Post by Josh on Feb 4, 2007 21:04:07 GMT -8
Originally posted 11/24/06:
What follows is a section from Thomas Paine (the Age of Reason, 1795), a perfect example of Deist skepticism of the late 1700's:
"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases [such as the revelation of Scripture]. 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 tome, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
First off, this notion of being 'obliged' to a revelation is just irrelevant. If, for instance, a country decides upon a certain law and the authorities begin enforcing it, it will do no good to say you're not obliged to obey it simply because he haven't heard the new law. It is still binding even if delivered 3rd person, 4th person, etc... There is simply no logic behind saying we are or aren't obliged to 2nd party info. But whether we're obliged or not, we'd be foolish in some cases to not take such information seriously.
Let's suppose that Thomas Paine was informed by a Patriot scout that his family's town was under siege by the Redcoats 30 miles to the north and that their only hope was for Thomas to immediately ride 20 miles south to enlist the aid of Washington's regulars. But because Thomas does not feel "obliged" to respond to the scouts message not having seen the Redcoats firsthand, he decides he will instead ride north 30 miles to check on his family himself. Thomas arrives on the scene and is immediately apprehended by the British along with his family.
He may not have been obliged, but he was nonetheless a fool for not trusting
2nd hand revelation.
Now, should we question the veracity of 2nd hand information? Absolutely.
But certainly we should never dismiss it without consideration.
I think Paine here in his fixation on the word "obliged" is merely subconsciously dealing with the guilt he feels at not responding to the revelations he was taught as a child. Feel free to disagree with that bit of psychology, but you must admit his notions about 2nd hand information cannot be upheld.
Let me point of just one mark of authenticity the New Testament has over
other religious teachings: number of credible witnesses.
The Koran: 1 witness (Mohammed), who's not super credible, for instance, by his own admission that at first he thought demons (jinn) were speaking to him
Eastern Religions: have no witnesses because they are systems of ideas, not
historical claims. Individual people's ideas are notoriously hard to authenticate.
Mormonism: 1 witness (Joseph Smith) who had a public record as a scam artist
Mosaic Law: Paine (earlier) is wrong here again because Moses isn't said to be the only one who gets the revelation, but the entire Israelite community in several instances. That's a lot of witnesses, but is hard to verify being so long ago and with only a few accounts to go on.
The resurrection of Christ: numerous witnesses of impeccable character. Elsewhere we can demonstrate how we can claim NUMEROUS and IMPECCABLE with certainty.
What follows is a section from Thomas Paine (the Age of Reason, 1795), a perfect example of Deist skepticism of the late 1700's:
"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases [such as the revelation of Scripture]. 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 tome, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
First off, this notion of being 'obliged' to a revelation is just irrelevant. If, for instance, a country decides upon a certain law and the authorities begin enforcing it, it will do no good to say you're not obliged to obey it simply because he haven't heard the new law. It is still binding even if delivered 3rd person, 4th person, etc... There is simply no logic behind saying we are or aren't obliged to 2nd party info. But whether we're obliged or not, we'd be foolish in some cases to not take such information seriously.
Let's suppose that Thomas Paine was informed by a Patriot scout that his family's town was under siege by the Redcoats 30 miles to the north and that their only hope was for Thomas to immediately ride 20 miles south to enlist the aid of Washington's regulars. But because Thomas does not feel "obliged" to respond to the scouts message not having seen the Redcoats firsthand, he decides he will instead ride north 30 miles to check on his family himself. Thomas arrives on the scene and is immediately apprehended by the British along with his family.
He may not have been obliged, but he was nonetheless a fool for not trusting
2nd hand revelation.
Now, should we question the veracity of 2nd hand information? Absolutely.
But certainly we should never dismiss it without consideration.
I think Paine here in his fixation on the word "obliged" is merely subconsciously dealing with the guilt he feels at not responding to the revelations he was taught as a child. Feel free to disagree with that bit of psychology, but you must admit his notions about 2nd hand information cannot be upheld.
Let me point of just one mark of authenticity the New Testament has over
other religious teachings: number of credible witnesses.
The Koran: 1 witness (Mohammed), who's not super credible, for instance, by his own admission that at first he thought demons (jinn) were speaking to him
Eastern Religions: have no witnesses because they are systems of ideas, not
historical claims. Individual people's ideas are notoriously hard to authenticate.
Mormonism: 1 witness (Joseph Smith) who had a public record as a scam artist
Mosaic Law: Paine (earlier) is wrong here again because Moses isn't said to be the only one who gets the revelation, but the entire Israelite community in several instances. That's a lot of witnesses, but is hard to verify being so long ago and with only a few accounts to go on.
The resurrection of Christ: numerous witnesses of impeccable character. Elsewhere we can demonstrate how we can claim NUMEROUS and IMPECCABLE with certainty.