I remember a few months ago people started throwing around the term "bashing." It became a buzz word for awhile. Then, someone suggested we define the term, at least operationally, for use on this forum. It was batted around for a while, and we came up, not only with a definition, but we seemed to curb the ambiguous "bashing."

Now, I am starting to see ther term "herasy" a bit. However, do we agree on what the definition is? I am aware that we can use a dictionary, but that is not always to most productive route.

So, to you my friends, what is herasy? What constitutes herasy apart from disagreement? When is it accurate and appropriate to call one a heratic?

Heresy:

Doctrinal departure from revealed truth.

Against such departures the Apostles vigorously warned the Church. Acts 20:29; Phil. 3:2

Heresy disturbed the unity of doctrine and of fellowship in the early Church. The Church was forced to exclude those holding false doctrine from its communion. Once excluded, they formed societies of their own.

[This message has been edited by South Zone (edited 5/8/2006 10:24a).]

Heresy - That which departs from orthodox Chrisianity as defined by Christ and the Apostles.

Examples:
- Man is saved apart from the grace of God
- Jesus is not God
- Man can be a god
- As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become
- There is another gospel other than what is written in God's Word (Bible)
- An individual is infallible (excluding Christ)

Note: I understand my definition is vague. I really just wanted to provide examples

Hopefully, you misspelled heresy and not hearsay.

Interesting definitions, but when is it intense disagreement or herasy? When is it OK to refer to something on this forum as herasy or someone as a heratic?

That's the part I have trouble with.

Heresy for a Christian would be saying that Jesus was not the Son of God, and that we are not saved by his Precious Blood, Crucifixion, and Resurrection.

Heresy for a Catholic would be to say that the Eucharist is not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, that Mary was not Immaculately Conceived, and that artificial birth control is OK.

Heresy for a Muslim would be to say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Heresy for a Jew would be to say that it is now OK to eat pork.

What is heretical depends on what denomination you belong to.

I recall a story about a teacher who was in a health class and was showing the class a skeleton. He asked if they could tell if the skeleton was male or female. One of the students stated that if it were male then it would have one less rib because of the story of Adam and Eve. The teacher corrected the child and when he doubted it was shown a pictures and diagrams of male and female skeletons that showed men and women had equal number of ribs. The kid went home and told his parents about what happened.

The next day the child mentioned his folks called their clergy and was called a heretic by their priest.....

So a Heretic can be someone who calls into question religious dogma even if it is proven to be false....

I would say the early creeds define, and declare orthodox Christianity.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

==============

The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/8/2006 7:24p).]

Hey - I really like that holy catholic church part, and the communion of saints part...

quote:

---

Interesting definitions, but when is it intense disagreement or herasy? When is it OK to refer to something on this forum as herasy or someone as a heratic?

---

That's the part that I have trouble answering, at least for myself. When can I legimately use that term here, or should I at all?

Can herasy be determined by an individual or must it be a sanction by an organization, denomination or sect?

I have never thought of heresy as something biblical. Let me clarify.

Any time I have heard of the term it involved a group claiming heresy because its forms and protocols were violated. Human institutions claim heresy against "the church", which really translates as "you've violated OUR rules".

Inasmuch as earthly churches reflect the truth of scripture and Godly principle, I am sure there is heresy. However, historically, it is usually followed with some onerous reprisal against the offender the likes of which are not found in scripture.

The word has merit if we could strip it of all of its historically antiquated misuses. Since we cannot, the word has come to have a socio-religio-political association which may have nothing to do with real offenses against God or Christ's kingdom, but rather an empowered group's perception of those alleged offenses.

Someone may raise a semantic point about the language I've used above. If so I'll try to clarify.

.02

[This message has been edited by Dr. Mephisto (edited 5/9/2006 7:42a).]

Dr. M, interesting perspective. So, you see the word more as a type of discipline, censorship, or an attempt to control something usually done by some institution or organization.

That would imply an incredible potential for abuse.

In your context, do you think that the use of the word is appropriate for this forum?

Here is from the: New Dictionary Of Theology (IVP)

Heresy connotes doctrinal deviation from the fundamental truths taught by Scripture and the orthodox Christian church, and active propagation of the same. The primary Gk. Word hairesis , which appears nine times in the NT, fundamentally meant a school of thought or sect: so the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), the Pharisees (15:5;26:5), the Nazarenes, i.e. the Christians (24:5;28:22). In Acts 24:14, Paul substituted ‘way’ (hodos) for ‘sect’ (hairesis) when referring to the Christian movement, probably because hairesis, even then possessed a negative connotation. Hairesis, secondly, developed the meaning of schism or faction that developed within the church due to a strong party spirit or lack of love (1cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). Paul’s use of the adjective hairetikos in Tit. 3:10 suggests that a heretic is a person who is divisive or factious. The shade of meaning that came to be predominate in Christian usage is that of false theological doctrine. Thus 2 Pet. 2:1 refers to the ‘destructive heresies’ of certain false teachers who denied the person and work of Christ.


There is much more, but I think you might have to buy the dictionary to get it..

I think the Creeds are a good litmus test. Not all-inclusive of doctrine or practices, but if you fundamentally disagree with anything in them, or if your church's teachings are in direct contrast, it is heresy.

This was once a very serious offense and you could not opt out by claiming an alternative religion:

quote:

---

In 1184, the Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders up through the 17th century.

---

quote:

---

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek áéñåóéò, hairesis (from áéñåïìáé, haireomai, "choose", which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of dissident believers. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "thinking" and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church.

Thus it will be perceived that "heresy" has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point-of-view of a position within a sect that has been previously defined as "orthodox". Thus, too, any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as "heretical" by others within that field who are convinced that their view is "orthodox"; in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.

Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value-judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system. For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the "Great Apostasy."

For a heresy to exist there must be an authoritative system of dogma designated as orthodox, such as those proposed by Catholicism. The term orthodox is used in Eastern Orthodoxy, some Protestant churches, in Islam, some Jewish denominations, and to a lesser extent in other religions. Variance from orthodox Marxism-Leninism is described as "right" or "left deviationism." The Church of Scientology uses the term "squirreling" to refer to unauthorized alterations of its teachings or methods.

Religious heresy

Christianity
The use of the term heresy in the context of Christianity is less common today, with some notable exceptions: see for example Rudolf Bultmann and the character of debates over ordination of women and gay priests. Popular imagination relegates "heresy" to the Middle Ages, when the Church's power in Europe was at its height, but the case of the scholar and humanist Giordano Bruno was not the last execution for heresy. Heresy remained an officially punishable offense in Roman Catholic nations until the late 18th century. In Spain, heretics were prosecuted and punished during the Counter-Enlightenment there after the Napoleonic Era.

Roman background
A concern for uniform practice of ritual, which Romans conceived as a duty entirely of a civic and public nature, distinguished the Roman approach to religion from the Greeks', where each locality preserved its archaic characteristics. Plutarch, in his Life of Numa Pompilius ascribes to the legendary King of Rome the institution of pontifex maximus which, from Plutarch's 2nd century AD point of view "was to declare and interpret the divine law, or, rather, to preside over sacred rites; he not only prescribed rules for public ceremony, but regulated the sacrifices of private persons, not suffering them to vary from established custom, and giving information to every one of what was requisite for purposes of worship or supplication."

The Romans welcomed new gods into the pantheon. But more important than belief in some or none of the gods was participation in Roman rituals. For example, Christians were not persecuted for believing in one God, nor were they persecuted for disbelieving in the pantheon of roman gods. Instead, they were persecuted because they refused to participate in civic and public rituals and duty, such as their refusal to burn incense to the Roman emperor. Deviation from the official norm amounted to impiety: heresy was foreign to the pagan worldview.

Early Christian heresies
Urgent concerns with the uniformity of belief and practice have characterized Christianity from the outset. The process of establishing orthodox Christianity was set in full swing when Paul wrote the epistles that comprise a large part of the New Testament. On many occasions in Paul's epistles, he defends his own apostleship, and urges Christians in various places to beware of false teachers, or of anything contrary to what was handed to them by him. The epistles of John and Jude also warn of false teachers, as does the writer of the Book of Revelation.

In the middle of the 2nd century, three unorthodox groups of Christians adhered to a range of doctrines that divided the Christian communities of Rome: the teacher Marcion, the pentecostal outpourings of ecstatic Christian prophets of a continuing revelation, in a movement that was called "Montanism" because it had been initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus. Early attacks upon alleged heresies formed the matter of Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics (in 44 chapters, written from Rome), and of Irenaeus' Against Heresies (ca 180, in five volumes), written in Lyon after his return from a visit to Rome. The letters of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna to various churches warned against false teachers, and the Epistle of Barnabas accepted by many Christians as part of Scripture in the 2nd century, warned about mixing Judaism with Christianity, as did other writers, leading to decisions reached in the first ecumenical council, which was convoked by the Emperor Constantine at Nicaea in 325, in response to further disruptive polemical controversy within the Christian community, in that case Arianist disputes over the nature of the Trinity.

During those first three centuries, Christianity was effectively outlawed by requirements to venerate the Roman emperor and Roman gods. Consequently, when the Church labeled its enemies as heretics and cast them out of its congregations or severed ties with dissident churches, it remained without the power to persecute them. However, those called "heretics" were also called a number of other things (e.g. "fools," "wild dogs," "servants of Satan", so the word "heretic" had negative associations from the beginning, and intentionally so.

Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils. Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument, with the weight of the agreement of the over 300 bishops in attendance. [Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west). The number of participating bishops cannot be accurately stated; Socrates Scholasticus and Epiphanius of Salamis counted 318; Eusebius of Caesarea, only 250.] In spite of the agreement reached at the council of 325 the Arians who had been defeated dominated most of the church for the greater part of the fourth century, often with the aid of Roman emperors who favored them. In the East, the successful party of Cyril cast out Nestorius and his followers as heretics and collected and burned his writings.

Irenaeus was the first to argue that his "proto-orthodox" position was the same faith that Jesus gave to the apostles, and that the identity of the apostles, their successors, and the teachings of the same were all well-known public knowledge. This was therefore an early argument supported by apostolic succession. Irenaeus first established the doctrine of four gospels and no more, with the synoptic gospels interpreted in the light of John. Irenaeus' opponents, however, claimed to have received secret teachings from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known. (Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic Scripture.) Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.

The Hispanic ascetic Priscillian of Avila was the first person to be executed for heresy, only sixty years after the First Council of Nicaea, in 385. He was executed at the orders of Emperor Magnus Maximus, over the procedural objections of bishops Ambrose of Milan and Martin of Tours, who claimed the Churches' right to punish its own.

A number of the beliefs the Catholic Church has come to regard as heretical have to do with Christology, that is, with the nature of Jesus Christ and the relationship between Christ and God the Father. The orthodox teaching, as it developed, is that Christ was fully divine and at the same time fully human, and that the three persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal. This position, it should be noted, was not formally established as the orthodox position until it was challenged in the fourth century by Arius (Nicene creed in 325); nor was the New Testament put into its present form until the end of the 4th century (Athanasius first lists the 27 books we have in the current New Testament circa 367, but disputes continued; see Biblical Canon).

Over the years, numerous Christian scholars and preachers have disagreed with the Church on various issues or doctrines. When the Church has become aware of these beliefs, they have been condemned as heretical, and with the East-West Schism finalized in the 11th century, and the split in the Western Church in the 16th, each section has identified the others as "heretical". Historically, this often happened when the belief challenged, or was seen to challenge, Church authority, or drew a movement of followers who challenged the established order socially. Unfortunately, for entirely secular reasons, some influential people have had an interest in maintaining the status quo or condemning a group they wished to be removed. The Church's internal explanations for its actions were based purely on objection to beliefs and philosophies that ran contrary to its interpretation of scripture and its official interpretation of holy tradition.

Heresy in Catholicism
Heresy is defined by Thomas Aquinas as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." The Catholic Church teaches that its doctrines are the authoritative understandings of the faith taught by Christ and that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from falling into error when teaching these doctrines. To deny one or more of those doctrines, therefore, is to deny the faith of Christ. Heresy is both the nonorthodox belief itself, and the act of holding to that belief.

While the term is often used by laymen to indicate any nonorthodox belief such as Paganism, by definition heresy can only be committed by someone who considers himself a Christian, but rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church. A person who completely renounces Christianity is not considered a heretic, but an apostate, and a person who renounces the authority of the Church but not its teachings is a schismatic.

The Church makes several distinctions as to the seriousness of an individual heterodoxy and its closeness to true heresy. Only a belief that directly contravenes an Article of Faith, or that has been explicitly rejected by the Church, is labelled as actual "heresy."

Canon 751 of the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 (abbreviated "C.I.C." for Codex Iuris Canonici), the little-known juridical systematization of ancient law currently binding the world's one billion Latin Rite Catholics, defines heresy as the following: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." The essential elements of canonical heresy therefore technically comprise 1) obstinacy, or continuation in time; 2) denial (a proposition contrary or contradictory in formal logic to a dogma) or doubt (a posited opinion, not being a firm denial, of the contrary or contradictory proposition to a dogma); 3) after reception of valid baptism; 4) of a truth categorized as being of "Divine and Catholic Faith," meaning contained directly within either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition per Can. 750 par. 1 C.I.C. ("de fide divina" AND proposed as 'de fide divina' by either a Pope having spoken solemnly "ex cathedra" on his own (example: dogmatic definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950), or defined solemnly by an Ecumenical Council in unison with a Pope (ex: the definition of the Divinity of Christ in the Council of Chalcedon) ("de fide catholica".

An important distinction is that between formal and material heresy. The difference is one of the heretic's subjective belief about his opinion. The heretic who is aware that his belief is at odds with Catholic teaching and yet continues to cling to his belief pertinaciously is a formal heretic. This sort of heresy is sinful because in this case the heretic knowingly holds an opinion that, in the words of the first edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, "is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith . . . disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church" and "strikes at the very source of faith." Material heresy, on the other hand, means that the individual is unaware that his heretical opinion denies, in the words of Canon 751, "some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." The opinion of a material heretic is still heresy, and it produces the same objective results as formal heresy, but because of his ignorance he commits no sin by holding it.

The penalty for a baptized Catholic above the age of 18 who obstinately, publicly, and voluntarily manifests his or her adherence to an objective heresy is automatic excommunication ("latae sententiae" according to Can. 1364 par.1 C.I.C..

A belief that the church has not directly rejected, or that is at variance with less important church teachings, is given the label, sententia haeresi proxima, meaning "opinion approaching heresy." A theological argument, belief, or theory that does not constitute heresy in itself, but which leads to conclusions which might be held to do so, is termed propositio theologice erronea, or "erroneous theological proposition." Finally, if the theological position only suggests but does not necessarily lead to a doctrinal conflict, it might be given the even milder label of sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens, meaning "opinion suspected, or savoring, of heresy."

Some significant controversies of doctrine have risen over the course of history. At times there have been many heresies over single points of doctrine, particularly in regard to the nature of the Trinity, the doctrine of transubstantiation and the immaculate conception.

[edit]
Types of heretics
the heretic impenitent and not relapsed (for the first time)
the heretic impenitent and relapsed (for the first time was penitent now is impenitent)
the heretic penitent and relapsed (for the first time was penitent now is penitent too, but relapsing was the capital offence)
the heretic negative (who denied his crime)
the heretic contumacious (who absconded)
Since the Church doesn't thirst for blood (ecclesia non sitit sanguinem), the first four types were all delivered over to the secular arm. The state usually immediately punished heresy with death sentence. The longest delay could be five days. The custom that the impenitent heretics (the first two types) were cast into the flames alive and the penitent (the third type) were first strangled or hanged and then burned was not always observed.

Catholic response to heresy
The Church has always fought in favor of orthodoxy and the Pope's authority as the successor of St. Peter to determine truth. At various times in history, it has had varying degrees of power to resist or punish heretics, once it had defined them.

In the early church, heresies were sometimes determined by a selected council of bishops, or ecumenical council, such as the First Council of Nicaea and promulgated by the Pope and the bishops under him. The orthodox position was established at the council, and all who failed to adhere to it would thereafter be considered heretics. The church had little power to actually punish heretics in the early years, other than by excommunication. To those who accepted it, an excommunication was the worst form of punishment possible, as it separated the individual from the body of Christ, his Church, and, if the sentence accurately reflected God's judgement, meant the denial of salvation. Excommunication, or even the threat of excommunication, was enough to convince many a heretic to renounce his views. Priscillian achieved the distinction of becoming the first Christian burned alive for heresy in 385 at Treves.

In later years, the Church instituted the Inquisition, an official body charged with the suppression of heresy. The Inquisition was active in several nations of Europe, particularly where it had fervent support from the civil authority. The Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229) was part of the Catholic Church's efforts to crush the Cathars. It is linked to the movement now known as the Medieval Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was particularly brutal in its methods, which included the burning at the stake of many heretics. However, it was initiated and substantially controlled by King Ferdinand of Spain rather than the Church; King Ferdinand used political leverage to obtain the Church's tacit approval. Another example of a medieval heretic (according to some, proto-Protestant) movement is the Hussite movement in the Czech lands in the early 1400s.

It is widely reported that the last person to be burned alive at the stake on orders from Rome was Giordano Bruno, executed in 1600 for a collection of heretical beliefs including Copernicanism and (probably more important) an unlimited universe with innumerable inhabited worlds. The last case of an execution at an auto de fe by the Spanish Inquisition was the schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoll, accused of deism and executed by garroting July 26, 1826 in Valencia after a two-year trial.

The development of the printing press greatly hampered the ability of the church to suppress dissidents, with the result that Martin Luther was able to successfully fight the Papacy and forge the Protestant Reformation.

Modern Catholic response to Protestantism
The Catholic Church, in the spirit of ecumenism, tends not to refer to Protestantism as a heresy nowadays, even if the teachings of Protestantism are indeed heretical from a Catholic perspective. Modern usage favors referring to Protestants as "separated brethren" rather than "heretics", although the latter is still on occasion used vis-a-vis Catholics who abandon their Church to join a Protestant denomination. Many Catholics consider Protestantism to be material rather than formal heresy, and thus non-culpable.

Some of the doctrines of Protestantism that the Catholic Church considers heretical are the belief that the Bible is the only source and rule of faith ("sola scriptura", that faith alone can lead to salvation ("sola fide" and that there is no sacramental, ministerial priesthood attained by ordination, but only a universal priesthood of all believers, as first introduced by Luther.

Protestantism and heresy
The main meaning of 'heresy' to a Protestant is the concept of telling lies about God. It is not at its core a matter of opposing the authorities (though, like all authorities religious or otherwise, Protestant leaders often invoke the concepts of heresy and apostasy to defend themselves from attack). Protestants chose the difficult course of action, to try to steer a middle course between (1) respecting God enough to care that humans tell the truth about God, and (2) being tolerant and loving of those who honestly see things differently, giving them an open ear because there might be something to learn from them. Protestants who seek to reestablish what they see as ancestral Christian principles -- i.e. Fundamentalists -- sometimes refer to Catholicism (or indeed other Protestant groups) as heretical. One aspect of Catholicism many Protestants regard as heresy against original Christianity is the veneration of the saints, and in particular the cultus of the Virgin Mary. Another is the doctrine of transubstantiation, the event where the bread and wine at Mass becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

---

Some interesting definitions and perspectives, however, no one has commented on these questions:

1. How can we differenciate between intense disagreement and herasy?

2. When is it OK, if at all, to refer to someone's belief(s) as herasy on this forum, and when is it OK, again assuming that it is Ok at all, to refer to someone as a heratic on this forum?

I certainly hope that these questions and applications don't imply that I am a heratic.

quote:

---

1. How can we differenciate between intense disagreement and herasy?

2. When is it OK, if at all, to refer to someone's belief(s) as herasy on this forum, and when is it OK, again assuming that it is Ok at all, to refer to someone as a heratic on this forum?

---

Easy. When I say so... Need to know, just ask me...

Losman, those people must be from the backwoods of West Virginia. I have never come accross anyone in their right mind who actually believes that man has one less rib.

An Ag in co, thanks for the post. It took me a bit to get through but I found some of it so interesting that I am going to search under some of the "heratics" names.

But, do you think the word appropriate to use on this forum, in relation to each other and our beliefs?

Heresy is simply one way of classifying people according to how well beliefs are matched. Heresy is probably very appropriate for this forum since some claim that practices and beliefs that others have are not only wrong, but can result in having the down button pushed on the elevator. But heresy is in the eye of the accuser and punishment is no longer carried out by the civilian courts. I suspect most posters don't really care what others think about what and how they worship.

Many of the topics on this forum echo the discussions that took place in christianity around 1100 - 1500 and back in the day those on the wrong side were torched.

It was once considered heresy to own a bible written in English.

Transubstantiation was a very popular topic used to burn people. Now we can only sling insults at each other and cannot alert the authorities that someone has strayed from the path and should be killed as a result.

Heresy was once a way of saying that not only is what you believe wrong, but it is so harmful that you should be punished so completely that others who might be tempted to follow your example are propely motivated to rethink their position.

Points taken, the potential for abuse of this concept is legion, and the history of such is rather sad.

Where in scripture did anyone get the idea that we should torture or kill someone because their religious beliefs differ from our take on scripture?

[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/10/2006 8:20a).]

quote:

---

Dr. M, interesting perspective. So, you see the word more as a type of discipline, censorship, or an attempt to control something usually done by some institution or organization.

That would imply an incredible potential for abuse.

---

And it was abused, especially when there was a social and political power attached to it.

Ag in CO said it well in his last post.

Back in the day, calling someone a heretic could get you or them killed. Today, the word has lost its teeth.

According to someone, everyone's a heretic.

The word has no real power anymore in usage, even though the word has clear maning in terms of ultimate truth.