1
results found in
50 ms
Page 1
of 1
24 Dec 1814
Jug. Util
§.2.
7
II. Sub Rev
Ch.1. Course of enquiry
1
§.2. Not impious or immoral
§.2. In this inquiry there is nothing of impiety any more than of immorality.
Impiety— blasphemy—atheism— heresy, heterodoxy, schism—these and other terms of reproach as the vocabulary of hatred affords under the head of religion—of what is it that they MS alt. ‘they indicate’. are indications? Of any thing in the conduct of time to whom they are applied?—No: but only of something viz. the passion of hatred, as reigning in the breast of him by whom they are employed.
Impossible is the supposition which, in this use of the word impiety, as often as it is employed in the character of a term of reproach, imputing guilt to the person of whose discourse or deportment it is predicated will be found to be involved: tacitly indeed, but not the less necessarily involved.
A persuasion of existence of an almighty being endowed with such qualities such of which as under the name of moral and intellectual not so much as a conception could have been derived from any other source than the observation and experience of them as exemplified in human nature—of a being formed with infinite power, and at the same time activated by the passions such as that of jealousy and ravings—a God who by himself is termed a jealous God—a God, in whose mouth the tremendous sound Vengeance is [...?] has been known to issue—A persuasion of the existence being powerful in the extreme and at the same time jealous <.^.^.> vindictive in the extreme is supposed to be entertained by <.^.^.> and at the same time by this same man, he being at the same time in his senses and not labouring under any mental derangement, not only a propensity to offer, but the habit of offering affronts to that same being who all the while to his power adds the disposition to subject him to tortures infinite in duration as well as extent, is ascribed! Is it possible to carry to a pitch the 2 [...?] of absurdity and injustice?
1.
Schism—heterodoxy, heresy, blasphemy, impiety, atheism, signs not of any quality in the discourse, but of a passion in the mind, of him who uses them.
2.
In a proportion by which impiety is imputed, is involved is an impossible supposition.
3.
There is that of a belief of the existence of a being almighty yet jealous and vindictive, able and disposed to punish with infinite torment any who affront him—coupled with the disposition to affront him.
Similar Items
-
Title: [25 Dec 1814 Jug Util 10]Description: 25 Dec 1814 Jug Util 10 II. Sub Rev 5 Heresy Heterodoxy Heresy—heterodoxy heresy schism—In all these cases there does exist it is but too true a real matter of fact—and with it a real offence existing and made manifest. Manifest? but on whose part? On the part of the person, to whom and by these expressions, delinquency is imputed? No: but in the part of him by whom it is imputed: By heresy, in Greek [Greek text] ere it was first applied to the purpose of giving intimation of a species of delinquency nothing more was meant than the making of a choice, making a choice as between one opinion and another. Making a choice not between one opinion and another? (says the alledged delinquent accused with heresy) but in doing so where can be the offence? who is there that is not occupied—continually occupied in the making of such choices? who is there that for two minutes together unless by being asleep can avoid making it? who is there that can avoid making it and live? Oh, but says the accuser the opinion thus chosen is an opinion opposite different from mine. Here then is the proposition involved—continually and necessarily involved in every such charge. I was a person the differing from whom in opinion on any article and in particular in any article of religion, or in a word in any article whatever, in an offence. <.^.^.>by the two expressions one and the same amount to <.^.^.> is expressed. I am in intention a tyrant in so far as <.^.^.> myself a tyrant: and under my tyranny my <.^.^.> is that all mankind be prostrate. My wish and desire is to render miserable whatsoever person shall in any part presume to give expression to an opinion different from mine. 7. 2. Schism heterodoxy heresy: In all these instances an offence indeed has place: but the offender is not he to whom: but he by whom transgression is imputed. Heresy means making a choice—nothing more. 8. Orthodox. The offence consists in making a wrong choice. i.e. a choice different from mine. 9. Heterodox. This is as much as to say I am tyrant as much as I can be, and wish to subject to my tyranny all mankind—rendering miserable all who profess to think differently from me.
-
Title: [20 Sept 1811 Jug Util §.2.]Description: 20 Sept 1811 Jug Util §.2. B.II. Under Revelation Mischief 7. Ch.9. Antipathy for unbelief §.2. Mischief no contempt not even Atheism. To present Atheism idiots should be allowed. 5. Well therefore might he say I came not to bring peace but the sword 6. Non sequitor, even in physical principle, that because such a proposition is true, it is wicked not to believe it. §.2. Erroneous conception exasporative of this antipathy—notion of contempt to God as if attached to unbelief or misbelief. Ask for the cause of all this hatred, the cause or remedy, and that cause of course a reason, a justification, the fullest of justifications. God hath delivered /this/ his word: these infidels will not take /[...?]/ his word: /God, if you believe them, is/ They charge God with being a liar. O horrid blasphemy! God hath delivered these his commands. These men refuse to obey his commands. Oh mad rebellion /contumers/ God to man an object of contempt! /Omnipotence to human imbecility./ Never was charge more compleatly groundless. In no mans heart in no mans life was God was a liar. To no man, man or woman was God ever, or can God ever be an object of contempt. By the Atheist God is no more an object of contempt than to the most jealous theist. The question take it /on/ in what shape /occasion/ you will is no mere question of judication of inference drawn from evidence. A matter of fact is always in question: in relation to it, /in the eyes of those on one side/ in the one part the affirmative is true: in those of the other, the negative. 1. Justificative cause assigned for antipathy on the score of unbelief—contempt and disobedience: God’s veracity denied, his will destroyed. 2. The imputations are groundless. Not true, that by any man God was ever deemed a liar. Not true, that to any man he ever was an object of contempt. To the Atheist not more so than to the Theist. 3. The question is one of evidence—to some the affirmative is true, to others the negative.
-
Title: [25 Dec 1814 Jug. Util. 9]Description: 25 Dec 1814 Jug. Util. 9 3 3. Atheism Atheism — here indeed, the charge in one respect has a real ground — the matter of fact the averment of which is contained in it may in any case be, and in many instances actually is, true. But in this case supposing the fact true, where is the offence? in what does the malignity —the mischief of it consist? against whom is it committed? Against the Almighty? But by the Almighty in such a case what just cause what cause just or unjust can be found. Does no such almighty person exist? then by the supposition there is no such almighty person to be offended. Does he exist? in the supposition wherein does the offence consist? wherein but in ignorance—sheer ignorance. On this supposition so it is that to this man the almighty has not made himself known. Punish the man or so much as be angry at the man (always supposing the almighty to be susceptible of the species of pain by which the emotion of anger is produced) be angry at a man for not knowing what he has never been taught? as well be angry with him for not having the bulk of a whale or the wings of an eagle. As well might any inhabitant of the interior of New Holland be caught and punished as for treason for not having sworn allegiance to King <.^.^.>. 5. 1. Atheism. Conceditur in this case the charge may very well be not groundless. The fact exists. But where is the malignity the mischievousness of it? Against whom is it committed? Not a[?]. To whom does it afford cause of anger? Not to God: for it is the result of sheer ignorance. Can God be angry with a man for not having learnt what he has not been taught? As well might a South Wales man be punished for not having seen King George.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1