- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Who all has read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine?
Posted on 2/15/14 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 2/15/14 at 11:36 pm
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 10:11 pm
4
Posted on 2/15/14 at 11:44 pm to Gr8t8s
Thomas Paine was a bad person in many ways
Posted on 2/15/14 at 11:45 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 12:05 am to Gr8t8s
I think this work and rights of man should be essential readings for all those who claim to know what the founding fathers thought or would do in any situation.
He explored and defined the term "deism" in a way that was easy for the common man to understand.
Anybody who spoke out about the Church back then was crucified the way that those of us who speak out against soldiers not really protecting our freedom are now.
It's taboo and unacceptable.
He explored and defined the term "deism" in a way that was easy for the common man to understand.
Anybody who spoke out about the Church back then was crucified the way that those of us who speak out against soldiers not really protecting our freedom are now.
It's taboo and unacceptable.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 12:12 am to Gr8t8s
It's an important book.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 12:47 am to Gr8t8s
What argument is based on "semantics"?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:06 am to Bayou Sam
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:12 am to Gr8t8s
He was explaining the flaws in the bible to those who took it as literal and the actual word of god.
It was similar to Silent Spring for the environmental movement in the way it brought forth a change of perspective and united those of similar mindsets.
I agree with what you've stated, but you have to imagine the uphill battle he had even publishing this work. It was heresey.
It was similar to Silent Spring for the environmental movement in the way it brought forth a change of perspective and united those of similar mindsets.
I agree with what you've stated, but you have to imagine the uphill battle he had even publishing this work. It was heresey.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:16 am to Gr8t8s
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:17 am to CherryGarciaMan
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:41 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Thomas Paine was a bad person in many ways
Feel free to expound, chief.
Advocating for rational thinking and criticizing the political and religious institutions which existed prior to the revolution as well as those established afterward certainly made him a lot of enemies, particularly among prominent religious leaders as well as the Federalists, but I fail to see how that makes him a bad man. He was a deist who supported limited government, tore into monarchies and civil institutions which actively sought to restrict civil liberties, he was a major proponent of the separation of the church and state as well as the abolition of slavery, going so far as to beg Jefferson to not allow slavery in the new states following the Louisiana purchase, and on top of that let's not forget that he repeatedly gave a voice that not only aptly summarized the spirit of the revolution, but served to strengthen the patriots fighting for independence.
So, again I fail to see how he was a bad man in many ways.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 7:00 am
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:48 am to Gr8t8s
quote:
It stands to reason that you can't say that something was most likely altered, then proceed to draw conclusions because of how it was written.
Unless you draw the conclusion that Scripture, having been altered in virtually every way possible, must automatically negate the possibility that the Bible is the sovereign word of God himself. If you have a book which has been at the mercy of religious leaders of varying viewpoints over the course of centuries, lacks original copies or even copies written in the remote vicinity of time that the books are referring to, was often written by someone other than the alleged author, and has been subject to translations and revisions throughout its lifetime then the Bible has no more divine authority that the Odyssey.
That's not an argument over semantics...
Posted on 2/16/14 at 7:11 am to Tom288
there are copies.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 7:31 am to themunch
quote:
there are copies.
You forget two important factors: the copies having been original and actually written during the actual events, not ~30-40 years after (take the Gospels for example, ~30-40 years after the events recorded in each gospel supposedly occurred is the closest you can get as far as remaining copies of the text).
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:41 am to Gr8t8s
If you are sitting on the fence on believing, this book will push you over to the atheist side. Did for me. Sometimes I wish I had never read
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:56 am to Tom288
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:58 am to Gr8t8s
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:09 am to Gr8t8s
quote:
Basically, he argues against several passages in the bible based on the verbiage they were written in (mostly old testament). He then argues against the bible because of the probability that it were altered or doctored (whether accidentally or on purpose) through translation and human tendency.
It stands to reason that you can't say that something was most likely altered, then proceed to draw conclusions because of how it was written.
I don't get it. That's how philology works.
There are a number of ways of figuring out whether a text is corrupt. The best way is collating the earliest manuscripts.
The second best way is analyzing the language to see if sounds like a writer from a later time period or something which could be genuine.
That's how Lorenzo Valla among others discovered that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:18 am to Gr8t8s
Why does everyone point to the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence for biblical inerrancy? The case is just the opposite--the scrolls show that there was no fixed canon in the 1st century bce!
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:24 am to BABAR
quote:
this book will push you over to the atheist side.
I remember back in the mid-forties that my grandfather telling us what a dangerous book it was.
He said you had to be careful reading it.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News