|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Heresy Outdated?
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
In the light of recent threads about Modernism and the Creeds I would like to ask whether the concept of heresy is out of date? If not, why not?
ISTM that for heresy to be a credible concept there has to be (a) an agreed standard against which the correctness of particular beliefs can be tested, and (b) an agreed authority that can adjudicate on particular cases. Neither of those conditions would seem to prevail at the present time, if they ever did.
More fundamentally, one might question whether the concept should have a part to play in Christianity or any religion, given that what can be known about God is extremely limited, and for any individual, church, or religious body to claim the right to lay down what constitutes right belief is a presumption bordering on the heretical. Indeed, one’s experience of “right beliefs” across a range of topics is that such beliefs are most likely wrong!
The more one thinks about it the more one comes to the conclusion that “heresy” is less about the protection of faith than struggles for power within ecclesiastical structures that have little to do with the Kingdom of God.
It is not that I don’t think certain ideas are more credible than others and that some theological ideas are nutty and erroneous, but that these issues can be discussed and debated, in many cases producing a high level of consensus within and across churches, without a resort to “heresy” and its associated expulsions and sanctions against those holding minority opions at any given time.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In a postmodern, pluralistic religious environment the notion of Christian heresy does seem problematic. Liturgies, creeds and doctrinal statements give structure to religious institutions and rituals, and they remind members of their history, but in reality most Christian organisations seem to have resigned themselves to a membership that increasingly creates its own meaning from the range of religious resources available.
Moreover, there's less and less enthusiasm for religious teaching. People don't want to attend church every week let alone twice on Sunday, and books on religion don't sell in huge numbers. So if people are heretics, that's because they're not being taught exactly what it means to believe. People aren't attending church for that kind of precision, but for other reasons. And those who don't attend but claim to be believers are developing highly personalised forms of faith that take little account of denominational dos and don'ts.
In any case, I never hear the term 'heresy' used in any serious sense about people in the church today. It only comes up in abstract discussions like this - or in humorous comments. Most of our clergy wouldn't dream of offending their members by calling them 'heretics'. I know a minister who's set up a popular discussion forum entitled 'Heretics Anonymous', but there's no hint of disapproval or censure in the title - just an acknowledgement that some people don't have a very orthodox faith. Maybe evangelical churches are still a bit worried about this, but even they have to take it carefully, I'm sure, because it's so easy just to take your 'heresy' and be welcomed into some other church - or not bother at all! These days we go before being pushed.
[ 20. July 2014, 23:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Heresy is anathema to evidence-based knowledge, on which so much of modern society is based. It's inevitable that a concept of "right" belief, rooted in authority, will be used to suppress and reject counter-evidence.
Any belief ought to be decided wholly on its merits. If someone wants to call themselves a Christian while they worship Thor and Odin, their opinion ought to fall based on the poverty of their argument, not a decree. If it doesn't fall, perhaps there's something to be said for turning Christianity into a Vikings cosplay. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Heresy is indeed out of date and yet it persists. Why? Money can be made by resurrecting a heresy and doing one of two things. One, pretend it's what Christians believed all along until the Nicene Christians convinced the Roman Empire to kill every last person with an opposing view. Unfortunately, all the evidence to support this contention was either lost when an angry mob of Christians burned the library of Alexandria or remains hidden by the Vatican. Money making option two calls for writing a book claiming that an idea over a century old is really cutting edge scholarship.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
It's just as imporant today, if not even more so. Neither does it matter if those outside don't consider the authority valid or relevant. The reason for this is because such things are for the benefit of those inside, not those outside.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The more one thinks about it the more one comes to the conclusion that “heresy” is less about the protection of faith than struggles for power within ecclesiastical structures that have little to do with the Kingdom of God.
If you'll pardon my saying this, I think you may mean that the more you think about it, the more you come to that conclusion.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Heresy as a concept is only valid if you accept that the arguments of xxx are still equally valid today. It is actually nothing to do with the belief itself, but the authority that we trust.
So the reason that I reject a particular belief is not because xxx has declared this to be heresy, but because their arguments - and others that I explore - make sense to me, and I can see why this belief does not make sense, does not conform to thw authorities that I accept.
The declaration of zzz as a heretical belief does very little, I think, because I don't want anyone to reject a belief because I say it is wrong, but because they have understood why it is wrong.
And, of course, what I consider heretical others will consider core aspects of their faith. So I would consider PSA as the only interpretation of atonement to be "heretical" - or wrong - whereas others would treat this as a bellwether of acceptable belief.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think that there is a place for the concept, but perhaps not always the word. In a search for truth there will always arise ideas that are false. When certain truths have been settled and affirmed, such as those contained in the Nicene Creed, then rejecting those truths places you outside of what can reasonably be considered orthodox belief. The consequences of that are open to debate, however, I'm not sure I'm convinced that a flaw in someone's understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is sufficient to condemn someone to hell, as Athanasius would have it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Vital to the old understanding of heresy (and why it's important) is that there is a well-defined true faith, and that if you believe wrong versions of it then very bad things will happen to you (such as eternal damnation). If you accept that, then it's very important to come down like a ton of bricks on anyone teaching heresy.
If, on the other hand, you don't believe in eternal damnation or you believe that a loving and merciful god would take a loving and merciful approach to deciding whom to condemn, then there's not much point in the concept of heresy.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I hate heresy - by which I mean using the word as an accusation, as a label, as a boundary marker. I think most use of the word springs from a perceived need to tightly define who is 'in' and who is 'out'; you're 'in' if you can subscribe to this set of core beliefs (which will be of greater or lesser length and detail, across all the different Christian groupings).
It puts all the emphasis on right profession of doctrine (orthodoxy) rather than on right action (orthopraxy); while I think Jesus and the NT writers place far more emphasis on the latter.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
My journey of faith has been one of those cliched left-to-right affairs - by which I mean I think I am becoming more conservative as I get older. In part this may be because as one (sorry, I!) get(s) older, the more I sense that often novel developments with a shitty outcome turn out, if I can be bothered to do some reading, to not be very novel at all.
When I was young, I saw statements of orthodoxy and their corollary as restrictive, perhaps based in fear, and not at all attractive to a truth-seeker like me. Now I feel old, and the realisation that minds much greater than mine saw some of the shit coming a long time ago and tried to steer us away from it, I find peculiarly comforting.
This makes most sense to me in light of my sig, rather than as the fearful clinging onto cloistered orthodoxy / purity I once felt pushed into as a young person. Who wouldn't want to diminish their pain?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
As long as we believe that there is such a thing as Truth, by definition we also have to believe there is such a thing as “heresy”.
If I were to set up a church & declare: “You can only be a Christian if you (a) earn at least £10,000 per year (b) speak the Queen’s English or (c) use apple rather than Microsoft”; to prove that I was wrong you would in the end have to call me a heretic (although you might dislike that term).
OK, no-one is make such assertions (deliberately fanciful for sake of illustration), but those who make other, more contentious assertions can also be said to be incorrect because we believe there is a standard to be measured against. If the idea of heresy is dropped, we also give up on the idea that there is any such thing as Truth.
WHO make the declaration “Heretic” is, however, more difficult. But that is to argue about Authority, not about Heresy.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
As long as we believe that there is such a thing as Truth, by definition we also have to believe there is such a thing as “heresy”.
Why can't we just say there's such a thing as 'error'? ISTM that the use of the word 'heresy' is often intended to close down discussion, with the subtext being 'get in line and don't question the authority figures', whoever or whatever the particular grouping considers to be its 'authority figures'.
That's why I hate the word 'heresy', I think; the implication that we're supposed to outright reject such things and close our ears to any arguments in their favour.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It puts all the emphasis on right profession of doctrine (orthodoxy) rather than on right action (orthopraxy); while I think Jesus and the NT writers place far more emphasis on the latter.
Bing! Bing! Bing! SCK wins the thread!
Seriously.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Most errors do not rise to the level of heresy. Chalcedonian Christianity has been the orthodox Christian position for about 1700 years now. It is settled. No new argument will justify overturning that position. If you want to accept and teach something contrary to that, you'll be teaching something other than Christianity as it's been understood for nearly two thousand years. What does that mean practically for a heretic? Only that orthodox Christians should treat them the same way they treat non Christians. In this day and age, that means very little unless you actually seek holy orders or some other position of leadership within the church.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
My journey of faith has been one of those cliched left-to-right affairs - by which I mean I think I am becoming more conservative as I get older. In part this may be because as one (sorry, I!) get(s) older, the more I sense that often novel developments with a shitty outcome turn out, if I can be bothered to do some reading, to not be very novel at all.
When I was young, I saw statements of orthodoxy and their corollary as restrictive, perhaps based in fear, and not at all attractive to a truth-seeker like me. Now I feel old, and the realisation that minds much greater than mine saw some of the shit coming a long time ago and tried to steer us away from it, I find peculiarly comforting.
This makes most sense to me in light of my sig, rather than as the fearful clinging onto cloistered orthodoxy / purity I once felt pushed into as a young person. Who wouldn't want to diminish their pain?
I always wonder if this really is the norm, as I have gone the other way, and I know quite a few people who also have. For me, it's the orthodoxy which might stifle; not inevitably, so I will estimate orthodox ideas as much as left-field ones. I suppose I just began to think my own thoughts, and found that they didn't coincide with orthodoxy. This also represents a kind of separation from the collective, which is a kind of rite of passage for some.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It puts all the emphasis on right profession of doctrine (orthodoxy) rather than on right action (orthopraxy); while I think Jesus and the NT writers place far more emphasis on the latter.
Bing! Bing! Bing! SCK wins the thread!
Seriously.
Actually orthodoxy doesn't mean right doctrine but rather right glory. Anyway, SCK has made a false dichotomy in puting one above the other. The Apostle makes it clear that what we believe does actually matter.
[ 21. July 2014, 15:09: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Bing! Bing! Bing! SCK wins the thread!
Seriously.
Thanks! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Actually orthodoxy doesn't mean right doctrine but rather right glory.
Sure, that's the derivation of the word. But what it means, at least in everyday usage, is indeed 'right belief' or 'right doctrine', surely?
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Anyway, SCK has made a false dichotomy in puting one above the other. The Apostle makes it clear that what we believe does actually matter.
I simply said that the New Testament speaks far more of right action than it does of right doctrine, whereas we Christians often do the reverse. Where's the dichotomy? I don't mean to imply right doctrine is irrelevant or doesn't matter. Sorry if my words gave that impression....
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Most errors do not rise to the level of heresy. Chalcedonian Christianity has been the orthodox Christian position for about 1700 years now. It is settled.
Certainly it is being settled now that the anti-Chalcedonian churches are being wiped out in the Middle East. (Though the Ethiopian Church I think is going strong.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
As long as we believe that there is such a thing as Truth, by definition we also have to believe there is such a thing as “heresy”.
Why can't we just say there's such a thing as 'error'?
I agree that the word has a lot of "baggage" (I never expected the Spanish Inquisition...) but again that is a different argument.
Heresy is much more specific than "error". A web search revealed:
"we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth"
This is a very specific definition, whereas we all are in error a lot of the time. If people are using the word heretic/heresy, say, about a dead horse, they are using the word incorrectly.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
"we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth"
Doesn't this pretty much let out... virtually everyone, at least from our earthly perspective? "Yes, I know this is revealed truth, but I'm going to deliberately and consciously embrace a LIE! Muhuhuhahahahahaha!!" (twirls moustache) Not that we don't do that on some level, but I think it's pretty much something God can see in people but we can't. You don't get memoirs from people saying, "Yes, I knew the traditional position was right, but I just wanted to believe this other thing."
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Several people seem to agree that one person's heresy is another person's orthodoxy. The most one can say about a given statement is that it would or would not be considered heretical by this or that group of Christians.
Are there statements that would be considered heretical by, say, 95 per cent of Christians?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Most errors do not rise to the level of heresy. Chalcedonian Christianity has been the orthodox Christian position for about 1700 years now. It is settled.
Certainly it is being settled now that the anti-Chalcedonian churches are being wiped out in the Middle East. (Though the Ethiopian Church I think is going strong.)
Those churches represent less than one percent of Christianity and have little claim to being universal. Still, change Chalcedonian to Nicene and that's pretty much everybody. Obviously, it doesn't include everybody who calls themselves a Christian. However, the statement, "We believe in God," would eliminate (unfairly they might add) some folks who call themselves Christians. I'm OK with that. Heck, the Ethiopian and Coptic Christians are OK with that too.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
"we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth"
"Revealed truth" is only a euphemism for whatever your institution happens to consider orthodox. It has nothing to do with truth in any other context (beyond of course the claim to have equal status).
Jesus was a heretic. He was about "life in all its fullness", not conformity to the religious expectations of his time. If the essence of Christianity is what Jesus was about, any institution that demands more has become in effect a sub-Christian sect, detracting from the essence of the tradition it claims to represent.
If that's all institutional Christianity has become, its only heretics who maintain the core of the tradition.
[ 21. July 2014, 21:01: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Dave Marshall quote:
Jesus was a heretic.
An interesting point, but one is not certain that was the case. The charge against Jesus was one of blasphemy, as in the later case of Stephen. What makes heresy similar to blasphemy is that its expression is regarded as insulting to God and brings upon the perpetrator severe sanction in this life, and often eternal damnation in the next. Heresy is not simply about being wrong or mistaken, but the expression of opinions that bring about negative consequences.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Indeed Jesus was a heretic. As a result, I do not claim to be a Jew. Not only that but I have no problem with Jews telling Jews for Jesus types that they aren't Jews.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not only that but I have no problem with Jews telling Jews for Jesus types that they aren't Jews.
I'm a Christian, and I am also a Jew by blood, and I'm not giving up either of those. And no one can take away my heritage and bloodline no matter how hard they try.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Are there statements that would be considered heretical by, say, 95 per cent of Christians?
How about: "there is no god but God, and Mohammed is his prophet"? Particularly the second part.
Also, "Jesus never really died on the cross he just pretended to".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Several people seem to agree that one person's heresy is another person's orthodoxy. The most one can say about a given statement is that it would or would not be considered heretical by this or that group of Christians.
To an extent that's true, for we all know that truth isn't determined by the number of it's adherents. Arianism, for instance, was still a heresy even when it looked liked it might prevail - and it almost did.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Arianism, for instance, was still a heresy even when it looked liked it might prevail - and it almost did.
And if it had prevailed, you would now be telling us all about how terrible the heresy of Trinitarianism was, and how good it is that the Holy Spirit had guided the church so well in order to defeat it.
Heresy, like history, is defined by the winners.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Clap,clap,clap.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Arianism, for instance, was still a heresy even when it looked liked it might prevail - and it almost did.
And if it had prevailed, you would now be telling us all about how terrible the heresy of Trinitarianism was, and how good it is that the Holy Spirit had guided the church so well in order to defeat it.
Heresy, like history, is defined by the winners.
If one happens to have a low opinion of the Holy Spirit, perhaps. Even if Arianism had "won" it would still have been a heresy.
Anyway, my point was that what is orthodox and what is heterodox can be viewed relatively. Objectively, however, heresy remains heresy even if it happens to "win". Should there have been only one bishop left confessing the orthodox faith, the Church would still have existed, and that the orthodox faith triumphed, I would argue, is proof that it is from God.
[ 22. July 2014, 12:02: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Obsession with finding heresies and heretics is heretical in my αἵρεσις. YMMV.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Orthodoxy is simply the name for the predominant and ascendant theology. The Truth is unknowable. All theologies are a pale, pale, pale attempt at discerning Truth.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Orthodoxy is simply the name for the predominant and ascendant theology. The Truth is unknowable. All theologies are a pale, pale, pale attempt at discerning Truth.
If it's unknowable then why bother? Isn't rather like the blind leaving the blind, and I have to say it betrays a rather low opinion of the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The Truth is unknowable.
It depends what you mean by capitalised Truth. If something like "all truth" then I'd agree, but then it's only a truism.
For uncapitalised truth, rather than assume that of itself it has some reality (that may or may not be discoverable), it makes more sense to me to think of it as a description of reality, where reality is how things are.
We can (uniquely) know our own subjective reality. We can usually rely on objective reality as far as we can agree a generally valid description of some feature of the universe. It's ultimate reality that is unknowable, with objective reality the only useful foundation for our speculation about it.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Latchkey Kid,
I think I know what you said, but not everyone can transliterate Greek letters, nor should they have to, so please translate your Greek in the future.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Can I also suggest the same for abreviations? Not all of us, especially those of us over thirty, are familiar with text speak. What the hell is "YMMV"?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Can I also suggest the same for abreviations? Not all of us, especially those of us over thirty, are familiar with text speak. What the hell is "YMMV"?
Your Mileage May Vary, i.e., your experience (or opinion) may be different.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If one happens to have a low opinion of the Holy Spirit, perhaps.
I don't have a low opinion of the Holy Spirit at all. What I have a low opinion of is the church, or to be more exact the band of fuckwits, liars and power-mad wannabe-dictators that have been in charge of it since roughly five minutes after Jesus ascended. Even the Holy Spirit can have a hard time getting that brood of vipers to do what She wants them to do.
quote:
Even if Arianism had "won" it would still have been a heresy.
Not really, because heresy has to be declared by the church and the church would have declared it to be true doctrine. And you would automatically agree with it, because that's what you do.
quote:
Anyway, my point was that what is orthodox and what is heterodox can be viewed relatively. Objectively, however, heresy remains heresy even if it happens to "win".
FWIW (and notwithstanding my previous comment) I agree with that. It's just that I happen to think that heresy has won on a number of occasions, whereas you refuse to countenance even the possibility of that being the case.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Perhaps the concept of heresy is quite valid, but associations with things like torturing people for heresy are so strong that we should be careful how we use the term.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
As long as we believe that there is such a thing as Truth, by definition we also have to believe there is such a thing as “heresy”.
Why can't we just say there's such a thing as 'error'? ISTM that the use of the word 'heresy' is often intended to close down discussion, with the subtext being 'get in line and don't question the authority figures', whoever or whatever the particular grouping considers to be its 'authority figures'.
That's why I hate the word 'heresy', I think; the implication that we're supposed to outright reject such things and close our ears to any arguments in their favour.
Yes yes and yes.
"Heresy" is always used as a scare word to close down discussion and to force people into line. As such it is a tool to inflict an abuse of power. It is also a tool which is used by people out of fear - especially the fear that people in power have of losing power over their minions.
We should be encouraging people to explore and to question - as it is through this route that people will come to a faith that they can genuinely own and which will sustain and nourish them over time.
Now it is perfectly legitimate to argue your case along the lines of "historically, the Christian Church has examined this idea and, for xxxx reasons has concluded that it is not adequate and so has rejected such a position." But I don't think it is ever good to baldly state "you can't believe that - it's a heresy."
If the historic beliefs of the Christian Church are sound, they can stand up to continued probing.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Arianism, for instance, was still a heresy even when it looked liked it might prevail - and it almost did.
And if it had prevailed, you would now be telling us all about how terrible the heresy of Trinitarianism was, and how good it is that the Holy Spirit had guided the church so well in order to defeat it.
Heresy, like history, is defined by the winners.
Had the Arianism become orthodoxy then Trinitarianism would be a bad thing. If you recognize the Holy Spirit as guiding the councils, then it follows that if Arianism became and remained the accepted position that the Holy Spirit guided the church in defeating it. Plus, the Roman emperors at the time were partial to Arianism so casting the Arians as underdogs trampled and marginalized by the more politically powerful Trinitarians is a bit of a stretch.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar
That is precisely the sort of rhetoric Marvin is talking about. You are making his case for him.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I guess I am.
On the issue of Trinitarianism being heresy if declared heresy by Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus...
Marvin is right.
Ad Orientem is wrong.
I'm consistent. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I'm not seeing that at all, Jengie--I think Beeswax is spot on, and his correction of Marvin's historiographic misapprehension is not rhetorical. It's a statement of verifiable fact. At one point Athanasius stood against practically the entire hierarchy of Church and State in defense of orthodoxy. The Arians were not poor persecuted underdogs.
If you want to argue that orthodoxy is merely a political mechanism of exclusion, that's fine. The argument can be made, and IIRC Averil Cameron has made it pretty eloquently. As her writing demonstrates, however, you need to support your thesis with more than lazy cynicism and foggy postmodernism.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Roughly, the modern equivalent of 'Arianism' is the 'Unitarian' denomination, and also quite a few on the 'liberal' wings of the mainstream churches who deny the deity of Jesus.
Judging by the state of both those movements, had Arianism won, we wouldn't be "...telling ... about how terrible the heresy of Trinitarianism was" because there wouldn't be much of a Church to be telling it in. The concept of 'heresy' is not so very arbitrary, but very practical.
I'm in agreement with what seems to be the consensus here that persecution of heresy by state churches is not appropriate.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
