History UsefulNotes / HeresiesAndHeretics

19th May '18 10:47:03 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Monophysitism was largely concurrent with Nestorianism, mainly because it was [[TheNewRockAndRoll a powerful reaction to and rejection of it]]. Horrified by the implications of two Christs running around, the monophysites basically leapfrogged themselves to the other end of the spectrum, claiming Jesus had only ''one'' nature[[note]]Greek: ''mono'' = one; ''physis'' = nature[[/note]], part divine and part human, something akin to a [[Myth/ClassicalMythology demigod]]. This was likewise rejected on the grounds that, if Jesus was not fully human, he could not fully participate in and thus represent humanity, and if he was not fully divine, he could not fully participate in and thus represent {{God}}; in short, since he was neither truly God or truly Man, he could not join the two, and thus he could not fix the problem of Original Sin (see above), and humanity was still basically screwed.[[note]]Yes, the Catholic Church's official position is that Christ is ''both'' completely God and completely Man. Yes, it understands the ramifications of nailing Him to a cross to die.[[/note]] The modern day Oriental Orthodox church still affirms Miaphysitism, a moderate form of Monophysitism (or something entirely different, according to them). This is largely a function of politics: the conflict between the Monophysites and the "Orthodox" (that is, the ones adopting the present Catholic--and Eastern Orthodox--Christology) was a hot religious and political issue during the early years of UsefulNotes/TheByzantineEmpire, with Monophysitism being dominant in the empire's eastern provinces (Egypt and Syria, mostly) and Orthodoxy being dominant in the west (in the Greek-speaking heartland of Anatolia and the Balkans/Greece), with different emperors backing different factions for political reasons. However, when the Muslim Arabs abruptly conquered the eastern provinces, the conflict was basically frozen in the middle of the 7th century because the Caliph didn't care what these Christians believed about Jesus as long as they paid their taxes, and the politico-theological games ended with the result being that both groups exist as minorities in the mostly-Muslim Middle East while Orthodoxy stamped out the remaining Monophysites in the west as the political calculus changed (namely, the need to present a united Christian front against the expansionist Muslim Arab empire).

to:

** Monophysitism was largely concurrent with Nestorianism, mainly because it was [[TheNewRockAndRoll a powerful reaction to and rejection of it]]. Horrified by the implications of two Christs running around, the monophysites basically leapfrogged themselves to the other end of the spectrum, claiming Jesus had only ''one'' nature[[note]]Greek: ''mono'' = one; ''physis'' = nature[[/note]], part divine and part human, something akin to a [[Myth/ClassicalMythology demigod]]. This was likewise rejected on the grounds that, if Jesus was not fully human, he could not fully participate in and thus represent humanity, and if he was not fully divine, he could not fully participate in and thus represent {{God}}; in short, since he was neither truly God or truly Man, he could not join the two, and thus he could not fix the problem of Original Sin (see above), and humanity was still basically screwed.[[note]]Yes, the Catholic Church's official position is that Christ is ''both'' completely God and completely Man. Yes, it understands the ramifications of nailing Him to a cross to die.[[/note]] The modern day Oriental Orthodox church still affirms Miaphysitism, a moderate form of Monophysitism (or something entirely different, according to them). This is largely a function of politics: the conflict between the Monophysites and the "Orthodox" (that is, the ones adopting the present Catholic--and Eastern Orthodox--Christology) was a hot religious and political issue during the early years of UsefulNotes/TheByzantineEmpire, with Monophysitism being dominant in the empire's eastern provinces (Egypt and Syria, mostly) and Orthodoxy being dominant in the west (in the Greek-speaking heartland of Anatolia and the Balkans/Greece), with different emperors backing different factions for political reasons. However, when the Muslim Arabs abruptly conquered the eastern provinces, the conflict was basically frozen in the middle of the 7th century because the Caliph didn't care what these Christians believed about Jesus as long as they paid their taxes, and the taxes. The politico-theological games therefore ended with the result being that both groups exist as minorities in the mostly-Muslim Middle East while Orthodoxy stamped out the remaining Monophysites in the west as the political calculus changed (namely, the need to present a united Christian front against the expansionist Muslim Arab empire).
19th May '18 10:39:13 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Unfortunately for Galileo, as we said above, he doubled down on heliocentrism and argued against the literal interpretations of the Bible in the non-theological arena, as it contains passages that explicitly contradicted heliocentrism (the most quoted being the one where Joshua commands the Sun and Moon to stand still over Canaan). Taking to the debate floor, he insisted that the Bible and nature must agree as both proceeded from the same creator, and began insisting Scripture be reinterpreted to suit the theory he couldn't quite prove. Just to make it worse, as Europe was in the midst of the UsefulNotes/ThirtyYearsWar, which pitted basically all the Catholic powers of Continental Europe against all the Protestant ones, everyone was a bit touchy about religious doctrine, and Galileo's abrasive personality and previous clashes with Jesuit scientists really weren't helping his cause. In 1616, he appeared before Pope Paul V; the pope, weary of controversy, turned things over to the Holy Office, which condemned the theory. Later, Galileo made a request of a friend - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit; he was granted a certificate that allowed him not to hold or defend heliocentrism, [[LoopholeAbuse but to conjecture it]]. Later, he met with another pope (and a personal friend), Urban VIII, in 1623. The Pope granted Galileo permission to write on the subject, cautioned him not to advocate it, instead presenting the arguments for or against it. [[RunningGag Not happening]]. What Galileo actually wrote (in the form of a dialogue), while technically presenting the arguments for both sides, was clearly in favor of heliocentrism, and the arguments against it -- including the ones offered by his friend the pope -- were placed in the mouth of the character named "Simplicio" (i.e. "Simpleton"), who was a debater of obviously inferior intelligence and status than the one arguing heliocentrism.

to:

** Unfortunately for Galileo, as we said above, he doubled down on heliocentrism and argued against the literal interpretations of the Bible in the non-theological arena, as it contains passages that explicitly contradicted heliocentrism (the most quoted being the one where Joshua commands the Sun and Moon to stand still over Canaan). Taking to the debate floor, he insisted that the Bible and nature must agree as both proceeded from the same creator, and began insisting Scripture be reinterpreted to suit the theory he couldn't quite prove. Just to make it worse, as Europe was in the midst of the UsefulNotes/ThirtyYearsWar, which pitted basically all the Catholic powers of Continental Europe against basically all the Protestant ones, everyone was a bit touchy about religious doctrine, and Galileo's abrasive personality and previous clashes with Jesuit scientists really weren't helping his cause. In 1616, he appeared before Pope Paul V; the pope, weary of controversy, turned things over to the Holy Office, which condemned the theory. Later, Galileo made a request of a friend - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit; he was granted a certificate that allowed him not to hold or defend heliocentrism, [[LoopholeAbuse but to conjecture it]]. Later, he met with another pope (and a personal friend), Urban VIII, in 1623. The Pope granted Galileo permission to write on the subject, cautioned him not to advocate it, instead presenting the arguments for or against it. [[RunningGag Not happening]]. What Galileo actually wrote (in the form of a dialogue), while technically presenting the arguments for both sides, was clearly in favor of heliocentrism, and the arguments against it -- including the ones offered by his friend the pope -- were placed in the mouth of the character named "Simplicio" (i.e. "Simpleton"), who was a debater of obviously inferior intelligence and status than the one arguing heliocentrism.
19th May '18 10:37:06 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Unfortunately for Galileo, as we said above, he doubled down on heliocentrism and argued against the literal interpretations of the Bible in the non-theological arena, as it contains passages that explicitly contradicted heliocentrism (the most quoted being the one where Joshua commands the Sun and Moon to stand still over Canaan). Taking to the debate floor, he insisted that the Bible and nature must agree as both proceeded from the same creator, and began insisting Scripture be reinterpreted to suit the theory he couldn't quite prove. Just to make it worse, as Europe was in the midst of the Catholic-Protestant Thirty Years War, everyone was a bit touchy about religious doctrine, and Galileo's abrasive personality and previous clashes with Jesuit scientists really weren't helping his cause. In 1616, he appeared before Pope Paul V; the pope, weary of controversy, turned things over to the Holy Office, which condemned the theory. Later, Galileo made a request of a friend - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit; he was granted a certificate that allowed him not to hold or defend heliocentrism, [[LoopholeAbuse but to conjecture it]]. Later, he met with another pope (and a personal friend), Urban VIII, in 1623; he was granted permission to write on the subject, but was cautioned not to advocate it, instead presenting the arguments for or against it. [[RunningGag Not happening]]. What Galileo actually wrote (in the form of a dialogue) was clearly in favor of heliocentrism, and the arguments against it -- including the ones offered by his friend the pope -- were placed in the mouth of the character named "Simplicio" (i.e. "Simpleton"), who was a debater of obviously inferior intelligence and status than the one arguing heliocentrism.

to:

** Unfortunately for Galileo, as we said above, he doubled down on heliocentrism and argued against the literal interpretations of the Bible in the non-theological arena, as it contains passages that explicitly contradicted heliocentrism (the most quoted being the one where Joshua commands the Sun and Moon to stand still over Canaan). Taking to the debate floor, he insisted that the Bible and nature must agree as both proceeded from the same creator, and began insisting Scripture be reinterpreted to suit the theory he couldn't quite prove. Just to make it worse, as Europe was in the midst of the Catholic-Protestant Thirty Years War, UsefulNotes/ThirtyYearsWar, which pitted basically all the Catholic powers of Continental Europe against all the Protestant ones, everyone was a bit touchy about religious doctrine, and Galileo's abrasive personality and previous clashes with Jesuit scientists really weren't helping his cause. In 1616, he appeared before Pope Paul V; the pope, weary of controversy, turned things over to the Holy Office, which condemned the theory. Later, Galileo made a request of a friend - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit; he was granted a certificate that allowed him not to hold or defend heliocentrism, [[LoopholeAbuse but to conjecture it]]. Later, he met with another pope (and a personal friend), Urban VIII, in 1623; he was 1623. The Pope granted Galileo permission to write on the subject, but was cautioned him not to advocate it, instead presenting the arguments for or against it. [[RunningGag Not happening]]. What Galileo actually wrote (in the form of a dialogue) dialogue), while technically presenting the arguments for both sides, was clearly in favor of heliocentrism, and the arguments against it -- including the ones offered by his friend the pope -- were placed in the mouth of the character named "Simplicio" (i.e. "Simpleton"), who was a debater of obviously inferior intelligence and status than the one arguing heliocentrism.
6th May '18 9:25:18 PM KYCubbie
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Someone who used to be a Catholic, but has now abandoned it completely is an ''apostate''. This includes Catholics who convert to non-Christian religions (e.g. [[UsefulNotes/{{Basketball}} Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s conversion from Catholicism to Islam), Catholics who convert to Christian sects the Church disagrees with on fundamental issues of doctrine (e.g. William Laurence Sullivan's[[note]]The author of the last book to be banned by the Church[[/note]] conversion to Unitarianism[[note]]At the time still a non-trinitarian Christian sect[[/note]]), and people who "convert" to atheism (e.g....well...half the famous "Catholics" in America, really).

to:

*** Someone who used to be a Catholic, but has now abandoned it completely is an ''apostate''. This includes Catholics who convert to non-Christian religions (e.g. [[UsefulNotes/{{Basketball}} [[UsefulNotes/NationalBasketballAssociation Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s conversion from Catholicism to Islam), Catholics who convert to Christian sects the Church disagrees with on fundamental issues of doctrine (e.g. William Laurence Sullivan's[[note]]The author of the last book to be banned by the Church[[/note]] conversion to Unitarianism[[note]]At the time still a non-trinitarian Christian sect[[/note]]), and people who "convert" to atheism (e.g....well...g... well... half the famous "Catholics" in America, really).
21st Apr '18 6:43:01 AM Malady
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Essenes were a sect contemporary with Jesus that believed in a spiritual war between good and evil. They are best known for writing the Dead Sea Scrolls. ([[IThoughtItMeant No]], not [[Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion those]].)

to:

* The Essenes were a sect contemporary with Jesus that believed in a spiritual war between good and evil. They are best known for writing the Dead Sea Scrolls. ([[IThoughtItMeant ([[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant No]], not [[Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion those]].)
6th Jan '18 4:50:31 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Below is a list of well-known heresies and heretics found within real life religions, [[IThoughtThatWas and NOT an outline of]] a ''TabletopGame/Warhammer40000'' variant.

to:

Below is a list of well-known heresies and heretics found within real life religions, [[IThoughtThatWas [[JustForFun/IThoughtThatWas and NOT an outline of]] a ''TabletopGame/Warhammer40000'' variant.
24th Nov '17 9:31:45 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** A ''very'' famous example was given to the world in the teachings of Arius, who effectively used orthodox language to teach that Jesus was not divine, but a creature made by God. When Constantine legalized Christianity, one of the first things done by the leaders of the Church was to define and formalize what the belief system of Christianity actually held-Arius, who famously was supported by many bishops and excommunicated by others, gave an explanation of his beliefs to the Council of Nicaea in 325 and was solemnly condemned[[labelnote:*]]Legend has it that a certain [[SantaClaus St. Nicholas]] was [[SecretCharacter also present]] at the council, and became so [[BerserkButton angry at Arius' teaching]] that he ''punched the man out''. St. Nicholas is not included in the official registry of bishops present, but that only [[ConspiracyTheory adds to the fun]].[[/labelnote]]; the Council of Nicaea formally proclaimed the divinity of Jesus Christ. Arianism was also an issue at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, where the divinity of the Holy Spirit was also declared. Hints of Arianism, or less specifically, non-trinitarianism, is still extant with modern day Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism, among other sects.

to:

** A ''very'' famous example was given to the world in the teachings of Arius, who effectively used orthodox language to teach that Jesus was not divine, but a creature made by God. When Constantine legalized Christianity, one of the first things done by the leaders of the Church was to define and formalize what the belief system of Christianity actually held-Arius, who famously was supported by many bishops and excommunicated by others, gave an explanation of his beliefs to the Council of Nicaea in 325 and was solemnly condemned[[labelnote:*]]Legend has it that a certain [[SantaClaus St. Nicholas]] was [[SecretCharacter also present]] at the council, and became so [[BerserkButton angry at Arius' teaching]] that he ''punched the man out''. St. Nicholas is not included in the official registry of bishops present, but that only [[ConspiracyTheory [[UsefulNotes/ConspiracyTheories adds to the fun]].[[/labelnote]]; the Council of Nicaea formally proclaimed the divinity of Jesus Christ. Arianism was also an issue at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, where the divinity of the Holy Spirit was also declared. Hints of Arianism, or less specifically, non-trinitarianism, is still extant with modern day Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism, among other sects.
27th Oct '17 4:50:54 PM DarkPhoenix94
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Iconoclasm ("icon smashing") first showed up in the 7th and 8th centuries, claiming it was sinful to make pictures or statues of Christ and the saints, despite [[Literature/TheBible God commanding]] the creation of religious statues (Ex. 25:1820; 1 Chr. 28:1819), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:89 w/ John 3:14). It was originally inspired by the Muslim blanket ban on representational art and the Old Testament's emphasis against idolatry. Popular history associates this with Byzantine Emperor Leo III "The Isaurian", who had lived near the border with Muslim-ruled Syria, but although this has a grain of truth to it, iconoclasm as imperial--and therefore Eastern Orthodox--policy was rather exaggerated by the generation that killed it (with the assistance of the Pope in Rome--at that time, again, the Church in Rome had not yet split from the Church in Constantinople, so this fight was basically one within Catholicism--albeit a Catholicism with a focus on the East). Iconoclasm briefly reappeared in the initial stages of the Protestant Reformation mostly as a push back against the perceived decadence of the Catholics, but largely disappeared over the years, the only noticeable remnant being most Protestants' tendency to wear a bare cross instead of a Crucifix and building fairly austere and unadorned churches.
** Catharism's vogue occurred in the 11th century. Technically a mixture of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology, there were a few joining principles that connected the various sects under the name. ''Very'' similar to Gnosticism above, the Cathars held a fierce antipathy for the material universe, which they held was created by an [[GodOfEvil evil deity]] (hence, matter is evil), but there exists a [[GodOfGood Good Deity]] who should be worshiped instead (there's a resemblance to UsefulNotes/{{Zoroastrianism}} here).
*** One of the largest Cathar sects was that of the Albigensians, who held that the spirit was created by the good God, but imprisoned by the evil one in a physical body. Hence, the bearing of children-the imprisoning of another human soul in a body-was one of the greatest possible evils; logically, marriage and vaginal sex was forbidden, but anal sex might be technically permissible. Since Catharism arose in Bulgaria, they were also called ''bougres'' ("Bulgars") in French, from which we get "bugger" and "buggery" for "anal sex" or someone who practices it. They weren't all about the buggery though; there were plenty of fasts that bordered on willful starvation and lots of severe mortification was practiced. Leaders went about in voluntary poverty. Some sects also seemed to believe in ritual suicide, fasting to death after they has been purified.

to:

** Iconoclasm ("icon smashing") first showed up in the 7th and 8th centuries, claiming it was sinful to make pictures or statues of Christ and the saints, despite [[Literature/TheBible God commanding]] the creation of religious statues (Ex. 25:1820; 1 Chr. 28:1819), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:89 w/ John 3:14). It was originally inspired by the Muslim blanket ban on representational art and the Old Testament's emphasis against idolatry. Popular history associates this with Byzantine Emperor Leo III "The Isaurian", who had lived near the border with Muslim-ruled Syria, but although this has a grain of truth to it, iconoclasm as imperial--and therefore Eastern Orthodox--policy was rather exaggerated by the generation that killed it (with the assistance of the Pope in Rome--at that time, again, the Church in Rome had not yet formally split from the Church in Constantinople, so this fight was basically one within Catholicism--albeit a Catholicism with a focus on the East).East, and one where the Pope was increasingly looking to escape from the Byzantine Emperor's shadow). Iconoclasm, as a political issue in the Byzantine Empire, lasted from around 726 to 843, with a hiatus from 787 to 814, and wound up - essentially - as a wrangle between Church and State over Imperial power over the Church (the Church won). Iconoclasm briefly reappeared in the initial stages of the Protestant Reformation mostly as a push back against the perceived decadence of the Catholics, but largely disappeared over the years, the only noticeable remnant being most Protestants' tendency to wear a bare cross instead of a Crucifix and building fairly austere and unadorned churches.
** Catharism's vogue occurred was in the 11th late 12th and early 13th century. Technically a mixture of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology, there were a few joining principles that connected the various sects under the name. ''Very'' similar to Gnosticism above, the Cathars held a fierce antipathy for the material universe, which they held was created by an [[GodOfEvil evil deity]] (hence, matter is evil), but there exists a [[GodOfGood Good Deity]] who should be worshiped instead (there's a resemblance to UsefulNotes/{{Zoroastrianism}} here).
*** One of the largest Cathar sects was that of the Albigensians, who wielded a great deal of power in southern France during the 13th century, before being obliterated by the French crown and various crusaders in the Albigensian Crusade. They held that the spirit was created by the good God, but imprisoned by the evil one in a physical body. Hence, the bearing of children-the children - the imprisoning of another human soul in a body-was body - was one of the greatest possible evils; logically, marriage and vaginal sex was forbidden, but anal sex might be technically permissible. Since Catharism arose was believed to have arisen in Bulgaria, Bulgaria (among other things, it was connected to another Gnostic sect, the Bogomils), they were also called ''bougres'' ("Bulgars") in French, from which we get "bugger" and "buggery" for "anal sex" or someone who practices it. They weren't all about the buggery though; there were plenty of fasts that bordered on willful wilful starvation and lots of severe mortification was practiced.practised. Leaders went about in voluntary poverty. Some sects also seemed to believe in ritual suicide, fasting to death after they has been purified.



*** An early force in the Protestant Reformation was Martin Luther, a monk who famously nailed his ''95 Theses'' to the door of the Church for the attention of the Bishop. Unfortunately for historical purposes, this event is sometimes [[TheThemeParkVersion simplified]] to where Martin Luther is depicted as an ostentatious rebel for doing so; however, it was common practice to do so, as the local church was the one place people were going to go by default, so it served as a proto-bulletin. In Wittenberg in particular, with its great university, academics would put messages up on the church door to announce debates, disputations, the period equivalents of thesis defenses, and so on; Martin Luther actually put his theses there as a kind of invitation to hold an academic debate at the University. Thing was, he also sent a few copies to his friends, and at least one of them decided to have the document printed up and distributed; another one had the even brighter idea of translating the theses from Latin into German. Once the sheet was available in the common language, the ideas it contained spread like wildfire, leading to a controversy--and bloodshed--[[MyGodWhatHaveIDone Luther hadn't intended to cause]]. It would be several years until he officially split off.

to:

*** An early force in the Protestant Reformation was Martin Luther, a monk who famously (apocryphally) nailed his ''95 Theses'' to the door of the Church for the attention of the Bishop. Unfortunately for historical purposes, this This event is sometimes rather [[TheThemeParkVersion simplified]] in the popular imagination, to where Martin Luther is depicted as an ostentatious rebel for doing so; however, he most likely just hung them up on the door, rather than nailing them - and it was common practice to do so, as the local church was the one place people were going to go by default, so it served as a proto-bulletin.proto-bulletin - and sent them in a letter to the Bishop. In Wittenberg in particular, with its great university, academics would put messages up on the church door to announce debates, disputations, the period equivalents of thesis defenses, and so on; Martin Luther actually put his theses there as a kind of invitation to hold an academic debate at the University. Thing was, he also sent a few copies to his friends, and at least one of them decided to have the document printed up and distributed; another one had the even brighter idea of translating the theses from Latin into German. Once the sheet was available in the common language, the ideas it contained spread like wildfire, leading to a controversy--and bloodshed--[[MyGodWhatHaveIDone Luther hadn't intended to cause]]. It would be several years until he officially split off.


Added DiffLines:

*** Additionally, the position is somewhat complicated by Anglicanism, especially as practised by the Church of England, which was originally intended as - basically - Catholicism where the Church reported to the King, Henry VIII, rather than the Pope. Even today, the High Church part of the C of E bears a great deal of resemblance to Catholicism, and there was a real chance of rapprochement between the two Churches in the late 20th century. However, the difference in positions on female ordination and same-sex marriage seems to have torpedoed that one.
15th Jul '17 4:27:35 PM ImperialMajestyXO
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Instead of human beings being ontologically good creatures in and of themselves, they are spiritual creatures trapped in material form by the Demiurge.[[note]][[StarWars Luminous beings are we! Not this crude matter!]][[/note]]

to:

*** Instead of human beings being ontologically good creatures in and of themselves, they are spiritual creatures trapped in material form by the Demiurge.[[note]][[StarWars [[note]][[Franchise/StarWars Luminous beings are we! Not this crude matter!]][[/note]]
3rd Jun '17 11:38:22 AM gemmabeta2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It is commonly assumed that Galileo ''proved'' heliocentrism -- he didn't, exactly. He merely made the biggest noise about it. He started by writing a letter in response to the Duchess of Tuscany saying, in effect, "Well, I wouldn't put ''too'' fine a point on it, but yes, the evidence does ''suggest'' that, scientifically speaking, the Church and Aristotle really do have the whole structure of the Universe wrong." Notice all the hedging: Galileo was convinced, but knew he didn't have definitive, incontrovertible proof. (His observation that Venus has phases made it ''extremely unlikely'' that geocentrism was true and heliocentrism false, but there were all kinds of other explanations that could have been cooked up to keep the Earth in the middle, even though they were all sort of ridiculous.) Proponents of heliocentrism were unable to counter the strongest argument against it, which had been proposed by ''Aristotle himself''--if heliocentrism were true, there should be observable parallax shifts in the position of the stars as the Earth moved. Now, there ''are'' observable parallax shifts, but the technology to demonstrate that hadn't been developed until ''after Galileo's death''. [[note]]The distance between the stars is several light-years, very large in comparison to Earth's orbit, with a diameter of about 16.6 light-'''minutes'''[[/note]]. Until that point, the evidence suggested that the stars' positions were fixed relative to the Earth, and thus, only the Sun, Moon, and other planets were moving; Copernicus' (correct) explanation that the stars were too far away to exhibit visible parallax was not accepted, even by non-geocentrists like Tycho Brahe. However, being a bullheaded and rather stubborn sort of fellow, he later doubled down on heliocentrism, and ''that'' got him in trouble.

to:

** It is commonly assumed that Galileo ''proved'' heliocentrism -- he didn't, exactly. He merely made the biggest noise about it. He started by writing a letter in response to the Duchess of Tuscany saying, in effect, "Well, I wouldn't put ''too'' fine a point on it, but yes, the evidence does ''suggest'' that, scientifically speaking, the Church and Aristotle really do have the whole structure of the Universe wrong." Notice all the hedging: Galileo was convinced, but knew he didn't have definitive, incontrovertible proof. (His observation that Venus has phases made it ''extremely unlikely'' that geocentrism was true and heliocentrism false, but there were all kinds of other explanations that could have been cooked up to keep the Earth in the middle, even though they were all sort of ridiculous.) Proponents of heliocentrism were unable to counter the strongest argument against it, which had been proposed by ''Aristotle himself''--if heliocentrism were true, there should be observable parallax shifts in the position of the stars as the Earth moved. Now, there ''are'' observable parallax shifts, but the technology to demonstrate that hadn't been developed until ''after Galileo's death''.death'' in the eighteenth century. [[note]]The distance between the stars is several light-years, very large in comparison to Earth's orbit, with a diameter of about 16.6 light-'''minutes'''[[/note]]. Until that point, the evidence suggested that the stars' positions were fixed relative to the Earth, and thus, only the Sun, Moon, and other planets were moving; Copernicus' (correct) explanation that the stars were too far away to exhibit visible parallax was not accepted, even by non-geocentrists like Tycho Brahe.Brahe (scientists back then, more used to the smaller-sized universe proposed by Aristotle and Plato, fundamentally had trouble wrapping their heads around the actual size of the universe and the vast distances between celestial objects). However, being a bullheaded and rather stubborn sort of fellow, he later doubled down on heliocentrism, and ''that'' got him in trouble.
This list shows the last 10 events of 121. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.HeresiesAndHeretics