Is religious freedom a bad idea?

[Areopagite]

Many of the nobility and leading citizens of the area embraced their beliefs. That and the fact of “their contempt for the Catholic clergy, caused by the ignorance and the worldly, too frequently scandalous, lives of the latter”, as the CE puts it, got them into trouble with Rome.

It was because many embraced their unnatural beliefs that gave the state a viable reason to attack them. Also, just because Catholic clergy can become corrupt, does not disprove Catholicism. Do bad Christians invalidate Christianity? No. So, while it is more understandable why people went over to Albigensianism (because of bad priests) it does not justify it. And since the heresy advocated unnatural acts, the state could justly get involved.

The Church attempted to “convert” the Cathari. Per the CE, “Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess.”

This does not disprove that the repression of the Cathari was unjust to begin with. Just because excesses might happen in a war does not make the war an unjust one.

“The civil magistrates gave them the choice between the Cross and the stake. For the most part, they preferred death to conversion.”

Now, here you might have something. On the other hand, maybe not.

As I said before, I think the state had the right to force people to convert from Albigensianism … but did they have the right to force people to convert to Catholicism. Perhaps the situation was this: they were already guilty of the crime and thus were liable to receiving punishment, even if they renounced Albigensianism. However, the state had the right to withhold just punishment under the condition of their conversion to Catholicism.

Looking at it that way, I don’t think I have a problem with that. Maybe most here would disagree.

In this infamous attack led by Arnaul Amalric, a Cistercian monk, a soldier was reported to have asked how they were to distinguish the Catholics in the town from the Cathar enemies: Almaric is reputed to have said (per the CE) “the monstrous words: ‘Slay all; God will know His own.’" Cathari or Catholics, guilty of heresy or innocent, old people or babies, it didn’t matter; they killed….them….all.

According to CE, there is doubt that Amalric said this. But if he did, shame on him. In any case, it does not invalidate the crusade against the Albigensians.

So after the “dreadful carnage” (CE), almost 20,000 people had died, according to Amalric’s own report. As the CE says: “The death penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses.” And, I would add, on Catholics and anyone else who happened to be in the way.

Once again, this shows abuses in a crusade, but does destroy the appropriateness of the crusade.

Was there an incentive for the attackers besides ridding the region of heretics? Sure. As reward for their efforts, they would receive the land and possessions of all those they killed. **Mercenaries for Rome! **

Just because you get rewards for doing something good does not prove that what you did wasn’t good.

Even Pope Innocent III recognized the whole affair as misguided, saying that the crusaders “appropriated the holdings of men never guilty of heresy and robbed and murdered like savage buccaneers.”

That quote does not imply that Innocent III thought the whole affair (the crusade?) as misguided. He recognized horrible abuses in the crusade but did not consider the crusade itself as an abuse.

"Aeropagite" called all this “fitting” and “awesome”.

I did indeed.

Now, let’s go back to the original question: despite the abuses by the crusaders (and the abuses of the Catholic clergy before them), was the crusade itself a good thing if, in fact, the Cathars did advocate a heresy that went against the natural law (in the ways that I stated above)? This is the question before us. What do you say, chaunceygardner?

 

[Areopagite]

This thread is pretty interesting because this Dee Dee King chap is showing us what happens when a person actually follows through on the premises of his faith.

I mean, if you seriously believed that you had “the truth” that people will be damned without, then it would make sense to spread that “truth” by any means necessary. We are seeing, on this thread, the fullest implications of such a worldview.

Scary, scary stuff.

The only thing scarier is an anti-theistic government like we saw in Russia. Those gulags killed more than the Nazis did. Now, that’s what I call scary. The crusades and the inquisition killed a microscopic amount compared to such atheistic governments. And then there’s the whole thing with abortion … but I won’t go into that (okay, I’ll just mention that about 1,000,000,000 have been killed by abortion in past century). Very, very scary stuff. But maybe some people aren’t scared of that. Whatever.

Whatever you do, Antitheist, don’t follow through with your faith. Although, I guess that’s better than being lukewarm (but … still).

Well, that’s just the thing. As he points out, there have been Crusades and Inquisitions in the past – were those horrible events all run entirely by people who were not of the Christian faith? Who gets to decide who’s a “real Christian” here?

It’s a good question. Protestants have a real problem answering this question. Catholics have a central authority to look to for answering that question.

These doctrines certainly have inspired cruel and vicious fanaticism in the past, and there’s no reason that they might not inspire similar acts in the future. The doctrines sure aren’t going to change, and there’s never going to be a shortage of violent wackos willing to believe in those doctrines.

Oh, yes, they’ll be wackos. They’re not as bad a non-Catholic wackos though. That’s for sure.

 

[chaunceygardner]

It was because many embraced their unnatural beliefs that gave the state a viable reason to attack them… And since the heresy advocated unnatural acts, the state could justly get involved.

The “unnatural beliefs” and “acts” that you claim existed were likely labeled that because they weren’t in agreement with Catholic doctrine. They were of a DIFFERENT theology or philosophy, like many others that existed before or after.

This does not disprove that the repression of the Cathari was unjust to begin with. Just because excesses might happen in a war does not make the war an unjust one.

As I said before, I think the state had the right to force people to convert from Albigensianism … but did they have the right to force people to convert to Catholicism. Perhaps the situation was this: they were already guilty of the crime and thus were liable to receiving punishment, even if they renounced Albigensianism. However, the state had the right to withhold just punishment under the condition of their conversion to Catholicism.

Looking at it that way, I don’t think I have a problem with that. Maybe most here would disagree.

I would hope and pray that they would disagree. What crime are we talking about? Living an ascetic Christian life is a crime?

I appreciate that you use words like “repression”, “force” and “punishment”. They clearly show your true colors, which is that if a person doesn’t believe what someone in authority wants them to believe, that belief should be repressed, the person should be converted, by force if necessary, and if not willing to be converted, should be punished, even to the point of torture and death. And where did Jesus teach this? In Mark? Perhaps in John? I don’t recall.

According to CE, there is doubt that Amalric said this. But if he did, shame on him. In any case, it does not invalidate the crusade against the Albigensians.

Yes there is doubt, but it was reported a short time after by someone who was there. The source for the doubt is from 400 years later. It does reflect what actually happened, which adds to its validity. In fact, it at least shows that at least the one person who asked the question had some moral fiber.

Abuses occurred AND the crusade was not just inappropriate, but evil. There was no violence going on, no war, no fighting over which religious belief was right or wrong. The people were living in harmony, like Christians. It was people from the OUTSIDE who invaded and killed them. And not just the heretics, but Catholics killing Catholics.

Just because you get rewards for doing something good does not prove that what you did wasn’t good.

Killing innocent people was GOOD?? Please, have you no heart, have you no idea of Christian love and justice?

The more they killed, heretical or innocent, the more land and possessions they would gain! You don’t see anything amiss in that??

That quote does not imply that Innocent III thought the whole affair (the crusade?) as misguided. He recognized horrible abuses in the crusade but did not consider the crusade itself as an abuse.

It does show that someone in the Church had misgivings about what happened, and didn’t rejoice in the slaughter of thousands of innocent people.

Now, let’s go back to the original question: despite the abuses by the crusaders (and the abuses of the Catholic clergy before them), was the crusade itself a good thing if, in fact, the Cathars did advocate a heresy that went against the natural law (in the ways that I stated above)? This is the question before us. What do you say, chaunceygardner?

NO. The Cathars had a “natural right” to advocate “heresy”. Keep in mind that YOUR heresy could be someone elses orthodox doctrine. “Who’s on First?” Who is in charge; who holds temporal power? To say that one person or group has the inherent right to determine what everyone else should believe is certainly not natural.

Here is one for you. Say that you lived in a community which contains people of various religions. Everyone there gets along just fine. The “state” decides, for reasons of political and economic gain, that the beliefs and practices of some of the religions are evil, endangers the public welfare, and are to be prohibited. All their followers must convert to the one “true” religion.

You don’t agree with the decision of the “state” and have no problem with the people of the other faiths. People of all faiths work together in your town. They serve with one another in the local government and in service organizations, are neighbors and friends. They all worship one God but in different places and different ways. But now a portion of them are singled out and must change their beliefs. If they don’t they will lose all of their property and be removed from the community.

The citizens of the community unite in support of those unfairly singled out. The “state” tells them they must identify and turn over all the heretics. You and the great majority in your community refuse. The “state” warns that if you continue harboring heretics, you too will lose your property and be punished. You fight this injustice and defend your homes, your families and your freedoms.

Who is right? Which side is following the “natural law”? Does your natural law favor those who have the power to force their will on others, or does it favor those who follow the will of God? Do you think that God favors the “state” and those who would kill and destroy others for the sake of their own personal advancement?

I recall hearing about a poor, intinerant, country preacher a couple of thousand years ago, who was considered a heretic by the authorities and was put to death for that reason. I wonder what He would say?

 

[Areopagite]

The “unnatural beliefs” and “acts” that you claim existed were likely labeled that because they weren’t in agreement with Catholic doctrine. They were of a DIFFERENT theology or philosophy, like many others that existed before or after.

Just because something doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine does not make it “unnatural.” A religion can be in line with the natural law and yet be in conflict with divinely revealed Catholic truths. Although such a religion would be wrong (I claim), it would not be unnatural and hence not a thing that the state has a right to suppress.

Do you even believe in natural law?

I would hope and pray that they would disagree. What crime are we talking about? Living an ascetic Christian life is a crime?

This will be the third time I’ll say this. The crime the Cathars committed was practicing and preaching the following doctrines (and not just these):

• Marriage vows were evil
• Sexual reproduction was evil
• Infertile sex was okay (and hence sodomy was okay)
• To attain salvation, a Cathar would have to lay his hands on you at the moment of your death
• If that happened, and you recovered, the only way to attain salvation was starving yourself to death

I appreciate that you use words like “repression”, “force” and “punishment”. They clearly show your true colors, which is that if a person doesn’t believe what someone in authority wants them to believe, that belief should be repressed, the person should be converted, by force if necessary, and if not willing to be converted, should be punished, even to the point of torture and death. And where did Jesus teach this? In Mark? Perhaps in John? I don’t recall.

So … are you advocating that government should never use “repression,” “force,” or “punishment?” Oh my.

Also, I don’t believe Jesus said everything (you can prove this by the limited amount of pages in the Gospels). He revealed all the divine truths that are necessary for our salvation, as well as revealing some but not all truths that can be discovered by natural reason. So, just because Jesus didn’t say something doesn’t mean He condemned it. Do you disagree?

Yes there is doubt, but it was reported a short time after by someone who was there. The source for the doubt is from 400 years later. It does reflect what actually happened, which adds to its validity. In fact, it at least shows that at least the one person who asked the question had some moral fiber.

And once again, even if it was said (and done), it does not invalidate the crusade.

Abuses occurred AND the crusade was not just inappropriate, but evil. There was no violence going on, no war, no fighting over which religious belief was right or wrong. The people were living in harmony, like Christians. It was people from the OUTSIDE who invaded and killed them.

Oh, there was definitely fighting over which religious belief was right. Also, just because there was no physical violence, there was still violence against nature (as listed above). Now, I know that you might object to the phrase “violence against nature” but you have to back your objection up. If great numbers of people were convinced to commit suicide by starving themselves, I think the state should get involved.

And not just the heretics, but Catholics killing Catholics.

If Catholics are defending criminals, their Catholicism does not excuse them. In fact, in this case, it’s doubtful whether they were Catholics because if they were defending the beliefs of Catharism they would be going against the dogmatic teachings of the Third Lateran Council (which had happened just prior to Pope Innocent III’s pontificate).

Killing innocent people was GOOD?? Please, have you no heart, have you no idea of Christian love and justice?

I never said killing innocent people was good. The Cathars were not innocent. (but the Pope was Innocent … LOL!!!.. sorry)

 

[Areopagite]

The more they killed, heretical or innocent, the more land and possessions they would gain! You don’t see anything amiss in that??

I don’t believe that they were rewarded for killing innocents. They were rewarded for killings Cathars and their supporters. If they were rewarded for killing innocents then that would have been an abuse (and I would take issue with that).

It does show that someone in the Church had misgivings about what happened, and didn’t rejoice in the slaughter of thousands of innocent people.

Well, yes, but once again, this doesn’t mean the Pope (or anyone in the Church) thought the crusade was evil in itself. Obviously, when America declared war against the Nazis, there were some atrocities committed by American soldiers here and there. But this does not invalidate the justness of waging the war.

NO. The Cathars had a “natural right” to advocate “heresy”. Keep in mind that YOUR heresy could be someone elses orthodox doctrine. “Who’s on First?” Who is in charge; who holds temporal power? To say that one person or group has the inherent right to determine what everyone else should believe is certainly not natural.

You don’t think that’s natural? Who are you to say that it’s not natural? Are you the one in charge?

If you are going to take the stance that “natural law is all relative” then you’ve dug yourself in a mighty hole indeed.

Who is to say murder isn’t wrong? Rape? Why shouldn’t we condemn such things? What right has the government to pass any law whatsoever?! Eh?

Do you see what you’re advocating?

Here is one for you. Say that you lived in a community which contains people of various religions. Everyone there gets along just fine. The “state” decides, for reasons of political and economic gain, that the beliefs and practices of some of the religions are evil, endangers the public welfare, and are to be prohibited. All their followers must convert to the one “true” religion.

You don’t agree with the decision of the “state” and have no problem with the people of the other faiths. People of all faiths work together in your town. They serve with one another in the local government and in service organizations, are neighbors and friends. They all worship one God but in different places and different ways. But now a portion of them are singled out and must change their beliefs. If they don’t they will lose all of their property and be removed from the community.

The citizens of the community unite in support of those unfairly singled out. The “state” tells them they must identify and turn over all the heretics. You and the great majority in your community refuse. The “state” warns that if you continue harboring heretics, you too will lose your property and be punished. You fight this injustice and defend your homes, your families and your freedoms.

Who is right? Which side is following the “natural law”? Does your natural law favor those who have the power to force their will on others, or does it favor those who follow the will of God? Do you think that God favors the “state” and those who would kill and destroy others for the sake of their own personal advancement?

I need more specifics in order for me to answer your question. You need to go into detail about the religion that these people are being condemned for. If it’s an unnatural religion, then the state has a right to suppress its practice and preaching (although, once again, they do not have the right to condemn the mere belief in it). If it’s unnatural, then despite what appearances of “peace” the community may have it wouldn’t be peaceful at all. The ancient Phoenicians (unless someone corrects me) were not a war-like people at all compared to the surrounding civilizations. They focused on trade instead of conquest and invented many useful things (like glass and the alphabet … yes, our alphabet). However, there was one snag: they conducted human sacrifice. So, I don’t care how “peaceful” you would call them … their religion must be destroyed.

Also, if a government says that all must convert to its state religion, I would have a problem with that, even if it was Catholicism. This is in keeping to with what I’ve said. Please read my posts more carefully.

I recall hearing about a poor, intinerant, country preacher a couple of thousand years ago, who was considered a heretic by the authorities and was put to death for that reason. I wonder what He would say?

So, just because Jesus received unjust punishment for preaching the truth, it automatically implies that no one should be punished for preaching (and practicing) things that offend both Christianity and the natural law? Just because Jesus was falsely accused and condemned for something, doesn’t mean it’s impossible to rightly accuse and condemn someone else for that same thing (i.e. spreading heresy). No? Jesus was wrongly punished, but the Cathars were rightly punished. It’s quite a leap to say that they should be treated equally just because they received similar accusations. One of them was guilty of the charge, the other was not.

 

[simple_soul]

I gotcha. Well, here’s what I would say is required for good preaching:

• One must have strong faith and be virtuous, if one intends to give faith and virtue to others (you can’t give what you don’t have, as the saying goes)
• One must be attentive to the movements of the Holy Spirit, for it is God who ultimately converts people, not you. If you think that it’s YOU who ultimately are the one to make a person see God, then your missionary efforts will fail.
• One must take into account one’s audience, for each person must be dealt with according to their manner in life. Despite this fact that the faith must be expressed differently to different people, one must keep in mind that it is the same faith for everyone (same message, but different ways to give that message)
• One must recognize commonality between you and the person you are evangelizing, but also notice the differences
• One must no how to respond well to arguments against the faith, knowing that faith and reason do not contradict each other
• One must be familiar with Scripture
• One must be faithful to the teachings of the Church, and be humble to the fact that you might not know all the teachings (and hence be willing to seek guidance on certain issues that arise)

Those are some things. Now, of course, even if you lack some of these things, God could give you the gift to preach well nonetheless.

I hope that answers your question to some extent.

Thank you Areopagite, I believe it might be to some extent.

Would you mind elaborating for me what you believe the virtues are that we are taught to have through Jesus Christ’s teachings, works, and actions.

Always praying and pondering

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

I mean, if you seriously believed that you had “the truth” that people will be damned without, then it would make sense to spread that “truth” by any means necessary. We are seeing, on this thread, the fullest implications of such a worldview.

not by any means necessary. you can’t force catholicism on all people, just those that are subject to you like children.

my point wasn’t that it is good to use physical force to spread catholicism but that there may be just limits to religious freedom. i don’t have a problem with atheism–it’s just stupid. it’s not a black and white thing. it’s possible that the state could prohibit certain religions which are contrary to the natural law. like fraud/cult religions like scientology and mormonism, fundamentalism, paganism, satanism, …etc. that being said, the state may decide that trying to prevent the evil may bring about more evil. prohibiting religion is not wrong in of itself and neither is forcing religion on certain people. i don’t think a healty society is one which makes no distinction between catholicism and paganism.

unfortunately, some people like to imagine Christ as a hippie feminate pacifist nice guy. I think this has more to do with forcing their own personality on the person of Jesus. catholicism has been feminized for far too long.

the crusades were awesome. i wish we still had the same zeal. maybe we wouldn’t be killing a million babies a year.

 

[chaunceygardner]

the crusades were awesome. i wish we still had the same zeal. maybe we wouldn’t be killing a million babies a year.

If they were that “awesome”, I am very sorry YOU weren’t there. Hundreds of thousands of people died or suffered because of them, including Orthodox, Muslims, Catholics, and innocent bystanders. Whole cities in the path of the marauders, friends or enemies, were flattened and their inhabitants raped and murdered. The Crusades in general were failures and didn’t accomplish their intent. Many of the them ended in disaster for the participants, including thousands of children sent on a crusade who either died or were enslaved. What they did accomplish was wholesale death and destruction. Corruption among church, civic leaders and the organizers of crusades was rampant. The Crusades impoverished the people and the lands that had to contribute to support them, while at the same time enriching those who plundered the victims. I see NOTHING Christ-like, nothing Holy, nothing redeeming, nothing that shines a positive light on the Church as a result of the Crusades.

Here is what “The Story of the Church”, a book written about 50 years ago by two Italian Priests, says:

“The failures of the Crusades probably outweighed their advantages…the general lack of adequate preparation for the expeditions, the atrocities committed by the soldiers and the undisciplined hordes…Moreover, the senseless rivalries and lust for plunder…One of the most serious outcomes of the Crusades was the ill-will sown between the Greek church and the Latin West as a result of the unnecessarily harsh treatment inflicted by the Latins on the Greeks wherever they found them, especially in the conquest of Constantinople…[the Crusades] were unwise and probably worse than useless. The main objective of rescuing the Holy Land was not achieved, and the gulf between East and West was widened.”

Many people would place the Crusades along with the Inquisition and the corruption and poor leadership that led to the Reformation as “one of the most tragic periods in the history of the Church.” (The Story of the Church).

But you seem all gung-ho to re-live those “awesome” times again. And realize that each of these “tragedies” in the life of the Church occurred during a time (and likely because) the Church and the State were united in temporal power. And that was, is, and would be a bad, bad thing.

 

[Detales]

didn’t Christ say he brings a sword and not peace? besides, your understanding of the crusades is very pacifist. it was a war in self defense. How blatantly Muslim of you. Good job. Your attitude is why I have grave (literally) concerns about funda-mentalists of any religion. You cannot see beyond your own agenda of proof of your arbitrary “rightness.” And the Crusades were “self defense” in the same way cancer defends itself: by trying to spread. The Crusades, as well as missionary-ism, historically have brought only destruction of cultures and antagonism between peoples in their wake. Is that the fulfillment of the Law of Love? Unexamined piety, to me. is one of the greatest dangers we face. It yields suicide bombers and missionaries.

Seriously, have you ever thought of where your religion even comes from? Not where you think it does, I assure you. And “religion,” in case you haven’t used a dictionary in a while, comes from words that mean “to tie back to.” To tie what back to what? Tying back means that something needs restraint or training, does it not? Well, if religion is about tying the wanton undisciplined animalistic human back to some form of moral constraint, the Church has done an unblessed poor job of it. This is especially true in that it seeks to impose, being exoteric and materialistic, its controls from the outside and by sanctions. My understanding of the teachings of Jesus is that they are based on the Law of Love as evoked by the realization of the Fatherhood of God. It seems that that didn’t go far enough, as the world, when it most needs Unity, is bent on self destruction by diverting itself from actual issues through sibling rivalry.

My sense is that the issue of religion is yet on a lower scale of human development, as it seems to foster division rather than Unity. In other words, all the people who believe in, rather that know, God, are fighting over the bone of who’s dog-ma is litter-ally right. That is NOT where God or Love lives, you poor saps.

 

[Areopagite]

The Crusades in general were failures and didn’t accomplish their intent.

Alas, this is true. Most of them were failures. However, the 1st and 7th crusades were successes (the seventh was the Albigensian crusade, right?).

I see NOTHING Christ-like, nothing Holy, nothing redeeming, nothing that shines a positive light on the Church as a result of the Crusades.

Just out of curiosity, are you a pacifist, chaunceygardner?

Also, are you denying that the Muslims had committed atrocities and mass murders in the Holy Land, prior to the crusades?

And even the most anti-crusader historian admits that the crusades led to a very rich period of trade between the east and the west (between Catholics and Muslims) … and not just a trade of material things but of ideas as well. In fact, you could say the crusades brought the world out of the dark ages (that’s what A LOT of historians say … even anti-Catholic ones). So, there’s a least one huge redeeming thing about the crusades.

Here is what “The Story of the Church”, a book written about 50 years ago by two Italian Priests, says:

“The failures of the Crusades probably outweighed their advantages…the general lack of adequate preparation for the expeditions, the atrocities committed by the soldiers and the undisciplined hordes…Moreover, the senseless rivalries and lust for plunder…One of the most serious outcomes of the Crusades was the ill-will sown between the Greek church and the Latin West as a result of the unnecessarily harsh treatment inflicted by the Latins on the Greeks wherever they found them, especially in the conquest of Constantinople…[the Crusades] were unwise and probably worse than useless. The main objective of rescuing the Holy Land was not achieved, and the gulf between East and West was widened.”

Once again, these were abuses. The crusades were led by fallen human beings and caused a lot of problems. But, once again, the crusade itself … the reason why it was waged … was admirable. Even among the majority of Protestants (it seems) the word “crusade” conjures the idea of fighting evil … fighting for what is right. And that is awesome (but maybe you disagree).

Many people would place the Crusades along with the Inquisition and the corruption and poor leadership that led to the Reformation as “one of the most tragic periods in the history of the Church.” (The Story of the Church).

But you seem all gung-ho to re-live those “awesome” times again. And realize that each of these “tragedies” in the life of the Church occurred during a time (and likely because) the Church and the State were united in temporal power. And that was, is, and would be a bad, bad thing.

I’m definitely not a fan of corruption and poor leadership in the Church (and abuses during the crusades). But just because that happened, it doesn’t follow the crusades (and even the Inquisition) were intrinsically evil.

didn’t Christ say he brings a sword and not peace? besides, your understanding of the crusades is very pacifist. it was a war in self defense. How blatantly Muslim of you.

Self-defense isn’t exclusively Islamic.

Good job. Your attitude is why I have grave (literally) concerns about funda-mentalists of any religion. You cannot see beyond your own agenda of proof of your arbitrary “rightness.” And the Crusades were “self defense” in the same way cancer defends itself: by trying to spread.

What are you comparing to cancer?

The Crusades, as well as missionary-ism, historically have brought only destruction of cultures and antagonism between peoples in their wake.

That’s untrue. The crusades led to the Renaissance. Many anti-Catholic historians have even admitted this.

Is that the fulfillment of the Law of Love? Unexamined piety, to me. is one of the greatest dangers we face. It yields suicide bombers and missionaries.

Well, I’m certainly against suicide bombers … but missionaries? Are you against missionaries? Wha?

Seriously, have you ever thought of where your religion even comes from? Not where you think it does, I assure you. And “religion,” in case you haven’t used a dictionary in a while, comes from words that mean “to tie back to.” To tie what back to what?

To tie back to what? I suppose that differs from religion to religion.

Where does our religion come from? Well, for now, I’ll say God. But please correct me if I have erred.

Tying back means that something needs restraint or training, does it not? Well, if religion is about tying the wanton undisciplined animalistic human back to some form of moral constraint, the Church has done an unblessed poor job of it.

It has produced quite a number of saints. It has done a better job at it than any other institution. But, yes, unfortunately, despite its divine foundation, it is run by humans in many of its departments.

 

[Areopagite]

Would you mind elaborating for me what you believe the virtues are that we are taught to have through Jesus Christ’s teachings, works, and actions.

The virtues we should have as Christians (and certainly as evangelists) are, ideally, all the natural and supernatural virtues.

The main natural virtues are temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice. These are the “cardinal virtues” … that is, if we have these down, all other natural virtues will easily follow. Anyone who is human is capable of having these. I could elaborate on these if you wish.

The main supernatural virtues are faith, hope, and charity. These are the “theological virtues” … and all of them are necessary for salvation. The only way to acquire these virtues is by God giving you to them. God initially gives you all of them when someone baptizes you. However, you can choose to cooperate with God in increasing them. Faith involves believing and knowing truths of God. Hope involves being able to work toward what faith sees (i.e. God). And charity involves having what faith sees and what hope wants (i.e. God). One can choose to reject these supernatural virtues (and that would be a mortal sin), but they can be restored by the sacrament of reconciliation. One can reject charity, but still retain hope and faith. One can chose to reject hope and charity, but retain faith. Or one can choose to reject all three.

Anyway, I hope that partially answers your question. This a broad answer, so perhaps I missed what you were asking about.

 

[simple_soul]

The virtues we should have as Christians (and certainly as evangelists) are, ideally, all the natural and supernatural virtues.

The main natural virtues are temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice. These are the “cardinal virtues” … that is, if we have these down, all other natural virtues will easily follow. Anyone who is human is capable of having these. I could elaborate on these if you wish.

The main supernatural virtues are faith, hope, and charity. These are the “theological virtues” … and all of them are necessary for salvation. The only way to acquire these virtues is by God giving you to them. God initially gives you all of them when someone baptizes you. However, you can choose to cooperate with God in increasing them. Faith involves believing and knowing truths of God. Hope involves being able to work toward what faith sees (i.e. God). And charity involves having what faith sees and what hope wants (i.e. God). One can choose to reject these supernatural virtues (and that would be a mortal sin), but they can be restored by the sacrament of reconciliation. One can reject charity, but still retain hope and faith. One can chose to reject hope and charity, but retain faith. Or one can choose to reject all three.

Anyway, I hope that partially answers your question. This a broad answer, so perhaps I missed what you were asking about.

Hello again Areopagite,

I am not sure if it answers my question yet so please bear with me,

Would you mind elaborating how Jesus Christ taught us charity through His words or actions?

Always praying and pondering,

 

[Detales]

Alas, this is true. Most of them were failures. However, the 1st and 7th crusades were successes (the seventh was the Albigensian crusade, right?). Well, I don’t know how you define success. If the seventh was against the Albigensians, my understanding is that it was against the actual original teaching of the Church. So if you mean that it was a success in promoting ignorance, then I guess I have to agree.

• the crusades brought the world out of the dark ages (that’s what A LOT of historians say … even anti-Catholic ones). So, there’s a least one huge redeeming thing about the crusades.* Okay, but how did “Christendom” enter the dark ages that lasted, what, 600 years? Look to the Church! andThe crusades were led by fallen human beings and caused a lot of problems.??? And what is different now? And I’m not talking just about the Church, but all religions and political systems. But the Church is misleading people in that it claims to be of God, when in actuality it is the fallen men claiming the idea of God as a legitimization of what they do.

** Well, to me that means that Love was not present. If force is used, diplomacy has failed. You have to start at Peace to arrive there, not wage military campaigns. If you do, you have already lost.

Self-defense isn’t exclusively Islamic. I didn’t say it was. But these days the suicide bombers and jihadists are Muslim, and there is in that faith the idea of spreading the faith by the sword, though in that religion I think that that idea is vastly misunderstood.

What are you comparing to cancer? Read the paragraph. It is in English.

The crusades led to the Renaissance. Many anti-Catholic historians have even admitted this. They don’t have to “admit” this, as if it is a shameful thing. It was a natural result of pillaging and the taking of booty. People finally realized how bad things were and decided to change. They changed from the squalor that had been a result of the Church under the influence of evidence that there was something materially better. That is no credit to the Church.

*Are you against missionaries? * Of course I am. Not against the good they might do in terms of medicine and other possible advances, but generally speaking missionaries of any faith, especially christianists, have been horrifically destructive of the values and psychological maps inherent in aboriginal cultures.

Where does our religion come from? Well, for now, I’ll say God. But please correct me if I have erred. Since you say “Well, for now,” I credit you with practicing sane thinking. But it is not up to me to correct you if you have erred. That is your job. I am only pointing out that belief of any sort has grave inherent dangers. On the world scale, these may be of extraordinary destructive ability. I am only advocating that we scrutinize our belief systems from a position outside them, from a position of impartiality, using Universal principles. It is an onerous job, because it means we have to face our own monsters. Q’plah!

*It has produced quite a number of saints. It has done a better job at it than any other institution. But, yes, unfortunately, despite its divine foundation, it is run by humans in many of its departments. * I’d wager that it easily has produced an equal number of sinners, and how do you know from God’s perspective who all in the world of other faiths or not are not saints? That may not be our job to pass judgment on, commo no? It is always best, IMHO, to compare progress to yourself by means of measuring against an Ideal. If you are doing something Divinely attractive, those who are ready will come into your life.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Alas, this is true. Most of them were failures. However, the 1st and 7th crusades were successes (the seventh was the Albigensian crusade, right?).

The slaughter you call a crusade was not successful for the Cathari or any Catholics who happened to be in the way of the attackers.

Just out of curiosity, are you a pacifist, chaunceygardner?

I am a Disciple of Jesus who embraces what Jesus taught, including and particularly the two greatest commandments, and the Golden Rule. That would likely make me a person you would label a pacifist; I prefer “Christian”.

Also, are you denying that the Muslims had committed atrocities and mass murders in the Holy Land, prior to the crusades?

No, but not likely on the scale of the atrocities committed by the crusaders, not only upon Muslims, but upon Christians as well. Evil on one side does not condone evil on the other. If violence must be met with more violence, if atrocities beget more atrocities, where will it ever end? Where is Christian Love in the equation?

And even the most anti-crusader historian admits that the crusades led to a very rich period of trade between the east and the west (between Catholics and Muslims) … and not just a trade of material things but of ideas as well. In fact, you could say the crusades brought the world out of the dark ages (that’s what A LOT of historians say … even anti-Catholic ones). So, there’s a least one huge redeeming thing about the crusades.

No argument with that. Wars throughout history have resulted in scientific and medical advances. Although something may have been gained, a good deal of recorded knowledge and history was also destroyed. And the period of trade and exchange of knowledge you refer to could have developed without the horrors of the Crusades and the deaths of thousands of innocent people. There was a great economic and human (and many would say spiritual) cost to these endeavours. What price is acceptable?

Once again, these were abuses. The crusades were led by fallen human beings and caused a lot of problems.

It has nothing to due with abuses and corruption; you like to focus on that, don’t you, as if it helps your argument. Those problems just magnified the suffering and evil that the Crusades brought about. The greatest “wrong” was in initiating them in the first place. The greatest sin was with those who devised and promulgated them.

But, once again, the crusade itself … the reason why it was waged … was admirable. Even among the majority of Protestants (it seems) the word “crusade” conjures the idea of fighting evil … fighting for what is right. And that is awesome (but maybe you disagree).

Fighting evil and for what is right IS admirable. But the rationale for the Crusades and the way it was “sold” to Catholics was not admirable. The cost to those who had to support the Crusades with their property and the loss of their lives was not admirable. The price many people in Europe, the Middle East and even northern Africa paid was not admirable. Yes the word “crusade” can have positive connotations, but as I said earlier, the connotations that arise from THE “Crusades” are far from positive.

I’m definitely not a fan of corruption and poor leadership in the Church (and abuses during the crusades). But just because that happened, it doesn’t follow the crusades (and even the Inquisition) were intrinsically evil.

No, and althought you constantly repeat that view, the resulting abuse or corruption has NOTHING to do with whether something is intrinsically right or wrong in the first place. Both the Crusades and the Inquisition were abominations, not only because of the horrific results of both, but because of WHY they were begun, because of the purpose and reasoning behind them, and the way both were “executed”.

So yes, as a Christian, and knowing in my heart what is right and wrong (“natural law”?), I must disagree with your position that the Crusades were “awesome” or anything else but horrendous evil perpetrated on children of God due to a complete mis-application of the Gospel of our Lord.

With that I have said all I can on this thread. After what I have read from a couple of posters here, I feel like I need to cleanse my hands with some disinfectant soap and refresh my soul with a meditation on the Beatitudes.

Peace.

 

[Areopagite]

Well, I don’t know how you define success. If the seventh was against the Albigensians, my understanding is that it was against the actual original teaching of the Church. So if you mean that it was a success in promoting ignorance, then I guess I have to agree.

These crusades were successful insofar as they accomplished their goals. The first crusade aimed to retake the Holy Land (which it did), and the seventh crusade was to wipe out Albigensianism (which it did).

I don’t see how Albigensianism was the “actual original teaching of the Church” unless you’re implying that marriage vows are evil, and sodomy is okay, and killing yourself by starvation after the Cathars gave you the last rites is legit … and all that other stuff.

Okay, but how did “Christendom” enter the dark ages that lasted, what, 600 years? Look to the Church!

This is one view which has been perpetuated by Edward Gibbon, but it seems that historians are now abandoning this silly idea. It is fairly obvious, just looking at a cursory view of late antique and early medieval history, that the dark ages were caused by multiple large-scale barbarian invasions throughout Europe. Such barbarians included the Huns, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Franks, the Lombards, and finally the Vikings (I may have missed some). All of these tribes eventually became Catholic, but before they became Catholic, they were destroying western civilization from all angles of the Roman Empire. None of these tribes were Catholic when they were doing this … they were either pagan or Arians (a heretical sect of Christianity that denied the divinity of Christ). It is curious that when these tribes were converted to Catholicism, they started to civilize themselves and others rather than destroy civilization. I’ve come across more and more secular historical sources that say that the Catholic monasteries were the ones to preserve civilization (by safeguarding ancient texts and art), while the non-Catholic barbarians were destroying them elsewhere.

** Well, to me that means that Love was not present. If force is used, diplomacy has failed. You have to start at Peace to arrive there, not wage military campaigns. If you do, you have already lost.

You’re saying that waging war is intrinsically against love?

What are you comparing to cancer? Read the paragraph. It is in English.

You said:

And the Crusades were “self defense” in the same way cancer defends itself: by trying to spread. The Crusades, as well as missionary-ism, historically have brought only destruction of cultures and antagonism between peoples in their wake. Is that the fulfillment of the Law of Love? Unexamined piety, to me. is one of the greatest dangers we face. It yields suicide bombers and missionaries.

And re-reading this, you never clearly state what you’re comparing cancer to. You said that “crusades were self defense in the same way cancer defends itself” … so … cancer is being compared to crusades? The crusades were self defense because the crusades were protecting themselves? That doesn’t make any sense.

And once again, the crusades enriched the cultures of both east and west … it didn’t just bring destruction to the two cultures.

Also, missionaries have enriched cultures greatly. You see this, I think, very clearly with every culture in Europe.

They don’t have to “admit” this, as if it is a shameful thing. It was a natural result of pillaging and the taking of booty. People finally realized how bad things were and decided to change. They changed from the squalor that had been a result of the Church under the influence of evidence that there was something materially better. That is no credit to the Church.

The squalor came because non-Catholic barbarians had destroyed Roman civilization. Thanks the barbarians, many useful texts and ideas from ancient times were lost but had been preserved in the East (like … Aristotle). The Church most definitely did not create the squalor. It preserved what little remained and then it fostered the good ideas that were rediscovered thanks to the crusades.

Of course I am. Not against the good they might do in terms of medicine and other possible advances, but generally speaking missionaries of any faith, especially christianists, have been horrifically destructive of the values and psychological maps inherent in aboriginal cultures.

I’ll need some proof of this. This is a ridiculous claim.

I’d wager that it easily has produced an equal number of sinners,

Perhaps. However, most religion just produce sinners … or mediocre people. As Oscar Wilde said, “The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners … for everyone else, there’s the Anglican Church” (or something to that effect).

and how do you know from God’s perspective who all in the world of other faiths or not are not saints? That may not be our job to pass judgment on, commo no?

Well, then, who are you to say that the Church has produced any sinners. Maybe they’re all saints. Who are you to judge?

 

[Detales]

Well, then, who are you to say that the Church has produced any sinners. Maybe they’re all saints. Who are you to judge? I’m not, and I didn’t say. I merely wagered, and asked if it is our job, implying it wasn’t

At his time I am,though, concluding that I’m dealing with someone not nearly on common enough ground to conduct a conversation. It might be best to discontinue this clearly fruitless exchange. Blessings and Best, Areo.

Bindar Dundat, FZPC

 

[Areopagite]

The slaughter you call a crusade was not successful for the Cathari or any Catholics who happened to be in the way of the attackers.

Well, yes, usually wars are not successful for those who are on the side that loses or were unfortunately killed along the way. I’m saying those crusades were successful in the fulfilling their goals.

I am a Disciple of Jesus who embraces what Jesus taught, including and particularly the two greatest commandments, and the Golden Rule. That would likely make me a person you would label a pacifist; I prefer “Christian”.

So, just to set the record straight, you think all wars are unjust, right? America should not have waged war on the Nazis, right? All violence is bad? No such thing as good self-defense? Correct?

If so, then it’s no wonder you’re against the crusades. I can’t convince you that any crusade was a just war if you think there is no such thing as a just war. That would have been nice if you had told me that in the beginning.

I won’t try to defend the crusades any more to you as long as you’re a pacifist. We must first discuss the possibility of a just war before we go on talking about the justness of particular wars.

With that I have said all I can on this thread. After what I have read from a couple of posters here, I feel like I need to cleanse my hands with some disinfectant soap and refresh my soul with a meditation on the Beatitudes.

If this is your farewell speech, it’s been real. I’ll still be here if you want to get your hands dirty again.

 

[Areopagite]

Well, then, who are you to say that the Church has produced any sinners. Maybe they’re all saints. Who are you to judge? I’m not, and I didn’t say. I merely wagered, and asked if it is our job, implying it wasn’t

Well … in that case, I’ll “wager” that the Church has produced more saints than any other institution.

At his time I am,though, concluding that I’m dealing with someone not nearly on common enough ground to conduct a conversation. It might be best to discontinue this clearly fruitless exchange. Blessings and Best, Areo.

See ya, Detales.

Looks like I’m all alone now.