[Stealth3si]

Sorry. Not sure if this belonged in Philosophy, History or Book section.

I picked up 'The Age of Reason' at the library at the weekend. I have often heard Thomas Paine's name, but I wasn't very knowledgeable about who he was or what he wrote.

'The Age of Reason' is interesting. He starts off by pointing out that if we deny others the right to speak then we are denying ourselves the right to listen. Very true. And necessary, since he was just about to write a book that would cause a lot of controversy - not because the arguments were necessarily new, but that he intended to make the book available to the 'common person' at a low cost and written in language that people could understand.

The first half of the book, written while Paine was in prison in France during the revolution, is a critique of the politics and power-games of organized religion -- he points out how the New Testament turns moral debt into a type of pecuniary debt. The second half, written when he was out of prison and had access to a bible, gives his reasons for calling the bible a collection of unrelated, anonymous articles. It included the discussion of the inconsistencies in the Gospels (e.g. Different times of the crucifixion. The exclusion of Matthew's account of the activities surrounding Jesus's Death and Resurrection from the other accounts) and he also shows the gospels were written at a later date by anonymous writers.

The evidence I have produced to prove them forgeries is extracted from the books themselves, and acts, like a two-edged sword, either way. If the evidence be denied, the authenticity of the scriptures is denied with it; for it is scripture evidence; and if the evidence be admitted, the authenticity of the books is disproved. The contradictory impossibilities contained in the Old Testament and the New, put them in the case of a man who swears for and against. Either evidence convicts him of perjury, and equally destroys reputation.

Should the Bible and the New Testament hereafter fall, it is not I that have been the occasion. I have done no more than extracted the evidence from the confused mass of matter with which it is mixed, and arranged that evidence in a point of light to be clearly seen and easily comprehended; and, having done this, I leave the reader to judge for himself, as I have judged for myself. -Thomas Paine

Just curious. Would this be a reason to generalize post-enlightenment historical standards?

I'd be interested to hear other posters' opinions on this book.