Modern Age of Reason

MODERN AGE OF REASON

(Thomas Paines AGE OF REASON paraphrased into modern english)

By Stephen W. Dowell

-----------------------------------------

~second edition~

AGE OF REASON

by Thomas Paine

TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I put the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions about Religion. Please remember that I have always supported the Right of every person to have their own opinion, even if that opinion is different than mine. Anyone who denies another person of this right, makes himself a slave to his own opinion, because he prevents himself from being able to change it.

The strongest weapon against all kinds of errors is Reason. I have never used any other, and hope I never will.

Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE

AGE OF REASON

PART ONE

For several years, I have intended to publish my thoughts on religion. I am very aware of all the difficulties related to that subject. That's why I've waited so long before writing it. I wanted it to be my last published work, so that no one would question my motives, even if they didn't agree with my ideas.

Currently, in France, they are doing away with compulsory state religion. This caused me to believe that a work such as this one is necessary. With the rise of superstition, false government, and false religions, it is important that we not lose sight of TRUE morality, humanity and religion.

I know of several other people in France who have volunteered their professions of faith to the public. So I think it is appropriate for me to make mine as well. I do this with all the honesty and sincerity that I can.

I believe in only one God; and I have hope for happiness in an afterlife.

I believe all men are equal; and I believe that religious duties should consist of being just and merciful to our fellow-creatures, and trying to make them happy.

However, I want to make it clear that there are many other things related to religion that I do not believe. So, in the course of this work I want to state those things I do not believe, and my reasons why.

I do not believe in the religious creeds of the Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Christians or any other church I can think of. My mind is my own church.

It appears to me that all churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, are simply human inventions. They use fear to enslave us. They are a monopoly for power and profit.

By saying this, I don't intend to condemn those who believe differently. Everyone has the same right to their belief as I do. But for man to be truly happy, he must be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in 'belief' or 'unbelief'; it consists of SAYING you believe something that you really don't believe.

It is impossible to calculate all the 'moral mischief' that this kind of thinking has caused. When a man has gone so far as to corrupt the personal integrity of his mind, so that he will publicly profess things he does not actually believe, he no better than a common criminal. That type of man will become a pastor for the sake of money or power; and it all starts with a lie. Can you think of anything more destructive to good morals than this?

Soon after I published 'Common Sense' in America, I saw that the revolution we had in our government would very likely be followed by a revolution in religion. The ties between church and state (whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) had prevented established religious creeds from even being questioned. But now, with the change we have had in government, it opens the door to a change in religious thought as well. We can now see the falsehoods in religion for what they really are, and we have the opportunity to return to the pure, unconfused belief in one God, and no more.

Every state-run church or religion has set itself up by pretending to have some special mission from God that was communicated to them by some individual. The Jews have Moses; the Christians have Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; the Muslims have Mohammed. It's as if they think that the way to God is not equally open to everyone.

Each of those churches have their own "holy books" that they say is 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 Muslims say that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief. I don't believe any of them.

It is important that we define our words. Therefore, before going any further, I want to define what we mean by 'Revelation'. Revelation, when talking about religion, means "something that was communicated directly from God to man".

No one would deny that God has the power to communicate to man if he wanted to. However, it is important to understand that if God reveals something to one person, and not revealed it to anyone else, then it is a 'revelation' to that person only. When that person 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 people. It is revelation to the first person only, and "hear-say" to everyone else. Therefore, they are not required to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a "revelation" that comes to us secondhand. 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. Even though he may feel obliged to believe it, I am in no way required to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me. I only have his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tablets of the commandments from the hands of God, they had no reason to believe him other than his telling them so; and I have no reason for believing it other than some historian told me so. The commandments have no internal evidence that they are from God. They do have some good moral teachings that any good lawyer or legislator could just as easily have produced, without having to say it was from God.

(It is necessary though to take exception to the law that says that "God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children". That law goes against every principle of moral justice.)

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mohammed by an angel, the account sounds too much like the same kind of hear-say evidence that the Jews have. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

Also, when I am told that the Virgin Mary claimed to be pregnant without having had sex with a man, and that her husband, Joseph, said that an angel confirmed that to him, I have the right to either believe them or not. Such an event requires much more than just their word for it. But we don't even have that... for neither Joseph or Mary wrote any such thing themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hear-say upon hear-say, and I choose not to base my belief on such shaky evidence.

However, it is not so difficult to understand how the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God got started. He was born during a time when people commonly believed in heathen myths. Because of this, people were prepared to believe such a story. Nearly all of the famous men who lived during this time of mythology had claims that they were the sons of some of their gods. It just wasn't a new thing to believe at that time. It was very common for people to believe that gods had sex with human women. One of their gods, Jupiter, it was claimed, had sex with hundreds of human women. So people did not consider the story of Mary to be anything new, amazing, or even lewd. It was a common story among the people called "Gentiles", and it was those people who accepted it as true. The Jews, who strictly believed in only one God, and who didn't accept these heathen myths, never gave the story any credit for being true.

It is interesting to see how the Christian church actually sprang out of heathen myths. For example, the way they made their so-called founder to be born of god. The trinity of gods they had was simply a reduction of the several thousand gods of the heathen. The statue of Mary replaced the statue of Diana of Ephesus. Making heroes into Gods was replaced by something similar for Saints. The heathen had gods for everything; the Christians had saints for everything. There were as many Saints in the church as there were 'Heroes' in Greece, and Rome was home to both. Christianity is little more than the idolatry that the ancient myths had, and made into a vehicle for power and profit. It is up to Reason and Philosophy to end this terrible fraud.

Nothing I say should be thought of as disrespect for the character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and friendly man. The morals he taught and practiced were very beneficial. Similar morals had been taught by Confucius and the Greeks in the past, and by the Quakers since then; as well as by many others down through the ages. However, none of those are any better than what Jesus taught.

Jesus did not write anything about his birth, his parents, or anything else about his life. He did not write a single line in the New Testament. The history concerning him was entirely written by other people. As for the story of his resurrection and ascension, it was a necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. The people who wrote that he had come into the world in a miraculous way, had to take him out in the same way. Otherwise, the first part of the story would have seemed false.

The story told about the end of his life is even more ridiculous than the previous ones. The story of his birth was something that happened in private, so at least the tellers of the story could be reasonably sure that nobody would discover the truth.

However, the story of a dead person rising from the grave and ascending up through the air is a very different thing than a pregnancy. The resurrection and ascension of Jesus, if it took place, would be public like seeing a balloon rise into the air. All of Jerusalem would have been able to see it. Something that everyone is expected to believe would need to have proof that everyone would have been able to see. If the general public would have seen this event, it would have some credibility. However, it doesn't even have that. Instead, only eight or nine people are used as the ones who say they saw it, and the whole world is just supposed to believe it. However, Thomas said he wouldn't believe it unless he saw it for himself, so neither will I. The reason is just as good for me and others as it was for Thomas.

It is useless to try to sweep this matter under the rug. The story, as far as the supernatural part goes, has every mark of being a fraud. It is as impossible for us to know who the real authors of this story were, as it is to know for sure who even wrote the books where these stories are related. The best current evidence we have of the affair is from the Jews. They are directly descended from the people who lived at the time this event supposedly happened, and they say it isn't true. It is indeed odd to try and use the Jews to verify the story. It's just like saying "I will prove the truth of what I have told you by producing the people who say it is false".

The fact that Jesus may have existed, and that he may have even been crucified (which was an actual method of execution at the time) is entirely possible. Jesus taught excellent morals and that all men are equal. But he also spoke against the corruption of the Jewish priests, and this caused them to hate him with a passion. They accused him of being a traitor against the Roman government (who then ruled the Jews). It is entirely possible that he made both the Roman government, as well as the Jews, very nervous with his teachings. They also thought it was possible that Jesus was thinking of a way to cause a Jewish uprising against Rome. At any rate, between Rome and the Jews, this moral teacher and revolutionary ended up losing his life.

Based on the absurd story of the supernatural birth and death of this man, the Christian church has built its fable. Nothing the ancient Greeks came up with was any more absurd.

The ancient Greeks tell the story about a race of Giants that made war against Jupiter, and that one of them was able to throw a hundred rocks at him all at once. They say Jupiter defeated this Giant with a bolt of thunder, and confined him under Mount Etna. The story says that every time the Giant turns over, that Mount Etna erupts fire. It's easy to see that this story was made up to explain a volcano.

The Christians tell us that their Satan made war with God, who defeated him and confined him in a pit (instead of under a mountain). It's easy to see that the Jupiter story inspired the idea for the Satan story. But the story about Jupiter was told many hundreds of years before the Satan story.

So far, the ancient Greek myth and the Christian fable are very similar. But the Christian version tries to take it even further. They try to tie in the supernatural part of the Jesus story with the Jupiter story, and in order to tie it all together they drag in some Jewish traditions as well. The Christian fable is made up partly of ancient myths, and partly from Jewish traditions.

In the Christian story, after having Satan bound up in a pit, they had to come up with a way to let him out again in order to continue with the fable. So he is reintroduced again in the Garden of Eden in the shape of a snake who talks to Eve. Eve doesn't seem to be the least bit surprised to hear a snake talk. The result of this little meeting is that the snake convinces her to eat an apple which damns all mankind.

After giving Satan this amazing victory over creation, you would think the story tellers would send him back to his pit. At least they could have stuck him under a mountain (for they say that their faith can remove mountains) like the ancient myths had done. This would have kept him from getting among the women and getting into any more mischief. But no... instead they leave him at large. (Secretly, they knew their story could not do without him). They promise him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks, nine-tenths of the world, and Mohammed to boot. After this, who could doubt the bountifulness of Christianity?

So now we have this revolt and battle in Heaven (where none of the troops could be killed or wounded)- Satan is put in a pit- let out again (which gives him victory over the creation)- and he damns all of man by having an apple eaten.

These Christian storytellers continue the tale by portraying the good man Jesus Christ to be both God and Man, and also the Son of God. He is miraculously born of God, with the sole purpose of being sacrificed, because Eve ate her apple.

This story is so absurd and crude that it could make you laugh. It is nearly impossible to think of a story that could be more offensive to God and so inconsistent with his wisdom and power.

In order to give the story some sort of plot, the inventors of the story had to give Satan a power that was as great, if not greater than what they give to God himself. They not only give him the power to free himself from the pit, but they also make that power infinitely increase. Before his fall, they represent Satan as an angel with a limited existence. But after his fall, all of sudden he becomes omnipresent. He exists everywhere, all at the same time. He occupies all of space.

Not being content with making him out to be a god, they have him take the shape of a snake and defeat all the power and wisdom of God. He manages to force God into either surrendering to him, or else resort to saving mankind by coming to earth in the shape of a man to hang on a cross.

If the inventors of this tale had told it with God causing Satan to hang on the cross, in the shape of a snake, for his punishment, the story would have been less absurd. But instead of this, they make Satan win and God lose.

There is no doubt that many good men have believed this strange fable, and still managed to live very good lives (being gullible isn't a crime). They were raised believing it. There are others who are so amazed at God's infinite love towards them (by sacrificing himself on the cross for them), that they can't even see how absurd and crude the whole thing is. The weirder anything is, the more likely it is to be accepted and admired by gullible people.

If we want to admire and be grateful for something, there is plenty to admire in the things we see every hour. We see a wonderful creation that was prepared for us the instant we were born; a world freely given to us. Are we the ones who light up the sun, or bring the rain and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we are asleep or awake, the vast universe continues on. Are these things, and the blessings they imply, nothing to us? Can our feelings only be excited by subjects such as tragedy and suicide? Has our pride become so crude that nothing can flatter it but the sacrifice of the Creator?

I know that many people will be offended by this bold investigation. But I can't hold back for their sake. The times we live in demand that we take a hard look at this subject. There are many people in all countries that are beginning to suspect that Christianity is merely a fable. They are having doubts about what to believe or disbelieve. For them it will be a comfort to see this subject so freely studied. I will now move on to an investigation of the books of the Old and New Testaments.

These books begin with Genesis and end with Revelation (which, by the way, is a book of riddles that requires a revelation to explain it). We are told that these books are "The Word of God". Therefore, it is entirely proper for us to know who told us this so that we can know how much credit to give it. The answer to this question is that NOBODY knows. We just tell it to each other. However, historically, here's what seems to have happened:

When the church storytellers made their system, they went out and collected all the writings they could find and did with them as they pleased. We are totally uncertain whether these writings, as they appear in the testaments, are in the same condition they were in when they were found. For all we know they may have be added to, altered, abridged, or dressed up.

At any rate, they decided to vote on which writing they had that should become the WORD OF GOD, and which should not. They rejected several of them. Some others were voted to be doubtful (such as the books called the Apocrypha). The books that received the most votes were voted to be the Word of God. If they had voted some other way, then Christians today would have had different beliefs. Their beliefs are based on votes. We know nothing about the voters. They generally referred to themselves as the Church, but this is all we know.

We have no other external evidence for believing that these books are the Word of God than what I mentioned (which is no evidence at all). Therefore we will move on to take a look at the internal evidence contained in these books.

In the first part of this essay I spoke about revelation. I now will apply that subject to the books in question.

Revelation is a communication of something which the person did not know before. For if I have done a thing, or seen it done, then I need no revelation to tell me I have done it or seen it. Nor do I need a revelation to let me tell about it or write about it.

Revelation cannot be applied to anything on earth that man has done or seen. Therefore, all the history and stories in the bible (which is nearly all of it) cannot be considered Revelation. So it cannot be the Word of God.

If Samson ran off with the gate posts of Gaza (and whether he did means nothing to us); or when he visited Delilah; or caught foxes; what has that got to do with Revelation? If they were facts, he could tell them himself; or if he had a secretary, she could write them (if they were worth writing). If they were just stories, then revelation could not make them true. If they were true, then we are no better off for knowing them. When we consider the greatness of God who directs the universe (of which we know so little), we ought to be ashamed at calling these petty little stories the Word of God.

Let us now look at the Genesis account of the Creation...

It appears to be a tradition that the Israelites had before they went to Egypt. After they left Egypt, they kept the story and probably did not even remember how they got it. The way the story opens sounds like a tradition.

It begins all of a sudden; it is nobody that is speaking; it is nobody that hears; it is addressed to nobody; it is not written in first, second or third person; it has every evidence of being a traditional story; it has nothing to indicate that it is true. Moses does not formally introduce the book in the same way he does in other places by saying something like "The Lord spake unto Moses saying....".

I have no idea why it is called the "Mosaic account of the Creation". Moses was certainly too intelligent to associate his name with that story. He was a man who was highly educated with the Egyptians in the art of science, and especially astronomy. The silence and caution used by Moses is good negative evidence that the story is not his, and that he did not actually believe it.

The fact of the matter is that every nation of the world have creation accounts, and the Israelites were no exception. Seeing how Moses was not an Israelite, it's understandable how he would not want to contradict their story. At any rate, the story is harmless (which is more than can be said of so many other parts of the Bible).

More than half the Bible is filled with crude stories, sexual adventures, cruel executions, and constant revenge. It would really be more appropriate to call it the word of a demon instead of the Word of God. It is a wicked history that has only caused corruption and brutality to mankind. As for me, I sincerely hate it, as I hate everything that is cruel.

Except for a few miscellaneous parts and phrases, the bible is otherwise disgusting and disgraceful. In the Psalms, and especially in Job, we do find some parts that seem to worship the power and gentleness of God. But they are no better than any other writings concerning those subjects, before or since.

The Proverbs are generally said to be written by Solomon. However, they are most likely a collection of many different authors concerning the subject of ethics. (King Solomon would not have been in a position to experience many of the situations that the Proverbs describe). However, they are not as insightful as the proverbs of the Spaniards, and are no wiser than those of Benjamin Franklin.

The rest of the Bible (generally known as the Prophetical Books) are the writings of Jewish poets and traveling preachers. They mixed together poetry, stories, and religious worship. Those writings still have the feel of poetry, even after having been translated into english.

* There are many readers who do not consider a writing to be poetry unless it rhymes. For their information, I add the following notes.

Poetry is basically two things- mental pictures, and style of writing. The style of writing is different than writing a story. In poetry the short and long syllables are mixed together in a special way. If you were to take a long syllable out of a line of poetry, or insert a long syllable where a short one should be, then the poem would lose its special rhythm. It would have the same effect as having a wrong note in a song.

The mental pictures produced in the Prophetical books are the result of poetry. They are lavish stories that would not be appropriate in any other kind of writing other than poetry.

As an example of biblical poetry, I will take a couple of ten-syllable lines from the book of Isaiah where the last word rhymes. It will be quite obvious that we are looking at lines of poetry:

Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth!

'Tis God himself that calls attention forth.

Another example of this is from Jeremiah. I will add a couple of additional lines in order to make it even more clear that what we are reading is actually a poem:

O! that mine head were waters and mine eyes

Were fountains flowing like the liquid skies;

Then would I give the mighty flood release,

And weep a deluge for the human race.

Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about poets or poetry. Instead, the bible uses the word "prophet" to describe a poet. (although in modern times the word 'prophet' now has a different meaning). In the bible the word "prophesying" actually meant the art of making poetry. It also had the meaning of playing poetry along with a musical instrument.

We read about prophesying with pipes, tabrets, harps, psalteries, cymbals, and with all kinds of instruments that were used during that time. In modern times, if we were to speak of prophesying with a pipe or drum, it would not have the same meaning as it did then and would seem silly. Some people would even become angry because we have changed the meaning of the word.

We read in the bible of Saul being among the prophets, and that he "prophesied". But we are not told what they prophesied. In fact, there is nothing to tell. These prophets were simply a company of musicians and poets. Saul joined in the music-making, and this was called 'prophesying'.

This story, in the book of Samuel, goes like this:

Saul met a company of prophets; a whole company of them! They were coming down the road with a guitar, a tabret, a pipe and a harp. It says that they prophesied, and that he prophesied with them. But apparently Saul prophesied badly. Because it says that "an evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied".

* As a bonus for those priests and commentators who like solving puzzles, I leave to them to debate the meaning of "an evil spirit from God". But let me get back to my subject of prophecy.

Even if there were no other passage in the Bible to demonstrate that we have lost the original meaning of the word 'prophecy', this one passage should be enough. For it would be impossible to use the word 'prophesy' in this passage if it were to have the same meaning that it does in modern times.

The way that the word is used in this passage strips it of all religious meaning. It shows that someone could be a prophet (or prophesy) in the same way that he would be a poet or musician today. It has nothing to do with his moral character. Originally, the word was actually a scientific word. But it was also used to describe poetry and music (although it was not used to refer to the subjects that poetry and music were about).

Deborah and Barak were called prophets. Not because they predicted anything, but because they composed poems and songs about things that had already happened. David was also considered a prophet, because he was a musician. It was also (wrongly) assumed that he had written the Psalms.

But Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not referred to as prophets. From all accounts, it does not appear that they were able to sing, play music, or make poetry.

We are also told of the greater and the lesser prophets. You might as well refer to the greater and lesser God, because there can't be degrees in prophesying that would make sense with the modern definition of the word. But there are degrees in poetry. Therefore the term would make sense when used to describe greater and lesser poets.

Based on this information, it is totally unnecessary to make further comment about what these prophets wrote. We have eliminated the root of the problem by showing the mistaken use of the word. As a result, all the hidden meanings, worshipful respect, and commentaries that have been attributed to them are not worth arguing about. However, in many ways the writings of the Jewish poets really deserve better than to be considered the Word of God (and all the associated garbage that goes along with that).

If we really think about it, we must admit that anything considered "The Word of God" would have to be something that was completely unchangeable (even by accident). Therefore, the Word of God cannot exist in any written or human language.

The meanings of words are constantly subject to change. Errors in translations, mistakes by copyists or printers, and even intentional forgeries, are evidence that human language or writings could not be the Word of God. The Word of God is something else.

Even if the book called the Bible had more excellent ideas than any other book in the world, I would not put my faith in it as the Word of God. It's just too likely that I was being fooled. But when I see that most of the book is hardly more than a history of gross vice and petty tales, I just cannot dishonor my Creator by saying that it is his Word.

So much for the Bible. I now go on to the book called the New Testament. The New Testament! (or, the new will), as if there could be two wills of the Creator!

If Jesus had intended to make a new religion, he would certainly have written the system himself, or at least had it written in his lifetime. But the fact is that there are no writings from his time that he authored. All the books called the New Testament were written after his death. He claimed to have been born a Jew. He was the son of God in the exact same manner that everyone else is; for the Creator is the Father of All.

The first four books of the bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) do not actually give a history of the life of Jesus. Instead they are short detached stories about him. It appears from these books that the whole time of his being a preacher was only about 18 months. It was only during this short period of time that these men came to know him. They write about him, at the age of twelve, sitting among the Jews debating with them. Since this was several years before they knew him, they probably picked up this story from his parents. From that point there is nothing written about him for nearly sixteen years of his life. Where he lived, or where he worked during that time is not known. He probably worked in the carpenter trade with his father. He does not appear to have had any schooling, and probably could not write. His parents were extremely poor judging from the fact that they could not pay for a bed when he was born.

It is rather odd that three of the most famous men in history have very dim accounts of their early childhood. Moses was an orphan. Mohammed was a mule driver. Jesus Christ was born in a barn. Moses and Mohammed were the founders of new religions. However, Jesus did not start a new religion. He simply asked men to practice good morals, and to believe in one God. His greatest character trait was that he cared so much for his fellow man.

The way that he was arrested shows that he was not very well known at the time. It also shows that the meetings he had with his followers were held in secret, and that he had stopped preaching publicly. The only way Judas was able to betray him was to show where his hiding place was, and point him out to the officers. The reason for paying Judas to betray him could only be explained by the fact that he was not well known, and that he was in hiding.

The idea that he was hiding out doesn't sit very well with his reputation as someone divine. Instead it sounds quite cowardly. The fact that one of his followers betrayed him to be arrested shows that he originally had no intention of being arrested or crucified.

Christians tell us that the reason Christ came into the world was in order to die for the sins of the world. Wouldn't it have been the same if he had died of a fever, smallpox, old age, or anything else?

The punishment that they say was given to Adam when he ate the apple was "thou shalt surely die". It meant he would die, but it did not say how he would die. Therefore, crucifixion or any other way of dying was not part of the punishment that Adam was supposed to suffer. As a result, since Jesus suffered in the place of Adam, it could not have anything to do with the way Jesus was supposed to die either. A fever would have done just as well as the cross (assuming that either was really necessary).

Adams punishment of death must have meant one of two things. Either it meant dying naturally, or else it meant what Christians refer to as Damnation. As a result, Christ's death should have prevented one or the other of these two things from happening to Adam or to us.

Due to the fact that we all die, it is obvious that it does not prevent anyone from dying physically. In fact, if we believe the very old ages described in the bible, men actually die faster now than they did before the crucifixion. As for the second explanation (that of Christ dying as a substitute for the eternal death and damnation of man), it makes it sound as if the Creator let man off the hook for the sake of an odd meaning in the word Death. Paul (who dreamed up all sorts of odd meanings for words), has promoted this strange meaning of the word Death by making up another odd meaning of the word Adam. He says there were actually two Adams. The one who actually sinned, and suffered by substitution; and the other who sinned by substitution, and actually suffered. A religion that has so many odd meanings, trickery and puns also tends to cause it's followers to do the same thing (without knowing why).

If Jesus Christ was who they say he was, and really came into the world to suffer (which is a word they sometimes use instead of the word die), then the only real suffering he had was living. His life here was actually an exile from his home in Heaven. The way back to his own country was to die. In fact, everything about Christianity is opposite of what it is supposed to be. I become so tired of trying to figure out the contradictions and silliness, that I rush through it so that I can move on to better things.

We cannot know how much, or which parts, of the New Testament were written by the men who had the books named after them. We can't even be sure which language they were originally written in. The books in the New Testament generally fall under two headings- Stories and Letters.

The four books I already mentioned (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are all stories. They report events that had already happened. They report what Jesus Christ did and said, and what others did and said to him. In several cases they report the same event differently. 'Revelation' has nothing to do with these books. This is partly due to the disagreements between the events. But also because revelation cannot be used to describe facts or conversations that are told by the person who saw or heard them. The book of Acts also belongs under the heading of Stories.

All the other parts of the New Testament (except the strange book of Revelations), are a collection of letters. Faking letters has been such a common practice in the world, that they probably have a 50/50 chance of being real or faked. One thing is much more likely though, and that is that these books, combined with some other old stories, have set up a system in the Church that is quite opposite to the character of Jesus. The Church has set up a system of show and profit that is quite opposite to the humble, poor life of Christ.

Although they don't say so, they have come up with a whole system for making money. They invented purgatory. Then, for a price, they let you buy prayers that will supposedly release souls from that place. They also sell pardons, dispensations, and indulgences. The fact is that those things are a result of the ideas surrounding the crucifixion (that one person can stand in the place of another and perform some service for him). The result of this idea is that the whole theory of redemption is probably just a scheme that all those other moneymaking schemes are based on. Why should we give credit to a Church who claims to perform miracles, and who claims that these books are completely genuine. They certainly could have forged the writings, because they can write. The writings are composed in such a way that anyone could have written them. The fact that they could have faked them should be no more surprising than their claim to have performed miracles.

At this point, we have no external evidence that can be used to prove that they invented the idea of redemption or not. Even if we did, we would have to be suspicious of that evidence. Therefore we must look at the internal evidence. Based on the internal evidence, it still has the appearance of being faked. The internal evidence is this... That the doctrine of redemption is based on the idea of a debt-based justice instead of moral justice.

If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison; another person can come to my rescue and pay the debt for me. But if I have committed a crime, every aspect of the case is changed. Moral Justice cannot punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty (even if the innocent party makes the offer). It would destroy the very principle that Justice is based on. In that case it would no longer be Justice... it would just be random revenge.

This single idea clearly shows that the doctrine of redemption is based on a justice system where someone else pays your debt for you. It is the same idea that lies behind the scheme where money is given to the Church in return for pardons. It seems likely that the same people invented both ideas. The fact is that there is no such thing as redemption. It is simply a fable. The truth is that mankind is the same in God's eyes as they have always been. We should take great comfort in this fact.

If a man will just believe this, then he will consistently live a more moral life than he would under any other system. Under the old system, men are taught to think of themselves as an outlaw, a beggar, or a worm that is thrown away on a manure pile far away from his creator. He is taught that he must approach the creator by creeping around and getting others to stand in for him. Under this kind of system he will eventually learn to either hate religion, or else just begin to ignore it. He might even become a monk. If he does this, then he starts trying to live a life of grief. His prayers are rebukes. His humility is ingratitude. He calls himself a worm, and the earth he lives in a manure pile. He considers the blessings of life to be of no value. He hates the greatest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF REASON. Then having forced himself to live under a system that is revolting to reason, he ungratefully calls it 'human reason' (as if a man could give reason to himself!).

Yet, with all this strange humility and hate for human reason, he sure does make some bold assumptions. He finds fault with everything. His selfishness is never satisfied. He is never thankful. In his prayers, he attempts to tell God how to run the universe. If it's sunny, he prays for rain. If it's raining, he prays for sun. He does the same thing in all his prayers. His prayers are simply an attempt to get God to change his mind and do things differently. It's as if he is saying to God "I know how to do it better than you".

But someone may ask "Do you mean that we can't have a Word of God, or no revelation?". To them I say "Yes!". There is a Word of God. There is a revelation. THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE SEE EVERYDAY. It is in this word (that man cannot fake or change) that God speaks to all mankind.

Human language is local, and subject to change. Therefore, it cannot be used as the means of communicating unchanging, universal information. The idea that God sent Jesus Christ to spread the 'good news' to the entire world only shows the ignorance of those who did not know how large the world really is. Those world-savers believed the world was flat and that man could walk right to the end of it (in spite of discoveries of philosophers, and the experience of navigators).

So how could Jesus Christ have made anything known to the whole world? Out of all the languages of the world, he could only speak Hebrew. There are hardly any two nations that speak the same language. As everyone familiar with languages knows, it is nearly impossible to get an exact translation from one language to another without losing some part of the meaning. Plus, printing was completely unknown during the time of Christ.

In order to accomplish something, it is important that it be done the right way. This is the difference between the limited abilities of humans, and the unlimited power and wisdom of God. Man often fails due to his lack of power (authority or strength) and wisdom. But it is impossible for the unlimited power and wisdom of God to fail in the same way. God always does things right. Therefore, God would never use human language to communicate his unchanging laws to mankind.

It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal "original copy" that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publishing it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God.

Do we want to think of his power? We see it in the vastness of the Creation. Do we want to think of his wisdom? We see it in the unchanging order of the universe. Do we want to see his generosity? We see it in the abundance that fills the earth. Do we want to think of his mercy? We see it in the way he does not withhold abundance even from the ungrateful. In fact, do we want to know what God is? Do not look in the bible (that any man could have written), but look instead to the Creation.

The only idea that man can attach to the name of God is that of a 'first cause', the cause of all things. Even though it is difficult to imagine or believe in a first cause, it is tens times easier than not believing it. It is nearly impossible to imagine that space can have no end. But it is even more difficult to imagine an end. It is nearly impossible to imagine an eternity of time. But it is even more difficult to imagine a time when there is no time.

Using reason, it is clear that everything we see did not make itself. Every man understands that he did not make himself. He understands that his father, or grandfather, or any others of his race could not have made themselves. He knows that trees, plants or animals could not have made themselves. All this leads us to believe in a first cause that has existed for eternity; and that has a nature totally different than anything we know of. This first cause is the power that causes all things to exist. This first cause man calls God.

Only by using reason can man discover God. Take away his reason, and man could not understand anything. In that case you might as well read the bible to a horse as to a man. So how can people pretend to reject reason?

About the only parts in the bible that give us any idea of God, are some chapters in Job and the 19th Psalm. I can't think of any others. Those parts are true Deist writings, because they consider God through his works. They only use the Creation as the word of God, and refer to nothing else. All ideas concerning God are drawn from the Creation.

Here is the 19th Psalm, as paraphrased into English by Addison. I don't remember it word for word, because I don't have access to it right now.

"The spacious firmament on high,

With all the blue ethereal sky,

And spangled heavens, a shining frame,

Their great original proclaim.

The unwearied sun, from day to day,

Does his Creator's power display;

And publishes to every land

The work of an Almighty hand.

"Soon as the evening shades prevail,

The moon takes up the wondrous tale,

And nightly to the list'ning earth

Repeats the story of her birth;

While all the stars that round her burn,

And all the planets, in their turn,

Confirm the tidings as they roll,

And spread the truth from pole to pole.

"What though in solemn silence all

Move round this dark terrestrial ball?

What though no real voice, or sound,

Amidst their radiant orbs be found?

In reason's ear they all rejoice

And utter forth a glorious voice,

Forever singing, as they shine,

THE HAND THAT MADE US IS DIVINE."

What more does man want to know than that the hand or power that made all things is divine and all-powerful? Man can believe this with a belief that cannot be shaken. If a man will act according to his reason, then he will naturally lead a good moral life.

The verses in Job have the same idea in them as the ones in Psalms. They use truths that are known, in order to understand or prove truths that would otherwise be unknown.

I don't remember enough of the passages in Job to show them here correctly. But I do remember one verse that relates to the subject we are talking about. "Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?"

I don't know how the printers laid out this verse, because I don't keep a bible. But it asks two important questions that need good answers.

First, "Canst thou by searching find out God?". Yes, because I know that I did not make myself, yet I exist. When I look at the nature of other things, I find that they could not make themselves either. Yet millions of things exist. Therefore, I can know for sure that there is power that is greater than all those things. That power is God.

Secondly, "Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?". No, because I cannot fathom the power and wisdom used in the order of the Creation that I see. Yet even this must be a small display of his immense power. For he is able to create and maintain millions of other worlds that are too far away for me to see.

It is clear that both of these questions were meant to be answered by way of reason. It is only by answering the first question with a 'Yes', that the second question could follow. It would have been useless and silly to have the more difficult second question, if the answer to the first question had been a 'No'. Each question has a different purpose. The first refers to the existence of God. The second refers to his qualities. Reason can be used to determine that God exists, but it falls far short in discovering all of Gods qualities.

I can't think of a single verse written by an apostle that describes what God is. Those writings are mainly controversial. They dwell upon a man dying in agony on a cross. These subjects are more appropriate for a gloomy monk (who probably wrote them anyway), than they are for any man breathing the open air of the Creation. The only verse I can think of that refers to knowing God by his works was attributed to Jesus. He said "Behold the lilies of the field, they toil not, neither do they spin". However, even this is not as good as those verses in Job and the 19th Psalm. But the idea is the same. It sounds just like what a modest man such as Jesus would have said.

As for the Christian system of faith, it almost seems like a kind of Atheism- a sort of denial of God. It claims to believe in a man rather than God (more like MANism than Deism). It is as close to Atheism as evening is to darkness. It puts something called a Redeemer between man and the Creator, in the same way that the moon is between the earth and the sun. By doing this it produces a religious (or not so religious) darkness. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.

The effect of this dimness is that everything is upside down and opposite of what it should be. Because it is so turned around, it has also turned around theology.

What we now call "natural philosophy" includes the study of all sciences, especially that of astronomy. It is this philosophy that studies the works of God, and the power and wisdom of God in his works. It is the true theology.

The theology that is studied instead is the study of human opinions and of human imaginations about God. It is not the study of God based on his works, but instead is a study of the works and writings of man. It is a sad thing that the Christian system has done to the world. It has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology to make room for the ugliness of superstition.

Even Christians admit that the Book of Job and the 19th Psalm are among the oldest writings in the bible. They conform very nicely to the original system of theology. The internal evidence in these writings prove that the study of Creation, and the power and wisdom of God that is revealed in that Creation, were an important part of theology back then. It was this study of the Creation that eventually led to the principles of science. It is the discovery of these principles that contribute to nearly every comfort of human life. Nearly every art that we now have is based in some part on scientific principles (even though the person doing the manual work rarely makes that connection).

It is false for Christianity to call the sciences a human invention. It is only the application of science that is human. Every science is based on a system of principles that are as fixed and unchanging as those that rule the universe. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them.

For example: Any person who looks at an almanac can find out when an eclipse will take place. He also finds that this information is always correct. This shows that man has an understanding of how planets move. But it would be foolish for any Church on earth to say that these laws are a human invention. It would also be foolish to say that the principles behind the scientific instruments that are used to predict an eclipse are human inventions. Man cannot invent things that are eternal and unchanging. The scientific principles that man uses to determine the timing of an eclipse must be as eternal and unchanging as the laws that move the planets.

Trigonometry is the main scientific principle that man uses to predict an eclipse (or anything else related to the motion of the objects in space). When trigonometry (or the properties of a triangle) is used to determine the motions of objects in space, it is called astronomy. When it is used to direct a ship on the ocean, it is called navigation. When it is used for drawing with a ruler and compass, it is call geometry. When used for building, it is called architecture. When it is used for measuring the surface of the earth, it is called land surveying. In fact, trigonometry is the soul of science. It is an eternal truth. It contains the math that man uses everyday, and all its uses are still unknown.

Someone may say that man can draw a triangle, and therefore a triangle is a human invention.

But when a triangle is drawn, it is simply the image of the principle. When the eyes see its shape, a principle can be understood that might have otherwise been missed. The triangle does not create the principle, any more than taking light into a dark room creates furniture that was previously unseen. All the properties of a triangle exist totally apart from the actual drawn shape. Those properties existed before man ever drew or thought of a triangle. Man had nothing to do with the properties of a triangle, and had nothing to do with the laws that move the objects in space. Therefore, both of these properties must have come from God.

In the same way that a man can draw a triangle, he can also make a lever. But the principle behind the operation of a lever is separate from the actual instrument itself. The principle would exist even if the lever did not. The principle attaches itself to the lever after the lever is made. Therefore, the lever cannot act any other way than the way it acts. No human effort can make it act any other way. The effect of the lever is simply the principle in action.

Since man cannot make principles, then where did he learn about them? How is he able to use principles to understand things on earth and motions in space? There is no other place he could learn them but from the study of true theology.

Man got this knowledge by studying the order of the universe. That order is an eternal display of every principle on which we base our mathematical science. The offshoot of this science is mechanics. Mechanics is simply the principles of science used in a practical way. The man who designs a mill uses the same principles as if he were constructing a universe. But since he cannot create gravity (the same power that controls motion in the universe), he settles for the humble use of teeth and cogs. All the things in our small everyday life rely on gravity. But if man could discover the secret of gravity and be able to use it in wonderful, practical ways, then we could almost say that a new book in the Word of God had been discovered.

If a man could change the properties of the lever, he could also change the properties of the triangle. A lever forms the shape of a triangle when it is in motion. (Hold the ends of a pencil with each hand. Now raise one end of the pencil. You will see that this motion makes the shape of a triangle). The other arm of the lever also makes the shape of a triangle. When calculated scientifically (using geometry, sines, tangents and secants), we find that the two arms of the lever have the same proportions to each other as the different weights have that will balance on the lever (excluding, of course, the weight of the lever).

Someone might also say that man can make a wheel and axis, and that he can put different size wheels together to make a mill. Still, the idea is the same. He did not make the principle that gives the wheels those powers. That principle is as unchangeable as the ones we discussed before. It is the same kind of principle. It just has a different function.

The power that two wheels of different sizes have on each other is proportionally the same as if half of the diameters of each wheel were joined together to make a lever. Scientifically speaking, the two wheels are simply the two circles that would be drawn if you were to completely rotate each leg of a lever.

All knowledge of science is learned from the study of true theology. All arts are based on the knowledge of science.

The Almighty Teacher has displayed the principles of science in the structure of the universe. He invites us to study and imitate it. It's as if he is saying "I have made an earth for man to live on, and I have made the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, AND LEARN FROM MY GENEROSITY TO ALL, TO BE KIND TO EACH OTHER".

What use is it for the eye to be able to see such vast distances into space, if it is not for the reason to teach us something? It is important that we make use of the fact that we can see Pleiades, Orion, Sirius, the North Star, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury. Otherwise, our sight is just wasted by gazing at the glittering show in space.

It is only by learning the science offered in the textbook of the starry sky, that we find use in being able to see them. When a man thinks of it in this way, he finds another reason for saying that nothing was made in vain. For it would indeed be vain if we did not learn from it.

In the same way that the Christian system of faith changed theology, it changed the way we learn. What we now call 'learning', is not what it was originally. In spite of what the schools say, learning does not consist in the knowledge of languages. Instead, learning is based on the knowledge of THINGS that language describes.

The Greeks were well educated. But, for them, learning did not consist of speaking Greek, any more than a Roman speaking Latin, or a Frenchman speaking French, or an Englishman speaking English. From what we know of the Greeks, they apparently did not know or speak any language but their own. This was one reason they were so educated. It gave them more time to study better things. The Greeks had schools of science and philosophy, not languages. Learning consists in the knowledge that is taught by science and philosophy.

Nearly all the scientific learning that we have now came to us from the Greeks (or the people that spoke the Greek language). Therefore, it became necessary for some people of other nations to learn Greek, and translate Greek books of science and philosophy in order take advantage of all the learning that the Greeks had accumulated.

The study of Greek was simply a necessary evil that had to be done in order to obtain the learning of the Greeks. Learning the Greek language, and learning what the Greeks knew, were two separate things. It was very likely that the people who learned the Greek language and did the translations, probably didn't even understand any of the learning that those works contained.

Since all the useful Greek books have already been translated, the Greek language is now useless. Any time spent learning Greek is basically a waste. The study of languages might add to the progress of communication and knowledge, but it has nothing to do with the creation of knowledge. It is only in currently active languages that new knowledge is to be found. One thing is certain, a youth will be able to learn more of an active language in one year than he could learn of a dead language in seven (the teacher probably doesn't even know much of it himself). The reason learning dead languages is hard is not necessarily because it is difficult to learn, but because the pronunciation is entirely lost. The same would be true of any other dead language. The best Greek linguist now alive does not understand Greek nearly so well as a Grecian farmer did, or even a milkmaid. The same is true for Latin, and a Roman farmer or milkmaid. Therefore, it would be a great advantage to education if we did away with the study of dead languages. Education needs to be based in scientific knowledge, as it was originally.

The excuse that is sometimes made for continuing to teach dead languages in schools, is that it is done at a time when a child memorizes better than he can do other serious study. This is totally untrue. The human mind has a natural bent toward things related to scientific knowledge. The first and favorite things that children love to do is imitate works done by man. For example, building houses with cards or sticks; or making a paper boat to float in water; or block the water in a gutter, and make something like a mill. When children are playing this way, they take it very seriously and love what they are doing. After this the child goes to school and his creative genius is killed by the dry, boring study of a dead language. The philosopher in the child is stifled by the linguist.

But the reason given above for continuing to teach dead languages in schools is not the real reason. The reason must be found somewhere else. Studies have shown that this reason can be found in the internal evidence, and in the circumstances that surround it. Both are easy to find.

Let us set aside for the moment the outrage to Gods moral justice in thinking that he makes the innocent suffer for the guilty. Let us also set aside the loose morals and cheap scam that he changed himself into a man; so that he would have an excuse for not following through with his so-called punishment of Adam. Putting those things aside, we see the Christian faith with its silly account of creation- the strange story of Eve- the snake and the apple- the doubtful idea of a god/man- the physical death of a god- the myth of a family of gods, and the Christian system of arithmetic where three is one, and one is three. All of these things cannot be reconciled with the gift of reason that God has given man. Neither can it be reconciled with the knowledge of the power and wisdom of God that man gains from science, and from studying the structure of Gods universe.

Those who set up the Christian religion undoubtedly knew that this gain in knowledge would eventually call into question the truth of their system of faith. Therefore, they thought it was necessary to reduce education down to a level that would be less dangerous to their project. They did this by restricting education to the study of dead languages.

They were not only against the study of science in Christian schools, but they actually went so far as to persecute it. It has only been within the last two centuries that the study of science has been revived in the schools. In 1610, Galileo discovered and began using telescopes. By using them to observe the motions of objects in space, he provided new information for learning the true structure of the universe. But instead of being admired, he was forced to renounce the results of his discoveries as heresy. Prior to that time, Vigilius was burned at the stake for claiming that the world was actually a globe, and that people could live anywhere there was land. Of course, now that truth is obvious to everyone.

If there were no harm in false beliefs that are not morally bad, then we would feel no need to oppose them and have them removed. It was not morally bad to believe the world was flat, any more than it was morally good to believe it was a globe. Neither is it morally bad to believe that God only created life on this planet, any more than it is morally good to believe that he created life on millions of worlds throughout the universe. But when a religion joins with a false story of creation, then it becomes a completely different matter. This is when beliefs that are not morally bad, cause the same harm as if they were. It is then that the truth becomes important in determining if the religion is real. In this case, it is our moral duty to try to determine the truth about the structure of the universe, and compare that to the claims of various religions. Of course the Christians, as if dreading the results, have constantly been opposed to this. Not only did they reject the study of science, but they persecuted the scientists. If Newton or Descartes had lived three or four hundred years ago, and pursued their studies as they did, it is most likely that they would not have lived to finish them. If Franklin had drawn lightning from the clouds back then, he probably would have been burned at the stake.

Later, they laid blame on Goth and Vandal. But even though they don't want to admit it, it is true that the age of ignorance started with the Christian system. There was more knowledge in the world before Christianity than there was for many centuries after. As a religion, the Christian system was simply another mythology. The mythology that Christianity is based on is a slightly different form of an ancient system of theism.*

*It is impossible for us to know when the heathen mythology began. But based on internal evidence, it is certain that it did not begin in the same way it ended up. All the gods of that mythology (except Saturn) came later on. However, before the heathen mythology, there was the supposed reign of Saturn. This belief was so theistic that they believed in only one God. Supposedly, Saturn gave up his throne to his three sons and one daughter, Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune, and Juno. After this, thousands of other gods were invented. The number of gods grew as fast then, as the number of saints and courts have grown since.

All the problems in theology and religion have been the result of what we call "revealed religion". The Mythologists had a more revealed religion than the Christians do. They had oracles and priests whose job it was to relay the word of God on nearly all occasions.

Since then, all the problems in theology (from Moloch to the modern belief in predestination; from heathen human sacrifice to the Christian sacrifice of the Creator) have been caused by revealed religion. The most effective way to prevent these kinds of problems is to not believe in any revelation other than what we see in the Creation. We should accept the creation as the only true word of God that has ever, or ever will exist. Everything else called the word of God is false.

It is due to the long silence of science that we now have to look back many hundreds of years to find respectable men we call "the ancients". If the progress of knowledge had not been interrupted, all those years would have been filled with men whose knowledge would have increased; and the ancients would have faded respectfully into the background. But Christianity has laid that all to waste. If we stood in the sixteenth century and looked back to the time of the ancients, it would be like looking out over a vast sandy desert in which there is not a single shrub to block our view to the fertile hills beyond.

It is totally inconsistent that any religion would think that it is irreligious to study the structure of the universe. But it is a fact that can't be denied. The event that finally broke this long chain of ignorance was the Reformation by Luther. From that time on (although it doesn't appear to have been Luther or the Reformers intention), the sciences started to make a come back. Liberal thinking also started to appear. This was really the only good thing that came from the Reformation. It didn't seem to help religion at all. The Christian mythology continued on. The revolt against Catholicism only increased the number of protestant denominations that sprang up to take its place.

Based on the internal evidence, we have shown what caused the change in education, and the motive for studying dead languages instead of science. I now move on to confront the differences between the structure of the universe and the claims of Christianity. But before I begin, I want to refer to some ideas that occurred to me in my youth. I'm sure that almost everyone has had similar thoughts at some point in their lives. I will state these ideas, and expand on them. But first let me give a brief introduction.

My father was a Quaker, and I was fortunate to have had good morals and a reasonably good education. Though I went to grammar school,* I did not learn Latin. This was not only because I had no desire to, but also because the Quakers objected to the books used to teach that language. However, this did not keep me from becoming familiar with the subjects in those books.

*The same school, Thetford In Norfolk that the present Counselor Mingay went to and under the same teacher.

My mind was naturally drawn to science. I did have some talent for poetry, but I did not pursue this because I thought it was not practical. As soon as I could, I purchased a pair of globes. I attended the philosophical lectures of Martin and Ferguson, and afterwards became friends with Dr. Bevis of the society called the Royal Society (then living in the Temple), who was an excellent astronomer.

I had no desire to get into politics. When I thought of politics, the only word that came to mind was Jockyship (Jockeying for position). Therefore when I did begin to get involved in government, I had to form a system for myself that matched up with the moral and philosophic principles in which I had been educated. I could see a great opportunity for America. It seemed to me that America needed to change its relationship with England and declare themselves independent. By doing this, they could avoid many difficulties and take advantage of a great opportunity. This was the motive behind my book called 'Common Sense', which was the first book I ever published. As far as I can tell, I don't believe I would have ever been known as an author if it hadn't been for the affairs of America. I wrote Common Sense near the end of 1775, and published it on January 1st, 1776. Independence was declared the following 4th of July.

Any person who has given it any thought, must realize that there are two distinct classes of what we call Thoughts. There are those that we produce ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking. But there are also those that just bolt into our minds all by themselves. I have always made it a rule to treat those kind of thoughts with respect, taking care to see if they were worth entertaining. It is from these that I have gained nearly all the knowledge that I have. As for school education, it really only serves to teach you to start learning for yourself. Every educated person is ultimately his own teacher. The reason for this is that principles (as opposed to circumstances) cannot be simply memorized; they must be understood. They make their most lasting impression when you conceive them yourself. So much for the introduction.

From the time that I was able to think of an idea and act on it, I doubted the truth of Christianity and considered it to be very odd. I remember when I was about seven or eight hearing a sermon preached by one of my relatives. He was a very strong Christian, and he was preaching on the subject of redemption by the death of the Son of God. After that sermon, I walked out to the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps (I remember the exact spot), I revolted at the idea I had just heard. I thought it sounded like God was acting like a common man by killing his son when he couldn't get revenge any other way. I was sure that any man would be hanged that would do such a thing. I couldn't understand why they would preach such a sermon. These were not just childish thoughts. I took them very seriously. They were based on my idea that God was just too good to do such a thing; and was too almighty for something like that to even be necessary. I still feel the same way today. On top of that, I believe that any system of religion that shocks the mind of a child cannot be a true system.

It almost seems like Christian parents were ashamed to tell their children anything about their religious principles. Sure, they may teach them good morals, or talk about the goodness of the 'Providence' (The Christian mythology has five gods. There is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the God Providence, and the Goddess Nature). But they won't talk to their child about how God the Father killed his son (actually, he had other people do it for him). It even makes it worse to say that this was done in order to make man happier and better (as if murder could make us better!). To say it is a big mystery is just an excuse for it being so unbelievable.

This is so different from the pure and simple theology of Deism! The true Deist only has one God, and his religion consists in meditating on the power, wisdom, and gentleness of God that he sees in his creation. He tries to imitate his God in all things moral, scientific, and practical.

The religion that comes closest to Deism is that of the Quakers. But they made their system too narrow by leaving out the works of God. Though I respect their efforts to promote human welfare, I can't help smiling at their self-admiration. If God had consulted a Quaker during the creation, what a silent, drab-colored creation it would have been! The flowers would not have blossomed into their brightly colored blooms, nor would the birds have been allowed to sing.

But let me proceed... I had learned all I could about the globes and the orrery,* and had some idea about the vastness of space, and the infinite divisibility of matter. I had gained at least a general knowledge of natural philosophy. So I began to compare (confront would be a better word) the eternal evidence in those things against Christianity.

* Some who are reading this book may not be familiar with an orrery, since its name does not give an indication of what it is. For their information I add the following notes. The orrery gets its name from the person who invented it. It is a clock-like device that represents a miniature universe. It shows how the earth, moon and planets rotate and revolve around the sun. It also shows the relative distances between the planets, and their size. Plus, it shows how the sun is in the center of our system. It is an accurate representation of our solar system.

Although it is not a direct article of Christianity, they obviously believe that God only created life on this planet. From their Mosaic account of creation; the story of Eve and the apple; and the related story of the death of the Son of God, it is apparent that their system would look little and ridiculous if they were to believe that God created life on as many worlds as there are stars in the sky. You can't believe both of these things at the same time. The person who thinks he does, really hasn't given much thought to either.

Even though the ancients believed in other life in the universe, it has only been in the last three centuries that we have learned the true size and shape of the earth. Several ships have been able to sail around the world in the same way that someone might walk in a large circle. After they went around, they ended up back where they started. The distance around the center of the earth is only about 25,020 miles. This is assuming sixty-nine and a half miles per equatorial degree. You can sail around the world in about three years.*

* At three miles per hour, a ship could sail around the world in less than a year if she could sail in a direct circle. However, this can't be done because she has to follow the course of the ocean.

At first we might think that our earth is very large. But if we compare it against the vastness of space (where it hangs like a balloon or a bubble) it is infinitely smaller than the smallest grain of sand or finest particle of water in the whole ocean. It is extremely small. As we will show, it is just one of a whole system of worlds in the universe.

It is not too difficult to get some idea of the vastness of space if we think through a series of ideas. When we think of the size and shape of a room, our ideas limit themselves to the walls and stop there. However, when we look up into open space, we cannot think of any walls surrounding it. If, to make things easier, we do try to imagine a boundary, then the question immediately pops up- "But then what is beyond that boundary?"; and after that, "Then what is beyond THAT boundary?". We can go on with this line of questioning until we finally realize that there is in fact no end. It is obvious that God was not short on space when he made the earth so small. We have to find the answer somewhere else.

If we look at the world God has given us to live in, we find that all of it- the earth, the waters, and the air surrounding it- is filled and crowded with life. From the largest animals that we know of, all the way down to the smallest insects our eyes can see, and even further down to others that can only be seen with a microscope. Every tree, every plant, every leaf, serves as a world unto itself for some population of life. It continues on down until the mere odor given off by a blade of grass would be food for thousands.

Therefore, since there is no part of our earth that is not occupied, why would anyone think that life does not exist anywhere else in the vast universe? There is plenty of room for worlds as large, or larger than ours; each of them millions of miles apart from each other.

At this point, if we take it one step further, we will be able to see the true reason for our happiness. We will see why the Creator thought it was a good idea to divide matter up in to separate planets (like earth), rather than creating one immense planet that spread out across the vastness of space. But before I explain my ideas about this, I need to take a moment to describe what the universe is for those who don't know.

Our solar system (which is the system of planets that surround our sun), consists of the Sun, six planets, as well as the moons surrounding those planets. The earth has a moon that moves along with it as she makes her annual trip around the Sun. The other planets make a trip around the Sun in the same way. This can be seen with the help of a telescope.

Each of the six planets travel in a large circle around the Sun, and are generally in the same plane with each other. Each world follows in nearly the same track as it goes around the Sun. It rotates on its axis like a top, and leans a little to the side.

It is this leaning of the earth (23.5 degrees) that causes summer and winter, and the different lengths of night and day. If the earth did not lean, the days and nights would always be 12 hours long, and the seasons would be the same throughout the year.

Every time the earth makes a complete turn, it creates what we call night and day. Every time it goes completely around the Sun it makes what we call a year. Each year the earth will rotate three hundred and sixty-five times.*

* Those who thought the sun went around the earth every 24 hours made the mistake of thinking that the fire goes around the meat, instead of the meat turning around towards the fire.

We still use the same names for the planets that were given to them by the ancients. They are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. When you look at them, they appear to be larger than the stars. This is because they are many millions of miles closer to Earth than the stars are. Sometimes we call the planet Venus the evening star or the morning star. This is because it rises or sets before the Sun (but never by more than three hours).

The planet closest to the Sun is Mercury. Mercury is thirty-four million miles away from the Sun, and maintains this distance as it moves in a circle around it. The second planet is Venus. Venus is fifty-seven million miles away from the sun. The third planet is our planet Earth, which is eighty-eight million miles away from the Sun. The fourth planet is Mars, which is one hundred and thirty-four million miles from the Sun. The fifth is Jupiter, which is five-hundred and fifty-seven million miles away from the Sun. The sixth planet is Saturn, which is seven hundred and sixty-three million miles away from the Sun. Each of the planets move in their respective circles around the Sun, with Saturn making the largest circle of all.

This means that the space taken up by our solar system can be calculated by taking the distance from the Sun to Saturn, and doubling it. This comes up to be fifteen hundred and twenty-six million miles. The distance Saturn travels as it makes its circle around the Sun is nearly five thousand million miles. The globe-shaped area inside Saturn's orbit is almost three thousand five hundred million times three thousand five hundred million square miles.*

* If someone should ask how man can know this, I have a plain answer. Man knows how to calculate the timing of an eclipse, and also can calculate to a minute the time when the planet Venus will come into a straight line between the earth and the sun (it looks like a large pea as it passes across the face of the sun). This only happens twice in a hundred years, about eight years apart. It has happened twice in our time, and both times were calculated correctly ahead of time. It can also be correctly calculated when it will occur at any time in the future. Since man would not be able to do these things unless he understood the solar system, it is proof that we have the knowledge. Even if we are off by a few thousand, or million miles, it barely makes a difference when talking about such vast distances.

Even though our solar system is so incredibly large, it is only one small system. Beyond this, at a vast distance into space, far beyond our ability to calculate, are the bodies we call fixed stars. They are called fixed because they do not have orbits in the same sense as our planets. Those fixed stars are always the same distance from each other, and are always in the same place (similar to our Sun). Each of these stars have their own set of planets that are simply too remote for us to discover. These planets orbit around their star just like our planets orbit around our Sun.

With this easy progression of ideas, it is clear to see that the immensity of space is filled with systems of worlds. No part of space is wasted, any more than any part of the earth and water is unoccupied.

With this casual explanation of the structure of the universe, I now return to my point which was this: God had a good reason to create a vast number of worlds in the universe, instead of making one enormous world that extended throughout space.

Something I have never lost sight of, is that all our knowledge of science springs from the fact that the planets orbit around the Sun.

If all the matter contained in all our planets had been combined into a single globe, then no revolutionary motion would have existed. Thus, we would not have the knowledge of science that we do now. Science is the basis for all the mechanical arts that provide so much of our happiness and comfort here on earth.

Since God did not make anything that is useless, we must believe that he organized the universe in such a way that would most benefit man. As we see and experience the benefits that we have gained from the universe being the way it is, then we know at least one good reason why God created so many worlds. This reason should cause us to admire and be grateful to God.

But it is not just the inhabitants of the earth that benefit from the fact that God created many worlds. The life that exists on each of the worlds in our system have the same opportunity for knowledge that we do. They see the revolutionary movement of our earth in the same way we see theirs. All the planets revolve within sight of each other. So, they have access to the same universal school of science that we do.

But there is more. The solar system next to ours shows the very same principles of science to those inhabitants, as ours does. This is true throughout the vastness of space.

Our ideas concerning the greatness of God, as well as his wisdom and generosity, grow as we think about the vastness of the universe and it's structure. Instead of being alone in space, we can now have the idea of a whole community of worlds. All of them made in such a way as to give knowledge to man. Our earth is filled with abundance. But we forget that much of that abundance is the result of the scientific knowledge provided by the vast structure of the universe.

So what are we to think of Christianity, and their idea that life only exists on our small world; A world that is only twenty-five thousand miles around; A world that a man walking three miles an hour, for twelve hours a day, could completely walk around in less than two years? What is this one small world compared to the vastness of space and the almighty power of God?

Can we seriously believe that God, who has millions of worlds depending on him, would abandon them so he could come to die in our world just because one man and one woman ate an apple? On the other hand, are we to believe that every world in the creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer? In this case, the Son of God (or God if you prefer) would have nothing else to do but travel around from world to world, in an endless series of deaths. He would hardly have time to be alive.

It is by rejecting the natural evidence that we see in God's creation, that so many wild and silly systems of faith and religion have been invented and set up. There may be many systems of religion that are not morally very bad, and might even be good in some respects. But there can be only ONE true religion. The true religion will be the one that is consistent with the evidence seen in Gods work of creation. But with the Christian religion, all the evidence in the Heavens either contradicts it or makes it seem absurd.

I believe there are men in the world who are convinced that a religious lie might, under some circumstances, do some good. But once the lie has been established, it is difficult to undo. Religious lies are like bad deeds. Once they start, they hard to stop.

The people who first preached the Christian system of faith (and attempted to combine it with the morality taught by Jesus), probably convinced themselves that the system was better than the heathen mythology that was then in fashion. The first preachers taught the lie to the second, and to the third, until the idea that it was actually a lie got lost. It began to be thought of as the truth. Of course preachers who made their living at it encouraged this belief.

We understand how such a belief might have been accepted among the general population. However, it is impossible to understand why the Church continually persecuted science and scientists, unless the Church was trying to hide some evidence that it was actually a fraud; or unless they understood that it would not stand up against the evidence provided by the structure of the universe.

Now that I have shown the irreconcilable differences between the Bible (that any man could have written), and the real word of God that exists in the universe, I will now give the three main ways that have been used down through the ages to force this lie on mankind.

Those three things are Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy. Mystery and Miracles are incompatible with true religion; and we should always be suspicious of Prophecy.

As for Mystery, everything we see is in one sense a mystery to us. Our own existence is a mystery. The whole vegetable world is a mystery. We cannot fully understand how an acorn can develop into an oak tree. We don't know how a seed can unfold and multiply itself, and give us such an abundant return on such a small investment.

The fact that it DOES happen is not a mystery, because we can see it. We also know we can cause it to happen by simply dropping the seed into the ground. Therefore, we know as much as we need to know. The part that we don't need to know (and wouldn't be able to do anyway), the Creator does for us. So we are better off letting him do that part for us.

In this sense, every created thing is a mystery. However, the word mystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than darkness can be applied to light. The God we believe in is a God of moral truth, not a God of mystery or darkness. Mystery is the enemy of truth. It is a fog invented by humans, that clouds and distorts the truth. Truth never surrounds itself in mystery. If it is surrounded in mystery, it is the work of the enemy.

Religion is the belief in God, and the practice of moral truth. Mystery can have no part of it. The belief in a God is far from being a mystery. Of all beliefs, it is the easiest. As we discussed before, we have good reason to believe in God. The practice of moral truth is just an imitation of the moral goodness of God. We simply treat each other as he so kindly treats us. We are unable to serve God in the same way that we can serve those who are truly in need. Therefore, the way to serve God is to contribute to the happiness of our fellow creatures that God has made. This cannot be done by avoiding others, and spending our lives thinking only of ourselves.

The very nature of religion was designed to be free of mystery, or anything that is mysterious. Finding true religion is the duty of every living soul. Therefore, it should be something that everyone can understand and comprehend. Man does not learn religion like he learns the secrets and mysteries of a trade. He learns the theory of religion by thinking. It comes naturally into his thoughts by the things he sees, hears, or reads. His practice of religion is based on this.

Men used religious lies to set up a system of religion that was incompatible with the works of God that we see in the creation; and is offensive to human understanding. They had to come up with a word that could be used to block all questions or speculation. The word mystery served this purpose quite nicely. Religion (which is not mysterious), has now been perverted into a fog of mysteries.

As Mystery served a good general purpose, Miracles also came in handy on occasion. Mystery helped to confuse the mind. Miracles puzzled the senses. Mystery was the talk, while Miracles were the magic.

Before we get into this subject, it would be good to understand what a miracle is.

Everything can be considered to be a miracle in the same sense that everything can be considered a mystery. No one thing is a greater miracle than another. Even though the elephant is larger, that does not mean it is a greater miracle than a mite. Neither is a mountain a greater miracle than an atom. To almighty God, it is not any more difficult to make one than the other. It is not any more difficult to make millions of worlds than it is to make one. Therefore, in one sense, everything is a miracle. In another sense, there is no such thing as a miracle. It may be a miracle when compared to our limited power and understanding, although it is not a miracle to the Almighty Creator. But since this description does not explain the idea behind the word Miracle, we need to look into it a little further.

Man expects nature to act according to certain natural laws. A miracle is something that does not act according to those laws. But if we don't know all the laws of nature, then we really can't judge whether something is actually a miracle or not.

It seems like a miracle that man can fly several miles up into the air. However, we know that we can do this with the help of a balloon and a very special kind of air known as Helium. In the same way, seeing sparks come from your finger, or causing metal to move with no visible means, would also seem like a miracle. However, we know how this occurs because of static electricity and magnetism. Many other things in the natural world would seem to be a miracle to those who did not understand it. Bringing a drowned person back to life would seem like a miracle to those who did not understand that someone can be alive although they appear to be completely dead.

Besides this, magicians are able to use sleight-of-hand and accomplices to do things that look like miracles. But once we know the trick, we think nothing of it. In addition, there are mechanical and optical illusions. In Paris, there is an exhibit of ghosts that is really quite amazing, even though they let you know it is just a trick. Since we do not fully understand all of nature or the arts, there is really no way to determine what a miracle is. People who believe that miracles exist are setting themselves up to be fooled.

We can be deceived by appearances. Things that are not real can look like they are real. It would be totally inconsistent for God to use miracles. People would be suspicious of the person who claimed to perform them, and the person who claimed to see one would be suspected of lying. The religious doctrine that was supposed to be proved by the miracle would not be taken seriously.

The claim of miracles to prove a religious system is the most inconsistent that religion has; even if it caused someone to believe they were real. In the first place, whenever one has to put on a show (miracles are nothing but a show) to get someone to believe something, it indicates a weakness in the doctrine being preached. In the second place, it degrades God into a carnival showman who does tricks to make the people stare and wonder. It is the most uncertain kind of evidence that can be used. Belief will not depend on the miracle, but will depend on the credibility of the person who says he saw it. Therefore, even if the thing were true, it would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.

Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand appeared in the air, took up a pen, and wrote every word. Would anybody believe me? Certainly not. Would they believe me if it were actually true? Certainly not. If a real miracle were to actually happen, it would suffer the same fate as if it didn't. That God would make use of true miracles when he knows they wouldn't accomplish what he intended, would be very inconsistent.

When a person says he saw a miracle that falls outside the laws of nature, it raises a question in our minds. Which is more likely... that something happened outside the laws of nature, or that a man might tell a lie? We have never in our life seen nature break its own laws. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told. There is at least a million to one odds that the reporter of the miracle told a lie.

Though a whale is large enough to do it, the story of the whale swallowing Jonah borders on the miraculous. But it would have been even more of a miracle if Jonah had swallowed the whale. This example will do. So, let us ask again... Is it more likely that a man swallowed a whale, or told a lie?

But suppose that Jonah really had swallowed the whale, and carried it in his belly to Nineveh. What if he had thrown up the full sized whale right before their eyes in order to convince the people that it was true? They would have thought he was a devil instead of a prophet. If the whale had carried Jonah to Ninevah and thrown him up right before their eyes, wouldn't they have thought the whale was a devil and Jonah was one of his imps?

One of the most extraordinary miracles in the New Testament is that of the devil flying away with Jesus to the top of a high mountain; and to the top of the highest pinnacle of the temple. There he showed and promised Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. How was it that he did not discover America? Is his sooty highness only interested in kingdoms?

I have too much respect for the moral character of Christ to believe that he told this whale of a miracle himself. Neither is it easy to figure out the purpose for it. Maybe it was to impress the admirers of Queen Anne's treasury and the collectors of relics and antiquities. Or, maybe it was to show how ridiculous miracles are, in the same way Don Quixote made chivalry seem ridiculous. Maybe it was to make us doubt miracles by causing us to wonder if it was God or the Devil who performed it. However, it requires a great deal of faith in the Devil to believe this miracle.

Any way you look at it, miracles are probably not real or necessary. As mentioned before, they would not serve any useful purpose even if they were real. It is more difficult to get someone to believe in a miracle, than it is to get someone to accept a good moral principle without a miracle. Moral principles universally speak for themselves. A miracle is a thing that happens at one point in time. Anytime after that, you must put your faith in the person who told you it happened, instead of God. Therefore, we should think of miracles as proof that a religious system is false rather than true. Miracles should be thought of as a crutch for truth, and should be rejected. Falsehood will always try to make use of things that truth would deny. So much for mystery and miracles.

In the same way that mystery and miracle relates to the past and present, prophecy tries to cover all the bases by relating to the future. It was not enough to know what had been done, but we also had to cover what would be done in the future. The so-called prophet is a historian of future times. If he made a prediction that came within a thousand miles of the mark, the clever thinking of people in the future could make it a bulls eye. If he made a prediction that turned out to be dead wrong, then we just assume that God must have repented and changed his mind (as he did in the case of Jonah and Nineveh). False belief systems make such fools out of man!

As we showed earlier, the original meaning of the words prophet and prophesying have been changed. The word prophet as it is normally used today, is something invented during later times. Because of this change in meaning, the words used by the Jewish poets are difficult to understand correctly. This is because we are not familiar with the local circumstances that caused them to be written. They have been turned into prophecies. Scholars and commentaries have changed the meaning of the words to fit their own purposes. Everything that was unclear was turned into a prophecy, and everything that was insignificant was turned into a 'type'. A mistake would make a nice prophecy, and a dishrag a nice 'type'.

Lets suppose for a moment that a prophet is a man that knows something that God told him about the future. Either these kind of men existed, or they didn't. If they did exist, it would be reasonable to think that those predictions would have been worded in a way that would be easy to understand. They would not have been worded in such a way that no one could understand them. They would not have so many meanings that they could be used to fit any circumstance that might occur later on. It is disrespectful to God to think that he would treat man in such a silly way. Yet the prophecies in the Bible are exactly that.

As with miracles, prophecies do not serve the purpose even if they were real. People who hear a prophecy don't know if the man really prophesied or lied. They don't know whether it was revealed to him, or if he made it up. If the prophecy does come true (or close to true), nobody could know if the prophet knew it, or just guessed it. It may have just happened by accident. Therefore, a prophet is useless and unnecessary. To play it safe we should keep ourselves from being fooled by not taking these people seriously.

All in all, mystery, miracle, and prophecy are things that belong to false religions, not the true one. They are the reason so many false claims are made around the world, and the reason religion has become a business. The success of one impostor encouraged others to give it a try. By sprinkling in a few good deeds, they were able to maintain the religious lie that kept them from feeling guilty.

I have discussed this subject longer than I meant to, so I will bring it to a close by summarizing everything we have said.

First- The idea that the word of God exists in print, writing, or in speech is inconsistent for all the reasons we have discussed. These reasons include the lack of a universal language; that language is subject to change; that translations are subject to error; the possibility of it being kept secret; the probability that it was changed or made up, and forced on the world.

Secondly- That the Creation we see is the real and eternal word of God. It cannot lie to us. It proclaims his power. It demonstrates his wisdom. It shows us his goodness and generosity.

Thirdly- That the moral duty of man is to imitate the moral goodness and generosity of God that we see in the creation that he has given us. As we see the goodness of God to all men, so should all men show goodness to each other. Because of this, we know it is morally wrong for men to persecute or have revenge against one another. We also see that it is morally wrong to be cruel to animals.

I do not worry about an afterlife. I feel content and secure in the knowledge that the Power that gave me life is able to continue it if he decides to. It could be in any form chooses; either with or without a body. It seems more likely to me that I will continue to exist in an afterlife, than that I existed in a life before this one.

One thing is clear. All the nations on earth, and all religions, agree that there is a God. The things they disagree on is the extra baggage that goes along with it. If a universal religion ever wins over the world, it will not be by believing anything new. It will be by getting rid of the extra baggage and believing as man did in the beginning. If Adam really did exist, he was a Deist. In the meantime, let every man have the right to follow the religion and the worship he prefers.

END OF THE FIRST PART.

AGE OF REASON

PREFACE TO PART II.

In Part 1 of Age of Reason I mentioned that I had intended to publish my thoughts on religion for long time; but that I had put it off. I meant to make it my last published work. However, the circumstances in France during the latter part of 1793 caused me to believe that I should not delay it. The revolution was moving away from the just and humane philosophy that it started with. The idea that priests could forgive sins (although the idea seemed to be going out of fashion) had dulled men's feelings, and prepared them to commit all sorts of crimes. This idea is always dangerous to society, and is demeaning to God. The intolerant spirit that existed in Church-inspired persecutions had moved into politics. Members of the revolution started using the courts as a form of the previous church inquisitions. The guillotine and stake took more lives than the burnings that had been done by the Church. I saw many of my closest friends destroyed. Many others were thrown in prison every day. I had been given hints that the same thing was about to happen to me; and I certainly beli