Heretic

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Heretic

Is it heresy to act upon ones conscience and consider the mainstream theological teaching of the church to be erroneous? Does it matter if your reasons lie in scripture and are supported by experience? Would apostasy be a better choice?

Consider the case: Someone who has been an ardent student of Scripture for over thirty years discovers that he has been the follower of another heretic who has been disowned by the religious leaders of his day and throughout history. He discovers that his religious sources point to a New Covenant, which the first heretic came to implement and which most of his followers of the day had found difficult to accept. It is only in the aftermath of the execution of the first heretic, supposedly fifty days after his death, that those followers are enlightened and realise that all of the occurrences which caused their distress were but an important step in implementing that New Covenant of Enlightenment, for which the first heretic had sacrificed himself.

The dramatic newness of this Covenant is as challenging to his followers as it is to his adversaries, and it is often a sudden enlightenment which brings a change in the attitude of those who find that the New Covenant is trustworthy. It leads to a dramatic simplification of life, to an uncommon spontaneity towards the needs of neighbours, the development of a spiritual lifestyle, with meditation, contemplation and prayer as integral elements, and to a dedication to compassion and doing no harm to people, animals and environment.

Standing opposite this is the gigantic Christian movement in its various forms, which particularly in its dogmatic and academic expression finds no acceptance with the heretic. It isn’t an elephant and mouse situation; it is a whale and a gnat situation. The gnat can hardly be noticed and yet he has a name: heretic.

Any thoughts?

Shalom

2

Geez, Bob, are you suggesting Jesus wasn’t a regular church-going Jew?

In any case, I’m definitely #2 above, and indeed as you infer, what I found to be the shinier parts of scripture assisted in my process of choosing (which process continues to this day, despite my often flippant posturings). I especially was influenced by the “leave all your attachments and follow me” line (sorry, I’ve lost all ability to refer to the source). And once that sympathy twisted in with Zarathustra’s “only when you have rejected me will I return”, well, I became fully heretical.

Is the choice to reject, in this respect, also a choice to believe in something other than appearances? My experience was that the Church invested alot in building an appearance.

3

I am thinking together with you: “We are good and small, they are big and bad.”

-WL

4

Hi Bob:

Doctrine inflicted by certain religious sects was usually above and beyond in the scriptures in the Bible. Men putting their moral noses in God’s business. Interpretive reckonings by pastors, priests, ministers etc. could be equally harmful. Heresy in my opinion is determined by the church. If it is something countermanded against doctrine of a particular sect, then they are admonished by that church, not God in my opinion. If we unintentionally go against what God may expect from, I’m sure sooner or later it will be shown to us.

I find non-denominational churchs who deal mainly with the Gospels and the New Testament Scriptures to be the most advantageous to show respect to God. Prayer and outside Bible study will help buttress one’s faith in God and the church they attend. I believe once we are taught something it will ring true in our hearts and minds. If not, something might surface which should enlighten us to the contrariness of the situation.

5

Bob,
I think that your problem is related to the change in religion that happened near Jesus time. When the canon was closed, so too was revelation, because now everything that could be revealed, was assumed to have been revealed.
This actually imporverished religion. This was a loss of faith in the relationship between ANY GIVEN man and God. People were no longer believed when they came up and said: “God told me this”, because, I think, the encounter with greek philosophy had left this idea of consistency that had to be maintained and thus we see that what made it into the canon was not necessarly what had been “revealed”, but what was consistent.

In view of this the word heretic came into fashion, as that which is inconsistent with what has been accepted by a majority…then as now. This is because God’s will was now bound to necessity rather than choice. His plan had been hatched. At least in the old days there was only a Law, which could be judged, by God and men, as fulfilled perfectly or imperfectly. That did not matter anymore. God had provided for the salvation of man. Man had been saved- it was not in the future; it had happened. Now it was just a matter of staying true, staying within God’s salvation. This made the purpose of the Church to ceservate what was given and to negate whatever was new. The last revolutionarian had ended the possibility for future and new revolutions of the Spirit.

What do you think about prophesy? Not talking about fortelling future events, but of challenging the religious authorities in the name of God, or by God’s direction? Do you think that this is still possible? I believe that you feel strongly about your disagreement. One cannot go back in time and feel what Jeremiah and Amos felt, and our vocabulary has changed in such a way that we could not perhaps choose to express it in such terms, but could it be possible that they felt as you do?

6

Yeah, cause heretics never thought they were right before, or used the “we’re the little guys with the ultra-rare correct way of seeing things, and the mainline Church is all corrupt!” line of rhetoric.* This time it’s different.

*Notice I didn’t say reasoning. It’s punditry to capitalize on this ages knee-jerk reaction to side with the underdog.

7

Oooh, you are so poisonous today Ucc., somebody stood on your tail?

Shalom

8

Hi Oughtist,

The phrase “leave all your attachments and follow me” is an interpretation, although it seems quite accurate to me. It is the question of whether we need all of the attachments we have, or whether our lives would gain more by giving more up – again one of those well known religious paradoxes – which seems to be at the core of many religious callings. I’m not familiar with Zarathustra, nor obviously with your quotation. I couldn’t find it on the internet … obviously a lacking on my part.

I think you are right about appearances – especially in the wish for their subject to be in some way more than arts, or a “humane discipline”. It reminds me of the quote I used a few months ago about philosophers, who would come to work in a white coat if they thought they could get away with it – the same goes for Theologians, perhaps even more so. I’ve regarded the expression of religion as an art form for some time, which is probably why I have been ridiculed occasionally by “serious” philosophers – as above ….

Shalom

9

Hi WL,

I’m not sure that everybody who is small is good or everybody who is big is bad. It just may have to do with the quote, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!”

Shalom

10

Good point Ucc.

But I have three questions:
1- WHAT is the source of the mainline opinion?
2- And what is the source of the underdog’s opinion?
3- And how do you tell one from the other?-- because at some point, if I understand Bob’s point correctly, Jesus and his apostles represented an underdog opinion as well.

These are more than just knee jerks questions, but go to the question about discernment, between what is profane and what is sacred, what is revealed and what is invented.

My point, if any, is that what is mainline is an idol. It is a symbol and to become a symbol it has to be first and foremost generally accepted. But the symbol represents a facsimile, an idol that often can swell and eclipse what is signaled by it. The underdog should be invited and praised for following what is true for him that to affirm what holds no truth for him. The heretic attains for him/herself a more personal and real relationship with Being, because it is personalized for him/herself and emmanates in relation to him/herself, rather than dictated from above, from without. Which is why I brought up the issue of prophets. Often the prophets stood outside the Temple and against the Temple authorities- or mainline opinion. Yet, they also had a more personalized relatioship with Being. The measure of a personal relationship, or an “I-Thou” relationship with any being, is the pang of incertitude found in it. Because of this, it would always be easier to find in the heretic than in the general opinion, because the general, in order to be general, has to define the boundaries, and objectify what is otherwise personalized, so that it can be exchange as common coinage in language as a symbol, as an “IT”, again using Buber’s terminology.

I am not saying that either the heretic or the orthodox is “correct”, but that each is incomplete without the other. A picture of the world can be obtained with only one eye open. The left eye gives a different view than the right eye…different, not correct and the other an error. But in each there is a lack, a weakness that is only overcome by the use of both eyes together. The brain evolved to dicern the world by availing itself of both inputs. Why should not God avail himself of both approaches? Of both the majority and minority views? What if God is found in the golden middle, between thought (mainline) and feeling (heretic)?

11

Hi Bob,

Its in “The Bestowing Virtue” section:

Please don’t mistake me for a Nietzscheanite, though. He simply had a significant impact on me many years ago. Is it possible to have a spiritual attachment disorder? I think this includes nirvana junkies, and many others. I, myself, of course, am inimitably detached. Pffew!!

Technicians are necessary in all areas of higher learning, of course. I had a favorite quote many years ago from either Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, or Hegel (I simply forget), distinguishing the philosopher from the professor of philosophy. Probably Schopenhauer, in reference to Hegel no doubt. In any case, the heretic doesn’t wear a uniform as such. Perhaps the greatest threat to the established order is that the heretic is not immediately recognizable.

It is truly reassuring to me to watch emminently intelligent thinkers bicker ( :wink: ). I retain hope for myself!! When lesser minds cross swords with each other, it is pitifully human. But when the greater souls start poking each other, I get my popcorn, sit back, and hope for a good performance1 :smiley:

12

The tension between orthodox and heterodox elements in any tradition is all about strain theory:

When the cultural goals have changed, the old orthodox order becomes a moribund entity defined by ritualism. If the heterodox system can better meet the changed goals of a group, it will provide a challenge to the old orthodoxy. At that point, the orthodoxy either re-asserts itself by absorbing many of the elements found in the challenge or the heterodox strain of thought supplants the old orthodoxy, thereby becoming the new orthodoxy.

From an inside perspective, this process gets sticky when talking about revealed religions. Within that perspective, the means and goals should be pretty immutable. Otherwise, it just becomes people talking about stuff with no relationship to reality in any meaningful sense. From an outside perspective, that is fine. It is just a normal historical process. But for the believer within the tradition, viewing the tradition as a historical process devoid of any particular truth-value is a difficult line to walk.

13

Hi Liteninbolt

Thanks for your comments, but you see, the whole thing repeats itself over and over again. Abraham is enlightened and becomes a heretic, Moses is enlightened and becomes a heretic, the prophets are enlightened and become heretics, John the Baptist and Jesus become enlightened and become heretics – and most of them were killed according to tradition. These people didn’t put their noses into Gods business, but confronted Men with God and questioned conventions – examples of which are also available in the NT.

Heretics are very often concerned about what they observe in conventional religion as being off line, or they have a deeper connection, a different experience etc. The conservatives are generally concerned that their brand of canned religion could become obsolete and so they have in the past made sure that those branded as heretics are silenced. Modern day supporters of such behaviour actually imagine all kinds of things that could have happened, had the heretics gained support, and forget that, if God is behind all of this, what is one man going to achieve?

Shalom

14 
 Right, as did every belief everywhere. Take the most vicious Nazi totalitarian, or the most outre disaffected mystic.  They are all somewhere on a progression beginning with an idea held by a few people, through to an attempted rise to wide acceptance, and then a typical fall from grace.  My point is that to make an appeal to [i]any[/i] system's place on that progression is as short-sighted as it is irrational.  Christianity/Nazism/Liberal Democracy all used to be underdog views. Therefore we should accept/reject/ignore/embrace them?  Christianity/Nazism/Liberal Democracy  is/once was/shall be a dominant paradigm. Therefore we ought to accept/reject/ignore/embrace them? Nonsense of course.  
 In answer to your question, I think it's pretty obvious that a 'grasp at any old heretical straw you can because anything is better than orthodoxy' IS mainline opinion in the English speaking world at least.  It's just successfully denying it's role as the status-quo and putting that label (as though it were an epithet) on it's enemy.  So, with that in mind, the source of the mainline or underdog's opinion is going to vary from individual to individual.

By definition, or are you criticizing some particular view that you still think is mainline?

I think you’re making too much out of just general facts of what it is to represent things linguistically. All talk is symbolic.

But what if what’s true for him is true for him because he’s a stubborn git who’s taken no time to study the subject, is acting from selfishness, or who wants to resurrect some old, evil idea that was a disaster the first time around, like racism or boy bands?
I think the underdog (or mainline supporter) should be invited and praised by the strength of their arguments and/or character as appropriate- not because of some imagined de facto value to rebellion.

Unless of course his heresy takes him away from personal relationships, and into selfishness, illusion, sophistry, obedience to some OTHER principle he got ‘from without’ that just doesn’t happen to coincide with whatever tradition he’s profaning, &c. Again, you can’t divine value by ignoring content and going straight to general claims about traditionalism vs. rebellion.

Yes, and often times they didn’t. What all prophets have in common is being right, not being avant-garde.

How could you possibly pair off thought/mainline and feeling/heresy? As if there can't be hyperrational heretics rebelling against a core orthodoxy they feel is too touchy-feely? The Protestant Reformation is practically an example of such. How could you call Heresy/Orthodoxy approaches? They're relations.

How could God possibly avail Himself of ‘the majority’ and ‘the minority’ views in the absence of any statement of what in the hell those views actually are, or how they might change in a few years?
Is your position really that God just agrees with everybody about everything all the time? It should be plain that Re: Christianity there are all sorts of heretics, who disagree with each other as much as they do with the Church, and who range from lone scholars to cabals of cultists out for selfish ends.

I feel like we’re discussing the virtues of ‘doing things’ vs. ‘not doing things’.

15

Hi omar

I think you are right and there have been numerous Christians throughout church history who have been accused of heresy, just look at the list at Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:P … for_heresy

Numerous others were only able to confound the church by dying before they could be executed, like John Wycliff and the mystic Meister Eckhardt or there are the reformers like Luther and Zwingli, and people like the Wesley brothers who spent time running from the church.
Here’s a list of those burned by Roman Catholic executioners

  1. Ramihrdus of Cambrai (1076 or 1077) (lynched)
  2. Peter of Bruys († 1130) (lynched)
  3. Gerard Segarelli († 1300)
  4. Fra Dolcino († 1307)
  5. Sister Margherita († 1307)
  6. Brother Longino († 1307)
  7. Marguerite Porete († 1310)
  8. Botulf Botulfsson (1311), the only known heretic executed in Sweden.
  9. Jacques de Molay (1243–1314), burned after conviction by a tribunal under the control of King Philip IV of France.
  10. Francesco da Pistoia († 1337)
  11. Lorenzo Gherardi († 1337)
  12. Bartolomeo Greco († 1337)
  13. Bartolomeo da Bucciano († 1337)
  14. Antonio Bevilacqua († 1337)
  15. William Sawtre († 1401)
  16. John Badby († 1410)
  17. Jan Hus (1371–1415)
  18. Jerome of Prague (1365–1416), relapsed heretic
  19. St. Joan of Arc (1412–1431), burned after conviction by a pro-English tribunal of Catholic clergy.
  20. Jean Vallière († 1523)
  21. Hendrik Voes († 1523) and
  22. Jan van Essen († 1523), 1rst martyrs in the Seventeen Provinces
  23. Jan de Bakker († 1525), 1rst martyr in the Northern Netherlands
  24. Wendelmoet Claesdochter († 1527), 1st Dutch woman burned as heretic
  25. Michael Sattler († 1527)
  26. Patrick Hamilton († 1528)
  27. Balthasar Hubmaier (1485–1528), relapsed heretic
  28. George Blaurock (1491–1529)
  29. Hans Langegger († 1529)
  30. Giovanni Milanese († 1530)
  31. William Tyndale (1490–1536)
  32. John Frith (1503–1533)
  33. Jakob Hutter († 1536)
  34. Francisco de San Roman († 1540)
  35. Giandomenico dell’ Aquila († 1542)
  36. George Wishart (1513–1546)
  37. John Rogers († 1555)
  38. Rowland Taylor († 1555)
  39. John Hooper († 1555)
  40. Patrick Pakingham († 1555)
  41. Hugh Latimer (1485–1555), relapsed heretic
  42. Nicholas Ridley (1500–1555)
  43. Bartolomeo Hector († 1555)
  44. Paolo Rappi († 1555)
  45. Vernon Giovanni († 1555)
  46. Labori Antonio († 1555)
  47. John Bradford († 1555)
  48. Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556), relapsed heretic
  49. Pomponio Angerio († 1556)
  50. Nicola Sartonio († 1557)
  51. Fra Gioffredo Varaglia († 1558)
  52. Gisberto di Milanuccio († 1558)
  53. Francesco Cartone († 1558)
  54. Antonio di Colella († 1559)
  55. Antonio Gesualdi († 1559)
  56. Giacomo Bonello († 1560)
  57. Mermetto Savoiardo († 1560)
  58. Dionigi di Cola († 1560)
  59. Gian Pascali di Cuneo († 1560)
  60. Bernardino Conte († 1560)
  61. Giorgio Olivetto († 1567)
  62. Luca di Faenza († 1568)
  63. Bartolomeo Bartoccio († 1569)
  64. Dirk Willems († 1569)
  65. Fra Arnaldo di Santo Zeno († 1570)
  66. Alessandro di Giacomo († 1574)
  67. Benedetto Thomaria († 1574)
  68. Diego Lopez († 1583)
  69. Gabriello Henriquez († 1583)
  70. Borro of Arezzo († 1583)
  71. Ludovico Moro († 1583)
  72. Pietro Benato († 1585)
  73. Francesco Gambonelli († 1594)
  74. Marcantonio Valena († 1594)
  75. Giovanni Antonio da Verona († 1599)
  76. Fra Celestino († 1599)
  77. Giordano Bruno (1548–1600)
  78. Maurizio Rinaldi († 1600)
  79. Bartolomeo Coppino († 1601)
  80. Maria Barbara Carillo (1625–1721) (? no Spanish source!)
  81. Gabriel Malagrida († 1761)
  82. Thomas Szük (1522–1568)
  83. Joshua Weißöck (1488–1498)
    Those burned by Anglican executioners
  84. Anne Askew (1521–1546)
  85. Joan Bocher († 1550)
  86. George van Parris († 1551)
  87. Matthew Hamont († 1579)
  88. John Lewes († 1583)
  89. Peter Cole († 1587)
  90. Francis Kett († 1589)
  91. Bartholomew Legate (1575–1612)
  92. Edward Wightman (1566–1612), relapsed heretic
    Those burned by Eastern Orthodox executioners
  93. Basil the Physician († 1118)
  94. Avvakum Petrovich (1620–1682)

Of course this reminds people of burying ones pound or talent in the ground and completely kills of spontaneity.

No, I feel a little like they do, since they did suffer – my difficulties are but a trifle in comparison.

Shalom

16

This, of course is the question. How do we know what God agrees with, since heretics always seem to quote scripture and put forward alternative interpretations? On the other hand, the church has had a long tradition of apologetics, responding to statements that have long since become irrelevant, but those dated responses still tend to be used to react with against contemporary preferences. The world changes, but dogma sticks …

Shalom

17

Heretical is simply another term for that which is provocative and is of substantial interest for the established thought to take interest in establishing the obvious; that the Heretical is not in line with the main established perspective.

Whenever someone uses this term in slander, for instance, the best approach in my opinion is to simply acknowledge the position with implication of the absence of such being a stagnation of capacity of enlightenment of humanity.
More or less, “Good, it would be sad if they were not; else we would only have your position and all would die as our minds would not be evolving.”

Contrary, it is awkward, in my opinion, to look poorly on such as it is like calling a new branch on a tree a Heretic, with slanderous intent.
How dare that branch grow! How dare it show the tree is alive! Tree’s are to be dead and stay only dead; only trunks are important; branches are blasphemy as they do not grow the same as the trunk!

Luckily, there’s no stopping the rise of heretical positions anymore than there is the ability to stop the growth of branches.
So in the end…it’s just a term that overtly means very little aside from stating the obvious…“this is not a trunk; this is a branch”.

18

^^… and perhaps further, the heretic is an acorn who “rejects” the whole tree. “I’m outta here, who’s with me?” Hmm. Would followers be fallen leaves, or perhaps stem cells (don’t know if there’s actually a vegetable equivalent to that, is there?) who get the message and grow into seeds. In any case, the tree as a whole always dies.

The apple, then, is a heretic. Which explains its forbiddenness. I doubt original sin would have arisen from eating the bark.

19

Properly following, the fruit from a tree are not the heretic, but what they offer.
The seeds of the fruit are the potential for another tree to grow from their fruit.
In turn, that same fruit liberated from the previous tree will turn and class another of it’s branches as a heretic once it grows into a tree itself, which will also bear fruit and repeat the cycle.

Ironically, if you wanted to stop a heretic, cut the entire tree down; cut yourself off if you are the main trunk.
As long as the trunk exists, however, other branches of heretics will exist naturally as the trunk exists.
Essentially, it’s “your” own fault they exist if “you” are the trunk and look for causal blame.

20

Can’t the fruit be the offering of “choice”, though? And herasy be the staging of genetic mutation? The evergreen grows into a poplar, and the quality of shade below improves… (ok, don’t know where that metaphor goes…)

It is, of course, a mistake of the heretic to pretend they’re not from where they came.