|
Post by paul on Oct 14, 2011 12:03:22 GMT 9.5
... Orthodoxy may not signify truth but certainly does not signify error... I find this a most interesting statement. I am struggling to find a rationale to support it as in most fields of human endeavor the orthodox is periodically revised. Equally, the concept of "not error" coinciding with "not truth" is intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by acrogers on Oct 15, 2011 10:12:24 GMT 9.5
O dear, orthodoxy has reared its head again, after my references to it in Irregular Freemasons maybe. Tamrin's point about orthodoxy not signifying error even if it doesn't signify absolute truth should surely be fairly obvious to Freemasons, but is perhaps only halfway there. In a post-modern, relativistic age one could claim that orthodoxy defines my truth but not necessarily your truth. But again, if we're not careful can we not unintenionally slip into the mindset 'my opinion is orthodoxy, your's isn't if you disagree with me?'
To be orthodox one must, like a church have a creed whose statements one accepts as defined truth. The Anglican Church has got round this to a point by allowing differences of interpretation regarding both bible and creeds, but it still stands; if you accept the creeds you're orthodox, if you don't you aren't. One fears at times that orthodoxy signifies little more than compliance and conformity, neither of which may have much to do with truth.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 15, 2011 11:13:40 GMT 9.5
... orthodoxy signifies little more than compliance and conformity, neither of which may have much to do with truth. That would be my first thought. I suppose it is possible to invoke "vox populi, vox dei" but it is not clear that the voice of the people really generates the orthodoxy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2011 12:30:53 GMT 9.5
50 million Frenchmen can be wrong, or right. It is not enough to dismiss an orthodox opinion out of hand. Funny how in some circles you need to say, "It is not enough to dismiss an unorthodox opinion out of hand."
|
|
|
Post by acrogers on Oct 15, 2011 14:09:22 GMT 9.5
Orthodoxy can equal silliness. There was a time in the 11th century I think, when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope in Rome managed to excommunicate each other more or less simultaneously. Wiser heads prevailed thereafter, though the resulting breach has even yet not been quite healed, which goes to show that fools can sometimes do more harm than rascals.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 15, 2011 14:33:36 GMT 9.5
Orthodoxy can equal silliness. Perhaps no more or less than it can "equal" wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 17, 2011 9:17:04 GMT 9.5
which goes to show that fools can sometimes do more harm than rascals. Great observation arogers, loved it. Quite thought provoking too. Made me wonder what the greatest difference between the two would be. I kinda got it down to a rascal knows he is being cheeky or mischievous, but a fool wouldn't. That made me wonder about culpability. If the fool does not know he is being foolish, is he as culpable as the rascal who knows full well what he is doing?
|
|
|
Post by acrogers on Oct 17, 2011 9:38:39 GMT 9.5
I agree that a fool may not be culpable where a rascal would be.(I was using the term rascal in the Papua New Guinea sense of being not merely cheeky bu also criminally inclined.) I think the problem is that though fools may not be culpable they sometimes do more damage than those who are, orthodox or otherwise.
Perhaps the problem is not so much orthodoxy itself as orthodoxy used as a tool of repression.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 17, 2011 9:51:59 GMT 9.5
I expect Karma sorts this situation out quite well... hmnn, could make one feel quite nervous
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2011 11:12:12 GMT 9.5
I expect Karma sorts this situation out quite well... hmnn, could make one feel quite nervous A pious fiction.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 17, 2011 11:17:43 GMT 9.5
Is that a statement of belief?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 17, 2011 11:26:44 GMT 9.5
...... orthodoxy used as a tool of repression. I think this gets to the core of the nature of orthodoxy. The polarity is of course heresy "Heresy (from Greek αίρεση, which originally meant "choice")" Apparently being at choice is not favoured by some.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2011 16:34:44 GMT 9.5
Is that a statement of belief? You would call it a null hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 17, 2011 17:37:47 GMT 9.5
The null hypothesis is used in testing. It rather seems to me that "pious fiction" is used to discourage testing.
Hence my question as to whether it was your statement of belief - thus not open to testing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 16:48:21 GMT 9.5
Clearly not a statement of belief but of disbelief.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 19, 2011 8:34:49 GMT 9.5
Orthodoxy and the Royal Arch.
In Royal Arch there is an Officer called the Principal Sojourner, whose duty it is lead Brn along 'paths they know not'.
...which is probably referring to
Isaiah 42:16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not, and lead them by paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.
Does this not indicate to everyone (not just Freemasons) that there is something hidden from common view. Even Jesus spoke about things with his disciples that he could not speak about with common folk... not because they were not worthy, but rather because they would not understand. Bread for men, milk for babes.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 19, 2011 8:44:54 GMT 9.5
Mark: "unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. "
It rather seems that those who are without are not intended to understand.
So are Masons inside or outside?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 19, 2011 8:58:21 GMT 9.5
Some inside and some outside, I don't think you can generalise. Insiders and Outsiders were all part of The Followers (of Jesus.) I wouldn't even hazzard a guess at where I stand there. I know more than some and a lot less than others. I just know that I am going in the right direction. I am thinking of books I read before I was ready for them and I thought they were nonsense. Years later I reread them and understood them for the first time. The Bible is one of them
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 19, 2011 9:12:37 GMT 9.5
Masonry deliberately conceals its teachings from the brethren by veiling them in allegory.
Who decided that?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 19, 2011 9:33:26 GMT 9.5
Someone wise?
Advanced knowledge and freedom of speech would have seen one terminated in previous ages. Still applies today in some areas.
|
|