The Scale of Perfection, Book 2, Part 1 – Chapter 1

dohpeterchina's picture

SECTION I: That a Man is the Image of God after the Soul and not after the Body; and how he is restored and reformed thereto that was misshapen by Sin
SECTION II: That Jews and Pagans and also false Christians are not reformed effectually through the virtue of the Passion through their own Faults

These are chapters 1 to 3 of The Scale of Perfection – Book 2 in Middle English:
This chapitle scheweth that a man is seid the image of God aftir the soule and not aftir the bodi.
Hou it nedide to mankynde that oonli thorugh the passioun of oure Lord it schulde be restorid and reformed that was forsaken bi the first synne.
That Jewes and paynymes and also fals Cristene men are not reformed effectuali thorugh vertu of this passioun for here owen defaute.

jnwarren's picture

Re: Marx was not...

Aside from the fact that most of what you said is incoherent babble, I will nonetheless attempt to pick apart what you have said:

    So if you are to comparing Marx's ideology with The Mystic, where will the two minds meet?

As something that I understand more each passing minute, "the mystic" is someone who in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, continues to uphold his belief in arcane and outdated modes of reasoning. But you can't tell him that for fear of recoil!

    From what I have read of Karl's work on analysis and understanding the mind, he point out that Religion is The Opiate of The People!

It is obvious you have not read much Marx, if this is the extent of your knowledge of his (arguably the most influential thinker in the last 200 years) thoughts on religion.

    His form of Social Justice(Socio-Economic Change) is only the beginning of The Change he has envisioned for mankind to be controlled by the few in Leadership.

Again, I can not decipher this as anything but incoherent prattle, and it is obvious from this you do not understand Marx.

    I believe we are talking about two different things here, one is from a man named Karl and the other is from a Man named Yeshua(Jesus). One is now dead and the other has risen from the dead, and is now sitting at the Right Hand of G-d.

    The two men were both wanting Social and Moral Justice. One found that Philosophy and Analysis could be used to change man's mind, and for Karl's this was good. The other, Yeshua(Jesus) cause A Change of man's heart by G-d's own doing in Love for His Creation, man. And G-d Said It Was Good.

Again, if I brought in arguments under the authority of the Tooth Fairy, they would have identical clout.

    Social Change and Social Justice that Karl envisioned took place in Germany, Russia, China, Vet-Nam, and many more places that are isolated like Cuba.

    Has it provided it people with Social Change? Yes it had reduced the control of Government to a few and has place most of The Social Justice to just those few in The Leadership. The rest were reduced to comradeship of the proletariat poor and down trodden peoples of each country that used this work of Karl's called "The Political Repression" as Social Change of it's Government. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler,Hồ Chí Minh, Castro and Mao Zedong are primary examples of what Karl envisioned with his work, in The Communist Manifesto.

You again prove your painful ignorance of history and theory. To set up a famous example: would the man who gave the Sermon on the Mount have agreed to the dictates of the Spanish Inquisition? To blame Marx for sending millions to the Gulags under Stalin or Jews to camps by Hitler (who also sent Communists there, by the way) is to grossly misrepresent the thoughts and beliefs of a vigilant defender of the rights of the oppressed and downtrodden in every part of the world. He did this not on a priori grounds, but on the empirical basis that each individual shares consciousness and is therefore entitled to economic, political and social representation. "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance." [The German Ideology, Introduction]

I think next time before you dismiss competent, cogent, empirical research and counter it with dogmatic rabble, you should perhaps take your own medicine and read a little!




Advertisements