Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Oh No, It's Time For Early Christological Controversies!

Recommended Posts


You may also find this quiz to be helpful.


We shall start with Arianism.  Hilariously, Wikipedia describes Arianism as a "heterodox" belief, which we all know is a polite substitution for "heretical," and they're not fooling anyone, just like swapping BCE and CE for BC and AD doesn't fool anyone.  Really, Wikipedia?  Is this the time for ecclesiastical relativism?  Just call them heretics; it's not like any of them are left to get upset.  Conceivably someone could get upset on their behalf, and demand you moderate your hurtful and judgmental words concerning theological controversies of the third and fourth centuries Anno Domini; and the technical term for someone who does that is "shitnosed little weasel."


The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has a refreshingly literary description of Arianism, which explains in no uncertain terms that Arians were not merely mistaken, but unbelievers, and that the Catholic faith was always correct.  As one would expect from something called the "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia."

What the Catholics are correct about is difficult for me to say.  It is either because I lack the years of training in theology, or because David Stove is right and the entire thing represents human cogitation run so profoundly off the rails of rational thought that trying to analyse it is hopeless (NB: David Stove and the NACE are in fundamental agreement on this issue vis a vis trinitarian controversies).


But Arianism was not merely another largely academic debate about the precise nature of the Godhead.  Arian Christianity was quite successful for a time and spread, not just among Nicene Christians but among the previously pagan Germanic tribes to the East.  Many of the German tribes that moved westward and camped among the ruins of the Western Roman Empire in the Fifth Century Anno Domini had been Arian Christians for generations.  Most notably both the Goths and the Vandals were Arian Christians.  In areas with heavy influence by these tribes, like North Africa and parts of Spain, Arianism would hang on until the Seventh Century Anno Domini.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on when and who you're talking about whether Arianism was heterodoxy or heresy. There was kind of a big deal attempt to resolve the differences between the two. But it's really kind of misleading to label one of the competitors for the official canon when it was codified as a heresy because that implies there was an official canon when it started for it to diverge from.


Then again this is a religion which had a remarkably ill-defined canon for a lot of the early days, including things like coopting a priapic statue worshipped by local people into a Saint Guerlichon, the veneration (ha ha) of which kept the monks busy making new members for the statue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
Which Early Christian Heresy Are You?
Your Result:
You are Antinomianism! Antinomianism teaches that, since salvation is by faith alone, Christians are under no obligation to obey any moral law. Views of this sort were held by various Gnostic sects in the early centuries of the church, who argued that laws governing human behaviour were of no account since the inward spiritual essence of the human person could never be affected by the actions of the physical body. The term "antinomianism" itself, however, only arose in the aftermath of the continental Reformation, in which some of the more extreme followers of Luther understood the new emphasis on salvation through faith to invalidate the validity of any standard of moral law. Although Luther himself condemned this belief as a heresy, bitter antinomian controversies continued to spring up within Lutheranism and within English Puritanism throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The doctrine is condemned in the Lutheran Book of Concord and in the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent.



Looking at the results, this is because the 3 questions I cared the least about and just randomly clicked on happened to be Antinomi whatever.


The questions I cared the most about, defending yourself with a flamethrower and my favorite fallacy being the Gambler's Fallacy, weren't taken into account.


Quiz result 2/10. Would not Counter Reformation again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heresy originally meant 'choice' or 'freedom of thought' while the orthodox meant what was to be considered 'right'. During the time when Arians existed, they were indeed considered heretics because their interpretation of the religion was different from the standard 'orthodox' belief and was officially condemned during the Council of Nicaea. 


Early heresies came from different interpretations of the Christian religion and the bible, especially considering that the religion is relatively new. Heresies started to become a problem later on because Christian leaders were obliged to hold the correct religious beliefs and made sure others had to do the same as those who believed in false religions will be condemned to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 4 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Xlucine
      As everyone knows, modern documentaries are trash. Reduced to mere grout between advert breaks, with the same old stock footage repeated a hundred times, and the same old talking heads repeating conclusions that were debunked in the academic sphere decades ago.
      This thread is for proper documentaries, from back before millennials killed the documentary industry corporate media ruined everything. A time when (especially immediately post war) some knowledge of military affairs could be expected from the audience, and veterans were still around to give interviews.
      I'll start with The Silent Service: filmed in the late 50's, retelling true tales of heroism in the submarine branch of the US navy during WW2.
      Season 1 playlist:
      Season 2 playlist:
      These are definitely a product of their time (the footage of the Japanese sailors is often entertaining for the wrong reasons), but still worth watching
    • By Collimatrix
      I had wondered why on earth the Confederate flag was called "stars and bars," seeing as it lacks any bars.
      Now I know.
    • By Collimatrix
      I am, I must admit, a complete dilettante when it comes to military history.  I know that there has been critical analysis of Guderian's autobiography, Erinnerungen eines Soldaten, or Panzer Leader in English, but other than that I am ignorant of it.  Still, I found the book an interesting read, and at times amusing.  Amusing, I think, for reasons old Heinz would not immediately have appreciated:
      Production rationalization is haaarrrdd!  Also, Guderian didn't even play World of Tanks and he knew that the aufklärungspanzer panther was a stupid idea.
      Hitler cannot into tank tactics.
      But just think of how dead it would kill a tank if it did hit!
    • By Collimatrix
      Super Comrade's thread on telling Japs apart from Chinese got me thinking about a dramatic, obscure bit of US history; the story of the Japanese and the state of Hawaii.
      The Hawaiian Islands are a volcanic chain that's about dead in the middle of the Pacific.  The islands have undergone significant weathering over millions of years, which means that the island of Oahu has a natural deep water port at Pearl Harbor.  The volcanic soils are also rich in minerals, and this combined with the heavy rainfall makes the islands exceptionally fertile.
      Hawaii was first colonized by Polynesians sometime in the early to mid ADs.  The islands were unified by King Kamehameha the Great at roughly the same time they were discovered by British explorer James Cook.  Descendants of Kamehameha ruled the islands as an independent kingdom, and attempted to maintain their sovereignty over them.  For various reasons, this was not possible in the long run and the United States annexed the islands in 1898.
      American agricultural interests then set about stealing all the land from the native Hawaiians.  This was not a difficult task; Hawaiian concepts of land ownership were quite different than American ones, and most of the Hawaiians were illiterate in any case.  The native Hawaiian population began a long decline, caused by a trifecta of imported diseases, firewater, and having everything stolen from them.  Don't trust Johnathon.
      (as an aside, there is still a vestigial Land Court in the modern State of Hawaii.  This was originally formed in 1903 as a way to solidify title to land as it was being stolen from the Hawaiians)
      The agricultural interests began importing labor from overseas.  The majority of the population of Hawaii today are descended from these plantation laborers; primarily Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and Portugese.  Sugar cane and pineapple were the main products, but taro (a traditional Polynesian root vegetable) and cattle ranching were also significant.
      Statehood was not a popular prospect at this time because the majority of the population was not White.  Despite this, Whites kept a near monopoly on higher education (Punahou, the island's most prestigious private primary school and also where President Obama went to school, had racial quotas until the 1950s) and white-collar professions.  It should be noted that despite this, some Asian households managed to become respectably middle class, generally through the practice of several families pooling money together for investments.
      The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would, indirectly, change everything.  The Japanese population of Hawaii was interned; rounded up and shipped to prison camps in Wyoming.  This is a undoubtedly a violation of human rights, and to add insult to injury they were also in prison camps.
      For young Japanese men there was a chance to get out of the camps; the 442nd Infantry Regiment.  This formation of Japanese, most of them from Hawaii, was to create a solid reputation for itself and suffer hideous casualties in the European Theater of Operations, including the brutal meatgrinders at Anzio and Monte Cassino.  For the men of the 442nd, service was a chance to prove their loyalty.  "Go for broke" became the unit's well-known motto; less known was another; "no bring shame."  They weren't just fighting to see the war over; they were fighting for their families who were behind barbed wire back in the US.
      I want to emphasize this part; the 442nd was absolutely heroic in war, because what happened next was... less inspiring.  The men of the 442nd were proud of what they'd done, but they knew better than to expect the praise and recognition to flow freely.  They knew that while their families would be free to go (for the time being), they would still be second-class citizens.  Their position in society would not be secure until they dismantled the power system in Hawaii.
      So that's what they did.  The men of the 442nd put themselves through college on the GI bill and became doctors, lawyers and most importantly, politicians.  Daniel Inouye is the best known of the bunch, but there were others, as well as a number of Japanese who had been in the Army but not in the 442nd like George Ariyoshi.  The wiki entry on George Ariyoshi is particularly interesting, as it alludes to the methods and associations that the Japanese politicians would use to take power in Hawaii.  Larry Mehau is an interesting guy, worthy of his own discussion, but that is not a discussion I am willing to have in a place where persistent, publicly-searchable records are maintained.
      In short, a generation of Japanese politicians, many of them veterans, aligned themselves with the Democratic party and sought allies in labor unions, civil rights organizations, and well, people like Larry Mehau.  After a few strikes, a few well-placed publicity campaigns, and some under-the-table strings pulling, the Democrats were firmly in power in Hawaii, Hawaii was a state, and the old system of racial quotas in Hawaiian education was deader than disco (only it was still the early '60s, so the atrocity of disco was yet to come).  The state transitioned from a primarily agricultural exporter to a tourist destination.  
      The Democrats' conduct in Hawaii since their takeover has been... good by the standards of Democratic management, I suppose.  Unlike, say, Detroit, Honolulu is not a smoldering crater, which given the relative volcanic characteristics of Hawaii and Michigan I suppose must lend the Hawaiian Democrats some credit.  I think it fair to characterize Hawaiian politics since the Democratic revolution as venal, corrupt and incompetent, but not disastrously so.
      And so it goes.

  • Create New...