From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon religion.svg

This Religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Grounding in belief[edit]

Actually, I would disagree with the recent addition of "one must have a fundamental understanding of...". Throughout the ages, people who were not knowledgeable in a given religion were found to be heretics. And I know Gould's ideas were called heretical. Perhaps the author means to suggest that a given Church must have an established doctrine or doxology to be deviated from?--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov» 14:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

That whole paragraph is rubbish. Comparing the C16 Catholic Church's treatment of Luther to any modern Church's activities is not going to yield a fair analogy. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
I always thought that mere irreverence was blasphemy, while heresy was making the claim that some unorthodox idea was the true form of the orthodox idea. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
Listener, I think you are correct, but the hearsay does not have to come from someone who is *informed*. It just has to be out there. Anyone today teaching that condoms are a good way to protect our world from AIDS is teaching in controversy to the Catholics, and it is Heretical teaching. Blaspheme (again, I think...) is about the nature of god, and the willingness to speak out against god or the church itself.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov» 15:06, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
The condom business is heresy only if the proponent claimed that condoms are acceptable according to Catholic dogma. If the argument is secular, it is not heresy (although not necessarily blasphemy either). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:15, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Comments merged from the Heretic talk page[edit]

I'm very fond of this quote--it was responsible for one of my early bans at CP. I forgot that The Internets = Serious Business. --Gulik 20:03, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Heretic! You undid one of my edits to this article! We must engage in much senseless debate over whose version is the truth! Maybe we can Bohdan to come here and share his opinion, too! humanbe in 19:53, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

In one of the threads in the Talk Origins newsgroup earlier this year, someone asked the question if religions had anything in common. The general consensus was no, and people cited the enormous number of subgroups to all the main religions to support the point. One poster simply responed to the original question with "Die, heretic", and IIRC, won that months Chez Watt award for the most memorable post.:--Remarcsd 04:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Heretic redirects to heretic...[edit]

...which is redirected from heretic. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Can heresies be defined among the wikicommunities (eg WP: POV-ism; CP: WP etc)? (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


I removed the claim that Catharism was "one of the earliest" heresies. I mean, this very page links an article on Gnosticism, which was a similar heresy but almost a millenia earlier. Early Church history is filled with heresies; every major Christian tenet was formulated in response to one. If you want the earliest, you may want to look in the Bible: Simon Magus in Acts is arguably a heretic, and Paul in Epistles is warning about people teaching "different gospel". OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And even before that - Samaritans!!! They were (still are, actually) a tribe mainstream Jews consider heretics. The Gospels are really clear on this point. Probably every religion had heresies at all times, from the beginning of time. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Judaism was more of an orthopraxy than an orthodoxy in those days, though. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe so. Nevertheless, Samaritans are treated just like heretics. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

& atheism[edit]

I don't personally think heresy should be "distinct" from a lack of religious belief, but if that's what people want to include, not biggie. however, atheism is NOT a "lack of religious belief", it is a lack of gods. --Green mowse.pngGodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 17:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a definition of religious belief that doesn't include belief in one or more gods? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nontheistic religionsWikipedia. ТyrannisPlead 17:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Christian atheists. Your own beloved Dawkins talks at length about them, chiding them. But he doesn't say they don't exist. Just that they are stupid to exist. --Green mowse.pngGodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 18:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Which particular point in the article are you initially commenting on above Godot?--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 18:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

See the opening paragraph & first footnote. I'm not sure that the way we've defined heresy ("aberration from a [typically religious] orthodox system of beliefs, while still making a claim to hold said orthodox beliefs") is quite correct. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
RE the definition of atheism, while as WfG says it actually mean lack of theism, and there are atheist religions, in practice it is also often used to mean "lack of religious belief", since there isn't really a separate word that means this and most atheists are indeed non-religious. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It's just that I don't see the word "atheism" anywhere in the article which leaves me confused about the original point.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 06:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Human just removed it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I see. That is way it's usually a good idea to explicitly quote the text you are referring to on a talk page, as subsequent edits can make things confusing.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't agree with our def of heresy at all, but i wasn't goign to get into it. I just find "athesism, a lack of religious belife" to be a glaring mistake. I think it might be ok to talk about a lack of religious believe as somehow "distinct from" (as we say) heresy - but even that seems strange, as heresy exists specifically within a religion regarding words said about that religion. Green mowse.pngGodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 19:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


Turn, heretic.
—The Arbiter

Contradictory Statements[edit]

This article lacks clarity. "This is why most Protestants aren’t considered heretics by the Catholic Church—they were never Catholic to begin with." is in one paragraph while the list of 'heretics' includes Protestants (by the Roman Catholic Church). Are they considered to be heretical or not? (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)