Are you a heretic?

Snoopy said:
Hi,

Doubt is beneficial. Doubt allows growth. Certainty brings tyranny. I think.
:)

s.
Click to expand...
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.

And at the risk of drawing flack from being taken out of context with my next statement, this is why I find agnostics a bit more, ummm, *sincere* in their scholarship. Leading questions and choosing evidences is not true scholarship. True scholarship is putting aside biases long enough to chase the evidence to its end without steering it in one direction or other.
 
Hi All:

Seems that we're mostly lapsing and relapsing as it were. Is that what all heretics do ? Attain stasis in perpetual and repetitive states of lapse. Or only liberal heretics ? Could there be such things as socially conservative heretics ? Are they sitting in dark corners somewhere watching Fox TV and chewing their nails right now ?

Inquiring heretical mind want to know !! Yield your thoughts to me...I command you !!! (just kidding)

flow....:p
 
Heretic/Heterodox is a relative term, and compare similar "politically correct".

Many people today think they are being rebelious yet they are just doing what the system tells them is "rebelious" (anti-nature, anti-God, anti-culture) and is encouraging them to do.
To be a real heretic they should be rebeling against this artificial western" sytem instead of rebeling against tradition/nature/God/culture.

The 2 most imfamous persons of (western) world history are Hitler and Christ.

I have had arguments on other forums/group lists about my use of word "orthodox" to describe the ideas they espouce/defend/support which are same as system's/establisment's.

Orthodox..................................Heretic
egalitarianism............................"racism"
liberal democracy.......................aristocracy
uniformitarianism........................catastrophism
homosexuality..........................."homophobia"
feminism..................................
big bang...................................plasma universe/static cosmology
archaeology..............................antiquarianism
convergent evoltn......................parallel evolution
evolution..................................creationism
conventional medication..............alternative
isolationism...............................diffusion/cross-fertilisation
left (artificial)............................right (traditional/conservative)
globalist...................................nationalist
environment/socio......................genetic/biological/"racism"
modernist.................................fundamentalist
reason/logic..............................instinct/intuition/faith
free trade.................................protectionism
..............................................Tesla
abstract sci..............................experimental sci
holocaust.................................revisionism/"denial"
specialist/[diversification]............generalist

This table is just a generalisation since on closer study one can find the ruling world system is on either side in diff cases when it suits their own self interests eg: USA is protectionist; sometimes system is environment, other times genetic; they believe races came from one but not languages; they are pro feminist & anti-racist yet in daily (personal/business/publc) practice can be chauvinist/"racist".
 
It seems to me that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was a heretic... and rightfully so of course.
 
Snoopy said:
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!:D

s.
Click to expand...


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*

Aye, I R a heretic.. Sue me.
 
Alvis Rofhessa said:
reason/logic..............................instinct/intuition/faith
Click to expand...

I agreed with everything else on the list except this one. I see intuition as another form of reasoning, as opposed to logic. It's a kind of reasoning that doesn't have to quantify and specify everything before the reasoning process begins. It makes assumptions along the way, assuming certain things may be right. It makes "educated guesses." You're saying reasoning is the opposite of intuition!!!

It's not exactly a question of whether it's right or wrong, though, but that it suggests that people who use intuition aren't using reasoning!!!

I kind of think of "intuition" as "divergent thinking" where you don't take the conventional or traditional approach to thinking about a problem or issue. You explore in a completely new direction. Turn your head upside-down.

People who are orthodox and "traditional," then, don't use intuition. They're trying to conform to some system of logic. They're trying to make their way of thinking systematic. Heretics, I guess, are those who disagree with the technicalities that arise from this way of seeing things. They may either create their own, systematic and structured approach to a religion, creed, ideology or philosophy, are go completely against any systematic approach to religion and spirituality.

Some heretics are free-thinkers that don't conform to anything. They're down-to-earth. They're the ultimate rebels to orthodoxy. Some of them, I believe, actually talk like orthodox people but deep down they're not orthodox. They pretend to be traditional and orthodox. They've shed their systematic/structured/technicalised way of seeing things and gone completely free-style -- reminds me of Bruce Lee. They're hard to detect because they know their religion too well to give people the wrong impression.

I believe people like that are still true to their religion, but they're simply thinking of it on a higher level. Some may call them heretics because deep down they don't conform, but deep down they're still true to their faith. They've just found another way to express and explain it to themselves.

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*
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the writer's motive/intention/agenda. Are they writing in opposition to a specific class of people?

It's like the word "cult." The word "cult" is usually used to describe a group of people under the influence of "mind control," indoctrinated by some ideology. So it's usually used in a negative context. On the other hand, "cult" merely means "devotion."
 
Heresy is from the Greek verb 'to choose' and in this context it means to choose other than the authentic teaching of the Apostlolic 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
 
Thomas said:
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
Click to expand...

Well, I for one would say that for some reason you find these ideas shallow and self-serving. It really isn't my business why that is so.
I think I remember that Prof. Smith in addition to regular church attendance also practices Yoga and Zen meditation, neither of which is considered less than laborious.
Thomas Merton once called Thich Nhat Hanh "...more of a brother to me than many in my own order"
Meister Eckhart was excommunicated posthumously and many good catholics were forbidden to read his works.
Even the Jesuit Anthony De Mello was shunned by his order though he wrote to his readers to respect the Church because it was there we are nurtured and have our spiritual foundations.
It isn't for us to eschew orthodoxy for a mystical path, though many persons do choose an eclectic spirituality, the rigorousness of which is determined by the fervor and devotion each individual is capable of.

peace

Mark
 
juantoo3 said:
but this part:


went right over my head. ;)
Click to expand...

Hi juan,

Keep up! It's very simple. All I was saying is practice and realisation are identical. Because one's present practice is practice in realisation, one's initial negotiation of the Way in itself is the whole of original realisation. Thus, even while one is directed to practice, he or she is told not to anticipate realisation apart from practice, because practice points directly to original realisation. "My" Buddhanature is not something hidden that awaits polishing, nor a potential which will manifest itself sometime in the future. :)

s.
 
Thomas said:
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
Click to expand...

Hi Thomas,

I wasn’t trying to set orthodoxy and heterodoxy in conflict with each other, or to undermine, or to see which was superior. I’m just interested to see how people with beliefs from differing religious backgrounds may have commonality through more personal, individual experiences rather than those experiences more mediated through the organised orthodoxy of their particular “religion”. I had no particular religion in mind, although I am aware the term heresy does seem mostly associated with Christianity (I think). Personally, I would not call any commonalities across belief systems superficial; I would think it indicative of the profound truth in them.

s.
 
Thanks Saltmeister (# 31):

I didn't mean reason/logic/Apollonian/head is opposite to instinct/intuition/faith/Dionysian/heart, I agree that we must have both in right proportions/balance. I myself recently argued on a group list that christians/creationists don't just have blind faith without evidence/reason.
But it still seems to me that the establishment/majority are always advocating "reason/logic/science" against "intuition/instinct/faith" as various scholars point out (eg Andre Nataf) and as I have found myself in arguements about things like dinosaurs being contemp with humans.
 
I wasn’t trying to set orthodoxy and heterodoxy in conflict with each other, or to undermine, or to see which was superior.
But you did imply the mysticism of the heterodox was superior to the mysticism of the orthodox – which I think is an assumption, and an erroneous one.

I’m just interested to see how people with beliefs from differing religious backgrounds may have commonality through more personal, individual experiences rather than those experiences more mediated through the organised orthodoxy of their particular “religion”.
Part of that mediation process is affirming the veracity of the experience. I would be interested to see on what basis a person who has an experience can validate that experience as 'real' without recourse to tradition ... it is here that the self-declared heretic is on very uncertain ground ... how do you know your personal experience is not a fantasy or an illusion?

Personally, I would not call any commonalities across belief systems superficial; I would think it indicative of the profound truth in them.

That, I still believe, is the common conception of those who view the 'doctrine' of any given tradition as negotiable, or determinable according to their own opinion.

Both Christians and Buddhists practice meditation, and hold many 'rules' and 'guidances' in common, but the object of the practice is entirely different.

There is nothing more contradictory, as both Christian and Zen masters insist, than the idea of 'Zen Christianity'.

When one picks a particular commonality, it is taken out of its hermeneutic and epistemological context, it is detached from the fabric to which it belongs, and becomes a rag or shard of a great and holistic teaching, and this is what renders it superficial, even trivial – as invariably the new and syncretic interpretation to which it is attached is metaphysically wanting.

Thus, for example, a humanist, with no belief in God whatsover, can lay claim to the idea of 'love thy neighbour' as being not particular to Christianity, and at a superficial level that is true, but in the sense that a Christian should understand it, there is a world of difference...

Most often what happens is the elements of all religions are tossed into a pot, then the elements that appear common are regarded as true over and above each individual expression, and the elements that are unique – the very thing that makes that tradition singular and not a generality – are discarded as being peripheral.

Thus the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is discarded because it's not in Buddhism, or re-interpreted according to the apparent trinitarian aspects of Hindu or Egyptian polytheism.

The French metaphysician, Rene Guenon, a Sufi sheik and acknowledged by Vedic scholars as perhaps the foremost spokesman of his time on the subject of Vedic philosophy, went to great lengths to explain, philosophically, esoterically and metaphysically, that the Christian Trinity is unique and like no other, and he was critically dismissive of the lack of metaphysical insight of anyone who might suggest otherwise

Again, such determinations are often made by those who stand outside religion, those who are onlookers. No other religion, for example, has the Sacraments as a Catholic/Orthodox (and to some degree Lutheran) would understand them. So they assume that the Mithraic feast, or any meal, is the same as the Sacrament. No. It is not.

And anyone who calls him or herself a Christian mystic whilst denying the Church that Christ founded is kidding themselves – or rather, their 'mysticism' is something far different from what Orthodox Christianity understands by the term. It's a supreme example of 'I'll have the good bits, but not the burden...'

Sorry, but someone mentioned getting off the fence, so I got off...

Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top