opinion... it's good to go look up some stuff before you open your mouth... so you don't sound stupid or ignorant. Being an opinion does not change the fact that Paine has primitive knowledge of Christian thought and thelogy and wrote as if he was an expert

Since Paine's argument is based in reason and not in scholarship, any refutation (as Piebald initiated and MM has probed) will be a consequence of demonstrating faulty reasoning.

And they have shown that his reasoning is falty... when are you going to stop making excuses for Paine's ignorance? :sigh:

However, Paine's arguments are persuasive, because if no hole can be found in the reasoning, his conclusions follow. So, like, JP, you continue to rebut AR on the wrong grounds.

The last refuge of a person trying to protect his hero... He's ignorant of bibical scholarship... so what do you do... say he's writing an 'opinion' so you can make it appear... that no matter what he says... it doesn't matter. I'm not going to let you play these games that Thomas Paine is somehow unanswerable... because everytime somebody shows you that Paine is ignorant... you make an excuse for it. Yep... you're just a fallen man trying to protect his hero. Don't worry... Paine would understand... :lmbo:

I think you're misquoting me. Yes, its a work of opinion. That doesn't insulate it from being attacked, since if the reasoning used to support it is flawed, the opinion (which is a conclusion) is likewise flawed.

And it's been shown to be flawed. Post part of his 'unanswerable' materal here and I'll answer it for you now. :teeth:

Your notion of "just opinions..." suggest it is unsupported. Paine's position is supported by logical reasoning rather than Biblical scholarship.

What 'logical' reason might that be? :ahem:

Please take a look at this post and reply. Its my last attempt to break the logjam here, since we (you and I) haven't advanced this argument one iota since its begun.

Becuase all you do is make excuses and simply try to say 'it's opinion' or that 'his logic is not flawed'. Other have already explained to you even the most sound logical reasoning fails if it's based upon falty assumptions or reasons. Now post part of Paine's 'logical reasoning' and we'll see if his 'reasoning' is as good as you think.

Crystal

BTW the most likely reason Paine's writing was baned... it would of been due to his political views more than his religious ones...

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 05:34 PM

blah, blah, blah...

blah, blah, blah, scholarship, blah, blah, blah....

blah, blah, blah, EXCUSES!, blah, blah blah...

My patience with our discussion has worn thin. If you would like to reply to this post, which I have suggested might advance our discussion, not once or twice, but three or four times, I'll be happy to re-engage. Otherwise, we are circling ourselves and our discussion is no longer serving any productive purpose.

BTW, since you've already exposed your ignorance of Paine's theological views, please don't parade your ignorance of Paine's political views, as well. It's really quite...unbecoming.

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 05:40 PM

My patience with our discussion has worn thin. If you would like to reply to this post, which I have suggested might advance our discussion, not once or twice, but three or four times, I'll be happy to re-engage. Otherwise, we are circling ourselves and our discussion is no longer serving any productive purpose.

BTW, please don't expose your ignorance to Paine's political views. It's really quite...unbecoming.
I don't blaim you. I actually thought to myself, "when did they get internet at the trailer park?" when I read littleangerofredunantcy's last response.

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 05:40 PM

My patience with our discussion has worn thin. If you would like to reply to this post, which I have suggested might advance our discussion, not once or twice, but three or four times, I'll be happy to re-engage. Otherwise, we are circling ourselves and our discussion is no longer serving any productive purpose.

Translation: I don't want to answer this anymore.... I'm running out of excuses.

BTW, please don't expose your ignorance to Paine's political views. It's really quite...unbecoming.

He sure seems anti-british rule... I do recall reading he was an anti-federalist too... but I don't remember if this is true.

Crystal

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 05:42 PM

I don't blaim you. I actually thought to myself, "when did they get internet at the trailer park?" when I read littleangerofredunantcy's last response.

Awww... are you now trying to make excuses yourself Ishmael? You really want to start the name calling whale of a Tale? :lol:

Crystal

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 05:44 PM

Awww... are you now trying to make excuses yourself Ishmael? You really want to start the name calling whale of a Tale? :lol:

Crystal
You like the word "excuse," that's good. If you type it over and over and over again we'll probably give in and admit that we are both trying to make "excuses" for a dead guy.

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 05:44 PM

I don't blaim you. I actually thought to myself, "when did they get internet at the trailer park?" when I read littleangerofredunantcy's last response.

ROFL, good one, my friend.

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 05:46 PM

You like the word "excuse," that's good. If you type it over and over and over again we'll probably give in and admit that we are both trying to make "excuses" for a dead guy.

And you like the phrase 'tralior park' by chance did you group up there as a kid? As for making excuses for a dead guy... I thought Thomas Paine was dead... Is he alive somewhere I don't know about? :shrug:

Crystal

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 05:53 PM

And you like the phrase 'tralior park' by chance did you group up there as a kid? As for making excuses for a dead guy... I thought Thomas Paine was dead... Is he alive somewhere I don't know about? :shrug:

Crystal
No actually I've only used "trailer park" this once when I decided (stereotypically) that you were just plain stupid because you keep telling RaisingPaine he is making "excuses." It's a poor word choice at best, and a flat-out moronic debate tactic at worst. Therefore, since I believe its a word choice issue, I assume you reside in a trailer park and your English dialect is limited.

jpholding

December 21st 2006, 05:54 PM

On the other hand, because your worldview has been so well established and defended for the last 6000 years I don't find it all that amazing that you are able to use a mountain of "scholarship" to defend your Bible in a way that is logically coherent and rational.

This is how you wrote papers for seminary, huh?

I got it. The brain damage was from being thrown out of seminary on your ear. :rasberry:

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 05:57 PM

This is how you wrote papers for seminary, huh?

I got it. The brain damage was from being thrown out of seminary on your ear. :rasberry:
I love your mysterious barbs... you seem to have taught a few others how to throw vieled insults which imply a lot, but say actually nothing... like the gnat about the hebrew word a few posts up from one of your disciples...

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 06:02 PM

No actually I've only used "trailer park" this once when I decided (stereotypically) that you were just plain stupid because you keep telling RaisingPaine he is making "excuses."

"It fails on the scholar level, but that's ok... it wasn't met to be scholarly" You really don't see that as an excuse? Let's see... if it's worded like an excuse, looks like an excuse, or acts like an excuse... what do you think it is? I'm calling it exactly what is...

It's a poor word choice at best, and a flat-out moronic debate tactic at worst.

How is it a poor word choice? How is it a bad debae tactic? :shrug: If it looks like an excuse... What is the phrase JPH uses... Calling a spade and spade and proving it?? :ahem:

Therefore, since I believe its a word choice issue, I assume you reside in a trailer park and your English dialect is limited.

Awww, so because I don't care about using a bunch of fancy words... you assume I grew up in a trailer park. Isn't that logic cute... :kiss: You earned that for trying to play.

Crystal

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 06:06 PM

Awww, so because I don't care about using a bunch of fancy words... you assume I grew up in a trailer park. Isn't that logic cute... :kiss: You earned that for trying to play.
Crystal
I am not asking for fancy, I am suggesting you lack precision, thus, "trailer park" dialect.

Thanks for the kiss.

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 06:09 PM

I am not asking for fancy, I am suggesting you lack precision, thus, "trailer park" dialect.

What precision do I 'lack' if I don't mind me asking? Excuse seems to be a precise word to describe this entire chat with RaisingPaine. Are you done now?

Thanks for the kiss.

Your welcome, was that your first kiss? :rofl:

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 06:11 PM

"It fails on the scholar level, but that's ok... it wasn't met to be scholarly" You really don't see that as an excuse? Let's see... if it's worded like an excuse, looks like an excuse, or acts like an excuse... what do you think it is? I'm calling it exactly what is...

"The Age of Reason" also fails on a cookbook level. Perhaps I should debate this with Chef Paul Prudhomme.

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 06:14 PM

"The Age of Reason" also fails on a cookbook level. Perhaps I should debate this with Chef Paul Prudhomme.

Is the Age of Reason met to be a cookbook? What is the book about again? Paine's idea's about Christianity correct? If he is wrong about what he says... and thus it fails on an intelligent (or scholarly) level. Is there a reason I should listen to it? :shrug:

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 06:21 PM

Is the Age of Reason met to be a cookbook? What is the book about again? Paine's idea's about Christianity correct? If he is wrong about what he says... and thus it fails on an intelligent (or scholarly) level. Is there a reason I should listen to it? :shrug:

Crystal

The Age of Reason is not a work of Biblical scholarship, anymore than it is a cookbook. It makes zero sense to try and frame it as such, nor to debate its merits or shortcomings from either vantage point.

Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Incidentally, your inference that intelligence and scholarship are equal is likewise flawed. And before you go there, knowledge does not equal scholarship, either.
.

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 06:28 PM

The Age of Reason is not a work of Biblical scholarship, anymore than it is a cookbook.

So what is it met to be than? Rantings? :lol:

It makes zero sense to try and frame it as such, nor to debate its merits or shortcomings from either vantage point.

So on earth do you expect us to study and answer it if you will not allow it to be studied on a scholarly level?

Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

You say it can't be answered and that is why it was banned... on the other hand you refuse to measure it up to top-notch christian thought to see if it really is wothery of being coincidered. So what on earth do you want us to do? So what one is it? Can't be answered or has been answered? That's seems to be something you fail to grasp.

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 07:09 PM

So what is it met to be than? Rantings? :lol:

It is an expression of theological opinion, justified not through Biblical scholarship, but through reason.

So on earth do you expect us to study and answer it if you will not allow it to be studied on a scholarly level?

The Age of Reason can be easily studied through analyzing the logical consistency of the arguments therein -- not it's "biblical scholarship". To do that, you might as well study it on the basis of its advice for a fluffier cheesecake. It doesn't presume to offer any, so attempting to analyze it in that context is pointless.

You say it can't be answered and that is why it was banned...

No, that's not what I said. Quite the opposite, I said there are over fifty answers that I personally know of, the most famous being Archibishop Richard Llandhaff's "An Apology for the Bible". The Age of Reason was banned because, by not argueing from a platform of Biblical scholarship, it could not be refuted in that way. The vast majority of theological replies of which I'm aware, as one might expect, attack it on a basis of Biblical scholarship, since that is the respondent's primary area of expertise.

...on the other hand you refuse to measure it up to top-notch christian thought to see if it really is wothery of being coincidered.

Unsurprisingly, their modern counterparts don't do a much better job, since they continue to attack it on the wrong grounds.

So what on earth do you want us to do? So what one is it? Can't be answered or has been answered? That's seems to be something you fail to grasp.

I grasp it just fine.

Attacks on "The Age of Reason" have to be based on undermining the soundness of its arguments, not its lack of scholarship. Unfortunately, for Paine's detractors, the truth value of his premises (as even Paine would admit) are indeterminable, since they presume qualities of His Word we have no evidence of.

That said, assuming Paine's premises to be false, leaves "Bible-as-Word-of-God" defenders in an even more untenable position, because of the logical conundrums that arise as a consequence.

Those defenders are thus left between the proverbial rock and hard-place, since assuming Paine's premises to be true, results in logical conclusions that support Paine's argument. Presuming Paine's premises to be false, create an even deeper quandary as to the eternal nature of His Word.

Thus the Bible, as the Word of God, (along with revealed religions themselves) become ultimately a matter of (in the common use of the term) faith -- a matter that Paine enthusiastically urges his fellow citizens to embrace, should they be so blessed.

Was that so hard to get to?

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 07:13 PM

It is an expression of theological opinion, justified not through Biblical scholarship, but through reason.

The Age of Reason can be easily studied through analyzing the logical consistency of the arguments therein -- not it's "biblical scholarship". To do that, you might as well study it on the basis of its advice for a fluffier cheesecake. It doesn't presume to offer any, so attempting to analyze it in that context is pointless.

No, that's not what I said. Quite the opposite, I said there are over fifty answers that I personally know of, the most famous being Archibishop Richard Llandhaff's "An Apology for the Bible". The Age of Reason was banned because, by not argueing from a platform of Biblical scholarship, it could not be refuted in that way. The vast majority of theological replies of which I'm aware, as one might expect, attack it on a basis of Biblical scholarship, since that is the respondent's primary area of expertise.

Unsurprisingly, their modern counterparts don't do a much better job, since they continue to attack it on the wrong grounds.

I grasp it just fine.

Attacks on "The Age of Reason" have to be based on undermining the soundness of its arguments, not its lack of scholarship. Unfortunately, for Paine's detractors, the truth value of his premises (as even Paine would admit) are indeterminable, since they presume qualities of His Word we have no evidence of.

That said, assuming Paine's premises to be false, leaves "Bible-as-Word-of-God" defenders in an even more untenable position, because of the logical conundrums that arise as a consequence.

Those defenders are thus left between the proverbial rock and hard-place, since assuming Paine's premises to be true, results in logical conclusions that support Paine's argument. Presuming Paine's premises to be false, create an even deeper quandary about the eternal nature of His Word.

Thus the Bible, as the word of God, (along with revealed religions themselves) become ultimately a matter of (in the common use of the term) faith -- a matter that Paine enthusiastically urges his fellow citizens to embrace, should they be so blessed.

Was that so hard to get to?
Excuses!

Mountain Man

December 21st 2006, 08:45 PM

No. Just because Paine doesn't believe it's possible, doesn't mean it can't be true. His position is that I have no particular reason to believe it is true, since they have presented no evidence (other than their say-so) that it is.
And how is this different than any other historical biography? If it's true then it's true whether it has "the marks of divine inspiration" (whatever that is) or not.

And given that supernatural events are recounted, Paine would extend he has even less reason to believe based simply on their word.
This wanders into the territory of special pleading. Just another one of the many logical fallacies to be found in the ironically titled The Age of Reason.

If we were debating a work of Biblical scholarship, we'd be in full agreement. We're not. There are no "issues of scholarship" on display here.
Since you agree that Paine's arguments fail on a scholarly level then how can you continue to promote his arguments as rational and reasonable? That smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

And nothing could make Paine's point any better than to suggest that only scholars were qualified to make sense of the Bible.
And, of course, nobody has suggested that.

Furthermore, you're making the assumption that when encountering a passage that is difficult to reconcile with a plain reading, the rational response is "It must be an error" instead of "Perhaps there's more to this story that can be uncovered through additional research."

lao tzu

December 21st 2006, 08:48 PM

Greetings, all,

I am struck by a synchronicity. From elsewhere (http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1462375#post1462375), this exchange is remarkably apropos.

The Books, whether the Quran, the Torah, or Injeel, are his words. We cannot agree on these three books, imagine if he talk to every individual in this world, and only 1% of those individuals decided to record the conversation as books. What kind of mess and disagreement we would be? This is the crux of my objection to prophets. If this god did speak to every individual on this world, where would the necessity to record these conversations arise? At any moment of confusion, we could simply ask this god to arbitrate. There would be no need for sacred texts, or religious scholars to interpret them, or priesthoods to exhort the masses to follow them for that matter.

Given just one prophet, it is clear to me that this lack of personal communication cannot be explained through divine inability. Direct communication to each human would make irrelevant the language of revelation. It would be in Arabic for those whose thoughts are in Arabic, in English, in German, French, Mandarin, in whatever language works best for each individual. By necessity a god must speak to a prophet in the prophet's own language. If we were all prophets, recipients of the words of god, imagine the simplicity and harmony of religion.

But this is not the case.

So instead, we are asked to put our faith not just in a god, but in a prophet. No, not just in a prophet, but in those who recorded that prophet's words into a sacred text. No, not just in the recorders, but in those who devote themselves to interpreting those texts. No, not just in the interpreters, but in the professional priesthoods that select those portions of the texts to present to us on our given holy days.

And with each step away from the divine, such a faith becomes less secure, more subject to the human fallibility we know to be universal.

If I cannot hear the words of god myself, why should I put my faith in another's ability to do so? In another's ability to record them correctly? In yet another's ability to interpret them? In still another's ability to select from them the words I need to hear today?

No. I will not. If there is a god, let him speak to me. I am willing to have faith in a god, but not in all these others. I know these others, and they cannot be trusted.

As ever, Jesse

lilpixieofterror

December 21st 2006, 08:53 PM

It is an expression of theological opinion, justified not through Biblical scholarship, but through reason.

Than submit a paragrah right now and we'll look at it and see if it's reasonable or simply based upon opinion. :teeth:

The Age of Reason can be easily studied through analyzing the logical consistency of the arguments therein -- not it's "biblical scholarship".

People have already explained to you that if a logical argument has a falty assumption... than it is false, no matter how logical it sounds. How many times do you need to hear that?

To do that, you might as well study it on the basis of its advice for a fluffier cheesecake. It doesn't presume to offer any, so attempting to analyze it in that context is pointless.

:lol: Like we have told you time and time again, if the argument rest of assumptions that are false, than it follows no matter how 'logical' the argument is... it's false!
For example:

1. All dogs have hair.
2. Bob has hair.
3. Therefore, Bob is a dog.

That is perfectly logical, but fails because it is based upon a falty premsis... not everything that has hair is going to be a dog. In other words, you need to take a step outside logic and look at reality and see if it's true. If Thomas Paine's arguments are based upon falty reasoning... than it does not matter how logical he sounds, they are false. When are you going to understand this? :ahem:

No, that's not what I said. Quite the opposite, I said there are over fifty answers that I personally know of, the most famous being Archibishop Richard Llandhaff's "An Apology for the Bible". The Age of Reason was banned because, by not argueing from a platform of Biblical scholarship, it could not be refuted in that way. The vast majority of theological replies of which I'm aware, as one might expect, attack it on a basis of Biblical scholarship, since that is the respondent's primary area of expertise.

Do you ever pay attention to anything anybody says to you? Two people (and I'll be the third) have told you and explained to you that it does not matter how logical an argument sounds... if the premsis is falty, it's a false argument. How many times do you need to hear this before it sinks in? Why are you refusing to give a paragraph from this book? Afraid everyone will tear it up one side and down the other and expose your hero's ignorance? :ahem:

Unsurprisingly, their modern counterparts don't do a much better job, since they continue to attack it on the wrong grounds.

:lmbo: You sure got a thick skill don't you? How many times are you going to play this hop, skip, and jump game? :ahem:

Attacks on "The Age of Reason" have to be based on undermining the soundness of its arguments, not its lack of scholarship.

:lol: Translation: It does not matter how absured or how little knowledge Paine really knows... all that matters is that is logic is sound. How many times do you need to hear... "It does not matter how 'logical' the argument sounds... if it is based upon a falty premsis or lack of knowledge... it is false?"

Unfortunately, for Paine's detractors, the truth value of his premises (as even Paine would admit) are indeterminable, since they presume qualities of His Word we have no evidence of.

Yep, just as I said... you wipe away anything that disagrees with hero and pretend that no one answers it. It's already been explained to you by several people that falty reasoning leads to falty premises and ulimatly... falty arguments. When that will finally click... who knows? :shrug:

That said, assuming Paine's premises to be false, leaves "Bible-as-Word-of-God" defenders in an even more untenable position, because of the logical conundrums that arise as a consequence.

Again, how do you determine what is the word of God and what isn't? You are not giving any test to determine why I should doubt that the Bible is the word of God... you simply use that as an assumption... nothing more... thus falty reasoning...

Those defenders are thus left between the proverbial rock and hard-place, since assuming Paine's premises to be true, results in logical conclusions that support Paine's argument. Presuming Paine's premises to be false, create an even deeper quandary as to the eternal nature of His Word.

:lol: Whatever you want to tell yourself... too bad I have yet to see a reason to accept Pane's premises as is... :wink:

Thus the Bible, as the Word of God, (along with revealed religions themselves) become ultimately a matter of (in the common use of the term) faith -- a matter that Paine enthusiastically urges his fellow citizens to embrace, should they be so blessed.

Too bad saying they are not the word of God requires just as much faith again, what test did Paine use to determine the Bible is not the word of God? It's an assumption that rest on the biasness of the author... that has zero evidence other than opinion.

Was that so hard to get to?

Was it so hard for you admit that Paine has nothing more than mere opinin to back up his argument? Opinions do not back up arguments... So if you are saying that all he has is opinion... than I can simply dismiss all of his arguments with my opinion, right?

Crystal

Ishmael

December 21st 2006, 09:08 PM

Greetings, all,
I am struck by a synchronicity. From elsewhere (http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1462375#post1462375), this exchange is remarkably apropos.
As ever, Jesse
Exactly to the point.

Actually, in re-reading some of Age of Reason tonight I find it amusing that Thomas Paine predicted this argument:
It has happened, that all the answers which I have seen to the former part of the "Age of Reason" have been written by priests; and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and pretend to understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.

LoL

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 09:46 PM

And how is this different than any other historical biography? If it's true then it's true whether it has "the marks of divine inspiration" (whatever that is) or not.

In terms of ancient biographies, where one might be unique in survivalship, there is no difference -- unless that ancient biography recounts supernatural events. That's what we have with the Bible.

This wanders into the territory of special pleading. Just another one of the many logical fallacies to be found in the ironically titled The Age of Reason.

I have exactly no idea what you're talking about. What's special about not accepting anonymous testimony of supernatural events as true without any other evidence than their say-so?

Since you agree that Paine's arguments fail on a scholarly level then how can you continue to promote his arguments as rational and reasonable? That smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

His arguments don't "fail" on a scholarly level, because the work doesn't purport to meet a standard of "Biblical scholarship". No one would confuse "The Age of Reason" as such.

As analogized to lilangelofterror, they are irrelevant with respect to a Biblical scholarship level in the same way they would be irrelevant on a cookbook level.

And, of course, nobody has suggested that.

Furthermore, you're making the assumption that when encountering a passage that is difficult to reconcile with a plain reading, the rational response is "It must be an error" instead of "Perhaps there's more to this story that can be uncovered through additional research."

And yet, if by "additional research" you mean "the review of scholarly works", you continue to make Paine's point.

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 11:05 PM

Than submit a paragrah right now and we'll look at it and see if it's reasonable or simply based upon opinion. :teeth:

You say "simply based upon opinion" as though he is pulling his reason for holding it out of his butt. His rationale for believing it has to more to do with logic and virtually nothing to do with "scholarship".

Let's take an arbitrary paragraph from the first page of Part 1 of "Age of Reason":

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.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. You have a problem with this?

People have already explained to you that if a logical argument has a falty assumption... than it is false, no matter how logical it sounds. How many times do you need to hear that?

Really? And you, personally, know for a fact that God's Word is neither eternal, nor universal, nor unchangeable? You've spoken with him about this, have you?

:lol: Like we have told you time and time again, if the argument rest of assumptions that are false, than it follows no matter how 'logical' the argument is... it's false!

Perfectly agreed.

The Word of God is universal.
The Word of God is unchangeable.
The Word of God is eternal.

Which of these do you know for a fact to be false? Help a brother out...

That is perfectly logical, but fails because it is based upon a falty premsis...

Uh-huh...those premises that neither you nor anyone else can ascribe truth value to.

If Thomas Paine's arguments are based upon falty reasoning... than it does not matter how logical he sounds, they are false. When are you going to understand this? :ahem:

Perfectly agreed. Someone on the board told me you had a hard head. I'll let them know that evidently something is getting in.

Do you ever pay attention to anything anybody says to you? Two people (and I'll be the third) have told you and explained to you that it does not matter how logical an argument sounds... if the premsis is falty, it's a false argument. How many times do you need to hear this before it sinks in?

LOL, OK now...let's not repeat a good thing for third time. Perhaps I spoke too soon earlier...

Why are you refusing to give a paragraph from this book? Afraid everyone will tear it up one side and down the other and expose your hero's ignorance? :ahem:

Uh...perhaps because no one asked me to before this post?

:lol: Whatever you want to tell yourself... too bad I have yet to see a reason to accept Pane's premises as is... :wink:

Nor is Paine trying to convince you to.

Too bad saying they are not the word of God requires just as much faith again,

Absolutely not. If I wake up from a dream and write down a sentiment that's running through my head -- if I proclaim it as the Word of God, the onus is on me to demonstrate it. Not on other people to demonstrate it isn't.

what test did Paine use to determine the Bible is not the word of God? It's an assumption that rest on the biasness of the author... that has zero evidence other than opinion.

To which I perfectly agree! Amazing. One problem....now stay with me here, it's a little tricky...if I assume THE OPPOSITE of his premises and wind up with craziness, I'm perhaps more likely to presume he was right after all. Let's explore that, shall we?

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the Word of God has none of the properties Paine attributes to it, namely:

The Word of God is NOT universal
The Word of God is NOT eternal
The Word of God is NOT unchangeable

Do you start to see the problems?

Further, keep in mind that ALL THREE of Paine's premises must be false for human language to be a suitable vessel for His Word, since human language is NONE of the three.

Let's take them one premise at a time.

If the Word of God is NOT universal, that means the word of God is NOT available to everyone. So who is it available to? You, but not me? Me, but not you? Atheists? Muslims? Buddhists? Presbyterians? :ahem: Only those that can read ancient latin, greek, and aramaic? Only those that can read the Bible? Which version? What about the understandings of the Bible, since even scholars disagree? What about those languages that don't have concepts that translate exactly from the ancient greek, latin, and aramaic? Do they not get the exact benefit of His Word? Also, what about languages that the Bible hasn't been translated to...after all, the sub-Saharan region of Africa has over 4000 languages...it's certainly not available to all those guys...what about the mentally infirmed? Or the deaf and blind (how many different braille Bible translations can there be?!) For that matter, if we accept that His Word is not universal, what makes you think the Bible is the "right" book at all? Or for that matter, any of the major religions? Since its NOT universal why couldn't it just as well be some religion practiced in a remote village of South America? But wait...we shouldn't limit things to this planet since its ego-centric to think that we humans should be the only ones to have benefit of His Word. Isn't intelligent life on other planets part of His creation, too? Are they not entitled to His Word? I could go on like this all day, just on this ONE premise.

Let's look at the next premise and assume, for sake of argument, that the Word of God is NOT eternal. What does that suggest?

It's available at one time but not another. Is this that time? Is it in the future? The past? Was it available, say, for a period of 50 years -- so you could have had it when you were young, but not when you were old? Is it only available for one period? Can His Word come and go out of availability? If so, how do we determine we can get to it? And what happens in those periods that it's not available? How would we know that we're looking at the genuine one? Or the false one, with the genuine one available to those living in the next millenia? We already know that the universe is older than the earth. Was His Word available before the Earth was created? Will it be available after its gone? Also, keep in mind that since the Word of God must be neither eternal nor universal for Paine to be wrong, then all of the same problems I mentioned for the first premise are permutated with the problems of the second premise!

Believe me...you don't want me to get started on what happens if the Word of God is changeable! I'll leave that to you for an exercise.

Also...very important here...keep in mind that ALL these problems exist, without a SINGLE reference to "Biblical Scholarship". It's simply irrevelant to the argument.

Thus, Paine concludes...is it more sensible to believe that His Word would follow His nature...eternal, universal, unchangeable...or that somehow it confusingly violates his nature, resulting in a zillion different problems, the bottom-line being that His Word is only available to select people at a select time and place? Paine concludes that it's more likely the former -- although there is no affirmative proof to believe one way or the other.

Was it so hard for you admit that Paine has nothing more than mere opinin to back up his argument?

I said...can you hear me...it's his theological opinion justified through reason. You conveniently left off the last part.

Opinions do not back up arguments...

No. But reason does.

So if you are saying that all he has is opinion... than I can simply dismiss all of his arguments with my opinion, right?

You're just not getting it. Paine says you COULD'VE DONE THAT ALL ALONG! He's not trying to "convince" you...quite the opposite he encourages you to follow your own beliefs.

RaisingPaine

December 21st 2006, 11:13 PM

Ishmael

December 22nd 2006, 12:27 AM

Exactly, taoist...remarkably synchronous.
yah... actually RP, these folks are now so thoroughly beaten I see no reason to continue... good job.

jpholding

December 22nd 2006, 10:34 AM

Exactly to the point.

Actually, in re-reading some of Age of Reason tonight I find it amusing that Thomas Paine predicted this argument:

At least he knew that he was stupid. Too bad his fans don't. :whistle:

If Ishmael or taoist ever actually answer an argument, they'll do Paine one better.

Teallaura

December 22nd 2006, 11:08 AM

Exactly why in the world you would think that it has to be either irrational or rational is beyond my comprehension? A person can be rational in one area and irrational in another-- even two closely related topics.Nice try at dodging - but you explicitly stated that I should 'step back from the logic book'. Since you are suggesting the abandonment of logic you are not a rationalist as you claimed. Thesis fails because it requires, according to you, the abandonment of logic whenever there is a serious problem (like the underlying assumption being false). Instead of showing how that wasn't the case (probably because you couldn't) you attack my use of logic - an inherently irrational position.

Your hero may be a rationalist, but you are not.

Your religion is probably false, that you don't know that is irrational in my view.My religion is definitely true - that you are unaware of how I know that is excusable. That you do not recognize the inherent irrationality of your position here is funny - and sad.

On the other hand, because your worldview has been so well established and defended for the last 6000 years I don't find it all that amazing that you are able to use a mountain of "scholarship" to defend your Bible in a way that is logically coherent and rational.You haven't been paying attention at all, have you? This is an irrational position - it dismisses the value of scholarship at all - try that one over in Nat Sci sometime...

Oh, and I'm a former atheist - you're overplaying worldview here as I've held both. I simply examined the evidence rationally and found your worldview wanting.

You and Paine are in the same boat.Hardly - my thesis is merely that his lacks sufficient rationale and support. I can establish that and have further established that his thesis is based on a false underlying assumption. Thus far you've countered with nothing better than I should abandon logic (inherently irrational) and that Paine did not have to use scholarship - when in point of fact you'd already conceded that he did use scholarship - his own knowledge of the OT. Again, an inherently irrational argument - you need to work on that being a rationalist thing...

Does anyone else see the irony in a self-proclaimed rationalist advocating the abandonment of logic? :noid:

Ishmael

December 22nd 2006, 12:11 PM

Nice try at dodging - but you explicitly stated that I should 'step back from the logic book'. Since you are suggesting the abandonment of logic you are not a rationalist as you claimed. Thesis fails because it requires, according to you, the abandonment of logic whenever there is a serious problem (like the underlying assumption being false). Instead of showing how that wasn't the case (probably because you couldn't) you attack my use of logic - an inherently irrational position.

Your hero may be a rationalist, but you are not.

My religion is definitely true - that you are unaware of how I know that is excusable. That you do not recognize the inherent irrationality of your position here is funny - and sad.

You haven't been paying attention at all, have you? This is an irrational position - it dismisses the value of scholarship at all - try that one over in Nat Sci sometime...

Oh, and I'm a former atheist - you're overplaying worldview here as I've held both. I simply examined the evidence rationally and found your worldview wanting.

Hardly - my thesis is merely that his lacks sufficient rationale and support. I can establish that and have further established that his thesis is based on a false underlying assumption. Thus far you've countered with nothing better than I should abandon logic (inherently irrational) and that Paine did not have to use scholarship - when in point of fact you'd already conceded that he did use scholarship - his own knowledge of the OT. Again, an inherently irrational argument - you need to work on that being a rationalist thing...

Does anyone else see the irony in a self-proclaimed rationalist advocating the abandonment of logic? :noid:
I have not abandoned rationalism in the slightest by stating that you are rational in some areas and irrational in others. Further, all this nonsense about Paine's premises and assumptions being false has already been answered adequately, many times in this thread.

lilpixieofterror

December 22nd 2006, 07:53 PM

You say "simply based upon opinion" as though he is pulling his reason for holding it out of his butt. His rationale for believing it has to more to do with logic and virtually nothing to do with "scholarship".

So in other words, who cares if he fails on any kind of intelligent level...

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. You have a problem with this?

Besides that he fails on an intectually level... :sigh:

Really? And you, personally, know for a fact that God's Word is neither eternal, nor universal, nor unchangeable? You've spoken with him about this, have you?

Aww, so pull out the card, "You don't know this for a fact... so I can contuine to make excuses for Paine and myself." Oh yeah... you're doing a great job of defending him so far... :ahem:

Perfectly agreed.

The Word of God is universal.
The Word of God is unchangeable.
The Word of God is eternal.

Which of these do you know for a fact to be false? Help a brother out...

Did I say any where false? This is your argument, not mine... your job to prove it... :wink:

Absolutely not. If I wake up from a dream and write down a sentiment that's running through my head -- if I proclaim it as the Word of God, the onus is on me to demonstrate it. Not on other people to demonstrate it isn't.

So in other words... you have no test other than your personal opinion? Please give us a test to demonstrate what is the word of God and what isn't... So far you are not very conviencing...

To which I perfectly agree! Amazing. One problem....now stay with me here, it's a little tricky...if I assume THE OPPOSITE of his premises and wind up with craziness, I'm perhaps more likely to presume he was right after all. Let's explore that, shall we?

Oh yeah... so far you are failing horrible and twisting my words so that they fit into your craziness... :ahem: Let's explore this anyone to see the true depths of insanity you'll pull here...

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the Word of God has none of the properties Paine attributes to it, namely:

The Word of God is NOT universal
The Word of God is NOT eternal
The Word of God is NOT unchangeable

Do you start to see the problems?

Not really... because we can say 'sake of argument' untill we turn blue in the face. Does it change relaity? No. Does it prove Paine is correct? No. Now put your money where your mouth is and prove anything above is true. :teeth:

Blah blah blah...

That's nice, see I can can pretend things all day to... I ask for proof... sake of argument is not proof. Now get to work on proving any of the above is true.

Also...very important here...keep in mind that ALL these problems exist, without a SINGLE reference to "Biblical Scholarship". It's simply irrevelant to the argument.

Ummm, unfortionaly you had to tack a key phrase 'sake of argument'... you can tack that together all you want. You need proof that these objections are valid. If there is no reason to believe the above three conditions are true... than you simply have reduced your argument to opinion... and opinion is not a valid argument. I can say, "For sake of argument Paine is wrong and here's way..." did Paine just disappear in a puff of smoke? :lol:

Thus, Paine concludes...is it more sensible to believe that His Word would follow His nature...eternal, universal, unchangeable...or that somehow it confusingly violates his nature, resulting in a zillion different problems, the bottom-line being that His Word is only available to select people at a select time and place? Paine concludes that it's more likely the former -- although there is no affirmative proof to believe one way or the other.

That's going off the assumption that God can not present his word in a specific time peroid... Do I have a reason to assume that God can not present his word (the Bible) to a specific group of people to a specific time peroid? Sounds like little more than question begging to me. :teeth:

I said...can you hear me...it's his theological opinion justified through reason. You conveniently left off the last part.

I already told you the best reasoning fails if it does not work on a pratical level. For Paines argument to be true you need to assume:

The Word of God is NOT universal
The Word of God is NOT eternal
The Word of God is NOT unchangeable

You also need to assume this means that God must show his word to each and every person and is not allowed to show it to specific people at specific times. You also must ignore the theological impact or Romans 1 and the thelogical postion that 'the law of God is written into people's hearts.' Honnestly, do you even know anything about theology?

You're just not getting it. Paine says you COULD'VE DONE THAT ALL ALONG! He's not trying to "convince" you...quite the opposite he encourages you to follow your own beliefs.

So I can ignore everything he says... hummm intresting... :doh:

Crystal

Ishmael

December 22nd 2006, 08:15 PM

It has happened, that all the answers that I have seen to the former part of 'The Age of Reason' have been written by priests: and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.

Now instead of wasting their time, and heating themselves in fractious disputations about doctrinal points drawn from the Bible, these men ought to know, and if they do not it is civility to inform them, that the first thing to be understood is, whether there is sufficient authority for believing the Bible to be the word of God, or whether there is not?

answer the question of Divine Revelation again, I didn't get a plain answer,

You got one, you just don't like it. The answer is it doesn't matter one hill of beans. It's a red herring. Information theory doesn't worry about sources and most of the argument simply creates an artificial dichotomy between the human and the divine to force an "argument" that doesn't exist.

Huh? :huh:

RaisingPaine

December 23rd 2006, 01:43 PM

So in other words, who cares if he fails on any kind of intelligent level...

Evidently scholarship equals intelligence on your world.

Besides that he fails on an intectually level... :sigh:

And (in your judgement) precisely what, in that paragraph, fails on an "intectually" level?

Aww, so pull out the card, "You don't know this for a fact... so I can contuine to make excuses for Paine and myself." Oh yeah... you're doing a great job of defending him so far... :ahem:

Hmm...so before (in your words) Paine's premises were "faulty". Now we see you have really no way to establish that they are or not.

Did I say any where false? This is your argument, not mine... your job to prove it... :wink:

Uh...yes you did. I counted over ten times in this post alone.

So in other words... you have no test other than your personal opinion? Please give us a test to demonstrate what is the word of God and what isn't... So far you are not very conviencing...

As though one needs to be in the "conviencing" business when it comes to matters of faith. As Paine pointed out, we have to answer to the Almighty and not to each other on such issues. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that Paine's views are correct. I'm trying to ensure they are correctly represented.

Oh yeah... so far you are failing horrible and twisting my words so that they fit into your craziness... :ahem: Let's explore this anyone to see the true depths of insanity you'll pull here...

Not really... because we can say 'sake of argument' untill we turn blue in the face. Does it change relaity? No. Does it prove Paine is correct? No. Now put your money where your mouth is and prove anything above is true. :teeth:

That's nice, see I can can pretend things all day to... I ask for proof... sake of argument is not proof. Now get to work on proving any of the above is true.

Ummm, unfortionaly you had to tack a key phrase 'sake of argument'... you can tack that together all you want. You need proof that these objections are valid. If there is no reason to believe the above three conditions are true... than you simply have reduced your argument to opinion... and opinion is not a valid argument. I can say, "For sake of argument Paine is wrong and here's way..." did Paine just disappear in a puff of smoke? :lol:

That's going off the assumption that God can not present his word in a specific time peroid... Do I have a reason to assume that God can not present his word (the Bible) to a specific group of people to a specific time peroid? Sounds like little more than question begging to me. :teeth:

Get back to me when you have a better understanding of reductio ad absurdum.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

I already told you the best reasoning fails if it does not work on a pratical level.

The validity of a logical argument has nothing to do with whether it "works on a practical level".

For Paines argument to be true you need to assume:

The Word of God is NOT universal
The Word of God is NOT eternal
The Word of God is NOT unchangeable

That's not true. For Paine's argument to be true, at least ONE of these must be true:

The Word of God is universal
The Word of God is eternal
The Word of God is unchangeable

Any of those being true negates human language being a suitable instrument.

You also need to assume this means that God must show his word to each and every person and is not allowed to show it to specific people at specific times. You also must ignore the theological impact or Romans 1 and the thelogical postion that 'the law of God is written into people's hearts.' Honnestly, do you even know anything about theology?

Not very much. But the quote you posited supports Paine's position, not yours. If the "law of God" is written into people's hearts, that makes it universal (it's written into everyone's heart), eternal (it's always been that way) and unchangeable (man cannot change what God has written into a person's heart). Your quote also negates your first sentence.

You're really quite over your head here.

So I can ignore everything he says... hummm intresting... :doh:

Absolutely. And please do. It would save us both quite a bit of time.

lilpixieofterror

December 23rd 2006, 03:42 PM

Evidently scholarship equals intelligence on your world.

That's usually how it works... :blush:

And (in your judgement) precisely what, in that paragraph, fails on an "intectually" level?

Is it pratical?

Hmm...so before (in your words) Paine's premises were "faulty". Now we see you have really no way to establish that they are or not.

And you have no way beyond opinion that they are truthful. So in other words, you have your truth and I have mine.... who are we to tell the difference? :shrug:

As though one needs to be in the "conviencing" business when it comes to matters of faith. As Paine pointed out, we have to answer to the Almighty and not to each other on such issues. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that Paine's views are correct. I'm trying to ensure they are correctly represented.

Ok, now why should I agree with him?

Get back to me when you have a better understanding of reductio ad absurdum.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

Come back to me when you have more than opinion to establish that Paine is right. :teeth:

That's not true. For Paine's argument to be true, at least ONE of these must be true:

The Word of God is universal
The Word of God is eternal
The Word of God is unchangeable

Any of those being true negates human language being a suitable instrument.

*still waiting for a why explination* :shrug:

Not very much. But the quote you posited supports Paine's position, not yours. If the "law of God" is written into people's hearts, that makes it universal (it's written into everyone's heart), eternal (it's always been that way) and unchangeable (man cannot change what God has written into a person's heart). Your quote also negates your first sentence.

That's nice and all. What's the point? :shrug: Please explain why any of these conclusions would prove Paines points as true... I don't see it, perhaps you can explain it. :wink:

You're really quite over your head here.

Actually... so far you're simply saying "If A is true, than Paine is right." Well, why? :sigh:

Absolutely. And please do. It would save us both quite a bit of time.

Sure thing, now explain how A, B, or C being true, proves Paine is right. :ahem:

Crystal

RaisingPaine

December 23rd 2006, 07:01 PM

That's usually how it works... :blush:

LOL, that's only because you never looked at any other alternative...like logic.

Is it pratical?

Absolutely. Understanding the nature of "revelation" comes in quite handy when discussing the bible.

And you have no way beyond opinion that they are truthful. So in other words, you have your truth and I have mine.... who are we to tell the difference? :shrug:

There is no affirmative proof, either way. However, reductio ad absurdum favors Paine's argument, because (as I illustrated before) the myriad of problems that would thus be associated with His Word, were Paine's premises incorrect.

Ok, now why should I agree with him?

Don't agree with him if you don't want.

Come back to me when you have more than opinion to establish that Paine is right. :teeth:

At least I have a complete understanding of Paine's opinion.

That's nice and all. What's the point? :shrug: Please explain why any of these conclusions would prove Paines points as true... I don't see it, perhaps you can explain it. :wink:

There is no "proof" regarding God's nature. We can only ask..."which is more probable?"

Actually... so far you're simply saying "If A is true, than Paine is right." Well, why? :sigh:

Sure thing, now explain how A, B, or C being true, proves Paine is right. :ahem:

Because if the His Word is unchangeable, eternal, or universal...how can human language be used to convey it, given that it's none of the three? The same words mean different things at different times, even within the same language, languages are not universally understood, and the message is subject to change, intentionally or unintentionally, by human means (translation, transcription, distortion, etc.), as opposed to a word God places in the heart of man.

Mountain Man

December 23rd 2006, 11:04 PM

I have exactly no idea what you're talking about.
No surprises there. Your hero didn't seem to have much idea of what anybody was talking about, either.

What's special about not accepting anonymous testimony of supernatural events as true without any other evidence than their say-so?
Let's break this down for you then: Take claim A and claim B. Both are supported by the exact same quality and quantity of evidence. You accept claim A but reject claim B for no other reason than you are biased against claim B. That, my friend, is special pleading.

His arguments don't "fail" on a scholarly level, because the work doesn't purport to meet a standard of "Biblical scholarship".
Sorry, but that's a lame excuse, and you know it. It doesn't matter what the book purports to be because it is what it is, and what it is is a critical analysis of the Bible. As such, it is in no way improper to hold Paine's assertions up to the light of scholarship and see if there's any substance to them. Which, of course, there isn't as you have implicitly admitted with your desperate attempts to elevate Paine's arguments above scholarly criticism.

As analogized to lilangelofterror, they are irrelevant with respect to a Biblical scholarship level in the same way they would be irrelevant on a cookbook level.
All you're really saying here is that Paine decided to criticize something without doing his homework first. There's really nothing reasonable or even admirable about that. Are you trying to defend Paine or undermine him? Because you're doing a heck of a job accomplishing the latter.

And yet, if by "additional research" you mean "the review of scholarly works", you continue to make Paine's point.
I can only guess that your apparent vendetta against Biblical scholarship is because it kicks Paine's nonsense to the curb. We're not talking anything that's inaccessible to the layman here. If someone wants to walk in the footsteps of the scholars and do their own original research then there's really nothing stopping them from doing so. It's just that for the sake of convenience, people like to take advantage of the work already done by others, and they are not wrong to do so.

On the other hand, I'd say that stubbornly disregarding scholarship that directly refutes your argument(s) is a distinctly irrational position, akin to a child sticking his fingers in his ears under the pretense that if he can't hear his parents tell him to clean his room then they must not have really said it.

And I have to touch on this point from your above post to lilangelofterror:

Because if the His Word is unchangeable, eternal, or universal...how can human language be used to convey it, given that it's none of the three?
I can't believe you're still pressing this argument after you conceded to me that it is wholly possible that an omnipotent God might find human language to be perfectly suitable for transmitting his essential truths. If it's possible then we have a solution to Paine's supposed conundrum until you can prove that an omnipotent God would necessarily find it inadequate.

RaisingPaine

December 24th 2006, 05:12 AM

No surprises there. Your hero didn't seem to have much idea of what anybody was talking about, either.

Let's break this down for you then: Take claim A and claim B. Both are supported by the exact same quality and quantity of evidence. You accept claim A but reject claim B for no other reason than you are biased against claim B. That, my friend, is special pleading.

You assume there are no grounds for the bias against claim B (anonymous testimony of supernatural events is acceptable).

If someone was testifying in court with neutral credibility about ordinary events, we might be inclined to accept or reject his testimony. If the same guy testified that he levitated into work that morning because his car was in the shop, it would certainly raise our eyebrows. Our inclination to accept or reject testimony is directly proportional to the credibility of the witness -- even moreso when he is testifying to supernatural events.

Sorry, but that's a lame excuse, and you know it. It doesn't matter what the book purports to be because it is what it is, and what it is is a critical analysis of the Bible.

Whoa! How can it be a "critical analysis" of the Bible when Paine didn't even have access to one when he wrote AR Part 1? Aside from that, the audience he was writing to couldn't have understood it if it was!

As such, it is in no way improper to hold Paine's assertions up to the light of scholarship

Go right ahead if you like. The assertions he makes are based on reason and logical argument, not scholarship. I've already presented Paine's logical arguments. What elements, specifically, of Paine's arguments fail into the area of "Biblical scholarship" or "critical analysis" ? LOL, inquiring minds want to know!

All you're really saying here is that Paine decided to criticize something without doing his homework first. There's really nothing reasonable or even admirable about that. Are you trying to defend Paine or undermine him? Because you're doing a heck of a job accomplishing the latter.

Paine's criticism of revelationary religions in general, and Christianity in particular, are based in reason -- primarily that the human language is a poor instrument to convey eternal, unchangeable, and universal ideas -- since human language itself is none of the above. His arguments have nothing to do with "Biblical Scholarship" and don't meet any standard that would come close...if you have an assertion of Paine that meets that standard, I'm all ears.

I can only guess that your apparent vendetta against Biblical scholarship is because it kicks Paine's nonsense to the curb. We're not talking anything that's inaccessible to the layman here. If someone wants to walk in the footsteps of the scholars and do their own original research then there's really nothing stopping them from doing so. It's just that for the sake of convenience, people like to take advantage of the work already done by others, and they are not wrong to do so.

Your argument would sound the same out of the mouth of Graham Kerr...
"I can only guess that your apparent vendetta against culinary scholarship is because it kicks Paine's nonsense to the curb. We're not talking anything that's inaccessible to the layman here. If someone wants to walk in the footsteps of the great chefs and build their own original recipes, there's really no stopping them from doing so. It's just for the sake of convenience, people take advantage of the recipes prepared by others, and they are not wrong to do so."

Paine makes no arguments that qualify to be measured against the standard of Biblical scholarship (nor culinary scholarship). As mentioned, in part 1, he didn't even have access to a Bible. In part 2, he addresses the Bible primarily to establish his original argument (we do not know the pen-in-hand author of books containing the supernatural elements at the heart of Christian doctrine). None of it qualifies as "Biblical Scholarship".

On the other hand, I'd say that stubbornly disregarding scholarship that directly refutes your argument(s) is a distinctly irrational position, akin to a child sticking his fingers in his ears under the pretense that if he can't hear his parents tell him to clean his room then they must not have really said it.

Please quote (or provide a link to) the "scholarship" directly refuting Paine's argument that the Word of God is eternal, universal, and unchangeable?

I can't believe you're still pressing this argument after you conceded to me that it is wholly possible that an omnipotent God might find human language to be perfectly suitable for transmitting his essential truths. If it's possible then we have a solution to Paine's supposed conundrum until you can prove that an omnipotent God would necessarily find it inadequate.

Except, by your own words, even an omnipotent God can't transcend the laws of logic. If we accept that as the case, how can an omnipotent God express eternal, unchangeable, and universal concepts using an instrument that is, itself, none of the three?

It would be like trying to transport a fifty-ton boulder twenty feet in diameter on a 4-foot x 4-foot utility trailer. The nature of the trailer is totally unsuited (in height, width, and load capacity) to the nature of the object it is being called to transport.

Mountain Man

December 24th 2006, 10:57 PM

Our inclination to accept or reject testimony is directly proportional to the credibility of the witness...
Actually, I agree with that 100%. So the question becomes "Did the folks who wrote the Bible and other early Christians have any reason to lie or be mistaken?" If you know anything about the culture of the day, you'd know that the answer is a resounding "No!" See The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html) by JP Holding.

How can it be a "critical analysis" of the Bible when Paine didn't even have access to one when he wrote AR Part 1?
Wait, are you telling me that Paine thought to criticize Christianity and the Bible without even reading the Bible? Please tell me that I've misunderstood!

Aside from that, the audience he was writing to couldn't have understood it if it was!
Couldn't have understood what?

The assertions he makes are based on reason and logical argument, not scholarship.
No, they're based on premises, which is fine, except that Biblical scholarship has shown those premises to be wrong

Paine's criticism of revelatory religions in general, and Christianity in particular, are based in reason -- primarily that the human language is a poor instrument to convey eternal, unchangeable, and universal ideas -- since human language itself is none of the above.
It doesn't have to be. But let's try a thought experiment:

Do you believe that the statement "God's word is eternal, unchangeable, and universal" is itself an eternal, unchangeable, and universal truth? Assuming your answer is yes, isn't that eternal, unchangeable, and universal truth being accurately conveyed through imperfect human language? So if you can do it then why can't God? :wink:

Your argument would sound the same out of the mouth of Graham Kerr...
"I can only guess that your apparent vendetta against culinary scholarship is because it kicks Paine's nonsense to the curb. We're not talking anything that's inaccessible to the layman here. If someone wants to walk in the footsteps of the great chefs and build their own original recipes, there's really no stopping them from doing so. It's just for the sake of convenience, people take advantage of the recipes prepared by others, and they are not wrong to do so."
Since you've not actually responded to my argument that the Bible is accessible to everybody with the gumption to study it, I'll take this as an implicit concession on your part.

Please quote (or provide a link to) the "scholarship" directly refuting Paine's argument that the Word of God is eternal, universal, and unchangeable?
Um, that's not an argument, that's a premise.

Except, by your own words, even an omnipotent God can't transcend the laws of logic. If we accept that as the case, how can an omnipotent God express eternal, unchangeable, and universal concepts using an instrument that is, itself, none of the three?
Because God using human language as a vehicle for transmitting his essential truths to mankind is not an illogical proposition for reasons already noted. Q.E.D.

By the way, Merry Christmas. :smile:

Goonerman

December 25th 2006, 08:56 AM

RaisingPaine

December 25th 2006, 11:27 AM

Actually, I agree with that 100%. So the question becomes "Did the folks who wrote the Bible and other early Christians have any reason to lie or be mistaken?" If you know anything about the culture of the day, you'd know that the answer is a resounding "No!" See The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html) by JP Holding.

As though someone not having a reason to lie constitutes proof that they didn't. The 99% of the Bible that doesn't recount supernatural events can certainly be taken at face value, as any ancient history could. The other 1% Paine sees no reason to accept, as we just have their word for it (whoever "they" are), and no other authority than the priests telling us it is so.

Wait, are you telling me that Paine thought to criticize Christianity and the Bible without even reading the Bible? Please tell me that I've misunderstood!

You've misunderstood. Paine was very familiar with the Bible, even applying to become an ordained minister with the Church of England at 28. However, his work "Common Sense" not only ushered in the American Revolution, but its French translation was instrumental in their revolution as well. In the dechristianization period that immediately followed the French revolution, Paine (in France at the time) had no Bible available to him. He wrote Age of Reason, Part I, in the period immediately after (1793).

Couldn't have understood what?

A scholarly critical analysis of the Bible, which AR certainly is not.

No, they're based on premises, which is fine, except that Biblical scholarship has shown those premises to be wrong

Logical arguments are composed of premises. The truth values of the premises, in conjunction with rules of logic, establish the validity of the argument.

And you continue to say that "Bibilical Scholarship" has shown Paine's premises to be wrong, without providing a link to any resource that demonstrates it.

It doesn't have to be. But let's try a thought experiment:

Do you believe that the statement "God's word is eternal, unchangeable, and universal" is itself an eternal, unchangeable, and universal truth? Assuming your answer is yes, isn't that eternal, unchangeable, and universal truth being accurately conveyed through imperfect human language? So if you can do it then why can't God? :wink:

No.

The statement "God's word is eternal, unchangeable, and universal" is neither eternal, unchangeable, or universal. The CONCEPT behind the words may be (although even of this we have no affirmative proof, as you have been arguing), but the language used to convey it is not. It's not eternal because, for instance, it couldn't have been written before English was a language, nor is it unchangeable, since anyone reading this can misquote you and write it as fact, nor is it universal, since one must have access to English instruction in order to be able to read it.

Since you've not actually responded to my argument that the Bible is accessible to everybody with the gumption to study it, I'll take this as an implicit concession on your part.

Excuse me?

Here's what you said earlier...

I can only guess that your apparent vendetta against Biblical scholarship is because it kicks Paine's nonsense to the curb. We're not talking anything that's inaccessible to the layman here. If someone wants to walk in the footsteps of the scholars and do their own original research then there's really nothing stopping them from doing so. It's just that for the sake of convenience, people like to take advantage of the work already done by others, and they are not wrong to do so.

I have no vendetta against "Biblical scholarship". My point with the cookbook analogy was to demonstrate the inappropriateness of applying standards of Biblical Scholarship to Paine's work. One might as well apply culinary scholarship standards. Biblical scholarship standards are FINE for what they are -- LOL, there is no "vendetta". They don't, however, apply to the Age of Reason because it doesn't make pretense to be a document of Biblical scholarship, neither are its arguments against the Bible based on Biblical scholarship -- but rather, logic and reason.

Secondly, you talk about the study of the Bible being "available to the layman". The Bible is available to most people (although I have no idea that something that assumes the mantle of Word of God shouldn't be available to all) -- but understanding its contents isn't. The scholarly debates on the book of Revelation alone could fill up a library. And the nature of debates on the meaning (and source) of the Bible's contents have changed over the years through developments in archaelogy, linguistics, and "biblical scholarship". JP's whole site is a living testament to the disagreement among scholars and yet, you suggest "understanding of the Bible" is available to the layman. Sheesh.

Um, that's not an argument, that's a premise.

Really...hmmm...

On the other hand, I'd say that stubbornly disregarding scholarship that directly refutes your argument(s) is a distinctly irrational position, akin to a child sticking his fingers in his ears under the pretense that if he can't hear his parents tell him to clean his room then they must not have really said it.

My reply was "show me the scholarship". You didn't.

Because God using human language as a vehicle for transmitting his essential truths to mankind is not an illogical proposition for reasons already noted. Q.E.D.

ROFL, "Q.E.D."...as though there were any logic employed to establish that Paine's premises were "illogical".

By the way, Merry Christmas. :smile:

And to you as well!

Teallaura

December 25th 2006, 11:28 AM

Best wishes on that dude. I quit with the 'rationality is relative' thing - irrational rationalists are fun to watch for a few minutes, but then you've had enough of watching them spin. :dizzy:

Merry Christmas!!!!!

RaisingPaine

December 25th 2006, 12:12 PM

To tell us not to use Biblical scholarship sounds suspiciously like a cheat mode to prevent the facts from getting in the way of the logic or a sceptic, or a believer too, for that matter. If we on the Christian side of the fence said this too, we would never hear the end of it! :ahem:

That's not true. There are plenty of skeptical works to which Biblical scholarship applies. "The Age of Reason" isn't one of them.

Na, scepticism is there to pose the doubtful questions, based on a logical position to be taken showing how a belief might be wrong, and Biblical scholarship is there to try to find out the answers. So, if Biblical scholarship shows an idea to be wrong, then no matter how logical it is put then the logical statement is in error. It reminds me of how in Destiny of the Daleks, the Doctor challenges Davros, the creator of the Daleks, to how many pink elephants there are in the story. But as Tyssan pointed out to Davros, there were actually no pink elephants in the story, even though the Doctor said there was x number of elephants and Davros insisted on this in his answer, as elephants aren't pink. They are grey.

Feel free to meet the challenge I laid down to Mountain Man: show me a reading from "Biblical Scholarship" that proves God's Word should be neither eternal, unchangeable, nor universal. Paine, in arguing via reduction ad absurdum, shows why it should be.

As for the claim that since God's Word is eternal, then the Bible is false as it is specific to time and is in human language. Are you saying that God's eternal truths cannot be expressed in human language, like 'God is love', or 'God is just'?

Eternal truths? Really? Paine wouldn't get that from reading the Bible, especially not the Old Testament. Even so, if the Old Testament offered the most flattering view possible of God, Paine would say anyone without a Bible could see that evidence in nature -- His creation.

That would mean that scientific truths are not capable of being handled by human language either. "The Orion Nebula is a star factory," for example.

In the case you mention it isn't. We greatly simplify the interaction between the physical forces at work to "fit" language most people would understand. It's "good enough" because it captures the essence of the interaction, but its the math and physics behind it that describe it in detail. With everyone not being a physicist or mathematician, we scale it into terms that can be commonly understood.

But surely since the Word of God is eternal, then it is timeless and can be applied to any time. This therefore means that I would in fact argue the opposite to what Thomas Paine says. Since it is eternal then its principles can be applied to any situation, and as such, the Bible shows how these principles are enacted in practice in time, and in such a way that you can, with the Spirit's help, and knowledge of context and background, a la JPH for example, understand this and apply these eternal truths as applied in the past to the present situation.

In short, application. The eternal principles of the ethics of the Kingdom of God as applied to both the older covenants in the OT and the Gospel of the New Covenant in the NT are shown by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Also, Jesus' parables of the Kingdom of God in the Gospels are another means of specifically applying the eternal truths of God in temporal human language and help us to aply these in ways we can understand.

As mentioned to MM, JPH and his site are exactly an argument for Paine in that it shows disagreement among scholars on the meaning of different aspects of it. There is nothing universally understandable about it.

It has happened, that all the answers that I have seen to the former part of 'The Age of Reason' have been written by priests: and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.

These words are no less true today than when Paine wrote them in 1795.

Here's the problem in a nutshell:

I observe, that all my opponents resort, more or less, to what they call Scripture Evidence and Bible authority, to help them out. They are so little masters of the subject, as to confound a dispute about authenticity with a dispute about doctrines; I will, however, put them right, that if they should be disposed to write any more, they may know how to begin.

This is exactly my point. You can't use the Bible as an authority to prove something when it's precisely it's authenticity as the "Word of God" that's in question.

In short, God Himself totally disagrees with Paine, plus the Word of God was revealed by Him to us in specific situations progressively, therefore nothing changed, nothing altered, and it was and is eternal. Plus the Bible is only the written Word of God. It is a letter of love from the real, living, eternal Word of God, God the Son, Jesus Himself. In essence, the Bible, written by men carried along by the Holy Spirit, is the outworking practical application of the eternal Word of God, from Jesus and the message He has for us.

As for the claim that the witnesses are anonymous, this is simply not true. In later postings, I intend to show how in fact this is not the case, and you are just going to have to deal with Biblical scholarship whether you like it or not, for it provides the answers, and the Bible also, obviously, has the power to speak for itself.
:argh: Lord help me...they just don't get it.

Goonerman

December 25th 2006, 07:32 PM

RaisingPaine

December 25th 2006, 11:18 PM

The reason why sceptical books use Biblical scholarship is precisely because they accept what we in here have been trying to get across to you all along, that Biblical scholarship is required to test whether or not the Bible is true. No matter how logical an argument is, if the premise is wrong then the logic is invalid.

If we have to go here one more time, I'm gonna scream. Everyone of you says "the premises are false"....but no one provides a single example of Biblical scholarship that logically demonstrates it. In fact, further down in this post, not only are you not refuting Paine's premises -- you AGREE with them!

Here are Paine's core premises, for the umpteenth time:

The Word of God is eternal.
The Word of God is universal.
The Word of God is unchangeable.

Somebody show me where "Biblical Scholarship" demonstrates any of these to be false. That's all I'm asking. Why is that so hard? (Where's lilangelofterror and her signature tag when you really need her?) :teeth:

In relation to the challenge you laid down to MM, my response is that Biblical scholarship shows that the Bible is true, and that therefore its own premise, to be the Word of God, is correct.

Incredible. All I can say is Paine would encourage you to embrace that scholarship as a reassurance of your beliefs and turn the page here, if that's what your analysis of the scholarship leads you to conclude.

I agree with Paine that God's Word must be eternal and unchangeable. God from all eternity planned that the content of the Bible would be exactly as it is, the eternal Word of God expressed in practical ways, in terms we would understand, through History, Law, Poetry, Parable, and Prophecy, and God's message has been consistent, and progressive. The principles in it are timeless, the Old Testament shows the workings of God with humanity and humanity's failure, time and time again, and indeed, agrees with Paine that nature reveals God's majesty. But if that is true about nature, as seen in Psalm 19 for instance, then what of human language? Nature can show God's greatness as a Creator, but can it show the way to Heaven, and forgiveness for sin? No, but human language CAN.

You said,

"We greatly simplify the interaction between the physical forces at work to "fit" language most people would understand. It's "good enough" because it captures the essence of the interaction, but its the math and physics behind it that describe it in detail. With everyone not being a physicist or mathematician, we scale it into terms that can be commonly understood."

That's exactly what the Bible does, that's why Jesus taught in parables. And, you say that human language cannot express the eternal Word of God. Well, I would say to that is that if it cannot be put into terms humans can understand, then it would not be the Word of God as that would be a limitation on its ability to communicate. Since the Word of God precisely by definition is God's message to humanity, then one of the qualifications for God's eternal Word is that it CAN apply to specific periods in History such as the days of the Old Testament, and that it CAN convey God's wishes and decrees to humanity in a way that humanity can understand. It's not that we don't or can't get it, I just simply don't agree with you on this. I do get what you are saying, I just think you are mistaken, that's all.

As for disagreements in scholarly matters, well, that is no reason for copping out of looking at the hard data, concerning research into the Gospels, Bible cultures, the case for the Resurrection of Jesus, the Quest for the Historical Jesus, etc., to test the Bible's claim to infallibility which is a foundation for believing that the Bible is the written Word of God.

There is no cop-out on that or any other point. What you're simply not getting is doctrinary issues play ZERO role -- none, nada, zip, zilch -- in Paine's arguments. Period. It doesn't do any good whatsoever to research the Gospels, Bible cultures, the case for the Resurrection or ANY of it...it's simply not part of his argument and I don't know many ways else to say it.

If the Bible is true, then it is true about God, and therefore the Word of God, and therefore proving that human language and specific applications of that eternal truth in time is a valid means by which God communicates His Word, and since this Word is for us, then it HAS to be so for it to be the Word of God anyway, which is why the Bible is necessary, and why the Incarnation of Christ was and is necessary.

Disagreement and debate is part of the task of establishing the truth for us humans who do not know it all, unlike God, and that's part of the fun. I mean, real Christians disagree, but we are united on the essentials. Also, scholarship is the definitive way to test your logic, to see if you are right, if the logic is flawed or not, and whether your premises are sound enough or not. As for disagreements also, may I point out that they also tell us far more about the persons who disagree themselves, rather than the hard data itself, therefore requiring, not a rejection of scholarship, but a longer and harder look at the data itself and continuing to honestly seek the truth through research and investigation.

You and I are not going to see eye-to-eye on this at all. AR is simply not a work of Biblical scholarship and your repeatingly trying to frame it in that light doesn't make it moreso -- exactly the point Paine was making in the exerpts in my previous post. Also, its quite obvious you have never actually READ "The Age of Reason", or we certainly wouldn't be having this exchange. If you're serious about debating the work, please take a few hours and read The Age of Reason (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm) -- at least Part 1. When you finish, you can tell me what parts of his argument you consider to be properly the subject of Biblical scholarship and we can go from there. Until then, you and I are talking a different language. And mine doesn't include a single trace of "Biblical Scholarship". But plenty of logic and reason as applied to the eternal and universal nature of His Word.

Frogwarrior

December 26th 2006, 12:58 PM

RaisingPaine

December 26th 2006, 09:22 PM

Wait. So if the Word of God is "eternal, unchangeable, and universal," then would God be obligated somehow to tell everybody who ever lived exactly the same thing in exactly the same way by, I don't know, telepathy or something?

I really don't see the problem with the Word of God being expressed in human language.

The logical issue is that if the Word of God is "eternal, unchangeable, and universal", human language is an unsuitable mechanism as it is none of the three. It is not eternal, since the even within the same langauge a word can mean different things at different times; neither is it unchangeable, since one can recite something and, either intentionally or unintentionally, it be recorded as something else. Thus, human language hardly seems a suitable vessel to convey something with those qualities.

This is especially problematic for "revealed religions" in Paine's view as ultimately you have to take the word of an emissary or other witness accounts (which are second, third, or fourth-hand). The problems compound when the witness accounts are anonymous (as Paine would say are many key books of the Bible) and recount supernatural events.

That the Word of God to us must use temporal things like language, paper, etc should be obvious, we live in a temporal universe, so for anything to be any of those three (E, U, and U) requires by nature a quality from outside this universe.

And yet, Paine would say God speaks to us through His creation...that universe (nature). It qualifies as eternal, unchangeable, and universal -- just as one would expect God's Word to be.

I think where Paine goes wrong (as I can see) is assuming that if the Bible is the "word of God," then it must be some kind of (I fully agree that the following is a gross caricature) magical fairy book such that the barest sight of its divine sparkles casts away all doubt of its divinity. Granted, he puts this in far more reasonable-sounding terms than most.

Paine is expecting the Word of God, if the Bible be it, to provide something more profound then what could easily be taken for the word of men.

I also think there is some misconception of the ideas of "eternal, unchangeable, and universal" going on behind the scenes here. I'll post on that when I've thought it through more.

Could be.

Goonerman

December 26th 2006, 10:09 PM

Frogwarrior

December 27th 2006, 12:06 AM

'K, I think I see what's going on here... we'll see.

It is not eternal, since the even within the same langauge a word can mean different things at different times; neither is it unchangeable, since one can recite something and, either intentionally or unintentionally, it be recorded as something else. Thus, human language hardly seems a suitable vessel to convey something with those qualities.Let's address these first. A word can mean different things at different times. So? We can still, through the study of things like context, figure out what meaning was used. Just because a word can mean different things at different times doesn't mean we can't figure out with certainty what a text means! This is one thing that may look problematic but that carefully applied scholarship (of the type that sadly few have the patience for) renders a non-issue. Or at least a solvable one.

One can recite something and have it recorded as something else. Yes, we know. It happens. However, in the case of the Bible, we can retrace the evidence and figure out what the texts originally said. This is the field known as textual criticism unless I'm terribly mistaken. Not only can we find out what copying errors were made, we can find out about when it happened and what the error was, and what the original was. There really isn't much of Scripture such that the original text is unknown - I don't have numbers available. Ask someone who does. It's really really small and unimportant bits.
Again. This would seem to be a problem, except that, as carefully applied scholarship reveals, it is solvable.

Also, I think the "eternal, unchangeable, and universal" bit is far less important than it is made out to be, as far its application to the words on paper. What God is saying is eternal, unchangeable, and universal. The words on paper are only a shadow of that - so? God still has, and has always had, the same message for everybody, going right back to the beginning, and He will right on through to the end. The confusion, I beleive, is between the Word of God (his eternal, unchangeable, and universal message), and the words of God, expressed in imperfect human language, providing a really good glimpse but a glimpse nonetheless (but a really good glimpse!) at what that message is. And at least as important as the words are the actions, especially the whole Jesus thing.

RaisingPaine

December 27th 2006, 02:08 AM

'K, I think I see what's going on here... we'll see.
Let's address these first. A word can mean different things at different times. So? We can still, through the study of things like context, figure out what meaning was used. Just because a word can mean different things at different times doesn't mean we can't figure out with certainty what a text means! This is one thing that may look problematic but that carefully applied scholarship (of the type that sadly few have the patience for) renders a non-issue. Or at least a solvable one.

Yes, but linguistics and archaeology discoveries are an evolving process. We today have scholars and theologicians that disagree over the meaning of certain verses, even if they don't disagree on the translation. As mentioned earlier, tektronics.org is a living testament to that. So to suggest that simply "carefully applied scholarship" will lead to the truth is oversimplifying.

With respect to discoveries, breakthroughs like the Dead Sea Scrolls lead to major puzzle pieces being filled in. Does this mean that the Word of God was not available to those living before 1946? Do we know there are not new discoveries yet to be made?

One can recite something and have it recorded as something else. Yes, we know. It happens. However, in the case of the Bible, we can retrace the evidence and figure out what the texts originally said. This is the field known as textual criticism unless I'm terribly mistaken. Not only can we find out what copying errors were made, we can find out about when it happened and what the error was, and what the original was. There really isn't much of Scripture such that the original text is unknown - I don't have numbers available. Ask someone who does. It's really really small and unimportant bits.
Again. This would seem to be a problem, except that, as carefully applied scholarship reveals, it is solvable.

That we can find the scripture doesn't tell us who wrote it.

Also, I think the "eternal, unchangeable, and universal" bit is far less important than it is made out to be, as far its application to the words on paper.

It's quite central to Paine's argument.

What God is saying is eternal, unchangeable, and universal. The words on paper are only a shadow of that - so? God still has, and has always had, the same message for everybody, going right back to the beginning, and He will right on through to the end.

You're assuming Biblical authority that Paine doesn't grant. Why should he believe the Pentateuch if we don't know who authored the parts Moses didn't, presuming he authored any of it? Especially as there is no discernable method for determining what parts Moses wrote and what parts he didn't.

The confusion, I beleive, is between the Word of God (his eternal, unchangeable, and universal message), and the words of God, expressed in imperfect human language, providing a really good glimpse but a glimpse nonetheless (but a really good glimpse!) at what that message is. And at least as important as the words are the actions, especially the whole Jesus thing.
So now the Bible goes from the Word of God to "kinda the Word of God, more or less"?

And Paine would say the "Jesus thing", regardless of the truth value of the supernatural accounts, provide us a wonderful example of a life lived in sacrifice to others.

RaisingPaine

December 27th 2006, 03:22 AM

You are missing the point, RaisingPaine. I have indeed not read AR, and I do reassure you that I plan to read Paine's workds, but the points he makes as given to us by you and defended by you are invalid in the light of Biblical scholarship, which shows the Bible to be saying the truth about God,

Do you hear what you're saying? That men are now relaying to you the truth about God -- precisely the point Paine is disputing.

which shows that God was the inspiration behind the Bible, since what it teaches about Jesus is correct. Therefore God Himself considers human language to be adequate, otherwise He would not have communicated His Word to humans, He would not have become incarnate through and as Jesus, He wouldn't have taught parables.

Incredible.

He took His eternal Word and put it in a form we finite humans can understand. If the Word is eternal, unchangeable, etc, then it should be able to be relevant in a form we understand, therefore meaning that the premise I accept is the bang opposite of yours.

Of Paine's, who would say the observance of nature is the quintessential understanding.

We in here maintain that Biblical scholarship does confirm the Word of God to be unchangeable, etc, and in doing so can indeed be put in a form, specific to our understanding, and applicable to our situation as well as its original sitz im lieben, life situation.
But the word has not been unchangeable since different fragments have been discovered at different times, aiding the understanding of the whole.

Indeed, miracles, etc. as seen in the Bible are precisely what we would expect to see of God in Him revealing that Word of God to be written down to form the Bible.

And Paine would say you don't need to resort to the Bible to find miracles, as nature presents you with them every day.

The Universe, nature, is NOT eternal or unchangeable.

Paine would say nature is eternal, universal, and unchangeable (at least by man).

Only God Himself is so. Nature can tell us an awful lot about our Creator, and reasoning through can reveal through such things as the Kalam Argument, that God is One God, He is the uncaused cause, is personal, and invented the laws of physics and science as a supernatural miracle,...

Paine would more or less agree with this.

...that miracles are reasonable, that He cares about His handiwork, and therefore is fully expected to be able and willing and actually express and give His Word through something like miracles, doctrine, teaching, salvation, the Bible and ultimately as an actual human, in and as Jesus.

LOL, OK...now you lost him.

Nature still isn't going to tell us how to get forgiveness for our sins and get to Heaven, be put right with God, etc. But the Bible CAN. It's so simple that a 4 year old child can understand it, so why can't you?

Actually, it would be "why can't Paine?". Paine would say because the authority you attribute to the Bible hasn't been established.

I'd rather trust the Supreme Being of the Universe who created it than one person, Thomas Paine, who as you admit, is not a Bible scholar,

Which is irrelevant, if the Bible is not the Word of God.

lived before many discoveries were made which are relevant, and does not handle doctrine.

I don't believe the discoveries made after Paine would have any bearing on his argument.

The point is, if he were really able to properly make his case for human language being inadequate for teaching us about God, then he would HAVE to deal with doctrinal matters, the effectiveness of the parable, etc. He would have to dig deep into scholarship, theology, history and philosophy in order to do so and to test his own logic.

No, he wouldn't. He characterizes all "revealed religions" as inventions of man.

The fact is, he fails miserably.

The failure could be my mine. Having not read any of AR, you're not in a position to judge.

If you want to really make your case, I strongly suggest that you abandon Paine and go for someone far more capable of making such a case, namely, Kant.

I was a philosphy minor and am already quite familiar with the works of Locke, Berkeley, Hobbes, Hume and Kant -- as was Thomas Paine. I don't regard much of Paine's thought as being original -- Most of his political ideas are derivative of Locke's, and most of his theological views are directly from Hobbes. His clarity in the expression of those ideas, and their framing for common consumption, is what makes his works notable, IMO.

PS. On the issue of witnesses, may I suggest you read Donald Guthrie's Introduction to the New Testament, where he gives, for me anyway, the definitive case for the traditional authorship of the Four Gospels to be the correct one, which torpedoes that particular argument also. Alas, I'm way past my bedtime to discuss that with you at the moment.

I'll give it a look.

I do sense, though, that we are shouting from the ideological rooftops, and thus talking in circles, so I will offer you a friendly handshake and wish you the best in your search for truth and expand the basis of your views well beyond those of Paine. Best wishes, Goonerman. :smile:

Same to you.

Frogwarrior

December 27th 2006, 01:13 PM

Yes, but linguistics and archaeology discoveries are an evolving process. We today have scholars and theologicians that disagree over the meaning of certain verses, even if they don't disagree on the translation. As mentioned earlier, tektronics.org is a living testament to that. So to suggest that simply "carefully applied scholarship" will lead to the truth is oversimplifying.Yes, it is an oversimplification. It's a heck of a lot less of one than Paine's though. Paine's argument, as you've put it, sounds almost like "Words change meanings so we can't know what they said!"
Also, much of the arguments are between people who have carefully applied scholarship and those who haven't.

With respect to discoveries, breakthroughs like the Dead Sea Scrolls lead to major puzzle pieces being filled in. Does this mean that the Word of God was not available to those living before 1946? Do we know there are not new discoveries yet to be made?Come on. You should know fully well that 1946 was not a total revolution or anything like it. The Word of God has always been available, it's just that we know know the details a bit better.

That we can find the scripture doesn't tell us who wrote it.So? Why do we need to know who wrote everything? Is it somehow untrustworthy if we don't know who penned it down?

It's quite central to Paine's argument.I never said it wasn't. I'm just suggesting that Paine's argument is irrelevant.

You're assuming Biblical authority that Paine doesn't grant. Why should he believe the Pentateuch if we don't know who authored the parts Moses didn't, presuming he authored any of it? Especially as there is no discernable method for determining what parts Moses wrote and what parts he didn't.This bit I don't quite get what you're saying or how it relates to what I said. So what if we don't know exactly which bits were penned by someone else?
What I was saying is that God has had the same message (this is not talking about the words for a bit here) to give (of which the Jesus thing was the prime example, of God's willingness to save any who listen), and the words are how He expresses that. They're still ink on paper, subject to the same deficiencies of all such writings. They don't have a magic fairy aura that bowls everybody over in awe of their obvious divinity, they don't magically compel everybody to beleive them. I would say that the only basic difference from Scriptures and any other text is that the words were written to express ideas and meaning conceived by God instead of by mere men.

And yes, I am aware that I can't pull evidence out of them that supports that. I can't think of any evidence that would convince you, and I doubt you can.

So now the Bible goes from the Word of God to "kinda the Word of God, more or less"?Exactly as much as ambiguities in human language make anything you say "kinda what you said, more or less."

Now, I really don't understand what Paine's problem with language is. I don't see why it need be any worse for Scriptures than for human communication. Words have limits. We know. We also know that some people, through inability or willing ignorance, won't get the message. So? I'm not sure I see where God is required to have everybody understand the message He's trying to say. It's a case of, either nobody understands it, or some understand it.

RaisingPaine

December 27th 2006, 04:23 PM

Yes, it is an oversimplification. It's a heck of a lot less of one than Paine's though. Paine's argument, as you've put it, sounds almost like "Words change meanings so we can't know what they said!"
Also, much of the arguments are between people who have carefully applied scholarship and those who haven't.

No, he would say "Words change meaning so why would God use them to communicate His eternal, universal message to all mankind -- given that they are so prone to contextual interpretation by the very creatures he entrusts them to?".

Come on. You should know fully well that 1946 was not a total revolution or anything like it. The Word of God has always been available, it's just that we know know the details a bit better.

It couldn't have "always been available", presuming the Bible to be the divinely-inspired Word of God. How could it have been available before the New Testament was written? I guess the many millions accounted for in the Bible (and in times before) don't get the benefit of His Word...through no fault of their own, mind you.

So? Why do we need to know who wrote everything? Is it somehow untrustworthy if we don't know who penned it down?
.
.
.
This bit I don't quite get what you're saying or how it relates to what I said. So what if we don't know exactly which bits were penned by someone else?
What I was saying is that God has had the same message (this is not talking about the words for a bit here) to give (of which the Jesus thing was the prime example, of God's willingness to save any who listen), and the words are how He expresses that. They're still ink on paper, subject to the same deficiencies of all such writings. They don't have a magic fairy aura that bowls everybody over in awe of their obvious divinity, they don't magically compel everybody to beleive them. I would say that the only basic difference from Scriptures and any other text is that the words were written to express ideas and meaning conceived by God instead of by mere men.

It's best to let Paine speak for himself on that matter:

I know, however, but of one ancient book that authoritatively challenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid's Elements of Geometry; and the reason is, because it is a book of self-evident demonstration, entirely independent of its author, and of every thing relating to time, place, and circumstance. The matters contained in that book would have the same authority they now have, had they been written by any other person, or had the work been anonymous, or had the author never been known; for the identical certainty of who was the author makes no part of our belief of the matters contained in the book. But it is quite otherwise with respect to the books ascribed to Moses, to Joshua, to Samuel, etc.: those are books of testimony, and they testify of things naturally incredible; and therefore the whole of our belief, as to the authenticity of those books, rests, in the first place, upon the certainty that they were written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel; secondly, upon the credit we give to their testimony. We may believe the first, that is, may believe the certainty of the authorship, and yet not the testimony; in the same manner that we may believe that a certain person gave evidence upon a case, and yet not believe the evidence that he gave. But if it should be found that the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were not written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, every part of the authority and authenticity of those books is gone at once; for there can be no such thing as forged or invented testimony; neither can there be anonymous testimony, more especially as to things naturally incredible; such as that of talking with God face to face, or that of the sun and moon standing still at the command of a man.

That pretty much says it all.

Now, I really don't understand what Paine's problem with language is. I don't see why it need be any worse for Scriptures than for human communication.

The Bible itself raises the standard by establishing itself as the divinely-inspired Word of God.

Words have limits. We know. We also know that some people, through inability or willing ignorance, won't get the message.

Those are two quite different reasons. Why should my disability (in the first case) prevent me from receiving His Word? Am I, even in my disabled state, not one of God's creatures as well? With regard to the second part, this is where belief and faith come in. For instance, this means the Jews have it wrong (with respect to Jesus Christ) and by not abandoning their faith they don't get to receive the Word of God either. Nor Muslims, Hindus, or anyone else. Paine doesn't buy that the Word of God is so exclusive.

Incidentally, here's another exerpt (and I forgot...the Editor does mention Paine's appreciation for the "inner light", while also mentioning Kant [for benefit of Goonerman]):

But though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility of revelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate any thing to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are capable of receiving, otherwise than by the universal display of himself in the works of the creation, and by that repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and disposition to good ones. [A fair parallel of the then unknown aphorism of Kant: "Two things fill the soul with wonder and reverence, increasing evermore as I meditate more closely upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me." (Kritik derpraktischen Vernunfe, 1788). Kant's religious utterances at the beginning of the French Revolution brought on him a royal mandate of silence, because he had worked out from "the moral law within" a principle of human equality precisely similar to that which Paine had derived from his Quaker doctrine of the "inner light" of every man. About the same time Paine's writings were suppressed in England. Paine did not understand German, but Kant, though always independent in the formation of his opinions, was evidently well acquainted with the literature of the Revolution, in America, England, and France.--Editor.]

So? I'm not sure I see where God is required to have everybody understand the message He's trying to say. It's a case of, either nobody understands it, or some understand it.

This is a fair opinion that Paine would not dispute. If you believe the Word of God need only be available to certain people, in a certain place, at a certain time, he would allow you to reserve right to your judgement as he reserves the right to his.

Frogwarrior

December 27th 2006, 05:33 PM

No, he would say "Words change meaning so why would God use them to communicate His eternal, universal message to all mankind -- given that they are so prone to contextual interpretation by the very creatures he entrusts them to?".What other way is there to communicate the finer points of what God has to say? If God wants to explain how Christians should behave, is there any better way than human language to explain?
And the "revealed through nature" thing is a hopeless canard IMO. After all, isn't nature even MORE subject to interpretation, FAR more than human language? People can get Christian ideas of, I don't know, beauty and sacrifice, pagan ideas of nature worship and secret rituals or whatever, nihilist ideas of the futilty of life, humanist ideas of whatever humanists are fond of, the human destiny or whatever. But if something expressed in "human laguage" says "Thou shalt not kill," I don't see ANY way one could look at that and say, "Mass murder is OK!"
ALL FORMS of revelation, whether God comes down from heaven and gives your a sandwich, or the newspaper tells you the latest sports news, are subject to interpretation. Human language is far more reliable than most modes.
And I see no reason whatsoever why the Christian God would have to reveal to everyone. That would be totally inconsistent with a lot. He revealed Himself to the Israelites in a way He did not to anyone else. He revealed Himself to individuals in ways He did not to anyone else. The important thing to realize is that He is not under any obligation to reveal anything to anyone. So why would any revelation need to be available to all?
And that in no way detracts from its being universal. I think "universal" in this context means that it applies in the same way to all people. We all, everybody, need to be humble before God and serve Him only. He has done the same things for all of us.

RaisingPaine

December 28th 2006, 12:14 AM

What other way is there to communicate the finer points of what God has to say?

Paine would say the relationships in nature expressed through physics are among the most exquisite communications ever made, i.e. E=mc2. Sir Isaac Newton's revelation with respect to gravity would be just as much a "divinely-inspired" product as anything the Bible could put forth, Paine would suppose -- moreso, even, given its universal nature.

With respect to how we can best serve God, Paine would point out that we cannot serve Him in the traditional sense as there is clearly nothing we can do for Him that he can't do for himself. However, by showing love and respect for our fellow creations (people, animals, nature, the environment), we would be duly showing our respect for Him and appreciation for the many miraculous gifts He has bestowed on us..

If God wants to explain how Christians should behave, is there any better way than human language to explain?

Paine would say God has imbued us with an "inner light" (mentioned in the previous post) that already tells us how to "behave", in that we can discern good from bad.

And the "revealed through nature" thing is a hopeless canard IMO. After all, isn't nature even MORE subject to interpretation, FAR more than human language?

Hmm...there aren't really many ways to interpret 32 ft/sec2 (the rate at which the apple falls from the tree) other than what it is.

People can get Christian ideas of, I don't know, beauty and sacrifice, pagan ideas of nature worship and secret rituals or whatever, nihilist ideas of the futilty of life, humanist ideas of whatever humanists are fond of, the human destiny or whatever. But if something expressed in "human laguage" says "Thou shalt not kill," I don't see ANY way one could look at that and say, "Mass murder is OK!"

The edict "Thou shalt not kill" would be as grotesque an offense to the Lord in your theology as in Paine's, who would disregard as "divine" any commandments passed down by God through a human emissary.

ALL FORMS of revelation, whether God comes down from heaven and gives your a sandwich, or the newspaper tells you the latest sports news, are subject to interpretation. Human language is far more reliable than most modes.

And Paine would say its one of the most unreliable, given that there are 192 countries and over 10,000 known languages -- many with words and idioms that do not readily translate to one another. This doesn't even take into account all the dead languages that are no longer spoken or written.

And I see no reason whatsoever why the Christian God would have to reveal to everyone. That would be totally inconsistent with a lot. He revealed Himself to the Israelites in a way He did not to anyone else. He revealed Himself to individuals in ways He did not to anyone else. The important thing to realize is that He is not under any obligation to reveal anything to anyone.

But those examples of "revelation" are ones you take from the Bible, and you presume it to have authority that Paine does not accord it. Paine would agree that God is under no obligation to reveal anything to anyone; only that were he to make such a revelation, human language would be one of the worst possible vehicles for His word, eternal, unchanging and universal as it is.

So why would any revelation need to be available to all?
And that in no way detracts from its being universal. I think "universal" in this context means that it applies in the same way to all people. We all, everybody, need to be humble before God and serve Him only. He has done the same things for all of us.

No, that is not what Paine means by "universal". By universal, he means that God's word, consistent with His own nature, would be available to anyone -- not only those living at a particular time, in a particular country or for that matter, on a particular planet.