1
results found in
18 ms
Page 1
of 1
1817 Oct. 26
Not Paul
Ch. Paul’s Doctrine
Doctrine not Paul’s
Faith as duty
At first sight it may well seem a paradox and that paradox an absurdity and that absurdity a gross one to say / suppose / that in every case the / any / human mind should be so constituted should have been brought into such a state and condition, that the grosser the absurdity of the / a / proposition, the greater the facility it found in obtaining admittance the more eagerly it were / would be / received and the more pertinaciously / obstinately / and inexorably it would be clung to and maintained and defended. This however is no more than the natural and not only the natural but the necessary consequence of a steady and consistent belief in the maxim notion or persuasion of the meritoriousness of faith. For the[?] proof as before.
In this temper of mind whatsoever be the mass or portion of discourse in which the tenets or positions which are to be taken for the subjects or objects of the persuasion in question, the mind / invention / is put upon the hunt for the most absurd and extravagant sense―the sense most unconformable / unconnected / to and irreconcileable with experience continual and universal experience that can be found.
For / In the pursuit of food for / the gratification of this appetite thus created for absurdity no subject is held sacred: the […?] purposes and decrees of the Almighty are taken in hand, and designs and resolves the most repugnant to all notions / conceptions / of benevolence and justice are ascribed to him.
Similar Items
-
Title: [1817 Oct. 25 Not Paul Ch Paul]Description: 1817 Oct. 25 Not Paul Ch Paul’s Doctrine § Faith & Works Mischief of faith The strength of a man’s faith is in proportion to the strength of the command obtained by his will over his judgment. But of the strength of that command the only assignable measure is the absurdity of the proposition which he has brought himself to believe. At the top of the scale of absurdity / absurd propositions / stands beyond all dispute the sort of proposition stiled a self-contradictory proposition. This therefore is the point to which on the part of the believer in the merit of faith and its necessity to salvation all exertions all efforts tend. Hence it is that / This being /, if he were consistent every man by / in / whom / whose mind / the idea of merit is attached to that of faith would be not only a Trinitarian but a Catholic or Lutheran: a believer in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. Bentham footnote at bottom of page: ‘Note. ‘(a) If Transubstantiation is more strikingly contradictory to all physical experience, a proposition asserting a belief in Trinitarianism is more directly and palpably a self-contradictory proposition.’
-
Title: [1817 Oct. 25 Not Paul Ch Paul]Description: 1817 Oct. 25 Not Paul Ch Paul’s Doctrine § Faith & Works Mischief of faith But if there be merit in faith, and in such sort that the quantity of merit is / encreases / as the quantity of faith―as the intensity of the persuasion produced by the exercise of the will it is not Trinitarianism, it is not Catholicism that is the true religion / the true religion is―not Trinitarianism not Catholicism /: it is the religion of Bramah. For though, neither in the religion of Bramah, nor in any still more absurd religion if there were one which a persuasion offered for absurdity could produce, can any thing more palpably absurd be found than a self contradictory proposition nor consequently than a / the / Trinitarian proposition, yet the Trinitarian proposition is but one: to this proposition add that by which transubstantiation is asserted, still there are but two of them. But the religion of Bramah is a whole ocean of absurdity, and that ocean a / an altogether / boundless one: to which ocean trinitar[ian]ism[?] and transubstantiation put together are but drops. In the whole field of Catholicism suppose a few hundred such drops capable of being gleaned: in comparison of an ocean what are a few hundred drops. Bentham footnote at bottom of page: ‘Note (a) ‘(a) See a sketch of it a correct and even more than sufficient sketch of it in Mill’s British India.’
-
Title: [[Around folios 1 to 19] Defence of]Description: [Around folios 1 to 19] Defence of Economy - II. ag t I. Burke Ch. 4 Concerning party men and their principles. [Around folios 1 to 13] Sextus for B. [Around folios 20 to 41] Ch. 9. Paul’s Style. I. Argument. §. 1. For judging of aptitude of style in antient discourses the existing state of things is no improper object of reference. What would be unapt now was unapt then. §. 2. Forms of inaptitude in style - Forms of intellectual weakness in argumentation: 1. Obscurity; - in its highest degree, Nonsensicalness: 2 Irrelevancy in argumentation; 3. Irrelevancy in reference - demonstration ex auctoritate ill conducted; 4. Desultoriness §. 3. By obscurity, inspiration may be disproved: and in Paul’s case, is. §. 4. Nonsense - its abundance in Paul’s discourses. §. 5. Paul’s demonstrations ex auctoritate - their irrelevancy. [verso] Ch. 8 2 o Paul’s Style. [Around folios 42 to 57] Ch. 6 I. Argument Paul’s Style §. Different forms of Nonsense observable in the discourses of S t Paul [Around folios 58 to 68] I. Argument 2 1 Style and Character [Around folios 69 to 85] I. Argument Ch Paul’s Character §. 1. All things to all men. §. 2. Falsified predictions. [Around folios 86 to 128] I. Argument Ch. 6 Of Quasi-Miracles, Visions, Quasi-Visions and Trances. [Around folios 133 to 140] I. Argument. Ch. 7 Natural causes of Paul’s Success. §. 1. Energy - how operating as a pledge of security it produces persuasion in favour of any discourse /doctrine/ howsoever absurd. §. 2. Nonsense - its advantage - it is refutation proof. §. 3. The success of a religion is no proof of its verity. §. 4. The more absurd a religion, the stronger the attachment to it. [Full folio wrapper around folios 141 to 214] [front cover] III Style. Character. III. Doctrine (exclusive of Asceticism. [spine] 1818. Not Paul. Style Character and Doctrine not concerning Asceticism. [Around folios 141 to 162] III. Doctrine Ch Paul’s Doctrines §. 1. Plan of this Chapter §. 2. Paul’s doctrine avowedly independent of that delivered to us as Jesus’s §. 2. Real object and design of Paul’s doctrines - his temporal advancement. §. 3. Doctrines more immediately subservient to that end 1. Magnification of faith: viz in the sense inculcated by him. §. 4. — 2. Depreciation of works: viz. in that Mosaic sense in which they were rivals to faith as above in the struggle for salvation §. 5. Doctrines less immediately and forcibly subservient: 1. Mysticism. 2. Asceticism [Around folios 163 to 172] Not Paul III. Doctrine § Mysticism on the commemoration of the death of Jesus. [verso] Not Paul Ch. Conclusion. [Around folios 173 to 186] III. Doctrine. Ch. III. Faith - its alledged necessity to salvation - alledged duty of possessing it. [Around folios 187 to 199] Ch. 9. Paul’s Doctrine Ch. or §. Causes of Paul’s asceticism §. 1. Cause I. In all other pursuits he beheld rivals to that he preached: the greater the pleasure, the more formidable the rivalry §. 2. II Cause II. Notion he found prevalent - heaven not to be purchased but by sacrifices: the greater the sacrifice, the surer the purchase. §. 3. Paul’s arguments in support of asceticism - their absurdity. §. 4. By his anxiety to obtain female married converts, Paul is led into repugnancy to Jesus [Around folio 208] III. Doctrine. excepting Asceticism. [Around folios 209 to 211] Not Paul III Doctrine §. 1. Faith - Paul’s meaning by it. Faith in him, or to his use [Around folios 212 to 214] III. Doctrine. Ch. 10 Ch. 10 Mischievous Doctrines, deduced from Paul but unwarrantably
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1