Liberalism's Great Challenge?

[AFTT47]

The bottom line is that it's not practical in a global society to say that my way is the True Way and the Holy Way and the Only Way and the rest of you are dammed to Hell. That might work in a closed society but closed societies themselves just don't work in the present world. Religions will have to adapt or disappear entirely.

[Jehanne]

[...] (and, remember, the word 'heresy' means 'choice") [...]

No, it doesn't. That is its etymology, not its definition or current usage. You'll find its meaning here.

This is definition that I was referencing:

Origin and Etymology of heresy
Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take

First Known Use: 13th century

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy

[GUBU]

I thought the biggest challenge was building death camps large enough for all our enemies?

Oh, we're going to nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Jehanne]

[...] (and, remember, the word 'heresy' means 'choice") [...]

No, it doesn't. That is its etymology, not its definition or current usage. You'll find its meaning here.

Let me clarify my point some more.  Heresy, as understood by the Medieval Catholic Church, meant choice.  That's how the Inquisitions used the term.  From Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica:

I answer that, the word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above ( Ia IIae, q. 13, a. 3) is about things directed to the end, the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (q. 4, a. 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end.  Now, whoever believes, assents to someone’s words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine.  Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.  Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. (Summa Theologica II II, Q.11, A.1)

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, it doesn't. That is its etymology, not its definition or current usage. You'll find its meaning here.

This is definition that I was referencing:

Origin and Etymology of heresy
Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take

First Known Use: 13th century

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy

No, it doesn't. That is its etymology, not its definition or current usage. You'll find its meaning here.

Let me clarify my point some more.  Heresy, as understood by the Medieval Catholic Church, meant choice.  That's how the Inquisitions used the term.  From Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica:

I answer that, the word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing.

[preaching deleted -- Thump]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

Yes, you are referencing its etymology, not its current usage. Not even Aquinas's own church uses it in that sense.

Obviously heresy is a choice, but that doesn't mean that is the definition, or current usage, of the word. 325 years ago a bureau was a writing desk with drawers. That doesn't mean that a government agency is a piece of wooden furniture.

[Jehanne]

Yes, you are referencing its etymology, not its current usage. Not even Aquinas's own church uses it in that sense.  

Obviously heresy is a choice, but that doesn't mean that is the definition, or current usage, of the word. 325 years ago a bureau was a writing desk with drawers. That doesn't mean that a government agency is a piece of wooden furniture.

If heresy was not a choice within Catholicism, then it could not be an excommunicable offense:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
 §2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic83eng.html

Of course, under Pope Francis, there is no longer anything such as "sin":

http://www.charismanews.com/world/39644-...iversalism

This just shows that Catholicism, like all the other world religions, are natural and man-made, because not only do they contradict each other, they contradict themselves.

[Jehanne]

Religions will have to adapt or disappear entirely.

Which just shows that none of them were true to begin with.  After all, if Islam was/is wrong about jihad and Catholicism was/is wrong about the "eternal" fate of infants who die without sacramental Baptism, what can't they be wrong on other things?  Or, for that matter, anything and everything?!

[Thumpalumpacus]

If heresy was not a choice within Catholicism, then it could not be an excommunicable offense:

Yeah, I already acknowledged it is a choice, which you'd know had you read my reply. My point, however, is that heresy does not mean "choice", in general. Heresy is a very specific form of choice which most of us will never make, having not been baptized into the Catholic faith.

And to be quite frank, outside of this discussion, I really don't give two shits rubbed together what the Catholic hierarchy thinks about this or that definition. My point in linguistic, not theological. Do at least try to follow.

[GUBU]

Yes, you are referencing its etymology, not its current usage. Not even Aquinas's own church uses it in that sense.  

Obviously heresy is a choice, but that doesn't mean that is the definition, or current usage, of the word. 325 years ago a bureau was a writing desk with drawers. That doesn't mean that a government agency is a piece of wooden furniture.

If heresy was not a choice within Catholicism, then it could not be an excommunicable offense:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
 §2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic83eng.html

Of course, under Pope Francis, there is no longer anything such as "sin":

http://www.charismanews.com/world/39644-...iversalism

This just shows that Catholicism, like all the other world religions, are natural and man-made, because not only do they contradict each other, they contradict themselves.

Not that I'm defending catholicism, but quoting a fundie far-right pentecostal rag on catholic doctrine isn't a good idea.

[Jehanne]

If heresy was not a choice within Catholicism, then it could not be an excommunicable offense:

Yeah, I already acknowledged it is a choice, which you'd know had you read my reply. My point, however, is that heresy does not mean "choice", in general. Heresy is a very specific form of choice which most of us will never make, having not been baptized into the Catholic faith.

And to be quite frank, outside of this discussion, I really don't give two shits rubbed together what the Catholic hierarchy thinks about this or that definition. My point in linguistic, not theological. Do at least try to follow.

I don't give two shits, either, even though I was baptized as an infant.