USAGE Re: Defining words and how they are used"
|From:||Michael Adams <michael.adams1@...>|
|Date:||Friday, June 23, 2006, 17:56|
Well, a heresy is like the old debate of who is a freedom
fighter/patriot, and who is a criminal and like groups person.
Not going there! But alot of it depends on perspective and whose
side you are on, and especially on who seems to have been the
Both side think they are the one true, the orthodox and such,
and call the other various terms.. Knight of Long Knives or
like, the often end result.
I know in my conlang, things was based alot on the relationship
of the item or thing or action or what ever, relationship to the
Heresy is like that.. A belief that is close to yours, where you
think yours is the orthodox, you think others that especially
are as powerful as yours, a threat basically, are
heretics/unclean/etc..Often used in the early Christian church,
for other groups that are "Christian" but not quite the same. Be
the cause of nature of Jesus, or how many books they had in
their Bible, or who was the source of their authority (which of
the Patriarchies) or when can you be baptised and does it move
from one group to another, and several other things.
Sort of like how some Sunni/Shia see each other.. And they are
not the only ones, just the most obvious in modern days. From
Wahadi, Assasins (hash eaters), Hezbollah and others less well
Why I like faiths like Animism, Hindu, Ba'hai and like. Hard to
be a heretic?
Also can be used in non-religious mediums, as seen in
anthropology and even linguistics (not as hard to get into
though, less hard science than Anthro)..
Heretic and Heresy, seem to be basically meaning, anyone who is
a believe of something that the speaker finds a threat, not
cause they are alien, but cause they are too close, almost the
same but some thing seperates them, and in a sadly often wierd
Catholics/Protestants (general usages)/Orthodox and like are
technically heresies of each other but they are accepted so not
heresies.. Yes, some splinter groups are not accepted and are
called Heretical by some.. Alot of energy wasted on that..
Why I like the topic of how to make sure a word is clear with no
ambiguity or chance for misunderstanding.. But they do happen,
as words change meaning over time..
Logos, Gnosis and like, have changes in meaning or just how
Logos = science or knowledge?
Gnosis = knowledge or .. Agnostic = with out knowledge, maybe
should be Theo Agnostic?
Can can understand how this topic could easily go OT and then
beyond.. Watching Montel and entertained by Sylvia Brown and
others, funny almost.
Love humans, they can be so petty over the smallest things. Now
back to your normal talk of linguistics. Sorry, drama king out.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eldin Raigmore" <eldin_raigmore@...>
To: "Abrigon Gusiq" <abrigon@...>
Cc: "Eldin Raigmore" <eldin_raigmore@...>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: USAGE Re: Defining words and how they are used
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:33:53 -0800, Michael Adams
>I know from history, many wars started or keeps going, causeone
>party thinks a word means this, and the other think it means
>this, and why we have lawyers, to have someone who has a
>consistant vocabulary of meanings and words, so that contracts
>are clear and all parties is happy with it.[snip]
The opinion was expressed on-list back in, I think the summer
of, I think,
2004, by Tom Chappell, that "heresy" was one of those words.
He thought "heresy" meant "choose to believe".
He thought that to command someone to believe something was
and also that what one believes is not a matter of choice unless
something wrong either with one's ability to choose or with
So he thought _all_ actions against heretics were examples of
shadows of the kind you mention.
The discussion was flamed by Ray Brown and taken off-list.
Before that, Joseph B(ir?)dwell (or B(ri)dwell) a.k.a.
an opposing view to Tom, but more politely than Ray. There were
Philip Newton? Jim Henry? Sai Emrys? -- who politely suggested
to believe" were quite common, and might be felicitous after