"Heretics" The Religion(s) Devoured

[LeftEyeNine]

I came across with the name Giordano Bruno and after reading the Wiki article on him, a previous thought of mine which oddly used to visit me during especially MTW/M2TW sessions surfaced again:

Humanity was always gifted with men/women too intellectual for their periods who always stood out due to their extraordinary way of thinking and interpretion of things.

That, in the blinding light of religions, may it be polytheist or monotheist, led them to be labeled as heretics whether it was due to some personal grudge or pure ignorance and self-disturbance fueled hate.

Can you name "heretics" like Bruno that religions hunted down or oppressed heavily ?

Thanks in advance.

[Brandy Blue]

All I know about the guy is what I read in wiki, but it doesn't look to me like he was executed because he was too intellectual. The Catholic Church didn't mind intellectuals. He was executed for being too contraversial. The Catholic leadership had a problem with any beliefs they considered unacceptable regardless of whether the "heretic" was an intellectual or not.

As far as I know "heretics" are, on average, neither more intellectual nor more original nor more intelligent than their persecutors. This sort of contravesy has to do with clashes of ideology, politics, power etc. Its not a case of the average kids at school ostracizing the smart guy for being a nerd. That's my impression, anyway.

I don't have further examples of intellectuals being persecuted because I think you are on the wrong track. He was not persecuted for being too smart, and neither were most other intellectual "heretics."

Whichever of us is right, its still a shame. He shouldn't have been killed.

[PanzerJaeger]

The first, and probably one of the most obvious, to come to my mind is Galileo Galilie.

[Montmorency]

Abaddon the Despoiler.

[Populus Romanus]

Jesus

[NightwindKing]

Jesus

Depends on whether he's asking about intellectuals labeled such for their intelligence or folks labeled such for their difference in beliefs.

Somehow I dont think the Sanhedrin was particularly concerned about Christ's intelligence...which clearly far outstripped their own, lol. I think their initial panic was the balance of power. Thus, Christ would fit into the second category.

Actually I'd say a lot of colonial settlers and missionaries/etc...over the years, in any culture. Most of them (even Zen priests traveling to Japan) brought with them foreign medicine, science, etc...that, for the most part would have been disliked. So I'd label any of them that were killed for introducing foreign ways as 'heretics' in that first sense. Although yeah...that's not really the definition of the word.

[LeftEyeNine]

All I know about the guy is what I read in wiki, but it doesn't look to me like he was executed because he was too intellectual. The Catholic Church didn't mind intellectuals. He was executed for being too contraversial.

If his intellectuality created controversies, then it's stil his intellectuality that put him on beefs with the Church.

Although I can see where you're coming from, your logic misses a puzzle piece in my humble opinion:

He was persecuted for the controversies he caused > His intellect paved way to controversies > Church persecutes the intellect (and hence the origin of the thread)

So if you agree with my reasoning, more names please ? Michael Servetus ?

[Arjos]

Domenico Scandella, was killed because in his view at first there was chaos, and everything came to be out of it, including God...

[CrossLOPER]

Abaddon the Despoiler.
He took advantage of the fact that Horus wrought so much chaos that the old order didn't make sense anymore, so he just gathered a massive warband and redirected their frustration and hatred to slaughter in the name of Khorne. This hardly makes him an "intellectual heretic".

[LeftEyeNine]

I thought I had posted this in the history forum. Would you please avoid derailing the topic ?

Danke. :bow:

[Brandy Blue]

He was persecuted for the controversies he caused > His intellect paved way to controversies > Church persecutes the intellect (and hence the origin of the thread)


I don't know of any controversies that he caused. He was in trouble for getting involved in contraversies that were old before he was born. The opinions that most got him into trouble are the sort that people decide on the basis of faith, not of intellect, though it is common to try to use intellect to defend such opinions. Of course if you want to argue that it was his scientific opinions that got him in trouble rather than his theological ones, then it is a different matter.

As far as I can follow your logic, I would say Saul of Tarsus (better known as St Paul) fits the bill. His arguments were at least partly intellectual and annoyed a lot of people.

I suppose Muhammad might fit the bill too, but I don't know enough about his life to be sure.

Edit: Oops! I just remembered that Muslims say Muhammad was illiterate. If that is so, then I guess he cannot be considered an educated intellectual, no matter how smart he was.

[Samurai Waki]

Bogomil, Manichaeus, and Valentinus come to mind...

[LeftEyeNine]

I don't know of any controversies that he caused. He was in trouble for getting involved in contraversies that were old before he was born. The opinions that most got him into trouble are the sort that people decide on the basis of faith, not of intellect, though it is common to try to use intellect to defend such opinions. Of course if you want to argue that it was his scientific opinions that got him in trouble rather than his theological ones, then it is a different matter.

As far as I can follow your logic, I would say Saul of Tarsus (better known as St Paul) fits the bill. His arguments were at least partly intellectual and annoyed a lot of people.

I suppose Muhammad might fit the bill too, but I don't know enough about his life to be sure.

Edit: Oops! I just remembered that Muslims say Muhammad was illiterate. If that is so, then I guess he cannot be considered an educated intellectual, no matter how smart he was.

Would you please check the thread title ?

[Fisherking]

From the way it is put, then I guess you could include Jesus into the list. He was seen as a kind of Jewish Heretic and he was executed for religious crimes.

[LeftEyeNine]

From the way it is put, then I guess you could include Jesus into the list. He was seen as a kind of Jewish Heretic and he was executed for religious crimes.

I may have misplaced myself about this.

Whoever persecuted the way I'm portraying them should be condemned due to having a new way of thinking, opening up new perspectives generally being valued much later from their deaths.

Therefore, neither Jesus nor Muhammed, reenacting the very same line of celestial/heavenly/godly set of productions with modifications each time, can qualify as "heretics" I intended to know about in this thread.

[Hax]

Edit: Oops! I just remembered that Muslims say Muhammad was illiterate. If that is so, then I guess he cannot be considered an educated intellectual, no matter how smart he was.

Although he very likely was literate.

[Brandy Blue]

Whoever persecuted the way I'm portraying them should be condemned due to having a new way of thinking, opening up new perspectives generally being valued much later from their deaths.


OK. I just didn't understand what you were counting as heresy.

[LeftEyeNine]

Bogomil, Manichaeus, and Valentinus come to mind...

Just checked them and am convinced that I had failed to make a clear opening post.

This thread does not only aim at heretics in religious meaning, but mostly at those whose thoughts/ideas were contradicting and disturbing the hegemony of their times which eventually used religion against them as the means of persecution. To quote NightwindKing:


Depends on whether he's asking about intellectuals labeled such for their intelligence or folks labeled such for their difference in beliefs.

Oh yes, mister, the bolded part. However I reckon intelligence generally shakes the ground under the pillars of beliefs, eventually leading to the latter part of your statement.

But still, Samurai Waki, Bogomil and Manichaeus are new to me and glad to be informed of them. :bow:

[Kralizec]

Socrates might be an example - one of the reasons he was persecuted was his alleged atheism.

[Skullheadhq]

"Bogomil"
"Intellectual"

Wasn't he a backwards Bulgarian priest reviving a 1000 year old heresy which had been refuted by church fathers like Irenaeus in 180AD. Servetus revived the 4th century heresy of arianism, which had been proven nonsense since the Council of Nicaea in 325. I'd prefer not to call them intellectuals.

Bruno and Galilei weren't really persecuted because their teachings were unchristian, instead, Galilei was a devout catholic, but because he refuted Aristotle, which was viewed as second-to-best authority, next to the Bible during the entire middle ages, which was 'impossible' to refute. The Galilei 'process' was filled with quotes from Aristotle. So, even calling Bruno and Galilei heretics is a mistake.

Muhammed however, is not a prophet but rather an heretic with very heterodox views, and copied a great many things from notorious heretics, like Arius, Nestorius and even some things from modalism and manicheism and he mixed it with arab paganism. This accompanied with retarded conspiricy theories like evil apostles and Jews malevolently distorting their own scriptures. These things plus Muhammed's lust for power and conquest spawned what we call Islam today.


Socrates might be an example - one of the reasons he was persecuted was his alleged atheism.
Which wasn't the REAL reason the Athenians wanted to get rid of Socrates, but you know that? Right?

[Kralizec]

I said alleged atheism. The charges against him were, from what I recall, most likely politically motivated.

However I figured he qualified for this thread because LEN wrote:


Humanity was always gifted with men/women too intellectual for their periods who always stood out due to their extraordinary way of thinking and interpretion of things.

That, in the blinding light of religions, may it be polytheist or monotheist, led them to be labeled as heretics whether it was due to some personal grudge or pure ignorance and self-disturbance fueled hate.

[Skullheadhq]

But religion (Greek polytheism here) didn't hate or would like to get rid of Socrates, his political enemies did. Infact, Greek polytheism was never much organized anyway, not in the way of one coherent group of people with the same political and religious ideas.

[Kralizec]

There wasn't much religious coherence between different Greek cities and kingdoms; nevertheless, refusing to honour the local versions of Zeus/Athena/Flying Spaghetti Monster was simply "not done".
From what I gather, the Greeks of those times were generally a pious bunch. Alcibiades was exiled at one point (on the brink of a military expedition, no less) because he was suspected of vandalising religious idols. So denying the very existence of the gods (or being accused of this, like Socrates) could certainly turn the mob against you.

[LeftEyeNine]

Kralizec definitely got my point across and, yes, Socrates qualifies as a "Heretic".

Religion is a great to tool to flock masses after a figure's persecution for labeling one "heretic" in an orthodox society is the best way to dishonor him in the eyes of the common men.

And hence the thread (am I repeating myself like a mindless gold fish ?)

[Arjos]

Ancient greek religion was like a "net" any cult or foreign version of the same gods were free to be "catched" and integrated...
Socrates had his "demonic voices", and the Athenians might have disliked the fact that only he could listen to them, but the whole issue was the "corruption of the youths", ie: he was the mentor of the Thirty Tyrants' generation...

Seeing him as an heretic is imo too much of a modernization, which takes Socrates completely out of his era and context...

[Skullheadhq]

Ancient greek religion was like a "net" any cult or foreign version of the same gods were free to be "catched" and integrated...
Socrates had his "demonic voices", and the Athenians might have disliked the fact that only he could listen to them, but the whole issue was the "corruption of the youths", ie: he was the mentor of the Thirty Tyrants' generation...

Seeing him as an heretic is imo too much of a modernization, which takes Socrates completely out of his era and context...

Thank you, this is exactly my point. And what has the flying spaghetti monster to do with ancient Greece?!

[LeftEyeNine]

@Arjos

Thank you for the insightful post but a word in quotes is generally used to deliver its common usage by others rather than the author of that text.

I can very well open a thread in the backroom titled ' "Muslim terrorists" the Western civilization devoured" and would not be discussing about why I called them "muslim terrorists" -it clearly would be an intention of allegory that reflects a particular bigotrical stereotyping.

Socrates' unusual philosophical methods, despising of the sophists and nonconformist search for wisdom would one day step on somebody's nerves and so it did. Furthermore, "corrupting the youth" is a trademark of orthodox mentality generally painted in front of a pious background. That makes him a "heretic", I say.

[Skullheadhq]

@Arjos

Thank you for the insightful post but a word in quotes is generally used to deliver its common usage by others rather than the author of that text.

I can very well open a thread in the backroom titled ' "Muslim terrorists" the Western civilization devoured" and would not be discussing about why I called them "muslim terrorists" -it clearly would be an intention of allegory that reflects a particular bigotrical stereotyping.

Socrates' unusual philosophical methods, despising of the sophists and nonconformist search for wisdom would one day step on somebody's nerves and so it did. Furthermore, "corrupting the youth" is a trademark of orthodox mentality generally painted in front of a pious background. That makes him a "heretic", I say.

Are you implying ethics is exclusive to religion?

[Arjos]

Is not as much as corruption in terms of moral behaviour, but rather as reactionary thinking opposing athenian democracy...
I find it hard to call him an heretic as his prosecution had nothing to do with religious matters...

[Skullheadhq]

Is not as much as corruption in terms of moral behaviour, but rather as reactionary thinking opposing athenian democracy...
I find it hard to call him an heretic as his prosecution had nothing to do with religious matters...

Liberal democracy killed Socrates :laugh4:

[LeftEyeNine]

Are you implying ethics is exclusive to religion?

Nope, how did you figure that out ?


Is not as much as corruption in terms of moral behaviour, but rather as reactionary thinking opposing athenian democracy...
I find it hard to call him an heretic as his prosecution had nothing to do with religious matters...

Religion was involved and in the eyes of the common men, one allegedly having "heretical beliefs" has substantial negative effect towards the suspect compared to other accusations.

[Kralizec]

Is not as much as corruption in terms of moral behaviour, but rather as reactionary thinking opposing athenian democracy...
I find it hard to call him an heretic as his prosecution had nothing to do with religious matters...

A quick look at wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

Socrates was tried on the basis of two notoriously ambiguous charges: corrupting the youth and impiety (in Greek, asebeia). More specifically, Socrates’ accusers cited two "impious" acts: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities.

The second element of the trial was a formal accusation, which the accuser Meletus swore before the Archon, a state office-holder with primarily religious duties. Having decided that there was a case to answer, the Archon summoned Socrates to appear before a jury of Athenian citizens, to answer charges of corrupting the youth of Athens and impiety.

[Arjos]

Those are the excuses put up by the athenian new gov in order to start a somewhat legal trial, also btw accusation doesn't mean guilt...
Are you telling me for example that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that they were involved in terrorist attacks? :)

Is the same old story, people in charge need motives so that they won't lose face and support by the masses...

[LeftEyeNine]

Those are the excuses put up by the athenian new gov in order to start a somewhat legal trial, also btw accusation doesn't mean guilt..

That's what I am talking about.

Some cardinal/priest/shaman does not like your views about the earth not being the center of the universe which has nothing to do with the dominant religion and uses his zealous power to hunt you down or oppress to the extent of humiliation. Religion devours the "heretic".

My point any clearer now, good sire ?

[Arjos]

Each religion has its own cosmology, so it has a lot to do with it...
Technically speaking heretics were guilty under dogmatic laws...
Socrates' trial was under a citizens' jury, also there really can't be heresy in greek polytheism as there wasn't any "law" in it, no written book of "truth", etc...

[LeftEyeNine]

I clearly fail to get my point across despite attempting it numerous times and won't be pursuing it for any longer. Okay.

Interesting reads about Arius and Nestorius by the way. In what correspondence do you relate them to Muhammed's mentality, Skullhead ?

[Skullheadhq]

Arius denied the divinity of Christ, so did Muhammed, only Muhammed went even further than Arius in minimizing Christ in his theological views. Aetian (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Aetius_of_Antioch)Arianism, which taught Christ was not like the Father, like the semi-arians taught, but unlike the Father, is even closer to Mohammedanism. I'm pretty sure this was Muhammed's inspiration. Nestorius, Pelagius and the likes were the slippery slope towards Islam and certainly inspiration for Muhammed the heresiarch. Hope I didn't bore you with theological disputes from Antiquity.

[LeftEyeNine]

No, not at all. Actually that's inspiration for a new discussion.

Thank you. :bow: