The Scale of Perfection, Book 2, Part 1 – Chapter 4

dohpeterchina's picture

That through the Sacrament of Baptism (which is grounded in the Passion of Christ) this Image is reformed from Original Sin

This is chapter 6 of The Scale of Perfection – Book 2 in Middle English:
That thorugh the sacrament of baptym that is groundid in the passioun of Crist this image is reformed fro the original synne.

jnwarren's picture

The claim of ignorance is a

The claim of ignorance is a cheap shot that cuts across any possibility of engaging in meaningful (i.e., productive) conversation. To rely on the idea that "common sense" dictates what is true, and that, in certain cases this "doesn't really matter" or "isn't important" seems to me to be tantamount to saying "I don't really care." If that is so, then I suppose I would call it laziness and willful ignorance, and there is nothing that can be done about that. This is something even Kierkegaard (for all his extreme conservatism and "neurosis") reproached, and there is very little that can be done of a man who chooses to remain willfully ignorant. I can only say that the information is all there and readily accessible, and what cannot be understood must simply be discarded as false or, better yet, as a misuse of language.

To rely on assumed propositions when being challenged is intellectual sloth, and the mark of a domgatist.

"What is truth?" you ask. Well, I refer you to your own statement

    "As we read of erroneous, unclear, or not well thought out ideas of some
    writers in the early church, and the heretics, and of uninformed recent
    converts [...]"

. Obviously you've set up a dichotomy here between "true" and "false", which I will now point out some logical flaws in:

Wittgenstein would write that a true proposition is one that "obtains", or that corresponds with something in reality. This, of course, sets no idealistic doctrine of truth but merely provides an architecture for assessing the truth value of any possible statement. There is no quantitative limit to the number of "true" (on the one hand, and "false on the other) statements and propositions that can be made, since we can observe the same thing in different ways: I can speak about a shape as being both "square" and "rectangular", for instance. The point is to set up a qualitative criterion as to distinguish between theoretically true and false statements by assessing their correspondence to what exists.

I point you to the development of scientific theories over the past centuries: as Stanford writes,

    "...[I]n the historical progression from Aristotelian to Cartesian to Newtonian to contemporary mechanical theories, the evidence available at the time each earlier theory was accepted offered equally strong support to each of the (then-unimagined) later alternatives. The same pattern would seem to obtain in the historical progression from elemental to early corpuscularian chemistry to Stahl's phlogiston theory to Lavoisier's oxygen chemistry to Daltonian atomic and contemporary physical chemistry; from various versions of preformationism to epigenetic theories of embryology; from the caloric theory of heat to later and ultimately contemporary thermodynamic theories; from effluvial theories of electricity and magnetism to theories of the electromagnetic ether and contemporary electromagnetism; from humoral imbalance to miasmatic to contagion and ultimately germ theories of disease; from 18th Century corpuscular theories of light to 19th Century wave theories to contemporary quantum mechanical conception; from Hippocrates's pangenesis to Darwin's blending theory of inheritance (and his own 'gemmule' version of pangenesis) to Wiesmann's germ-plasm theory and Mendelian and contemporary molecular genetics; from Cuvier's theory of functionally integrated and necessarily static biological species or Lamarck's autogenesis to Darwinian evolutionary theory; and so on in a seemingly endless array of theories, the evidence for which ultimately turned out to support one or more unimagined competitors just as well. Thus, the history of scientific enquiry offers a straightforward inductive rationale for thinking that there are alternatives to our best theories equally well-confirmed by the evidence, even when we are unable to conceive of them at the time." [Stanford (2001), p.9.]

Anyone with a brain can understand what is written above: there are no metaphysical "tricks" or philosophical hoops (which are superfluous and unnecessary) to understand, simply the utilization of words and vocabulary which we are all familiar with.

I don't advocate any theory--I don't think I need one, personally, and it offends me with what ease and outright rudeness you press your religion upon me. I have given you logical and consistent arguments against religious dogma, and instead of countering these arguments, you offer me the same dogma--not a good argument.

If you can not display the courage to at least face my arguments with logical counterargument, and additionally refrain from attributing beliefs and opinions to me that I do not hold, then I see no use in continuing this discussion. I might as well be arguing with the refrigerator!

" alterius non sit qui suus esse potest "