Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics
Time to wake up and smell the coffee, as I believe you American chappies are want to say?
Time to wake up and smell the coffee, as I believe you American chappies are want to say?
Bad Religion
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Seems you just spoke of authors pandering to their audience yesterday...
Ross Douthat's Fantasy World | Mother Jones
Ross Douthat's Fantasy World | Mother Jones
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Thomas, this news is hardly new. Nor confined only to modern times. Religions have constantly remade themselves, sometimes to the point of breaking from the main group, in order to justify their versions of WGW (What God Wants).
I'll grant you that the modern habit of replacing theology with some strange hybrid of religious secularism is certainly a newer approach to the situation. Nor would anyone who has done so ever admit in a gazillion years that that is what it is - religious secularism.
It is stupid religion, for stupid times. Far as I can tell Stupid is the new smart. 'Keep it simple stupid' never has been more apropos than now.
I'll grant you that the modern habit of replacing theology with some strange hybrid of religious secularism is certainly a newer approach to the situation. Nor would anyone who has done so ever admit in a gazillion years that that is what it is - religious secularism.
It is stupid religion, for stupid times. Far as I can tell Stupid is the new smart. 'Keep it simple stupid' never has been more apropos than now.
Meh, this is a conservative trying to maintain his and his beliefs foothold in power. The GOP is in trouble in the US, while through gerrymandering they will probably hold congress for the next decade (due to the local voting of designer congressional districts) they are not likely to take over the Senate and have lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes for President, and are highly likely to lose the next one. The religious right has hung its hat on biblical interpretation of laws through religious freedom, the freedom to oppose gay marriage, contraception, abortion. They are struggling to hold on to anything and attempting to rally the troops the same way we did to get to Iraq...demonize the "other" group.
Heretics... question you are a heretic.. believe anything else you are a heretic....
name calling always an indication that you are paranoid that you are on shaky ground....last ditch effort of the grand old guard.
Heretics... question you are a heretic.. believe anything else you are a heretic....
name calling always an indication that you are paranoid that you are on shaky ground....last ditch effort of the grand old guard.
Are you speaking of his book? From what I've seen so far, I'll have to agree.
I've got no issue Thomas. Nor have I shifted the discussion to politics, the author is an right wing political commentator, the book is part and parcel of his political agenda.
the end is near, repent now, before the rapture begins...keep the fear alive...'those' people are destroying our society.
the end is near, repent now, before the rapture begins...keep the fear alive...'those' people are destroying our society.
Good grief, man, you're airing them all the time!
You insist your commentary on contemporary Christianity is gospel! Nor have I shifted the discussion to politics, the author is an right wing political commentator, the book is part and parcel of his political agenda.
Yes, that's the drivel he's aiming at!
I disagree with the scholar's (if you can call him/her a scholar) idea of heresy. "It sets out to be simpler" sounds more like orthodoxy to me. Throughout history, heretics such as myself have questioned and challenged the men and women who try to keep orthodoxy in place, thus complicating things. "Tradition" is simple, not complex. It gives us a set code of values, laws, rituals, etc. to follow, sometimes to the T. The job of the heretic is to point out the injustices and simplicities of "traditional theology" so that a more profound truth, a truth outside of oppressive power, may be realized. Heretics get such a bad rap sometimes.
with most folks that call me a heretic...I gratefully thank them and take it as a badge of honor.
As a traditionalist I'm not surprised. To be heretic is to be way cool.
The only thing cooler than a heretic is a 'heretical mystic' (If ever there was such a thing. People like to say that guys like Meister Eckhart were 'outside the box' of orthodox Christianity, utter tosh, but there you go, it's all part of the modernist romance.)
But let this dyed-in-the-wool old Trad assure you, neither of you are considered heretics by our standards. There's no 'bell book and candle' ritual for you!
What you call heresy is actually an ideology. It's more to do with the zeitgeist than actual doctrinal issues. It reflects the romantic notion of 'the rebel' as evidenced by Brando's Johnny in The Wild One:
Mildred: Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?
Johnny: Whadda you got?
A couple of points to consider:
The heretics of yesteryear might well have been 'challenging the men and women who try to keep orthodoxy in place', but their intention was to replace one orthodoxy with their own. None of them were intent on doing away with tradition, orthodoxy, doctrine ...
Tradition is simple, because God is simple. If it ain't simple, it's probably wrong.
But Tradition is far, far, far more profound than contemporary liberal Christian ideologies which reduce everything to sentimental moralisms on the one hand, or psedo-elitist abstractionisms on the other.
(Or 'the Prosperity Gospel'? Snake-oil pure and simple. That's 'Consumer Christianity' writ large )
But suffice to say, if those heretics had been successful, and their doctrine had become the orthodox – then you'd be complaining louder than you are now!
Pointing out injustice and error is the job of every Christian, and sometimes they were successful, and sometimes not. They were not necessarily heretics. Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example, was vocally critical of abuses within the curia and called for reform, but was not a heretic. John Henry Newman argued against the inerrancy of Scripture, sought to broaden the idea of salvation outside the Church, and opposed Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870, but he was, and remained, a cardinal.
Most tellingly, the heretics of history would not associate themselves with your idea of heresy. They were defending an orthodoxy, whereas today the desire is to define Christianity according to oneself, not according to a theological principle.
Nor is what is commonly espoused even new. Neo-gnosticism is fashionable (again, it's cool to be a gnostic, the appeal of elitism), and ever ready in the wings, neo-Pelagianism, although Pelagius would laugh at the idea of 'self-realisation' as espoused today. Pan and pantheism too, I suppose, but then these are usually expressed in such a sentimental and illogical manner, they can be put down to romantic idealism rather than a contrary theological doctrine.
So worry not, you're in the clear. You're seen as misguided, not as heretical.
Actually, I am technically a heretic because I count myself as being in communion with the Church, but hold certain opinions contrary to received doctrine ... but then I keep those to myself, and argue for change from within, rather than sitting outside pouring scorn ...
To be heretic is to be way cool. The only thing cooler than a heretic is a 'heretical mystic'
(If ever there was such a thing. People like to say that guys like Meister Eckhart were 'outside the box' of orthodox Christianity, utter tosh, but there you go, it's all part of the modernist romance.)But let this dyed-in-the-wool old Trad assure you, neither of you are considered heretics by our standards. There's no 'bell book and candle' ritual for you!
What you call heresy is actually an ideology. It's more to do with the zeitgeist than actual doctrinal issues. It reflects the romantic notion of 'the rebel' as evidenced by Brando's Johnny in The Wild One:
Mildred: Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?
Johnny: Whadda you got?
A couple of points to consider:
The heretics of yesteryear might well have been 'challenging the men and women who try to keep orthodoxy in place', but their intention was to replace one orthodoxy with their own. None of them were intent on doing away with tradition, orthodoxy, doctrine ...
Tradition is simple, because God is simple. If it ain't simple, it's probably wrong.
But Tradition is far, far, far more profound than contemporary liberal Christian ideologies which reduce everything to sentimental moralisms on the one hand, or psedo-elitist abstractionisms on the other.
(Or 'the Prosperity Gospel'?
Snake-oil pure and simple. That's 'Consumer Christianity' writ large )But suffice to say, if those heretics had been successful, and their doctrine had become the orthodox – then you'd be complaining louder than you are now!
Pointing out injustice and error is the job of every Christian, and sometimes they were successful, and sometimes not. They were not necessarily heretics. Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example, was vocally critical of abuses within the curia and called for reform, but was not a heretic. John Henry Newman argued against the inerrancy of Scripture, sought to broaden the idea of salvation outside the Church, and opposed Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870, but he was, and remained, a cardinal.
Most tellingly, the heretics of history would not associate themselves with your idea of heresy. They were defending an orthodoxy, whereas today the desire is to define Christianity according to oneself, not according to a theological principle.
Nor is what is commonly espoused even new. Neo-gnosticism is fashionable (again, it's cool to be a gnostic, the appeal of elitism), and ever ready in the wings, neo-Pelagianism, although Pelagius would laugh at the idea of 'self-realisation' as espoused today. Pan and pantheism too, I suppose, but then these are usually expressed in such a sentimental and illogical manner, they can be put down to romantic idealism rather than a contrary theological doctrine.
So worry not, you're in the clear. You're seen as misguided, not as heretical.
Actually, I am technically a heretic because I count myself as being in communion with the Church, but hold certain opinions contrary to received doctrine ... but then I keep those to myself, and argue for change from within, rather than sitting outside pouring scorn ...
"God is simple." I'm not sure about this one, Thomas. I don't think that God is simple, nor do I think God is complex. To name God as either is to deny that there is something about God that is unknowable.
I don't think that all heretics were trying to replace the powerful orthodoxy with their own. Heresy, literally meaning "choice belief," was the name that orthodox (literally "right belief") people gave to anyone who believed and proclaimed anything that was not orthodox. As far as I can tell, heretics throughout history both had and did not have agendas. They were just labeled that by the people in power.
Currently, I'd definitely say that I'm seen as both "misguided" and a "heretic." People definitely think that I'm misguided in my beliefs, but many of them also acknowledge that I do not line up with "right belief," so they call me a heretic. Frankly, I agree with them on the latter. As for the former, they're the ones who are misguided-- misguided by a corrupt and wrong orthodoxy
I don't think that all heretics were trying to replace the powerful orthodoxy with their own. Heresy, literally meaning "choice belief," was the name that orthodox (literally "right belief") people gave to anyone who believed and proclaimed anything that was not orthodox. As far as I can tell, heretics throughout history both had and did not have agendas. They were just labeled that by the people in power.
Currently, I'd definitely say that I'm seen as both "misguided" and a "heretic." People definitely think that I'm misguided in my beliefs, but many of them also acknowledge that I do not line up with "right belief," so they call me a heretic. Frankly, I agree with them on the latter. As for the former, they're the ones who are misguided-- misguided by a corrupt and wrong orthodoxy
Not at all.
Christianity, for example, asserts a lot about what can be known about God, but also asserts that "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being" (Eriugena).
It's a balance of dialectic between apophatism and cataphatism. It's there is all religious traditions.
Surely the point is to examine the idea, and see if it stands, or not? You seem to be arguing that heresy is right because it's heresy, and orthodoxy is wrong because it's orthodoxy.
That's just a fashion ideology. It's The Wild One romance.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
From the book description.
His urgent call for a revival of traditional Christianity is sure to generate controversy...
Is that not what everyone in American Christianity has been going on about for the last few decades? A return to traditional values? Seems to me the problem is that everyone has a different view of what traditional Christianity should be. Essentially the author is saying the same thing. His version is the version of traditional Christianity that is the one.
How does this differ from everyone else saying their version is the one?
His urgent call for a revival of traditional Christianity is sure to generate controversy...
Is that not what everyone in American Christianity has been going on about for the last few decades? A return to traditional values? Seems to me the problem is that everyone has a different view of what traditional Christianity should be. Essentially the author is saying the same thing. His version is the version of traditional Christianity that is the one.
How does this differ from everyone else saying their version is the one?
Heretic is cooler than misquided...
But misguided ain't so bad...
Blissfully misguided is better...if I can stay that way another 57 years I'll be ecstatic!
but yeah.... my way is the highway never seems so far away...
But misguided ain't so bad...
Blissfully misguided is better...if I can stay that way another 57 years I'll be ecstatic!
but yeah.... my way is the highway never seems so far away...
True enough.
I suppose I would offer this as the kind of thing 'a return to traditional values' would get away from.
Funny, I was talking to a friend just yesterday, about politics here in the UK, and he said almost exactly the same thing as you ... that we seem to be getting more stupid ... we're certainly getting more complacent, but that seems to be the inevitable consequence of affluence.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Interesting you should put it that way. The way I perceive social conditions, it is the lack of affluence that is causing complacency. Most folks in what used to be called the Middle Class are fighting for their lives. Making enough money just to keep a household afloat has become the norm, and that is with both parents working.
People who are scared about surviving don't have much time or energy to be anything but complacent.
People who are scared about surviving don't have much time or energy to be anything but complacent.
I never said that.
Also, I still don't agree with God being simple. "Simple" is still a label, isn't it?