went right over my head.
Indeed. This is why I am a hairy tick to all sides, coming and going. Or is that Harry Tich? I forget. Anyway, what "fundamental" difference is there between a "certain" theist and a "certain" atheist? From my vantage, little to none.Hi,
Doubt is beneficial. Doubt allows growth. Certainty brings tyranny. I think.
![]()
s.
Hi, my name is Kay, and I'm a heretic.![]()
Easy now, some of us resemble remarks like this.socially conservative heretics
Hi,
Look, I realise that the word "heretic" has negative connotations (possibly due to orthodox establishments wanting to forcibly maintain their power?) but I promise there's no stakes, matches or cannisters of petrol hiding round the back of my pc so let's not have any more reticence! Anyway, I knew you were!![]()
s.
lunamoth said:My campaign is to get rid of the word heretic altogether.![]()
Alvis Rofhessa said:reason/logic..............................instinct/intuition/faith
17th Angel said:Negative? I do not think heretic is a negative word... I think it could be used to describe someone with their eyes open... No just having sight but also having feeling.... *nods*
Heresy is from the Greek verb 'to choose' and in this context it means to choose other than the authentic teaching of the Apostolic Tradition, on which Christianity is based.
Before you can have heresy, you must have orthodoxy – it is orthodoxy that determines the 'right teaching'.
Snoopy asked:
If one defines heresy as going against an authoritative system of dogma (designated as orthodox), does that make you a heretic?
Yes – if you mean that one chooses to interpret the teaching as something other than what has been 'handed down'.
I suppose I’m thinking of a more mystical approach being your guide in the “spritual quest” of your life (sorry if that’s not an appropriate term for you).
This assumes the orthodox approach is 'less mystical' which is an erroneous assumption. I don't suppose I need to point out that the greatest Christian mystics were entirely orthodox?
This seems to me to be an interesting area since, as it is found within disparate religious traditions (eg Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Sufism, Zen), behind the differing words and practices there may be a great commonality from which we all could benefit. An open question then…
I would say there is a certain superficial commonalities that are universal to the different traditions, but within the context of a given tradition, there are radical differences.
The assumption that in the 'esoteric' aspect all traditions are saying the same thing it, again, another error. This has been promulgated by those who wish to reduce everything to one thing. Usually this involves highlighting the bits one personally likes, and disregarding those elements which one finds laborious.
The great exponent of Comparative Religion - Prof. Huston Smith – refers to this as 'pick-n-mix' or 'coffee-table spirituality'.
Intrepidlover offered:
I am DEFINITELY a heretic, and thank God for that. Authoritative systems of dogma invariably become shallow substitutes for a genuine spiritual experience.
So is St John of the Cross shallow? St Theresa? Meister Eckhart? Thomas Merton? Where are your mystics who have so outstripped the orthodox, then?
(I always find this statement perplexing, as all the evidence would seem to suggest the precise opposite.)
What would the people here say if I suggested that I find the 'heterodox' or 'heresiarch' as shallow and self-serving?
Thomas
Snoop:
At the risk of violating my telepathic pledge...YOU ARE THE BOMB !!!
flow....![]()
Hi, my name is Kay, and I'm a heretic.![]()
but this part:
went right over my head.![]()
Before you can have heresy, you must have orthodoxy – it is orthodoxy that determines the 'right teaching'.
Snoopy asked:
If one defines heresy as going against an authoritative system of dogma (designated as orthodox), does that make you a heretic?
Yes – if you mean that one chooses to interpret the teaching as something other than what has been 'handed down'.
I suppose I’m thinking of a more mystical approach being your guide in the “spritual quest” of your life (sorry if that’s not an appropriate term for you).
This assumes the orthodox approach is 'less mystical' which is an erroneous assumption. I don't suppose I need to point out that the greatest Christian mystics were entirely orthodox?
This seems to me to be an interesting area since, as it is found within disparate religious traditions (eg Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Sufism, Zen), behind the differing words and practices there may be a great commonality from which we all could benefit. An open question then…
I would say there is a certain superficial commonalities that are universal to the different traditions, but within the context of a given tradition, there are radical differences.
The assumption that in the 'esoteric' aspect all traditions are saying the same thing it, again, another error. This has been promulgated by those who wish to reduce everything to one thing. Usually this involves highlighting the bits one personally likes, and disregarding those elements which one finds laborious.
Where are your mystics who have so outstripped the orthodox, then?
(I always find this statement perplexing, as all the evidence would seem to suggest the precise opposite.)
What would the people here say if I suggested that I find the 'heterodox' or 'heresiarch' as shallow and self-serving?
Thomas
Sorry, but someone mentioned getting off the fence, so I got off...
Thomas