|
Post by Satori on Feb 2, 2005 8:06:55 GMT -5
Haha, good point Satori, except for the fact that I've already written on orthodoxy in the "Buddhist Christianity" thread Yes, but one man's orthodox is often another man's heresy, although I prefer to see it all as ' fingers pointing to the moon'. I guess we can only agree to disagree on this. Each to their own and as long as you don't turn up at my door with a bomb or gun and try to force me to agree with you, I'll continue to respect your opinion. I'll still debate it of course!
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Feb 2, 2005 10:55:45 GMT -5
Yes, but one man's orthodox is often another man's heresy That statement is incorrect. Orthodoxy and heresy are not merely different opinions. Orthodoxy is the original, established opinion or belief. Heresy is a deviation of that due to the heretic being unsatisfied with or not correctly understanding orthodoxy. Thus, heresy is a response to orthodoxy.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Feb 2, 2005 11:14:39 GMT -5
That statement is incorrect. Orthodoxy and heresy are not merely different opinions. Orthodoxy is the original, established opinion or belief. Heresy is a deviation of that due to the heretic being unsatisfied with or not correctly understanding orthodoxy. Thus, heresy is a response to orthodoxy. Intrinsically you are correct in your base definitions of 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy', but there are many claims about what is 'orthodox' in the first place. You and your church don't have an absolute claim on being 'orthodox'; you will find that there will be Christian (and other non-Christian) sects that don't agree with your own (re)interpretations and will brand you a heretic, claiming that theirs is the 'orthodox' view. Do you see what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Feb 2, 2005 11:25:37 GMT -5
Understandable, Satori. A heretic could claim to hold to orthodoxy (although there is a tendency to claim something new, more often than not). I don't really have the time to do it in this post, but I have been very eager to begin a new thread for you and me (and others are invited to join, of course) that discusses this very topic. Is the Church truely orthodox? How do we know its not a heresy? Did one "version" of Christianity merely win out against other forms? I would assume that you believe this to be the case, considering some of your other writings concerning the gnostics, Constantine, Nicea, etc. I would love to debate this issue in more detail in a seperate thread sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Feb 2, 2005 12:33:42 GMT -5
Understandable, Satori. A heretic could claim to hold to orthodoxy (although there is a tendency to claim something new, more often than not). I don't really have the time to do it in this post, but I have been very eager to begin a new thread for you and me (and others are invited to join, of course) that discusses this very topic. Is the Church truely orthodox? How do we know its not a heresy? Yep, might make an interesting thread. Well what I really believe is that all the various religious views are just different paths to answers about the basic philosophical questions we've been asking since the year dot: How did I get here? What's the point in life? What happens after death? etc. I'm not sure one version of Christianity did win out completely though. Granted, the deepest premises of Christianity are generally shared amongst Christian sects (i.e. Christ is the Son of God etc.), but there's still a lot of debate within Christianity about where true orthodoxy lies. Opinion is more diverse still when we compare the differences between the interpretations of scripture within the other Abrahamic religions. Naturally, in terms of 'winning out', I can't dispute the global advance of Constantine's pro-Roman Christianity, but that's a very broad definition of Christianity in which there has always been disagreement about 'orthodoxy'. Okay.
|
|