ee14c8 No.538290
Say what you want about heretics and what not, but reading about the battles during this era is spine-chilling, to say the least.. The level of violence and brutality was unreal. It’s queationable whether the Albigenses (Cathars) we’re even that big of a threat to anyone in the Languedoc region, if at all.
570e33 No.538313
It was. And it was merciful for them just like extermination of Canaanites was
271326 No.538326
Murdering civilians, including women and children, is obviously wrong (absent a direct command from God as with the Canaanites).
http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm
5280c3 No.538328
>>538290
I heard that war lasted about 100 years, which is pretty damn crazy since it was a civil war…i'm not sure, tbh… i haven't studied it
white people can be pretty crazy
5280c3 No.538329
>>538328
read in history books that the revelations in Paris about the french revolution were delivered to Huguenots before the french revolution took place
5280c3 No.538330
i think it was the Catholic-English reginald pole, who i've read, claimed that the spanish inquisition or one of the inquisitions were "satanic in nature", or that it was spoken amongst Roman Catholics at the time that that episode in history was "satanic in nature"
ee14c8 No.538344
>>538313
What’s merciful about extirpating entire villages? Pope Innocent III basically pinned a murder on the cathars with no evidence as a justification for starting a Crusade. Then, he had to bride mercenaries with plenary indulgences. Pope Innocent III doesn’t deserve the word “innocent” in his papal title.
ee14c8 No.538347
>>538333
>if you don’t support war and genocide, you’re a Freemason!
Yeah…..
Go fuck yourself
>inb4 omg he’s using emojis
Deal with it, genocide loving pussy
5280c3 No.538349
>>538347
why do you callhim a 'genocide loving p*ssy' if his image there has a concept apparently advocating non-violence?
ee14c8 No.538350
It’s funny how Catholics are always talking about mans freewill. But once you start to exercise your freewill to believe things outside of what they approve of, they want to execute you as a heretic. There goes that theory, huh?
There’s a reason why the Catholic Church was held in odium for over 2 millennia by so many people.
>inb4 the gates of hell are why we are hated
Nope. You’re hated because you are psychological and temporal terrorists. Once the guilt tripping doesn’t work, then it’s time to burn the heretic, right? 🔥
ee14c8 No.538351
>>538349
Don’t play dumb. He implicitly called me a Freemason
afa4ab No.538353
Do you have any idea how much murder and bloodshed the Reformation caused OP? Monks murdered, nuns raped, the whole nine yards.
>>538330
Where? It was against the crypto-Jews, Jews pretending to be Christians to enslave us to usury, Jews were unable to be bankers as non-christians.
>>538350
ya, the taborites, adamites, hussites, and the mass murder of monks and rape of nuns was good, martin luther was a gud boy, he just wanted to reform the church, he dindonuffin
5280c3 No.538354
>>538351
ohhh, okay…sry about that
be kind to eachother Christians!!!
we are Christians!
5280c3 No.538356
I love the Catholic Church and Catholics, I just don't like all of the "Pope-ing" around and "Jesuit-ing" around
5280c3 No.538357
>>538356
like burning people alive and various sorts of Jesuit-esque militarism
5280c3 No.538360
>>538353
Jesus was a Jew LOL
afa4ab No.538361
>>538357
If the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, then Martin Luther has condemned entire generations of man-kind to either hell or much time in purgatory.
I understand you're only a pseudo-Christian, you do not take sin, or the after-life seriously, but if Martin Luther made a mistake, he has damned…billions?
I would have burned him.
>>538360
Ethnic Jew, yes. Post-Passion this religion becomes Christianity.
ee14c8 No.538363
>>538353
>Do you have any idea how much murder and bloodshed the Reformation caused OP? Monks murdered, nuns raped, the whole nine yards.
Nice red herring. Even if I was a Protestant, I would condemn those actions that you mentioned. How is that relevant to my OP? It’s sad that you don’t even try to justify the Albigensian Crusade; you just point fingers and say
<b-but protties did it too!
Who cares? Genocide is bad regardless of who did it. But your church instigated a massacre on innocent people without just cause; only mere speculation after the assasination of a very unpopular papal agent. I don’t remember what his name was, but I do recall that he was universally hated in the Languedoc region.
5280c3 No.538365
"Love Bears All Things"
25Therefore, I tell you, don't be anxious for your life: what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Isn't life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
26See the birds of the sky, that they don't sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you of much more value than they?
27"Which of you, by being anxious, can add one moment to his lifespan?
28Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin,
29yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these.
30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, won't he much more clothe you, you of little faith?
31"Therefore don't be anxious, saying, 'What will we eat?', 'What will we drink?' or, 'With what will we be clothed?'
32For the Gentiles seek after all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
33But seek first God's Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well.
34Therefore don't be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day's own evil is sufficient.
ee14c8 No.538368
>>538365
I don’t understand
afa4ab No.538369
>>538363
>Nice red herring.
What? This is historical fact. The secular powers that be never loved to share authority/taxes with the Catholic Church. See: England since Elizabethan era.
> It’s sad that you don’t even try to justify the Albigensian Crusade; you just point fingers and say
I justify it by saying a heresy left un-checked is literally DAMNING for all souls involved. The temporal effects are just icing on the cake. Again, this was an era where everyone took the spiritual kingdom seriously.
>church instigated a massacre on innocent people without just cause
They were not innocent.
5280c3 No.538370
>>538361
16The men rose up from there, and looked toward Sodom. Abraham went with them to see them on their way.
17Yahweh said, "Will I hide from Abraham what I do,
18since Abraham has surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed in him?
19For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of Yahweh, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that Yahweh may bring on Abraham that which he has spoken of him."
20Yahweh said, "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous,
21I will go down now, and see whether their deeds are as bad as the reports which have come to me. If not, I will know."
22The men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, but Abraham stood yet before Yahweh.
23Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked?
24What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?
25Be it far from you to do things like that, to kill the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be like the wicked. May that be far from you. Shouldn't the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26Yahweh said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sake."
27Abraham answered, "See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord, who am but dust and ashes.
28What if there will lack five of the fifty righteous? Will you destroy all the city for lack of five?" He said, "I will not destroy it, if I find forty-five there."
29He spoke to him yet again, and said, "What if there are forty found there?" He said, "I will not do it for the forty's sake."
30He said, "Oh don't let the Lord be angry, and I will speak. What if there are thirty found there?" He said, "I will not do it, if I find thirty there."
31He said, "See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord. What if there are twenty found there?" He said, "I will not destroy it for the twenty's sake."
32He said, "Oh don't let the Lord be angry, and I will speak just once more. What if ten are found there?" He said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."
33Yahweh went his way, as soon as he had finished communing with Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.
5280c3 No.538373
>>538368
In response to burning Martin Luther alive. Can you justify this, by the religion of Christianity.
Torturing and killing a child of the Living God?
afa4ab No.538375
>>538373
>burn this dude
OR
>let Europe collapse in on itself, let generations be damned, and let misery and pain reign over the world
You might as well say that God is wrong to hold the Jews or Judas accountable for the sins they committed during the passion.
5280c3 No.538378
>>538375
Couldn't you just deport Martin Luther to the sands of the Sahara?
98e923 No.538379
If only Jesuits were as good at dealing with Protestants as the Dominicans were with Cathars.
I'm not talking about violence, either. The crusade meme is overused, the leaders of Catholicism (such as St. Dominic) and Catharism were known to have public debates. Catholicism trumped Catharism because it's the truth.
afa4ab No.538384
>>538378
Actually, I think that's what they did. I remember he ran off to some prince for protection.
He went under the pseudonym of Junker or something.
ee14c8 No.538386
>>538369
I said it was a red herring because it’s not relevant to the conversation. Just because I’m criticizing the Catholic Church’s pass actions, that doesn’t make me a Protestant. And it doesn’t excuse the horrific acts that the Church endorsed.
<but they are damning souls to hell, anon!
Under your theology, aren’t they damning themselves? Were the cathars forcing people to believe in their religion? If not, then how are they damning people to hell? I thought you people believed in freewill? Just let people believe what they want, and stop assaulting those who disagree, you big bully. I guess freewil doesn’t matter when it doesn’t work in your favor in some instances, huh? Your church sounds so opportunistic to me. Sorry, buddy.
<woman and children weren’t innocent, so let’s kill them all!
Okay 😒
afa4ab No.538387
>>538379
Inquisition held trials and many public debates against heresiarchs and Jews all the time, doesn't stop everyone thinking they were Witch-Hunter generals from Black Adder.
afa4ab No.538388
>>538386
>I said it was a red herring because it’s not relevant to the conversation
Of course it does, you are saying crusades are morally wrong. If it's stop a bunch of heretics from murdering and raping a bunch of nuns, sorry, you're wrong.
>I’m criticizing the Catholic Church’s pass actions, that doesn’t make me a Protestant
I don't think I did.
>emotes and red herrings
Nice try, Satan.
ee14c8 No.538391
>>538379
>I'm not talking about violence, either. The crusade meme is overused, the leaders of Catholicism (such as St. Dominic) and Catharism were known to have public debates.
It was like that at first, but once the Church realized that their efforts of conversion weren’t yielding the amount of fruit that they wanted, the hostility grew. The assasination of Pierre de Castelnau was a mere pretext to slaughter innocent people that didn’t agree with them.
afa4ab No.538392
>>538391
Or the Cathars really did have Castelnau murdered, and the crusades were justified.
ee14c8 No.538394
>>538388
>If it's stop a bunch of heretics from murdering and raping a bunch of nuns,
You just love to talk about your bitter enemies, don’t you? Again, this is irrelevant to the OP. Were the cathars murdering and raping monks and nuns? So why are you even bringing this up?
ee14c8 No.538395
>>538392
Oh please. There isn’t a shred of evidence that the cathars killed Pierre. That man was widely despised in the Languedoc; anyone could have killed him.
98e923 No.538397
>>538391
>The assasination of Pierre de Castelnau was a mere pretext to slaughter innocent people that didn’t agree with them.
I mean, those are quite big assumptions. Do you have any sources for that? Even Wikipedia (which is usually blatantly biased against the Church) states that Pierre de Castelnau was assassinated by an agent of Raymond VI, a notorious Cathar sympathizer.
I think the violence aspect of the crusade is always exaggerated, as well. It was largely a political crusade between the nobility.
ee14c8 No.538404
>>538397
>I mean, those are quite big assumptions. Do you have any sources for that?
That’s what I personally believe. After all, even if a Cathar killed Pierre, how is that indicative of all Cathars? Ordering the genocide of an entire group of people for the crime of one man is outrageous. To me, it makes a lot more sense that the pope ordered the Crusade as a convenient way to eliminate the Cathars when polemical actions failed.
Besides, getting killed by a Cathar sympathizer is not the same as getting killed by a Cathar. When I said “anyone could have killed him,” I was referring to religious beliefs. That is, a Cathar or a non Cathar could have killed him.
The cathars were known as the bons hommes (good men), so they naturally had a lot of sympathizers, even if they didn’t all believe the theology.
>the violence was exaggerated
Dude, even if that was true, so what? It was still a genocide of defenseless people. Try reading the battle of Montsegur and Béziers, and tell me that it was “exaggerated.”
271326 No.538409
>>538353
>two wrongs make a right
570e33 No.538428
>>538344
>What’s merciful about extirpating entire villages?
It's better to repent out of fear seconds before death than to live 100 years in heresy
> Pope Innocent III basically pinned a murder on the cathars with no evidence as a justification for starting a Crusade.
He tried to do it with words and through St. Dominic he done it in part. Rest were saved. But for those who do not continue in faith - Severity
>Then, he had to bride mercenaries with plenary indulgences
No one was boarded. And if were, it was by French nobles.
>Pope Innocent III doesn’t deserve the word “innocent” in his papal title.
It's not a title, it's name.
And he is indeed innocent
ee14c8 No.538455
>>538428
>It's better to repent out of fear seconds before death than to live 100 years in heresy
My point exactly. Catholics don’t really care about human freewill. You people value obedience and subjugation above all else. You only like freewill because it’s the only argument that you have to combat the problem of evil. But if you really cared about freewill, you would be against forced conversions. You guys show your true colors by endorsing the Albigensian Crusade.
>it’s not a title, it’s a name
Whatever. You can argue semantics all you want, but there is nothing innocent about commanding a genocide.
ee14c8 No.538456
>>538428
Let’s say that John is a Cathar and you’re a crusader. The two of you initially have a debate in regards to theology. However, John is not convinced of your arguments. Fed up, you tell John that he has two choices: either repenr, or be burned at the stake/handed/quartered/flayed/drowned (or whatever fucked up way your church has killed people in the past). John decides to convert to the Catholic faith. Thanks be to God! Right??
It should be obvious to any sane person what is going on here. John isn’t converting because he is suddenly convinced; he “converted” because he doesn’t want to be killed. It is logically inconsistent to believe in freewill and the validity of forced conversions. You can either truly believe in freewill, or stop being a big bully.
98e923 No.538457
>>538404
>That’s what I personally believe. After all, even if a Cathar killed Pierre, how is that indicative of all Cathars? Ordering the genocide of an entire group of people for the crime of one man is outrageous. To me, it makes a lot more sense that the pope ordered the Crusade as a convenient way to eliminate the Cathars when polemical actions failed.
I've said it before in this thread, the Cathars weren't genocided. Outside of a few battles here and there, they were overwhelmingly converted via debate. I always start out in these topics, whether online or when talking to someone IRL by saying that these historical events that the Church is involved with are exaggerated. Look at the Inquisition, people mention it like it's the Holocaust of millions, while it was merely a means of getting people to repent with little to no truth in the the arguments people use about it.
>Besides, getting killed by a Cathar sympathizer is not the same as getting killed by a Cathar. When I said “anyone could have killed him,” I was referring to religious beliefs. That is, a Cathar or a non Cathar could have killed him.
Yeah, you might be right. We just don't have enough records to know the full truth.
>Try reading the battle of Montsegur and Béziers, and tell me that it was “exaggerated.”
During the battle, the peasants of the army attacked the city without orders from their leaders. Also, the casualty rate is exaggerated (it even says it in the Wikipedia page). They give the casualty rate to be almost 2x of what the population of the city actually was.
I'm saying that you have to look at these events yourself, don't buy into what the media or other people tell you. Most people hate Catholicism and they will lie, lie and again lie to slander the Church.
>>538456
>The two of you initially have a debate in regards to theology. However, John is not convinced of your arguments. Fed up, you tell John that he has two choices: either repenr, or be burned at the stake/handed/quartered/flayed/drowned (or whatever fucked up way your church has killed people in the past). John decides to convert to the Catholic faith.
This statement has no historical basis whatsoever, no matter what event we're talking about (ranging from the crusades to the Inquisition).
Did you get all of this from a Protestant sermon (I've heard similar things from a certain pastor that's famous around these parts)? I'm genuinely curious.
ee14c8 No.538466
>>538457
>Outside of a few battles here and there, they were overwhelmingly converted via debate
While it’s true that many Cathars converted to the Catholic faith after the debates, to say that they were “overwhelmingly converted” has no basis at all. At least not what I’ve read.
Excerpt from the book “The Cathars the most successful heresy of the Middle Ages:”
<The summer of 1206 was a busy one, seeing the men adopting the apostolic model and preaching in poverty across the Languedoc. There were debates in Servian, Béziers, Carcasonne again, Pamiers, Fanjeaux, Montréal and Verfeil. As with the first debate at Carcasonne, these were lively and protracted affairs, sometimes lasting a week or more.58 Without the usual Roman regalia to hamper them, they were getting results: 150 Cathar Believers were said to have been converted after the Montréal debate. But it was not enough. The enterprise of peace and faith had been in operation for three years, and the number of souls brought back to the Church was negligible for the amount of effort expended.
The men themselves considered the debates a failure because they didn’t yield the amount that warranted the efforts they put in.
>Also, the casualty rate is exaggerated (it even says it in the Wikipedia page).
I wish you’d stop harping on this point. It doesn’t matter if the numbers were exaggerated. The crusaders still massacred thousands of innocent people. And here you are trying to minimize an atrocious act by appealing to exaggerated. Radical Catholics are horrible people.
>This statement has no historical basis whatsoever, no matter what event we're talking about (ranging from the crusades to the Inquisition).
You’re missing the point. The point is that John is being forced to convert out of fear and intimidation. When a group of violent crusading thugs come marching into a town, threatening to sack the town if they don’t hand over the Cathars, that’s an act of coercion. If they handed over the Cathars, it wouldn’t be because they wanted to, but because they were forced to by death threats.
>a certain pastor
I don’t give Steven Anderson any credit, so let’s not even go there, pal.
5280c3 No.538469
22 ¶ And the Scribes which came downe from Hierusalem, said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils, casteth he out devils.
23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, Howe can Satan cast out Satan?
24 And if a kingdome be divided against it selfe, that kingdome cannot stand.
25 And if a house be divided against it selfe, that house cannot stand.
26 And if Satan rise up against himselfe, and be divided, hee cannot stand, but hath an end.
27 No man can enter into a strong mans house, and spoile his goods, except he will first bind the strong man, and then he will spoile his house.
28 Verely I say unto you, All sinnes shalbe forgiven unto the sonnes of men, and blasphemies, wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shal blaspheme against the holy Ghost, hath never forgivenesse, but is in danger of eternall damnation.
30 Because they said, He hath an uncleane spirit.
d45ef6 No.538489
>>538290
First, what sources have you been looking at? Plenty will make it look like the Cathars dindu nuffins, like wikipedia, which also paints the Crusades as viciously violent.
Second, you need to understand that you have a COMPLETELY different way of thinking than other peoples today and in the past.
ee14c8 No.538504
>>538489
>First, what sources have you been looking at?
Pic related
>you need to understand that you have a COMPLETELY different way of thinking than other peoples today and in the past.
Doesn’t make it right. All that tells me is that people were more savage back then.
d45ef6 No.538509
>>538504
>Doesn’t make it right. All that tells me is that people were more savage back then.
d45ef6 No.538512
Sean Martin does not yet strike me as reliable source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Martin_(filmmaker)
>Sean Martin (born in Weston-super-Mare, England, in 1966) is an Anglo-Irish writer and film director. He has written popular books on the Knights Templar and the Cathars, and appeared on History Channel documentaries such as Decoding the Past: The Templar Code and in Channel 5's Secrets of the Cross: The Trial of the Knights Templar.
98e923 No.538521
>>538512
He sounds like a fiction writer, honestly.
ee14c8 No.538538
>>538512
He is a historian who also happens to be filmmaker. What exactly is the problem? What’s wrong with a writer having a niche interest?
5280c3 No.538546
5280c3 No.538549
>>538509
Fench Revolution was very extravagantly bloody and violent.
France, in the days of Joan of Arc, was no stranger to "mysticism" and occult practice.
France was of course, as a nation, like countless numbers of little kingdoms going to war with eachother.
Not to mention, the whole drama of the "two Popes" or the "French Pope" or "Babylonian Captivity" incident in France which clearly shows there is more to the country and to politics/religion in that land at the time then meets the eye, perhaps?
5280c3 No.538550
France was also the nation God chose to halt the Islamic Caliphate. (Battle of Tours - 10 October 732, in my popular history books…)
5280c3 No.538555
"No more useful inquiry can be proposed than that which seeks to determine the nature and the scope of human knowledge. … This investigation should be undertaken once at least in his life by anyone who has the slightest regard for truth, since in pursuing it the true instruments of knowledge and the whole method of inquiry come to light. But nothing seems to me more futile than the conduct of those who boldly dispute about the secrets of nature … without yet having ever asked even whether human reason is adequate to the solution of these problems."
Rules for the Direction of the Mind in Key Philosophical Writings (1997), pp. 29-30
5280c3 No.538563
The Age of the Crusades (1060 - 1200)
This a form of holy warfare which had begun with Isalm as its enemy ended up with Christians fighting Christians. There were plenty of precedents for this illogical development. Some of the earlier campaigns against Christians had been against deviants; from 1209, the Pope summoned crusaders against a threat to the Western Latin Church in southern France from a movement known as the 'pure' (in Greek, Katharoi or Cathars). Like Manichaeism facing the early Church, the essence of Cathars' beiefs was dualist; they believed in the evil of material things and the necessity to transcend the physical in order to achieve spiritual purity. Their Greek name is one of many indications that this movement took its origin in the strain of dualist belief recurrent over many centuries in the Greek East, most recently in the Paulicians, who had been a presence in the Byzantine Empire since the eighth century, followed by the Bogomils. It may be that Catharism sprang from Latin contacts set up with Bogomils in Constantinople during the First Crusade. Certainly contemporaries made the connection with the East: the English word 'bugger' is derived from 'Bulgarian', and reflects the common canard of mainstream Christians against their opponents that heresy by its unnatural character leads to deviant sexuality. Cathars soon set up their own hierarchies of leaders in France, Italy and Germany: a direct criticism of the monolithic and powerful clerical structure created by the Gregorian Reform, for Cathar dualistic rejection of the flesh was a rejection of what could be seen as a fleshly hierarchy.
The campaign to wipe out the Cathars soon turned into a war of conquest on behalf of the king and nobility of northern France. In its genocidal atrocity, this 'Albigensian Crusade' (the city of Albi was a Cathar centre, with its own Cathar bishop), ranks as one of the most discreditable episodes in Christian history; mass burnings at the stake were a regular feature of the crusaders' retribution against their enemies, who were by no means all Cathars. during the thirteenth century, the idea of crusade reached its most strained interpretation when successive popes proclaimed crusades against their political opponents in Italy - chiefly the Holy Roman Emperor and his dynasty - and in the end, when the papacy itself splintered, even between rival claimants to the papal throne. Such campaigns dragged on intermittently until the 1370s. For the papacy, these were just as much a logical defence of the Church as crusades in the East, but it was not surprising that crowds did not rush to support the Holy Father, and that plenty of faithful Christians were perfectly ready to fight papal armies.
5280c3 No.538564
"Rather later, as the threat from the Cathars grew intense, Mary seemed, against Cathar dualism, to be a guarantor that God could sanctify created and fleshly things as much as he could the Spirit, since it was in Mary that the Word was made flesh. This did have its problems, since the Cathars themselves were also caught up in the general rise of devotion to Mary, and simply insisted that she was not a human mother - after all, did she not lack a genealogy in the Bible?'
5280c3 No.538569
"Such was the case with the theologian from Chartres Berengar of Tours (999 - 1088), who expressed his unease with the increasing precision with which his contemporaries asserted that Eucharistic bread and wine could become the body and blood of Christ (Berengar escaped the flames by a sequence of humiliating forced recantations and died in mutinous silence). Even the Cathars, to whose suppression the Church devoted so much energy, may have started merely by seeking a purer, less worldly form of ministry before official repression turned their sympathies towards visiting dualists from the eastern Mediterranean.
Certainly other dissenters began in a perfectly orthodox fashion and were marginalized by circumstance. Such were the Waldensians, a movement started around 1170 in Lyons by a wealthy man called Valdes, who gave away all his wealth to the poor and ministered to a group who also valued poverty as the basis for Christian life. Church authorities were not prepared to make a distinction between this affirmation of poverty and that of the dualist Cathars in the same region, and from 1184 a solemn papal pronouncement (a bull) condemned them both. The Waldensians went on expanding, but were increasingly estranged from the episcopate of the Church on one vital issue: they were convinced that every Christian had a vocation to preaching,and that fatally clashed with the clerical priorities of the Gregorian reforms."
5280c3 No.538577
A Pastoral Revolution, Friars and the Fourth Lateran Council (1200 - 1260)
"A more complex and positive response to dynamic popular movements emerged at the end of the twelfth century, although in the end it allied itself and indeed helped to structure this 'formation of a persecuting society'. It produced two great religious leaders, Dominic and Francis. They were utterly differnet personalities, but they founded in parallel the first two orders of friars (an English version of the word fratres, Latin for 'brothers'). In 1194 Dominic became a priest in a community in Osma in northern Spain, living under Augustine's Rule; he was drawn into campaigns across the Pyrenees to win back southern France from the Cathar heresy. The effort was having little success, and Dominic realized why: it was being led by churchmen who conducted their task like the great prelates they were, surrounded by attendants and all the magnificence of their rank. Nothing was less calculated to impress those familiar with Cathar expressions of contempt for Catholic corruption.
to this situation, Dominic brought the practicality and closeness to ordinary life of his Augustinian background. In 1215 he got official permission from one of the bishops in the area affected by the Cathars to start a new effort: a campaign of preaching in which he and his helpers would lead a life so simple and apostolic in poverty as to outdo the Cathars, and convinced people that the official Church was a worthy vehicle for a message of love and forgiveness. Not only that, but his preachers would have the best education that he could devise to make even their simplest message intellectually tough. Though his efforts in southern France had little immediate success amid the ferocity of the Albigensian Crusade, his idea blossomed; unlike some of the other leaders of new movements in his age, he was intent on emphasizing his close loyalty to the pope, and Pope Honorius III took a personal interest in drafting the document which in 1217 named Dominic's new organization as an Order of Preachers - the only order, one contemporary noted, to take its name from its function."
ALLAHU AKBAR!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYgeB1k3_0k
5280c3 No.538590
"So this playboy son of an Italian millionaire threw away his money, shouted the Christian message at birds in a graveyard, and threw th eChurch into a turmoil by saying that Christ was a down-and-out with no possessions. He might have been burned as a heretic. Luckily for his future, alongside his almost pathological nonconformity, Francis was deeply loyal to the Western Catholic tradition. Against the Cathars, who said that the world was evil, he passionately affirmed that all created things - Brother Sun, Sister Moon - were good, sharing the goodness of God's human incarnation in Christ. In his own body, Francis is the first person known to have suffered stigmata, fleshly wounds which followed the patterns of the wounds of the crucified Christ. This echo of Paul's mysterious remark in Galatians 6:17, 'I bear on my body the marks of Jesus', has since been a recurrent phenomenon among ascetics of the Western Church. At the time, it may have been a response to the Cathars, who claimed purity and said that flesh was part of the world of evil. What greater symbol could there be than Francis's stigmata that the divine suffering condescended to descend into flesh?"
5280c3 No.538591
"It was Innocent who rallied noblemen and the King of France to attack the Cathars, although he did in the end blanch at the indiscriminate violence which he had unleashed. There was indeed much more to Innocent's vision of his role in the world than the promotion of his office; this power must be put to a purpose. Few Christian leaders have had such a transforming effect on their world.
5280c3 No.538594
"There was another side to this universality of Catholic faith in Western Latin society. In order to ensure uniformity of belief among the faithful, the Lateran Council created procedures for inquisitions to try heretics. It is difficult for modern Westerners to feel any sort of empathy with the inquisitorial mind, but we need to understand that an inquisitor could see his role as an aspect of pastoral work. That was after all the central task for the Dominicans, who largely staffed the tribunals. The inquisitors' outlook has been likened to that of officials in the Cheka, early revolutionary Russia's secret police, where the aim was not merely to repress, but to change society for the better - there is often a fine line between idealism and sadism. A major part of an inquisition's task was always to impose penances, just as a priest did for a penitent in the confessional, though increasingly inquisitions developed prisons, in what was virtually forced religious enclosure, as a setting for those convicted to carry out their penances. When we leap from thinking of inquisitions to thinking of burnings at the stake, it is worth noting that the horrific level of burnings in the brutal atmosphere of the Albigensian Crusade was not sustained. In the period 1249 - 57, of 306 recorded penalties handed out by inquisitions, only twenty-one were burnings; secular courts were much more likely than inquisitors to impose death penalties.
Pope Innocent's concern to discriminate between heretics and devotional organizations which might benefit the Church extended beyond the followers of Dominic and Francis. He carefully considered other evangelistic groups previously condemned, such as the Waldensians or the similar Italian grouping called Humiliati ('the humbled'), whose origins he recognized as not dissimilar to those of the other mendicants. If their beliefs seemed compatible with official doctrine, he gave them recognition and a set of rules to create a manageable identity for them - the reconciled Waldensians were renamed 'Poor Catholics'. In fact for many Waldensians it was too late: they were by now too separate from the mainstream Church to wish to be assimilated, and they suffered centuries of persecution and clandestine existence before they found new sympathy and support (at the price of a good deal of rebranding, both of their past and their future) from sixteenth-century Protestants. During the previous century, in parallel with Waldensians or Humiliati, individual women had set themselves apart for a life of celibate service and prayer without joining a nunnery; in northern Europe they were called beguines, a word of uncertain derivation. Their irregular status attracted predictable worry from the authorities, and increasingly they gathered for respectability or companionship in societies which owned buildings for communal life, 'beguinages' - although their status was always open to question."
afa4ab No.538603
>>538394
The conversation had obviously branched out to the entire idea and morality of the crusades and waging war against heretics. If you've actually read any history a common mark for many heretics back the day was literally raiding Catholic churches/monasteries and murdering clergy.
>>538409
>there is no such thing as a justified war
lol ok
11bef1 No.538610
>>538577
>a campaign of preaching in which he and his helpers would lead a life so simple and apostolic in poverty as to outdo the Cathars, and convinced people that the official Church was a worthy vehicle for a message of love and forgiveness. Not only that, but his preachers would have the best education that he could devise to make even their simplest message intellectually tough.
ee14c8 No.538759
>>538603
>If you've actually read any history a common mark for many heretics back the day was literally raiding Catholic churches/monasteries and murdering clergy
So the Cathars raided monasteries now? I’ve heard it all now 😂
Please show me the evidence that this is the case. As far as the murders of the papal legates are concerned, there is no proof that the Cathars killed them. A Cathar sumpathizer killed them, but they were greatly despised in the Languedoc. They would have been killed eventually.
ee14c8 No.538761
>>538610
Yes of course. The Church realized that they had to mimic the Cathars in order to win the people over. I’m not sure why you’re impressed by that
5ffbdc No.538768
>catholics ITT: It is good to murder!
<Bible: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
ee14c8 No.538804
>>538768
They are terrible terrible people.
5280c3 No.538825
>>538761
I don't think they were trying to mimic the Cathars.
If anything he was trying to mimic Christ.
This is of course the basis of the Cathars, and what is supposed to be the basis of the Roman Catholic Church. The imitation of Christ.
ee14c8 No.538832
>>538825
But they only became more humble after they had issues with conversing the cathars and their sympathizers. They even copied the robes that the cathars wore.
687d8f No.538855
>>538455
>My point exactly. Catholics don’t really care about human freewill. You people value obedience and subjugation above all else. You only like freewill because it’s the only argument that you have to combat the problem of evil. But if you really cared about freewill, you would be against forced conversions. You guys show your true colors by endorsing the Albigensian Crusade.
<It's better to be under dominion of satan and sin than to be free in God for eternity
Are you sure you call yourself Christian?
>Whatever. You can argue semantics all you want, but there is nothing innocent about commanding a genocide.
<Genocide
<That you can simply escape by repenting
If you want genocide, try iconoclast revolts
>>538456
>Let’s say that John is a Cathar and you’re a crusader. The two of you initially have a debate in regards to theology. However, John is not convinced of your arguments. Fed up, you tell John that he has two choices: either repenr, or be burned at the stake/handed/quartered/flayed/drowned (or whatever fucked up way your church has killed people in the past). John decides to convert to the Catholic faith. Thanks be to God! Right??
Right. Fear of God (and by proxy just judgment) is beginning of Wisdom and Wisdom of God is Christ
>
It should be obvious to any sane person what is going on here. John isn’t converting because he is suddenly convinced; he “converted” because he doesn’t want to be killed. It is logically inconsistent to believe in freewill and the validity of forced conversions. You can either truly believe in freewill, or stop being a big bully.
On contrary, on the last days, as St. John tell us:
13 And at that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth part of the city fell: and there were slain in the earthquake, names of men seven thousand; and the rest were cast into a fear, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
By fear, rest will repent.
ee14c8 No.538863
>>538855
I’ll give you this: at least you admit to being a bully and a fear monger.
99733b No.538864
It gave us the Rosary so yes.
687d8f No.538868
>>538863
If by "bully" you mean "someone willing to use even force to save someone from eternal damnation" and by "fear monger" you mean "someone who want to bring fear of the Lord to life of men" then I will write in on my forehead.
5280c3 No.538874
>>538832
I didn't know that.
5280c3 No.538875
>>538864
Cathar crusade produced the rosary?
5280c3 No.538877
>>538868
Don't forget to write 'dogma' that is impossible to be practiced correctly and also don't forget to write 'dogma' that you use to get your way and of course 'dogma' that you cannot prove as fast as you push it out there to unsuspecting people.
6a2ecb No.538894
>>538759
>Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people.
You won't get him to comment on the specifics of the Cathar because he clearly doesn't want to deal with the problem of priests presiding over the slaughter of children.
14622f No.538895
>>538868
>If by "bully" you mean "someone willing to use even force to save someone from eternal damnation"
Ah, but you see salvation does not depend neither on you nor the person you're trying to save. It depends on God who either lets hear or does not.
<For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
So in the end, what comes out of persecuting others is mere futile murder and sin.
5280c3 No.538954
Yet after 1200, within this pattern of search for the divine, there was a greater concentration on the specific details of the life and death of Christ. New themes emerged: Dominicans, culminating in Aquinas, built up their own line of thought on the sufferings of Christ, and Aquinas built up a logical case (which not all will find convincing) that Christ's physical pains in his Crucifixion were greater than any experienced by any other human being in history. There could be many motives in this particular theological development. Just as in the developing cult of Mary in the twelfth century, Dominican inquisitors facing Albigensians might have an eye on the Cathar denial of physicality in the divine. Even if that was one consideration, it has been suggested that the Dominicans might also have been trying a theological put-down of their rivals the Franciscans. Franciscans were inclined in Dominican eyes to over-stress the closeness of their founder to the suffering Christ, up to and including the reproduction in Francis's own body of Christ's stigmata, and it was useful therefore to stress just how far even a Francis could fall short of what the Lord had gone through. Yet such considerations can only be partial eddies within a wider phenomenon. Without the deepening worries of so many about their sheer physical survival, the varied voices which created these new perspectives on Christian worship and contemplation might not have been so readily heard: voices like Juliana of Cornillon, who spearheaded a much more physical popular devotion to Christ's body in the Eucharist, and besides the Dominicans, generations of Franciscan preachers and theologians, inspired by Francis himself.
5280c3 No.538957
Logically in view of their belief that matter was created by evil, the Paulicians despised fleshly aspects of imperial religion such as the cult of Mary or of a physical ceremony of baptism. Naturally they were also iconophobes - unlike the Byzantine iconoclasts, they extended theri hatred to the Cross itself - and like the iconoclasts, they seem to have attracted soldiers to their beliefs. Iconoclastic emperors such as Constantine V saw no problem not merely in tolerating Paulicians but in recruiting them for military service. Even iconophile emperors recognized their worth as soldiers and later employed them on Byzantium's Balkan frontiers, thus unwittingly spreading their message westwards. By the ninth century, the group was dangerous enough to the imperial Church to provoke the Archbishop of Bulgaria into commissioning a refutation of their teachings, which did not prevent the development in tenth-century Bulgaria of a further dualist sect, much more ascetic in character, known from the name of their ninth-century founder as Bogomils (Bogomil means 'beloved of God' in slavonic, and so in Greek would have been 'Theophilos'). The Bogomils rapidly spread through the empire, and it was a Bogomil, Basil, who around 1098 was one of the very few known victims of burning for heresy in Byzantium - maybe the last. There was a grim symmetry to Basil's burning, both because burnings for heresy intensified in the West just when they were disappearing in the East, and also because the Bogomils seem to have been the inspiration for the similarly ascetic Cathars of the western Mediterranean, who during the thirteenth century, in the Albigensian Crusade, became the victims of one of the Latin Church's most ruthless ever persecutions.
ee14c8 No.538984
>>538868
You’re being sarcastic, right? Please tell me this is a joke. You honestly don’t see how your sentiments contradict the doctrine of freewill?
ee14c8 No.538988
>>538875
The legend states that the Virgin Mary gave the Rosary to St Dominic as a means to combat the Albigenses (Cathars/Bogomils). I personally think the Rosary came from an Eastern religion.
5280c3 No.539126
>>538988
>Albigenses
Wow, that's pretty amazing.
1a6c3b No.539158
>>538868
This is making "shake the dust off your feet" of null effect by tradition.
dbc5b3 No.539166
>>538455
>My point exactly. Catholics don’t really care about human freewill.
What are you talking about?
God gives you free will to act as you please.
He gave us the free will to execute your satanic ass for attempting to corrupt the body of Christ.
Free will doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your actions.
Hence why you can go to hell for immorality in excercising it.
ee14c8 No.539185
>>539166
>He gave us the free will to execute your satanic ass
You’re a fucked up person, plan and simple. You obviously don’t care about personal liberty and autonomy. You care only about obedience and subjugation, and you will justify any horrific action to obtain that. You only care about free will because it gives you a convenient excuse to judge and fear monger towards people to make them join your cult, as well as serving as the basis for the Catholic Church’s sole refutation against the problem of evil. So I do say….
FUCK OFF, you tyrannical piece of shit
You have NO right to tell grown men and woman what they can and can’t believe. So called “heretics” simply want to live their live in peace, and share their ideas. And nobody wants your Papist, domineering ass threatening us with death if we tell you to take your religion and fuck off. You’re no different then a fucking Muslim that wants to behead people for insulting the prophet. I bet you want to burn/flay/impale/drown/hand anyone who insults your stupid, superstitious religion. Well,
FUCK THE POPE and his church
During your times, you would have burned me at the stake for daring to voice my opinion. Well, you lose FUCKER! I’m free from your savage, tyrannical grip, and you can’t do a DAMN thing about it! Drop dead, papist scum. this is for all of the people that were unjustly killed by your evil church.
>Free will doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your actions.
Hence why you can go to hell for immorality in excercising it.
Then just leave people the fuck alone, you bully. If a heretic is self condemned, state your beliefs, then LEAVE if they aren’t interested!
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) 9ee9d3 No.539186
>>539185
>being THIS butt hurt
it's obvious you aren't christian so why are you here?
dbc5b3 No.539187
>>539185
>You obviously don’t care about personal liberty and autonomy.
Sure I do.
I just don't worship it above Christianity like you idolaters do.
>You only care about free will
I don't care about free will though?
If you accept that God has given us the right to excercise it then so has he given us the right to do so against those who would do so immorally. (and be judged for it by God naturally)
If we don't accept it then it's a different discussion.
>You have NO right to tell grown men and woman what they can and can’t believe.
My "free will" does in fact entail that right.
Troublesome for you heretics, eh?
>So called “heretics” simply want to live their live in peace, and share their ideas.
In other words, spread evil around the world.
And certainly not peacefully as history shows.
>I bet you want to burn/flay/impale/drown/hand anyone who insults your stupid, superstitious religion.
Try not projecting your fetishes into discussions next time.
>During your times, you would have burned me at the stake for daring to voice my opinion.
I still would.
Given that your voice was loud enough to be heard by the innocent.
>I’m free
Yes, you're are free to burn in hell.
>this is for all of the people that were unjustly killed by your evil church.
So not a single one then.
>Then just leave people the fuck alone
I refuse.
>then LEAVE if they aren’t interested!
My free will dictates otherwise. :^)
ee14c8 No.539189
>>539186
>anon literally justifying genocide and thought crimes
>anon thinks that human rights don’t exist
>responds with lol you mad bro
Dude, I’m infuriated with this guy because his ideas are extremely dangerous and toxic.
>>539187
>I still would
You wouldn’t do shit to me, pussy. This isn’t the medieval times. I would blow your fucking brains out if you ever tried something with me. So just keep fantasizing about being a crusader or a inquisitor, you sick fuck.
dbc5b3 No.539191
>>539189
>You wouldn’t do shit to me, pussy.
Apparently I already have, given how much of a hysteric whiny bitch you sound like in your posts.
>This isn’t the medieval times. I would blow your fucking brains out if you ever tried something with me.
Sure, because your pea shooter would do jack shit against a Christian state.
ee14c8 No.539196
>>539191
>Apparently I already have
Shit talking and getting on my nerves doesn’t count. I’m saying that you don’t hav the balls to put me to death.
9ee9d3 No.539203
>>539189
>Dude, I’m infuriated with this guy because his ideas are extremely dangerous and toxic.
No YOU have the toxic ideas you hand wringing wretch. That anon is right, heretics are a danger and can lead people astray and into eternal damnation, just like you are trying to do now. You keep putting your fingers in your ears and screaming like a child. You have no moral high ground and your clinging to your silly man made "civil rights" shows just how infantile you are in your thinking.
687d8f No.539224
>>538877
>Don't forget to write 'dogma' that is impossible to be practiced correctly
You know that "dogma" is belief, right? "God is one" is Dogma. "Christ took human nature" is Dogma. "Christ created Church" is Dogma.
>and also don't forget to write 'dogma' that you use to get your way and of course
If I wanted dogma to suit myself, I would be protestant, my modernist friend
>and of course 'dogma' that you cannot prove as fast as you push it out there to unsuspecting people.
Is Bible a proof? For there is all of Catholic dogma there.
>>538895
>Ah, but you see salvation does not depend neither on you nor the person you're trying to save. It depends on God who either lets hear or does not.
And I be a tool in his hands then be it
>So in the end, what comes out of persecuting others is mere futile murder and sin.
<kill=murder in all cases
lol
687d8f No.539225
>>538984
They do not, faggot
>>539158
It don't though. Peter killed a man for being heretic and another for being sinner
a4d05d No.539276
>>539203
I’m the same anon that you replied to, so ignore the mismatch ids; I’m on a different network.
You say all of that until the denomination of Christianity that you believe in gets outlawed. You are beyond retarded if you don’t see how a free society benefits everyone, religious wise.
You guys are such delusional larpers. Europe no longer has theocratic monarchies because people were tired of the state forcing them to go against their religious conscience. You should just move to Saudi Arabia if you hate civil rights so much. We (in my case, the USA) don’t want your backwards, medieval views in our country. I don’t want humanity to go back to the days where you could be burned at the stake for disagreeing with the “Holy” Mother Church.
Seriously, go fuck yourself. You probably have no experience living in a theocratic, totalitarian state. If you did, you would realize how horrible it truly was. You’re the one who has infantile views because you don’t even see how your own views could potentially damage you. But whatever. Enjoy your medieval, tyrannical fantasies while I’ll remain grateful that people like YOU no longer have the power to threaten and kill others because of their beliefs.
a4d05d No.539278
>>539203
>just like you are trying to do now
>if you don’t support genocide and a rejection of human rights, you’re leading people to hell
Yeah, I don’t think so, you delusional fuck. Everyone is responsible for their own beliefs. Nobody can drag anyone to hell, so quit with the bullshit fear mongering.
a4d05d No.539284
>>538894
Well, none of the Catholics in this thread want to deal with the horrendous acts that took place during the Albigensian Crusade. That’s why a lot of them have to literally DENY human rights. They are so desperate to justify their church, that they have to justify genocide and thought policing. It’s no wonder why their church was hated so much. The violence, spitefulness, superstition, and hypocrisy is just outrageous.
d45ef6 No.539306
>>539189
This is why the vols need to make an info sticky.
And also need to ban people on sight instead of "warning" them like some Western elementary school playground.
d45ef6 No.539318
Ayy, copy/pasting a lot so it's quite the mess :^)
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QbjELF-8kY
Freud (Yeah yeah, Duke isn't the greatest to be getting this from but just watch it you faggot)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuXIozVW5e4
Who Runs Hollywood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v09h2gqhnKM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roW238dfUUk
https://nypost.com/2017/09/25/murdered-model-was-scalped-drained-of-all-blood-cops/
One of the founding members of the KKK was a freemason.
d45ef6 No.539324
>>>/pdfs/
"Flood detected", psh.
Vols, make the /christian/ info dump Christians pls
>inb4 go to the /christpol/ thread
Fam, do you expect normalniggers and newniggerfaggots to frequent the place? Also, that's /pol/itical discussion, not info dumping, right?
d45ef6 No.539329
"Stamford Bru" - A modern Norwegian ballad by Harald Foss detailing the Norwegian defeat in 1066 at the hands of the Anglo-Saxons at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0zGo122vMY
"Palästinalied" - literally "Palestine song", a High Middle German Crusading song by Walther von der Vogelweide (c. 1170 – c. 1230).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isxvXITTLLY
"Herr Mannelig"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herr_Mannelig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy44ocuoWhE
"Rolandskvadet" - Norwegian retelling of the Frankish epic poem La Chanson de Roland, or The Song of Roland in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=414mrPgK5Yk
"Pope Urban II's Speech Declaring the First Crusade by Robert the Monk, 1095" - Deus Vult (For Honor is an overrated Ubistool game and I hate the fact that that term is a bit mainstream, but am glad it is still a rather niche meme)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodbSWhVSe0
CONAN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVx4LafsvSU
d45ef6 No.539879
https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/
Snopes is cancer and anyone who takes that place seriously, even the completely ignorant, I have very little respect for. I brought them up because when I looked for following page again, I saw they had made a "false" claim on this "theory/myth/rumor".
https://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view
a4d05d No.539888
d45ef6 No.539892
>>539888
Waste of trips.
>"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." —(Matthew 7:6, KJV)
d45ef6 No.539893
You will never learn anything if you do not first comprehend your own ignorance, normalfag.
In order to have any sense of introspection however, you musn't be a normalfag. Since you are, you might as well give up now. Otherwise, lurk more nigger. YOU are the "toxic" one here, a tumor cell. It's not "YOUR" thread you entitled twat, it's A thread, and I'm dumping info whether you like it or not.
a4d05d No.539900
>>539893
>if you don’t support genocide, you’re a normalfag!
Grow up, jackass
d45ef6 No.539901
Strawman
noun
1. a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
Exempli gratia: >>539900
0ad46c No.539917
35ca74 No.540325
>>539865
Thanks for these,
35ca74 No.540329
>>539900
I oppose actual genocide. That means overturning this abusive world ""morality"" and its stated values such as pic related.
35ca74 No.540337
>>539892
I think we are worthy to hear the truth about what's going on.
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Galatians 3:16 KJV
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Psalm 100:5
For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
a4d05d No.540362
>>539917
>Calvinism is Gnosticism
Okay??? These guys are clearly Catholic, and therefore bias against the cathars. Video immediately discarded
a4d05d No.540374
>>540314
>obviously endorsing “traditionalism”
>argument rests on word games
>hurrr what is a “Man”
This is the stupidest info graph I have ever read. The constitution points out the obvious fact that all men, despite cultural differences, desire personal liberty and freedom. Trying to obfuscate this by playing word games is absolutely pathetic.
The constitution argument is just as imbecilic. He makes it seem like there has to be absolute homogeity in order for a constitution to be effective. But good constitutions are created to protect basic human rights (freedom of speech, association, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, prohibition of search without a warrant, etc). So many people of differing nationalities have flocked to the United States for the precise reasons of personal and economic freedom. After generations of living in the United States, certain aspects of their home culture maybe preserved, but ultimately what happens is that people will start to develop new customs; thus creating new traditions in the process. Traditions are made based on the environment and the economical and political circumstances of a nation. But being social creatures as we are, humans will constantly create and maintain customs and traditions. In a sense, there is no such thing as a “non-traditionalism” because any set of beliefs, behaviors, and customs that a person has is either entirely or partially inherited by past ideas, behaviors, etc. New traditions are merely editions and modifications to the old ones, and they will transmit from generation to generation like all traditions do. Even within relatively racial homogenous countries, there exists a wide variety of cultures and traditions.
In short: this moron has no idea what the fuck he is talking about. Get this pseudo-intellectual twat out of here.
a4d05d No.540378
>>540325
>oh boy; another irrelevant info graph
WHAT THE FUCK does this have to do with my thread??
I’m not a Zionist.
In fact, I’ve never even mentioned the fucking Jews in this entire thread. Why did you feel the need to post this?
c34965 No.540385
>>540374
>muh melting pot
>Everyone values economic and social freedumb
>Foreigners invaded America for muh liberty, not personal personal gain at the expense of locals
>Foreigners care about assimilating and would never undermine muh freedumbs
>Tradition and religion don't matter because muh free enterprise corporatocratic overlords will create new ones just as good
What fucking world do you live in m80?
a4d05d No.540390
>>540385
The real world that isn’t preoccupied with conspiracy theories and nostalgia.
ec52eb No.540581
>>540378
>my thread
So are you admitting to ban evading then? The Cathars were mostly just a bunch of gnostics. There's nothing particularly unique about them compared to gnostics of before or after, or even living in other places at the same time. It's the same commie mindset and mentality, bragging nonstop about how virtuous you are while being utterly consumed with covetousness and maliciousness and striving for class warfare. See 2 Peter 2, and stop being subverted.
4bed86 No.540594
>>540581
>virtue by reason of dogmatic thinking?
How does your dogma help the poor? How does your dogma fulfill Jesus's teachings to love, forgive and have mercy?
>"Seeing, they see not. Hearing, they don't understand, lest they turn and be healed."
>"Hardened hearts…"
4dac46 No.540621
>>540594
>How does your dogma help the poor?
Pic
"For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life"
>ow does your dogma fulfill Jesus's teachings to love
Agape is kind of Love we practice. And Agape is harsh at times.
>forgive
Reconciliation is a sacrament. And we are not protestant who do not hold to ontological forgiveness.
>and have mercy?
Flood was a mercy of God. Come into ark of his Church and be saved.
>"Seeing, they see not. Hearing, they don't understand, lest they turn and be healed."
>"Hardened hearts…"
Yeah poor Cathars, with their hardened heart, blind eyes, deaf ears, sick with spiritual sickness of death in heresy. But rest were saved.
St. Dominic, pray for us.
ec52eb No.540834
>>540594
Try to type in complete thoughts for us next time.
a8ae76 No.540946
>>540581
>So are you admitting to ban evading then?
It’s called being on a different network, you double nigger. Mods can only ban WAN IP addresses. I was at my family’s house on the weekends, now I’m at my apt. But I’m bam evading, huh? Fuck off
>bragging nonstop about how virtuous you are while being utterly consumed with covetousness and maliciousness and striving for class warfare
>oh look, more baseless assertions
The cathars didn’t instigate any wars. Pope Innocent III used the death of one of his papal legates as an excuse to launch the crusades. As if all of the Cathar parfaits and bishops had something to do with the murder of a man that was hated throughout the Languedoc region. Come to think of it, didn’t most of the Occitans dislike the clergy at the time? Anticlericalism was at an all time high during those years.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR BAN EVASION AGAIN) ca4c64 No.541616
>>540946
>Banned for blabbering about evading ban
Heh, this is just as bad as when illegal immigrants brag online about not paying taxes or mocking ICE for not deporting them
02e36d No.541618
Reminder: The Cathars weren't Christians, or Protestant.
They believed in stuff like reincarnation and humans becoming angels.
They were more like Gnostics or Mormons. It's not even right to call them heretics. They were a different religion.
f3a989 No.542371
>>541618
>They believed in stuff like reincarnation and humans becoming angels.
Didn’t Origen believe that as well?
f3a989 No.542372
>>541618
And everybody knows that the cathars were bro Gnostics. It was still wrong to massacre defenseless people
a68403 No.542378
>>540946
It's the not the IP that is banned. It is the poster that is banned. Changing IP doesn't mean your ban is lifted.
Next time be smarter and don't brag about ban evading.
4fdeab No.542384
>>542372
>Gnostics
>bros
imblying
f3a989 No.542390
>>542384
I meant to say neo Gnostics. My autocorrect changed it to bro, for some reason
>>542378
No, that anon is right. If you’ve ever received a ban, they show your WAN IP address, not your LAN op address. All the OP has to do is get on another network, and his ban is technically null and void. The OP was a bit careless, but all that really implies is that the OP will stop acknowledging himself as the OP in this thread. IP bans are highly imperfect and ultimately ineffective.
ec52eb No.542391
>>542371
Yeah but he wrote the Septuagint so we give him a pass.
15f4f4 No.542417
>>542371
He believed in two heresies as far as I know:
That souls pre-exist which is explanation of this one passage from Jeremiah and his take on predestination
And that in the end, even devil will be resotred to God, which is his exegesis of Acts 3:21
He was definetlly not Cathar
>>542391
>This fag again
f3a989 No.542424
>>542417
>That souls pre-exist which is explanation of this one passage from Jeremiah and his take on predestination
Yeah that’s why I mentioned Origen. The preexistent souls were angels, right?
ec52eb No.542443
>>542417
Exactly one (1) received, eternal word of God remains, and it isn't in translation it is the original languages. Good day sir.