IAP Political Forum

I was re-reading the Age of Reason and this particular passage caught my eye and it reminded me of how brilliant Paine was. I recall having conversations with reasonedfaith and others who have argued in favor of revelation (though nothing against them) I believe their reasoning to be false and Thomas Paine couldn't illustrate it better then he does in this passage.

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

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

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

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.

I invite anyone who disagrees with me and Thomas Paine to discuss such a topic further.

Great stuff, thanks.

Schizophrenic and temporal lobe epilepsy patients have revelations all the time.  We recognize their mental illness. Too bad we can't recognize the same thing with theists.

I'll give you four choices:
1 Paul was a fraud
2 Paul was mentally ill.
3 Paul was a made up fictional character.
4 God talked to Paul.

Amazing that people will pick number four.  Many will claim we can believe him because of his prophesying.  "It says so right in the bible".

I agree.  I believe that you and Paine are strictly correct.  

What I am missing is why you think this might be important.  It does not diminish the possibility or voracity or utility of revelation.  It does not diminish the meaning or utility of scripture.  It does remind us that scripture cannot be cited as proof for God, but scripture is clear about this point already.  You and Paine  could have cited the passages in scripture directly to make your point.

This is why the record of the revelation must be evaluated by rules of historical and literary evidence and not taken for granted at face value.  It is why Judaism and Christianity contain an element of uncertainty and therefore require a degree of faith.  It is why one cannot cite presumed records of revelation as proof for God.  Belief in God requires faith.

Thanks for reminding us, I almost forgot.  I was thinking for a minute that it was all about good evidence.  Silly me.

If you have nothing useful to add to this discussion I would rather you stay out of it, sense you seem to add little to either side of the argument.

As opposed to evidence, yes.

D 9 if you don't have anything useful to say that contributes to the discussion I would rather you not say it sense debates that people have with you tend to end in flame-wars.

yes, Paine was correct. Moses was a monster who claimed a revelation from god. it is the only way to view the story - if real.
Only a fool would nod in agreement with Moses's claim of revelation as Moses ordered men, woman and children captives raped and murdered.
It is the worst of humanity to do what he did and capitulate to such orders.

I'll repeat simply to return to a point I think would be interesting to discuss further and that is why this point that revelation becomes hearsay once it is retold might be significant?  Is it to explain Paines choices? Does it somehow discredit or diminish the value of having something told to you without corresponding proof?  What am I missing?

Uhhhhhhhhh Ya.

Especially when someone is making an extraordinary claim.  Its nice to have a little more to go on than, "Trust me, God told me so".

Perhaps D9 it would be best if you didn't post in this topic as your posts seem to have little or no relevance and are very rarely backed up with anything aside from a satirical quip.

Wait, is it not true that most religions have said that their books of scripture come from the mind of God and are error free? I think it greatly diminishes the answers that scripture provides though the Bible if it is not revelation can still be a useful book. What passages of the bible prove this point?

Most religions?  Only three really do that and they are related.  Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  However Judaism and Christianity also speak of lost books in their works (look up the book 'Gad the Seer'), however the view is that what you need to know is in the present books written.

I don't think Hindus make the claim of all needed knowledge or correctness, Buddhists don't either (other major religions).  Some religions don't even have written canon.

Hinduism you are indeed correct about however Buddhism and other "religions" aren't really religions, their more spiritual philosophies. I would consider the primary religions using the strictest sense of the word would be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, and maybe a few others. Taoism Confucianism and Buddhism I wouldn't consider religion.

rf, are you serious? You don't see the problem with revelation? maybe you should be more specific.

No, a look at most religions would demonstrate that this premise of yours is incorrect.  I see your response to Baldar but you didn't answer the question and you seem to have also changed the definition of religion as well.


Scripture claims that belief in God includes evidence (Romans 1-3) but ultimately requires faith (this concept is contained throughout).  Hebrews 12 does a nice job of defining faith.  At one point Jesus tells of a rich man who routinely passed by a poor blind man.  They both died and the wealthy man found himself in hell separated from God and his kingdom.  He asks for some relief from the formerly poor man but is denied.  He then asks that angles could be sent to others to warn them not to make the mistake of non-belief since scripture did not convince him but he is told that existing evidence and scripture was enough to give people reason to choose to have faith if they wanted a relationship with God and that no additional amount of evidence would make any difference because people will decide for themselves regardless of the soundness of the evidence.  In other words Jesus admits the evidence is incomplete and scripture is not proof.

So again I wonder what you find significant about Paine's writing.

you had argued with me that disbelief was a sin (punishable offence that resulted in being sent to Hell). I am glad to see you have changed your view.  It seems you do think that unbelievers are justified in being tortured for eternity.

Whats nice about your story is that it reveals the lack of logic Jesus possessed. He give an either-or fallacy.  Obviously, the Bible is not enough evidence for many people (over a third of the planet) and yet, more evidence WOULD convince a number of people - but Jesus, the Man God, decides the cut-off point and to Hell (literally) with the ones who don't make the cut. Love your enemy?

Let's face it, if god existed he would know exactly what evidence would convince people of his existence. If he cared.

Also, it highlights how Jesus's/God's callousness as he rejects a man truky concerned with humanity, but Jesus would rather watch the multitudes burn then send an angel.

Is it because angels don't exist and mortal Jesus HAD TO say that? Yes, I think so. He was a hustler, a con man and a cad.

Once again you purposely deceive the other readers by falsely attributing words to your opponent and changing the meaning and context of things that are said.


Convince people of what?  That God exists? Yes, it would but, (stipulating that it is correct) in scripture it is clear that God is not interested in beings who believe; scripture points out that the devil and demons believes and shudder . . .  Instead God is interested in those who choose to honor and love him.  Going back to the example, the rich person was motivated to spare himself of the shame and suffering of hell but while alive had no interest in loving God and his people including the poor blind and afflicted man.  Jesus was saying that more evidence would not convince people to change their hearts even if it does change their mind as you claim it would.


Concern for humanity is outstanding, but according to scripture, God is looking for more.  It is a mystery why you haven't understood that yet.

maybe I simply can't accept silly ideas.

I am curious, though, what it is like to believe that some people u meet are predestined to not see your view and u feel are justified in being tortured for eternity. it seems a very hateful way to live.
you can claim you'd like everyone to believe (as you do) but its out of your hands. after all its gods will that men, women and babies are thrown into hell.
because of lack of beleif.

This would be a remarkable transformation.

btw, rf, I might remind u of your passage from luke that abraham tells the rich man "they have Moses and the prophets" "if they do not believe Moses and the prophets, they won't believe someone who has been raised from the dead"
what was Jesus for? if god only wants people who believe, then why send Jesus "so that people would believe"?
there is a contradiction in your theology.

NO!?!? Say it aint so!

Jesus was sent so that people would believe?  That is not the way I understand Christian doctrine.

Rf, I wonder if you are Xian at all.

John 20:31

John 20
The Empty Tomb
 1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
 3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
 10Then the disciples went back to their homes, 11but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
 13They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"

   "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." 14At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

 15"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
      Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

 16Jesus said to her, "Mary."
      She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

 17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

 18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

Jesus Appears to His Disciples
 19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Jesus Appears to Thomas
 24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
      But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
 26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

 28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.



Why would jesus do all those things for his disciples - like showing up after he died?

Have you read the Bible? :-\

 Jesus came to live as a man and accept the consequences of human failings to restore our ability to have a relationship with God the way he intended.   Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his diciples to encourage them and motivate them to become apostles for him.  But these things about Jesus were written in hopes that we might read and believe.  barney, please try to keep up, ok.