Two days into Lent and I haven't touched sporcle (not bad as I've been going there several times a day), and I've almost finished Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, which is an ironic choice for the season. It is my first Tom Paine book, and I am fascinated by it. If you know little about it, more information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

Mr Paine starts by stating that he believes in God, but not in the Biblical interpretation, or in the Bible itself. The second part of the book is devoted to an analysis of the Bible, pulling it apart book/section by book/section. He points out historical (and occasionally logical) inaccuracies, and explains why he believes the choice of books to be included as the Bible to have been arbitrary (I know nothing about the theology/history of this but would like to read more). He also has interesting thoughts on the definition of the words 'prophet' and 'prophecy'.

Reading between the lines, it says much about religion in Britain in the eighteenth century, and about what the church was telling people to believe. I am also interested that although I agree with many of his points, there are others that I see logical alternative arguments too, even with my limited knowledge. I found the discussion of some of the more violent sections of the Old Testament particularly recognisable as thoughts I'd had when I first read it (I was utterly horrified by Joshua and didn't touch the Bible for some time after).

So, muddled thoughts, more as a record for me rather than an attempt to be controversial. I would be interested to hear the ideas and opinions of anyone else who has come across it, and I thoroughly recommend it as a thought provoking read.