I will attempt to refute some of Occom's points and preachings, and it will sound nit-picky and dwelling on technicalities but what better way to argue something than use the speaker's own words against them. I have found, when reading Occom's sermon, several contradictions and possibilities for refutation. First, Occom contrasts man and beast for devouring their own kind. Next, Occom presents this idea that life and death are connected and as are sin and death. And lastly, there is this bit about the tongue being an interpreter of the heart and the heart being the place of all sin.
Occum says that the sinner has “...become ill-natured, cruel and murderous; he is contentious and quarrelsome. I said he is worse than the ravenous beasts, for wolves and bears don't devour their own kind, but man does; yea, we have numberless instances of women killing their own children; such women I think are worse than she-tygers.” (p. 10). I refute this point first because it is so obviously wrong. Many different animals may for “packs” such as humans do and will not kill from their own “pack” but they still kill their own kind. “This is not an animal unnatural characteristics: around 140 different species show cannibalistic tendencies under various conditions. Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.” (1). Of course Occom didn't have access to this type of information, but you're telling me he has never seen a wolf killed by another wolf? Apparently, he needs to brush up on his Darwin and his “survival of the fittest.” And for the women killing their children, there are countless numbers of animal species where the mother eats their young. Occom must know this.
The next thing I noticed is an in-text contradiction and it's a little more of a stretch. Occom says that “Life and death are nearly connected; we generally own that it is a great and solemn thing to die. If this be true, then it is a great and solemn thing to live, for as we live so we shall die.” (pg. 8). I can agree with this. But it's where he says “If it had not been for sin, there never would have been such a thing as hell or devil, death or misery.” (pg. 9) where a problem arises. Now, if life and death are connected and there is no life without sin and there is no death without sin, then how do those who don't sin not live an immortal life? If one were to live a purely clean life, devoted to God, without ever sinning then how is it that he should die? And, if you are forgiven all your sins in Confession, how is it that you die cleanly and sin-free. How is it that Christ died without ever sinning? Sure, he was risen and didn't stay dead but he did die at one point and according to Occom this can't be possible.
“It is the heart that is in the first place full of deadly poison. The tongue is only an interpreter of the heart.” (pg. 10). So the heart is the place where sin lives and the tongue is what interprets said sin. Based on scripture, I can believe that the heart is where sin lives as every man is born inherently evil and sinful. But I think it is the mind that is what interprets the sin, the brain is where sin grows and is interpreted, and through the tongue and through action is the way the sin is released. It seems that even Occom himself should believe this because he goes on to say “Sin hath stupified mankind, they are now ignorant of God their Maker; neither do they enquire after him. And they are ignorant of themselves, they know not what is good them.” (pg. 10). If life and death are contrasting and connecting then as are ignorance and knowledge. So there is no ignorance without thought (or lack there of), which comes from the brain. So how is it that sin lives in the heart when Occom states that sin can come from ignorance and that it has stupified mankind, both of which are attributes of the mind. Maybe it's just a simple matter of word choice but before delivering a very important sermon and preaching on something as mighty and holy as the word of Christ, Occom should correct these inconstancies and seek to make refutation impossible.
I do agree that his animal analogies are a bit weak and unfounded. It is odd considering the amount of contact between man and wildlife during this period of time. When it comes to the ideas of sin he is presenting I'm not sure that there are too many contradictions here. I think he is more referencing a life that is devoted to sin, people who sin indiscriminately. Yes all people sin, in fact in the Christian view we are born with sin. The death that he is referring to as being the result of excessive sin without repenting is that of eternal death or damnation. If one repents then they will die a mortal death but will have eternal life. I think that he becomes confusing in his overuses of the words to the point where you're not sure what he's talking about at some times.
ReplyDeleteWell I just want to point out a couple things. First, the mother Mary was born without Original Sin because of the Immaculate Conception. Therefore Jesus was born without Original Sin. Second, many Christians believe that Jesus was God in human form. Therefore for Jesus to never have sinned is not that big a stretch... because yes he was human, but he wasn't a regular human being.
ReplyDeleteThe second thing, and I like where you're head was at, is the part about living eternally if you were to lead a purely clean life. In theory this sounds like a great and easy idea. But consider this, the action is not always the sin. If you think it, it is just as bad doing it. Hence, if you see a pretty lady and you "think" about her, then in the eyes of the lord you have already committed adultery.
I was wondering what you mean when you wrote, "every man is born inherently evil and sinful". Following the the belief that God created everything then are you saying that God created sin and evil and created people to behave in sinful manners? Or are you trying to state that being sinful and evil is a test from God to prove who is chosen and who is not?
ReplyDeleteWas it not evil for the Puritans to murder and try a group of people because they were different?
I think that there are contradictions all around these writings that we've been reading about. I agree that many of them have probably been "tweaked" and also that Occom should have examined his piece before delivering such a sermon.