Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
That did not save the non-Christian world from cruelty of Christian and Christians missionaries.
Misunderstandings about theology
- Thread starter Longfellow
- Start date
RJM
God Feeds the Ravens
- Messages
- 12,550
- Reaction score
- 4,411
- Points
- 108
Is that all they brought?
- Messages
- 3,999
- Reaction score
- 1,876
- Points
- 108
NO NO NO - You're missing my point again - I don't know if it's something I'm leaving out that is making this all so unclear.
Let me try again. Fundamentally, I think that the church declaring others "heretics" was a harmful thing. I think that because I think the so called "Heretics" weren't doing anything bad. They were being treated like they were bad, but they were not bad. Not even a little. I am not the one equating a doctrine or an idea with badness. The early church authority figures were. They condemned people as "heretics" AS IF THEY THOUGHT THE HERESY OR THE IDEA WAS BAD. I say it wasn't.
Somewhere along the way, in this thread, you and possibly others pointed out how ideas can be bad. Examples like racism, misogyny, slavery, and other things were referred to. (I won't search for the specific quote at this time because I don't want to add confusion.)
I AGREED that the ideas of racism, misogyny, slavery, and some other things were BAD ideas because they hurt people.
I pointed out that merely being a non-Trinitarian WAS NOT EQUAL to those truly bad hurtful things. Not even a little.
Somehow, we are here, and somehow, along the way, despite my own efforts at clarity, I have been incredibly opaque as to my meaning. I'm very sorry for creating so much confusion.
☹
- Messages
- 3,999
- Reaction score
- 1,876
- Points
- 108
OK
OK
Horrible.
What to conclude from this?
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if this is related to your question, but I'm not sure it isn't. Here's how I see the situation around Arius. The people he served were dockworkers, sailors and laborers. There was resentment against the aristocrats, but it was fragmented and dissipated in hostilities between factions. Some poetry or songs allegedly written by Arius started being used to organize the hostility against the aristocracy, and one theme of the verses was a denial of the aristocratic belief in the Son as God himself, and the bishops as inheriting the authority he gave to his twelve. I don't think that beliefs were ever declared heretical simply because they diverged from some orthodoxy. It was only when they started being used to rally people against the authorities.NO NO NO - You're missing my point again - I don't know if it's something I'm leaving out that is making this all so unclear.
Let me try again. Fundamentally, I think that the church declaring others "heretics" was a harmful thing. I think that because I think the so called "Heretics" weren't doing anything bad. They were being treated like they were bad, but they were not bad. Not even a little. I am not the one equating a doctrine or an idea with badness. The early church authority figures were. They condemned people as "heretics" AS IF THEY THOUGHT THE HERESY OR THE IDEA WAS BAD. I say it wasn't.
Somewhere along the way, in this thread, you and possibly others pointed out how ideas can be bad. Examples like racism, misogyny, slavery, and other things were referred to. (I won't search for the specific quote at this time because I don't want to add confusion.)
I AGREED that the ideas of racism, misogyny, slavery, and some other things were BAD ideas because they hurt people.
I pointed out that merely being a non-Trinitarian WAS NOT EQUAL to those truly bad hurtful things. Not even a little.
Somehow, we are here, and somehow, along the way, despite my own efforts at clarity, I have been incredibly opaque as to my meaning. I'm very sorry for creating so much confusion.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I might have found the real reason why Arius was deposed. The bishop says in a letter: "they drag us before the tribunals of the judges ..."NO NO NO - You're missing my point again - I don't know if it's something I'm leaving out that is making this all so unclear.
Let me try again. Fundamentally, I think that the church declaring others "heretics" was a harmful thing. I think that because I think the so called "Heretics" weren't doing anything bad. They were being treated like they were bad, but they were not bad. Not even a little. I am not the one equating a doctrine or an idea with badness. The early church authority figures were. They condemned people as "heretics" AS IF THEY THOUGHT THE HERESY OR THE IDEA WAS BAD. I say it wasn't.
Somewhere along the way, in this thread, you and possibly others pointed out how ideas can be bad. Examples like racism, misogyny, slavery, and other things were referred to. (I won't search for the specific quote at this time because I don't want to add confusion.)
I AGREED that the ideas of racism, misogyny, slavery, and some other things were BAD ideas because they hurt people.
I pointed out that merely being a non-Trinitarian WAS NOT EQUAL to those truly bad hurtful things. Not even a little.
Somehow, we are here, and somehow, along the way, despite my own efforts at clarity, I have been incredibly opaque as to my meaning. I'm very sorry for creating so much confusion.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
So Arius's heresy was dragging church aristocrats before judges when they tried to steal from his charity networks. 
OK ...
I disagree. I think the church, as it saw itself, had a duty of care.
The meaning of 'orthodoxy' is 'that which is regarded as correct and true'. Heresy, in respect of that, is a choice of opinion regarded as incorrect and untrue. That, of course, does not mean it is, it's an opinion.
Institutional bodies have every right to declare something false, even potentially dangerous, according to their pronciples. Fake medicines become dangerous when they cost lives. The church saw peoples' sould at risk.
They were not bad people, but their teachings were not always harmless.
Well, without an insight into the character and motives of individuals, I cannot comment.
But generally, in public discourse, 'bad' ideas and teachings tend to reflect on those promulgating those ideas ... in this day and age we do expect people to rise above that, but it seems they rarely do.
Rare in these days, it was not at all the style in Ancient and Medieval times. In every walk of life, not just religion, you destroyed your opponent comprehensively – their ideas, character, etc., etc. It was the way it was.
Well you are free to hold an opinion.
And they thought heresy was equally as bad, if not worse.
But just a sense-check here. The Jesus Movement was de facto Trinitarian from the get-go – admission was baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Groups who identified in some middle ground between emerging Christian and emerging Jewish identity (post-70CE) were peripheral. Christendom, generally, was Trinitarian, even though it would take centuries to determine definitions, and there were schisms along the way, but the schismatic churches are, nevertheless, Trinitarian.
You seem to throw Trinitarian around as a pejorative term.
We're discussing Arius here. He was a 'Trinitarian' in the sense that he believed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I leave you to draw your own ...
I don't see why anyone would see it that way, as there's not a shred of evidence to support it – this is all in your imagination.
Not at all.
a) No scholar disputes Arius' authorship of the Thalia, I don't know why you do.
b) In the 82-odd verses of the Thalia, it's all about God, about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nothing about aristocracies, powers, authorities, nothing political whatsoever.
So wrong ... There was no 'aristocratic' element to belief. Nor was it a denial of a belief in the Son as God – Arius believed the Son is God.
Again, this is all in your head. Arius himself declared the authority of the bishops – he wanted a universal council of bishops to sit in judgement, not a local council convened by his opponent – you can see his point.
I think as a non-Christian, you don't really grasp either the theology or the nature of the 4th century church.
If, as you suppose, it was a case of the people against the authorities, then Rome would have come down hard against any insinuation of sedition. If Arius was the mouthpiece, he would have been executed. Any hostility towards a favoured public institution, like the Church, would be seen as an offence against Rome.
And Arius himself declared his faith in the catholic, that is universal, church.
I'm not sure you understand the context of the quote.So Arius's heresy was dragging church aristocrats before judges when they tried to steal from his charity networks.
And what charity networks were these?
RJM
God Feeds the Ravens
- Messages
- 12,550
- Reaction score
- 4,411
- Points
- 108
The context of the time was the young church of Peter founded by Christ defending itself against all sorts of strange and weird ideas, and when the ideas came from within there was a problem with the need to counter and correct church leaders preaching 'heresy' ... right or wrong and whether or not mistakes were made, that was the practical position at the time, imo
The Arian dispute was never about "Jesus is not God" but about working out how Jesus was going to be God, going forward
Last edited: