Re: On "heresy" again
- Hello Gerry
I do not mean to gloss over nor ignore the historical meaning of the
word 'heresy', merely to point out, as I'm certain you follow, that
while there is a 'defined' orthodoxy in the Church, many people
today would not subscribe to it as it is a definition that is not
theirs. So is something 'orthodox' by definition or by practise?
'People were killed and books burnt' because they did not subscribe
to the developing power structure of the hierarchical Church - is
that a *theological* orthodoxy? Let us not confuse theological
orthodoxy with the reactions of the power hierarchy that were
trying to make that definition theirs; they were deliberately making
their hierarchy the 'sole purveyors' of theology (defining
themselves as 'orthodox' in order to exclude those who were outside
I guess what I am saying is that I agree with you; the word 'heresy'
does not mean 'false', merely that a certain group who wish to hold
power have created a definition that 'anything that *they* don't
want' is heretical. But it may still be Truth.
I hope this makes sense: it is a complicated discussion, more easily
*spoken of* than written..
> Hi Ken.
> We've actually had some discussions of late about the definition
> of "heresy" and its application. By claiming that Gnostics today
> can "overcome" that "label," are you suggesting that after two
> millennia, Gnostic traditions have suddenly become in-line with
> orthodox doctrine?
> There are clear differences there. I mean, books weren't burned
> people killed for no reason. While there may be no excuse forsuch
> tragedies, it's not as if they happened for no reason at all. Thethat
> differences were generally apparent to the accusers as well as the
> accused. To gloss over them today is to ignore the historical
> p.s. I *do* know what you're trying to say, Ken, but the fact
> people may be more inclined to appreciate Gnostic traditions todaythe
> doesn't mean that heterodox beliefs have finally managed to toe
> line of orthodoxy. Unless we find ourselves wading in the
> mainstream, it is probably best to avoid their connotation of the
> word as being equated with "false."
- Hello Gerry
On 29-Feb-04, you wrote:
> http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/piclib/imagerecord.asp?id=10411307 This is a
> nutshell version attributing the image's first known use to French
> astronomer Camille Flammarion in 1888.
I cannot remember the name of his book, but Flammarion was into the
Occult and Metaphysical, more or less Theosophical in tone if I
remember right, so he may have consciously altered the older 16th
Century image to suit his more modern Occult outlook. Just another
coincidence, though perhaps. AFAIK, he was not involved in the late
19th century French Gnostic movement, though I could be wrong on
Mike Leavitt ac998@...