Are you a heretic?

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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?

And conversely, how do you know that your whole tradition is not based on fantasy or illusion? Or couldn't we describe the major religious traditions as heretic, when compared to each other?
It is warming and reassuring when everybody in your club holds the same beliefs, but there is no proof except for your collective subjectivity.

Lets be more pragmatic, for starters that person can perhaps test the fruits of that mystical experience, just like people can decide for themselves what foods suit them.

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.

Monolithic belief is great if it suits you. The average believer of any faith will see and understand things differently, addressing their own individuality, their own reality. Hetherodoxy begins when orthodoxy starts to fail you.

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...

If it is helpful and useful for that particular humanist who are we to object, just because it doesn't have the church's authenticity seal?

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...'

Following your reasoning, the first apostles and believers were also kidding themselves, it wasn't until the church and it's doctrines were firmly established that their faith was legitimised, by then they were already dead.

Thomas, everything has advantages and disadvantages. Orthodoxy is stabilizing but restrictive, heterodoxy is unstable, uncertain and free.

In any case, it takes courage to leave your temple and start wandering round the forests looking for your own path.

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by wil

Oh my, I thught when he switched to telepathy he'd never shut up! It is one thing when he posts, I can scroll down hit the highlights or skip it all together....but when he's ranting on and on and on in my head. I thought he'd never quit. I looked at a different thread...no good, went to another site...no good, turned off the computer....shut off the modem...pulled the plug....it wouldn't stop!

Wil..................Thank God.................

- c -

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Oh my again, got a cross collateral.........

Do birds fly in the ocean........

Hmm, penguins swim in the oceans.

Originally Posted by Ciel

]Do fish swim in the sky.....

Well, there have been some reports of fish flying around the Pike Place Market.

So many questions.....

- c -

Keep on the inquiry.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

Gee, am I being guilty of this by posting this scripture?

Originally Posted by Mark 2:21-22

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

[Thomas]

OK – I pretty well expected not to get off on this one lightly.

Hi Mark:
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.
I do not consider the orthodox practice of any religious tradition shallow nor self-serving, what I do find such are those who don't want to put in the necessary effort of practice, yet assume they have access to all its charisms.

Thomas Merton once called Thich Nhat Hanh "...more of a brother to me than many in my own order"
Indeed. But then neither Merton nor Nhat Hanh are considered heretic? They remained, as far as I know, true to their respective traditions.

Meister Eckhart was excommunicated posthumously and many good catholics were forbidden to read his works.
And John of the Cross was given a hard time, so was St Theresa... But none of them gave up, did they? Nor did the allow the bad example set by others blind them to the truth of orthodoxy. Despite everything, they remained true to Christ and the Church – they practiced 'love of neighbour' under sometimes the most extreme duress, and thus are exemplars for the world of the Catholic Church.

A certain 'Catch-22' exists in the fact that many profess to uphold the values of Christianity, yet are relentless in their criticism of others.

"And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?"
Matthew 7:3

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.
Indeed, and I would be foolish to condemn everyone outright – but I do hold the reserve that eclecticism is often ordered according to our own tastes and, it has to be acknowledged, our own weaknesses, and our own egos.

A rule common to every spiritual tradition is the role of the Spiritual Director/Guru/Staretz/Geront/Sheik ... in fact in their eyes it is a non-negotiable requirement ... I don't see this covered off with anything like the necessary attention, it's usually just discreetly ignored...

+++

Hi Ciel –

Is this not the very arrogance of dogma?
Or simply the truth of the matter?

+++

Hi JM:
What is the Church that Christ founded?

Well I'm sure you know ...
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Matthew 16:18-19
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
Matthew 28:19-20

+++

Hi Caimanson

I would like to preface this reply by saying I think you raise some tremendously important points about 'reality' and 'knowledge' – can we know either, for sure, enough to gamble our existence, without recourse to others? And this is the whole point. The heretic chooses to believe in something other than the whole, and if he is to be 'right' he must prove his point.

I am not saying there are no mystics outside of Christianity, I am saying, however, that they are not Christian mystics. My Catholic awakening was at the hands of a Buddhist – he showed me something of my own tradition I had never seen – but he showed me where to find what I was seeking in my tradition when I had been looking elsewhere, at his. I consider him a mystic, and, perhaps, a saint, but not a Christian. Likewise, he never considered me a Buddhist.

And conversely, how do you know that your whole tradition is not based on fantasy or illusion?
Well, that's a question of faith. How do you know yours? People are the product of culture, for all their claim to be 'independent' and 'free thinking' – there was a famous art lecture which quoted a Japanese and a European artist, both of whom claimed a new art form that was utterly unique and original. The audience was then asked to guess which was the Japanese and which the European. It was blindingly obvious to everyone. We're nowhere near as unique or special as we think.

Or couldn't we describe the major religious traditions as heretic, when compared to each other?
Technically, no. Heresy only applies within a particular doctrine. Thus you can be a Christian heretic, a Buddhist heretic, etc.

It is warming and reassuring when everybody in your club holds the same beliefs, but there is no proof except for your collective subjectivity.
Spot on. So we're back to faith again. And reality ...

But more importantly – and I think you raise a most important point – Any measure depends, in the end, on 'collective subjectivity'. Without it, we have no certainty in anything. Science is rooted in it. Philosophy depends on it. So does theology. 'No man is an island' says it all.

Lets be more pragmatic, for starters that person can perhaps test the fruits of that mystical experience, just like people can decide for themselves what foods suit them.
Really? I think the easiest person to fool is ourselves. As a motorcyclist my life (and others) has been endangered more than once by people who believe they can drive and talk on a mobile phone. The 'proof' suggests they can't. And obesity is rampant in both the US and the UK – so people don't know what's good for them – or they do, but ignore it. People think they know what's best for themselves, but they rarely do.

As the saying goes ... the last to see it is you.

But more importantly – how does a mystic test the fruits, but against the 'collective subjectivity'? It's a very difficult point. Think of the mother who smiles and says "look, they're all marching out of step, except my son!"? But it is a very real point. They may well be, but then we would have to examine the evidence, and her reasoning.

Monolithic belief is great if it suits you. The average believer of any faith will see and understand things differently, addressing their own individuality, their own reality. Heterodoxy begins when orthodoxy starts to fail you.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Orthodoxy has never failed anyone – people fail orthodoxy and make excuses. You might as well say the message of Jesus or Buddha is in itself not sufficient for the job ...

Again, that 'monolithic belief' constantly produces mystics that all hold in the highest regard. Equally, the fact that no two people experience Christ precisely the same is a mark of their God-given individuality – but they all agree on the principles – the basics – the Creed. And they are all orthodox by that measure. It is my honest belief that 'monolithic' is way off the mark – but that's me.

If it is helpful and useful for that particular humanist who are we to object, just because it doesn't have the church's authenticity seal?
Then does not he or she hold to the beliefs of humanism as a doctrine – and seeks a different seal of approval? No-one lives a life entirely different from his or her neighbour, although there may be significant diversity. People are the product of culture (again).

Following your reasoning, the first apostles and believers were also kidding themselves, it wasn't until the church and it's doctrines were firmly established that their faith was legitimised, by then they were already dead.
No, that's wrong. The Church is established in what they believed, taught and lived. That's the measure. They set the standard. They define orthodoxy. We got everything we are from them.

Thomas, everything has advantages and disadvantages.
But they - the advantages and disadvantages - are not necessarily equal in that regard. I would say there's more real freedom in the church than outside it.

Orthodoxy is stabilizing but restrictive,
I would argue that the history of theological development demonstrates otherwise. What orthodoxy does is challenge our assumptions.

heterodoxy is unstable, uncertain and free.
Again that's an oipinion – so is falling off a cliff – but I do not men to belittle – rather to highlight the greater risk. Heresy even greater. Technically it's denying a datum (of Revelation) as it is held. It's the equivalent of denying a law of physics.

Heresy allows one to insist they know what's best in the face of the evidence to the contrary.

In any case, it takes courage to leave your temple and start wandering round the forests looking for your own path.
Indeed it does. Or pride... Or foolishness. Why look for a path when you're at the destination?

Thomas

[Ciel]

Thomas,

The truth of the matter is that God is not exclusive to dogma.

And does God truly need to be the recipient of a spiritual CV before God listens and attends in grace to any member of the human fraternity.

It is strange........... I had always read you as a book more open than your views established here, but then I would prefer to give any man the benefit of the doubt in living with an open book rather than one completely closed.

- c -

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi JM:
What is the Church that Christ founded?

Well I'm sure you know ...
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Matthew 16:18-19
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
Matthew 28:19-20

Greetings Thomas,

Thanks for your response. It appears that I did not know that. It seems to me that you have taken his statements out of context by not including the previous versus. He was asking the diciples who men thought he was and it was Peter who answered correcty and said "thou art the Christ, son of the living God" Matthew 16:17-18
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus was making the point that the foundation (rock) of his church was hearing directly from the Father. Peter surely wasn't the foundation as in verse 23 Jesus called him Satan after Peter spoke to him. So Peter was not a sound foundation. One moment he could speak for God and the next for Satan. The church of Christ is a body of believers whereever they are (not an organization) that hears not from flesh and blood but directly from God. That is the true church that Christ founded and it has no earthly name or exclusive organization.

Love in christ,
JM

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

OK – I pretty well expected not to get off on this one lightly.

Looks like you're getting gang tackled here, so I'll let you off on this one, my response is on the other "heretic" thread.

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Thomas

what I do find such are those who don't want to put in the necessary effort of practice, yet assume they have access to all its charisms.

Why do you assume that all heretics are such out of laziness, some also stay within orthodoxy out of laziness and fear.
And what makes you think the heretic really wants to have access to all those charisms, perhaps he/she wants something else, something different. Statements like these are too sweeping.


Indeed, and I would be foolish to condemn everyone outright – but I do hold the reserve that eclecticism is often ordered according to our own tastes and, it has to be acknowledged, our own weaknesses, and our own egos.
True, and true again for the orthodox, and there is nothing wrong with any of it, lets not confuse lack of character with personal authenticity. We are what we are, and we do the best we can with what we have. Or would you deny that your choice of tradition has nothing to do with personal taste, ego and weakness?


A rule common to every spiritual tradition is the role of the Spiritual Director/Guru/Staretz/Geront/Sheik ... in fact in their eyes it is a non-negotiable requirement ... I don't see this covered off with anything like the necessary attention, it's usually just discreetly ignored...


Rule for maintaining a human tradition running yes, nothing more. Your guru doesn't have to be an institutional one or from your own institution, we learn from everything and everybody, you stated how you learned from your buddhist friend.
Who was the teacher of the very first enlightened man? Was it God, ordinary people, nature, experience?


can we know either, for sure, enough to gamble our existence, without recourse to others? And this is the whole point. The heretic chooses to believe in something other than the whole, and if he is to be 'right' he must prove his point.


Different wavelength here, I'm not that bothered about who is right or what is whole, I am more concerned with choice and responsibility.


Well, that's a question of faith. How do you know yours? People are the product of culture, for all their claim to be 'independent' and 'free thinking' – there was a famous art lecture which quoted a Japanese and a European artist, both of whom claimed a new art form that was utterly unique and original. The audience was then asked to guess which was the Japanese and which the European. It was blindingly obvious to everyone. We're nowhere near as unique or special as we think.

I am not advocating the uniqueness or originality of the heretic at all Thomas. My point is that the reality of an orthodox faith is as weak and uncertain as that of the heretic really, so there are no moral grounds for calling anybody a heretic in a demeaning way.
Who was the heretic, Jesus or the Pharisees? The answer depends on who do you ask.


Technically, no. Heresy only applies within a particular doctrine. Thus you can be a Christian heretic, a Buddhist heretic, etc.

Would infidel do? This is where I'm confused, it's alright if I'm a Hindu orthodox even if in the eyes of the church I am lost?


But more importantly – and I think you raise a most important point – Any measure depends, in the end, on 'collective subjectivity'. Without it, we have no certainty in anything. Science is rooted in it. Philosophy depends on it. So does theology. 'No man is an island' says it all.



Have you ever tried dwelling in uncertainty? it can be scary, but is it a bad thing necessarily?


Really? I think the easiest person to fool is ourselves. As a motorcyclist my life (and others) has been endangered more than once by people who believe they can drive and talk on a mobile phone. The 'proof' suggests they can't. And obesity is rampant in both the US and the UK – so people don't know what's good for them – or they do, but ignore it. People think they know what's best for themselves, but they rarely do.
As the saying goes ... the last to see it is you.

Too sweeping again, just because some people don't know what is best does not mean that there are some that do. It works both ways.


But more importantly – how does a mystic test the fruits, but against the 'collective subjectivity'? It's a very difficult point. Think of the mother who smiles and says "look, they're all marching out of step, except my son!"? But it is a very real point. They may well be, but then we would have to examine the evidence, and her reasoning.


Well, all observers may disagree with the mother, she might be 'wrong' but her own experience is very real. The problem is that your example uses the right/wrong dualism again.


Monolithic belief is great if it suits you. The average believer of any faith will see and understand things differently, addressing their own individuality, their own reality. Heterodoxy begins when orthodoxy starts to fail you.This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Orthodoxy has never failed anyone – people fail orthodoxy and make excuses. You might as well say the message of Jesus or Buddha is in itself not sufficient for the job ...


A severely dyslexic child drops out of school and makes excuses. Or was it a modern society that is so dependent on written communication that failed this child?


If it is helpful and useful for that particular humanist who are we to object, just because it doesn't have the church's authenticity seal?
Then does not he or she hold to the beliefs of humanism as a doctrine – and seeks a different seal of approval? No-one lives a life entirely different from his or her neighbour, although there may be significant diversity. People are the product of culture (again).

Then if you are fair to your thinking you should stop borrowing revelation from the OT and reinterpreting it in a way that is not consistent with mainstream Jewish orthodoxy.


Following your reasoning, the first apostles and believers were also kidding themselves, it wasn't until the church and it's doctrines were firmly established that their faith was legitimised, by then they were already dead.
No, that's wrong. The Church is established in what they believed, taught and lived. That's the measure. They set the standard. They define orthodoxy. We got everything we are from them.


According to which gospel, and to which of the original christian sects. Didn't the Jewish establishment consider them heretics? That's the trap of assuming that the right/wrong dualism stands.


But they - the advantages and disadvantages - are not necessarily equal in that regard. I would say there's more real freedom in the church than outside it.

Why?


Orthodoxy is stabilizing but restrictive.
would argue that the history of theological development demonstrates otherwise. What orthodoxy does is challenge our assumptions.


Challenging and restrictive yes, stabilizing and restrictive once you conform.


heterodoxy is unstable, uncertain and free.
Again that's an oipinion – so is falling off a cliff – but I do not men to belittle – rather to highlight the greater risk. Heresy even greater. Technically it's denying a datum (of Revelation) as it is held.

Agreed, greater risk (and higher gain if successful).

It's the equivalent of denying a law of physics.

Lol, you truly cannot say that! Now, that's heretic


Heresy allows one to insist they know what's best in the face of the evidence to the contrary.

I am not claiming that. Your discourse seems to be focused on who is right and who knows best, I am claiming that only you know what is best for yourself, not for others. What you call 'evidence' is very questionable anyway.
And who knows, maybe Mr. Caimanson one day will found a new religion that many will revere strict orthodoxy.


In any case, it takes courage to leave your temple and start wandering round the forests looking for your own path.
Indeed it does. Or pride... Or foolishness. Why look for a path when you're at the destination?


A valid and possible scenario. But would you call Jesus or Paul foolish and proud, or where the Pharisees that stayed in the temple the foolish and proud ones, or perhaps they where all foolish and wise in their own way?

That is the whole point, nobody can be the judge except yourself, taking responsibility for your actions and your beliefs is all you can do.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

But more importantly – and I think you raise a most important point – Any measure depends, in the end, on 'collective subjectivity'. Without it, we have no certainty in anything. Science is rooted in it. Philosophy depends on it. So does theology. 'No man is an island' says it all.
Thomas

Hi Thomas,

This (my bold) seems rather, well, heretical. I think it would warrant a new thread somewhere!

s.

[Paladin]

Dearest Thomas,

I find myself agreeing with Juan on this one, it does seem that you are in an embattled position. I hope it hasn't caused you any dismay though from reading your posts you seem of stalwart character. I also find myself sympathetic to your view on why some choose an eclectic path to avoid the rigors of an orthodox spiritual practice. I have known many such who claim great spiritual attainment but seem quite empty of the fruits that right effort and deep passion inspired works can bring. They have their reward it is true.
I also have great admiration for many of the spiritual giants you spoke of, and only mention their attraction for other practices to point out how one can find joy in anothers devoted practice, this in Buddhist teaching would earn great merit.
Your own devotion and fervor is probably quite extensive so you might have some sympathetic leanings for those who though have gone outside the boundaries of their original religion, nonetheless continue a devoted and exacting spiritual practice, driving themselves relentlessly toward their own lofty spiritual goals.
In my own case it was a nadir experience that led me to my present practice which over the years has become somewhat "Mixed" though the reasons why this came to be would only evoke pathos if I explained further.
Though rare it would seem there are those who also eschew the lazy way out, yet cannot be bound by one religion. This path might bring you sadness and invoke your reprimand, but alas, it is what it is.

Peace

Mark

[Thomas]

Greetings JM,

Jesus was making the point that the foundation (rock) of his church was hearing directly from the Father.
This is simply another argument that seeks to detach Christ from His Church, so that one can lay possession to Him.

The church of Christ is a body of believers whereever they are (not an organization) that hears not from flesh and blood but directly from God. That is the true church that Christ founded and it has no earthly name or exclusive organization.

Nice interpretation, but if true, renders the most of the rest of Scripture, and nearly all of the Old Testament, meaningless ... so I would suggest, on the weight of evidence, the error in interpretation might be yours.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Paladin –

I also find myself sympathetic to your view on why some choose an eclectic path to avoid the rigors of an orthodox spiritual practice.
That speaks volumes in itself.

I have known many such who claim great spiritual attainment but seem quite empty of the fruits that right effort and deep passion inspired works can bring. They have their reward it is true.[/i]

I have come to realise that this 'reward' is invariably material, and that is how the practice is judged - what do I get out of it? Or, perhaps, what's in it for me?

As I have said before, I remeber the craze for Buddhist Chanting, and one of the 'proofs' was the guy who chanted for a new Porsche ... and got one. I bet the Buddha would be proud ...

But as I am continually being told ... the guy knew what was best for him, perhaps Buddha wanted him to have a Porsche ...

+++

I think, in considering the responses, I have come to realise that most people simply don't undewrstand Christianity, or for all their self-professed spirituality, don't believe in it.

I refer to the Sacraments, and specifically the Eucharist.

Now, if in receiving the Eucharist one could sense the benefit - if there was a material sensation, a mystic experience, or what have you, then thousands more would be Catholic.

But it's not like that. And because one cannot quantify it, one simply ignores it ... whereas the Catholic and Orthodox know that they do not know, but still they belief in it ...

So tell me ... who has the greatest faith ... the one who can show results, or the one weho can't?

Thomas

[InLove]

Matthew 16 is one of those passages that, like it or not, does seem open to individual interpretation. I am inclined to believe that it was Peter's declaration to which Christ referred, not necessarily a nod to strict organizational rules. That said, I still trust that He knew there would be some organizing to do in order to further His Message. I also believe that He knew that humankind would tend to confuse the issue by the desire to pin it down. And I believe He forgives our blunders when He looks at the heart's intent and sees that it is because we want to be in His Love that we make them.

InPeace,
InLove

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Thomas

+++


I refer to the Sacraments, and specifically the Eucharist.

Now, if in receiving the Eucharist one could sense the benefit - if there was a material sensation, a mystic experience, or what have you, then thousands more would be Catholic.

But it's not like that. And because one cannot quantify it, one simply ignores it ... whereas the Catholic and Orthodox know that they do not know, but still they belief in it ...

So tell me ... who has the greatest faith ... the one who can show results, or the one weho can't?

Thomas

Thomas, peace,

To live in love and the experience of knowing love, is this a mystic experience, or the light of the spirit unfolding in man in reality.

- c -