13 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 32.6 ms ] thread
It directly lead to Magnus to fall and commit heresy
Bahaha. I was looking for the Warhammer 40k comment.

For those that don't know, the writers of Warhammer basically copied off of history and many other IP like Dune. In Warhammer, there was also a Council of Nicaea where it was discussed whether the use of psychic powers was acceptable in the Imperium of Man.

I forgot who formulated the idea that difficult-to-understand and difficult-to-believe doctrines tend to have a unifying force for religious communities because they tend to require members of those communities to be more serious about their commitments, or a way for them to show how seriously they take them, by asserting to doctrines that are difficult.

This article says that Nicene Christianity is more difficult to believe and more illogical than some of the heresies. If so, that difficulty may have been a challenge for orthodox Christian believers that allowed them to feel, or demonstrate, more unity with their fellow believers! It may have created a firmer distinction between Christians and non-Christians or near-Christians, for one thing.

Edit: one search found the theory of Laurence R. Iannaccone (which is about different churches within Christianity) who argued that churches that impose more or stronger doctrinal requirements tend to receive more loyalty and commitment from their members. I'm not sure if that was the version that I was originally thinking of, but it seems closely related.

(comment deleted)
It's too late to edit my post above, but I also found William Irons and Joseph Henrich.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-05917-013

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...

Henrich is a little more focused on the idea of actions that are demonstrations of one's commitment to the unifying beliefs of a group, but I think he may think that making public declarations that are confusing or embarrassing or unpopular from the point of view of outsiders can be one form of that.

It would be nice to have a new Council, an ecumenical one, coming to agreement to unite Catholic, Orthodox, and as many mainline protestant churches as possible. It may require the Catholic church to make some sort of concession, which is probably the biggest obstacle.

There is no question that not everyone could or would want to unite. But some progress would be nice. To take a historical example the Council of Chalcedon did result in a schism (Oriental Orthodox I think), yet even so, more Christians came out of that Council united than were united prior to it.

Why would any of the organizations involved want to do this? Who benefits?

The material conditions are also very different, there's basically no sectarian violence anymore.

> It would be nice to have a new Council, an ecumenical one, coming to agreement to unite Catholic, Orthodox, and as many mainline protestant churches as possible. It may require the Catholic church to make some sort of concession, which is probably the biggest obstacle.

It was the Protestantism that splintered from the Catholic Church (and then splintered with-in itself), and changed doctrine(s) to what had been accepted for over a thousand years.

For example: the Real Presence. It's been accepted since the earliest times, and both Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) Christianity profess it. Are Protestants going to accept it.

As we are in the holiday season it may enlighten readers to know St Nicholas, from whom we derive Santa Claus, was known for two things: secretly giving gifts to the poor and needy, and slapping heretic Arius at this council.
The Arian Heresy seems to arise perpetually. Now it is typically of the form, “Christ was a great religious figure, like Buddha, or Mohammed.”; “every religion has X, what makes Christianity different?”; etc.
> “rejection of reason,” the same instrumentalized, utilitarian, and reductionist force that has pushed us to the edge of ecological collapse.

This "rejection of reason" is also why we have anti-vaxxers and a host of other problems.

Rejecting reason is insanity.

Maybe a “heresy” is simply that which is valid but not sound.

The ecumenical councils were in some ways the means by which they imprisoned and cut away what is valid (according to some presuppositions) to leave only what is sound (according to the presuppositions of the apostles).

It is the opposite of enlighenment carte-blanche thinking, to take a multivariate attack on delusion through reason anchored in a legacy of wisdom. Too bad the schism broke our understanding of this, but it is still preserved in Eastern Orthodoxy.

I find the Nicene Creed to be a major stumbling block as a person of Christian faith with a background in formal philosophy. Rather than accepting the inherent paradoxes in Christ's message, it attempts to shoehorn it together using the philosophical swiss army knife of the era, Neoplatonism.

As a result, now Christian orthodoxy is saddled with neoplatonic philosophical vestigial baggage in the term "consubstantial", which means Christians are wedded to and forced to defend a hard metaphysical realism. This comes out hard in Augustine and later medieval Christians. (See Anselm, Aquinas, etc)

They described the faith using the intellectual tools of their era, and now those artifacts are hard-coded into the faith. It would be like if the Nicene fathers were in the early 20th century and described the faith in terms of Theosophy and branded all non Theosophists heretics forever.