On May 12, 1797 while living in Paris, France Tom Paine wrote the following
letter to a Christian friend who was trying to convert Paine to Christianity.
Paine's response fits perfectly with my opinion on organized religion.
"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations
from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on
religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show
that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because
it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is
the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so,
any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran
to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the
time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that
now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was
done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.
"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity
in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and
this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as
capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as
they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they
gave.
"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it,
nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind
in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the
word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can
no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither
can he prove it himself.
"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you
know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The
Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.
"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do,
and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or
disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do
you know Moses was not an impostor?
"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold
verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been
imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion
that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this
does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is
therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -
"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible;
and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God
manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The
result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your
standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard,
shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.
"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being;
making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done,
and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of
another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done.
But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast
volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate,
vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea -
that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.
"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in
the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book
that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself
which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and
the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions
of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.
"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for
the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the
prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man
and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
"That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this
distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is
blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice
and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God,
just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the
worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before,
according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable
from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed
the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to
do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders
of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as
a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and
asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and
to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in
pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on
this case.
"In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of
Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or
hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this
anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of
God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to
the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and
injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.
"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the
Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for
believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you
were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason
for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference,
and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.
"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe
in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel.
But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth
is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their
creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the
New.
"When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for
I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas
of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this
answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion.
It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my
disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in
my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God,
in almost every part of it."