What is so appealing about heresies?From the dawn of age man was creating religions and creating new things since forever.But when monotheism came around well it came with what well call "heresies"or cults.From the begining of Judaism monotheism there were herisies which increased when Christianity came around…What is so appealing about them?Why some people join these cults and prefer it rather than going to a Christian church lets say.Are all of them that dangerous as the Church have preached about so many years?Are we to reconsider some doctrines maybe the church have condemned for beign heretical?
First, it varies quite a bit between various heresies. For instance, one that promises wealth, or an easy life for believers has an obvious appeal in that regard (prosperity). “This fits with what I already believe” (syncretism); “this promises special knowledge” (gnosticism); “this feels more logical” (“enlightenment” deism, e.g.); and “this fits with the culture around me” (syncretism) come to mind as appeals behind most of the more popular heresies.
For some, it is rather puzzling what the appeal is.
This is in Christianity as well though.(in some way or another)
This as well is in Christianity/Its rather tempting though for some i think\
I find some heresies really "tempting"sometimes to say the least.They promise a lot of things.
Why single out Christians as having a core of orthodox beliefs? What about Akhenaten?
I think the biggest problem I am going to have with this topic is the definition of heresy itself.
It has come to mean any disagreement with some approved understanding of Christianity.
But in the beginning I think it was practically the opposite, that of cutting Christianity down to some narrow understanding and thus shutting out the full diversity of Christian thought and experience. The reason I have for thinking this is from how minimalistic were the creeds agreed to in the earliest ecumenical councils, and how much of it was in reaction to people like Marcion who tried to cut Christianity down to something smaller.
So according to my understanding the question becomes what is the appeal of remaking Christianity into your own understanding alone, remaking it all in ones own image – as if you are making it into a self-shaped door? I think this sounds to me like a kind of self-worship.
Roger Olson has a good discussion of that here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/thoughts-about-the-terms-heresy-and-heretic/
I would define heresy as “holding any belief which is clearly contrary to what the bible says, when properly understood”. Hence, non-Trinitarians, Modalists, Arian, Marcion, and Gnostics are (or were) heretical, but Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are not necessarily (some individuals who claim allegiance to them may be, but many are not).
I think some of the reasons have already been explored but some of these questions are no different than say why are people attracted to flat earthism or various large-scale conspiracies that require scientists worldwide to be mistaken or fools.
What about him?
Well not exactly the same ,but a very good question to say the least
I question the premiss. The vast majority of people at any one time aren’t appealed by heresy in their religion. Heresy doth never prosper: what ’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it heresy. To paraphrase Sir John Harrington. We are brainwashed in to systems of beliefs that we don’t actually believe, so we are complicit in deceit, even by, especially by, most subtly by our silence. That is how the gatekeepers, the wolves like Trump, keep us sheep in the fold. We know they lie, but they lie for the good of the flock.
He believed in one god, the sun god, and this was heretical to most Egyptians.
Yeah ok but his religion system wasnt appealing at all.His people hated him for it
What a coincidence!!! That is exactly how the heretics define “heresy” (or whatever word they use for it like “apostate”). LOL
I hear non-Trinitarian, Modalists, Arians, and even Gnostics going on and on about how Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians hold beliefs contrary to what the Bible says (when properly understood, of course).
The real twist here with all of these heretics is in the phrase “when properly understood,” because that equates to rewriting the Bible according to how they think it could be written better and more clearly to mean what it is supposed to mean. Therein lies the arrogance and self-worship in this delusion of thinking they could write the Bible better than God did.
I think the non-heretics no matter what name and theology they go by are the ones who don’t use this phrase trying to rewrite the Bible and remake Christianity in their own image and thus to cut it all down to their own personal fiefdom with a monopoly on God and truth as their own personal intellectual property. The non-heretics accept the diversity of thought in reading the Bible as it is, as all a part of the God’s kingdom according to the way He wants things to be according the way He wrote the Bible.
Now I happen to think and have personally experienced that the non-Trinitarian pseudo-Christians like the Arian JWs and the Mormons use this phrase more than most Christians though the Fundamentalists (and many members of all denominations) could give them a run for their money in using this phrase to pretend that they and their own particular understanding is the definition of Christianity.
A heresy only exists in relation to a defined doctrine within a particular religious tradition. What is heresy to a Catholic is doctrine to a Presbyterian. Of course, a looser definition is often used, but it is sort of ironic for a Baptist to declare something as heresy when it was declared as such by Catholic doctrine.
The problem with such relative definitions is that it makes them all relative heretics. That may be ok with many having minds buried in their own religion but to the rest of the world it looks absurd. As one not raised Christian and trying to find some reasonable understanding of it, I naturally seek to dodge such bullets of irrationality with a shift of definitions. Remember the way I reject the notion of an exclusively objective reality to propose an irreducibly subject aspect to reality as a way of avoiding the way people go directly from any understanding of reality to the conclusion that everyone else must be out of touch with reality? I see a decided advantage in a view of the world that does require thinking that everyone else is delusional. Likewise I see an advantage in a view of “heresy” that doesn’t require thinking that everyone else is a heretic – one that holds up a diversity of thought in subjective religious matters as perfectly natural and good.
Certainly, there are certain things that were declared heretical that are commonly accepted, but the word itself implies a comparison to some standard. Much like “unconstitutional” is thrown around, but only has meaning in regard to the US Constitution (if that is the context)
By that, I was intending to exclude definitions that say “anything but a completely literal interpretation is heretical”, rather than “my interpretation is the only right one”. Perhaps I did not phrase things well, but I haven’t come up with a better way to put it yet.
In general, my thought is that if you have to be completely right on every doctrinal point to get into heaven, no one would get in, given that all humans are fallible.
Of course. And mine is no different in that respect.
It easily recalls the observation that every society must impose restrictions on its citizens. But the free society seeks to minimize them by restricting it to things which trample on the same liberties of other people. But where there is no objective evidence of harm done to others we practice tolerance, asking people to make their convictions on such things a matter of personal morality and belief – like being a vegetarian.
so some heresies aren’t at all appealing