B
BelFarfalla
Guest
I doubt it.
- Status
S
Shiann
Guest
Again modern issues interjected.
M
Mirdath
Guest
So we agree that Arnaud’s actions are entirely morally unjustifiable; why then was he not excommunicated?
The issue is modern morality, not justice.
S
Shiann
Guest
We’ve already established that it was just as possible and PROBABLE that the slaughter of Beziers was the result of mob mentality. There was no coordination- and was initiated by thousands of enraged slave boys hell-bent on killing and looting.
S
Shiann
Guest
Do not put words in my mouth. And one example of a glory seeker does not make your point.
It is still not the topic of the thread.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Interesting you should use the term ‘slave’, isn’t it? Bit of a moral issue there too.
Beziers would not have happened if not for the Pope and the Crusaders. The army was not there to make daisy chains. Finally, the battle was reported as a victory against the Cathars and treated as such all the way down history, not as a mob rampage. That the Church would instigate the attack, accept the results of Beziers and continue on in much the same manner lands culpability squarely in its lap.
When people say ‘oh, it was fine then’ but are too squeamish to consider it acceptable now, they violate Catholic moral principles. It is relevant. Those who consider themselves moral absolutists but cannot bring themselves to pronounce an absolute on the issue of punishing heresy should strengthen either their principles or their guts.
R
rr1213
Guest
Baloney. This entire thread has been permeated with a discussion of the issue in both the historical and contemporary context. The passionate answers we’ve read in this thread demonstrate that the issue is as pertinent to today’s world as it was during the times of the inquisitions.
More importantly, your evasive refusal to answer a simple question speaks volumes. Silence constitutes assent and, therefore, I submit that you would support today punishment by the state of people whose beliefs are considered to be heretical by the Catholic Church. If this is not true, just come out and say it and stop evading the question.
R
Rachel_Malloy
Guest
Ok folks. Time to take a breath and get back on track or this thread will be closed.
God bless-
Rachel
God bless-
Rachel
V
Valke2
Guest
How can a religion based upon loving one’s neighbor and turning the other cheek justify burning of heretics? Am I missing something?
R
rr1213
Guest
No, you’re missing nothing.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Mirdath posted:
What’s source for the goose is source for the gander hm?
Mirdath in chasing me about the forum to criticise my postings, conveniently is very selective about arguements. So ‘It is ok to commit suicide but it is wrong to stop a group who both promotes suicide and practices infanticide’.
Strange logic hm?
I apologise to you Mirdath for the deaths of the 20,000 non-descript innocents. Whose going to apologise for the deaths of the 2,000 000 innocent Catholics, hm?
The Lord went voluntarily to His death therefore the Cathars were only emulating Christ, hm!.
What’s source for the goose is source for the gander hm?
Mirdath in chasing me about the forum to criticise my postings, conveniently is very selective about arguements. So ‘It is ok to commit suicide but it is wrong to stop a group who both promotes suicide and practices infanticide’.
Strange logic hm?I apologise to you Mirdath for the deaths of the 20,000 non-descript innocents. Whose going to apologise for the deaths of the 2,000 000 innocent Catholics, hm?
M
Mirdath
Guest
I have yet to see reliable evidence that the Cathars practiced infanticide; and I’ve already explained their teachings on suicide.So ‘It is ok to commit suicide but it is wrong to stop a group who both promotes suicide and practices infanticide’.
I am not seeking apology, only awareness. Every gratuitous death is something for us all to be sorry for; it should wound every one of us.
B
BelFarfalla
Guest
I’m at work. My resources on this are at home. I’ll dig them up tonight. I’m hoping to find some reliable online sources… My resources are book…not as easy to link to
S
Sixtus
Guest
It is easy to see why the Cathars are so popular in this thread. The early Protestant Reformers shared a lot of the ideas with the Cathars.
Though they claimed otherwise and found a home in a remote part of Orthodoxy, it seems to me that Catharism is not nor never was a branch of Christianity but a quasi- Buddhism.
Apart from contradicting the book of Genisis, they saw Satan as God’s equal adversary
The ideal that Christ taught could only be achieved by vacating this life as soon as possible in order to start the next reincarnation in the journey towards not Nirvana but the Spirit of Love.
One must respect their dicipline not to eat meat, as it may be a reincarnation of your deceased loved one’s or neighbour you are eating!
Though they claimed otherwise and found a home in a remote part of Orthodoxy, it seems to me that Catharism is not nor never was a branch of Christianity but a quasi- Buddhism.
Apart from contradicting the book of Genisis, they saw Satan as God’s equal adversary
The ideal that Christ taught could only be achieved by vacating this life as soon as possible in order to start the next reincarnation in the journey towards not Nirvana but the Spirit of Love.
One must respect their dicipline not to eat meat, as it may be a reincarnation of your deceased loved one’s or neighbour you are eating!
M
Mirdath
Guest
That would make them quasi-Manichaeans/Gnostics, not Buddhists
And they didn’t just share some ideas with the early Protestant reformers, but influenced some great Catholic reformers too, in their humility, simplicity and discipline.
Most of the history we have about them is taken from Catholic writings, of course, notably from Hildegard of Bingen and Bernard of Clairvaux. Tracing their roots is not exactly a simple matter, though a very interesting one. I’m digging up what I can on these subjects, and trying to recall what I learned about them during my (Catholic) education.
I did stumble across this quote from Bernard of Clairvaux though, and seem to recall reading it in school:
“If you interrogate them, no one could be more Christian. As to their conversation, nothing can be less reprehensible, and what they speak they prove by deeds. As for the morals of the heretics, they cheat no one, they oppress no one, they strike no one.”
I just thought it was lovely.
And they didn’t just share some ideas with the early Protestant reformers, but influenced some great Catholic reformers too, in their humility, simplicity and discipline.
Most of the history we have about them is taken from Catholic writings, of course, notably from Hildegard of Bingen and Bernard of Clairvaux. Tracing their roots is not exactly a simple matter, though a very interesting one. I’m digging up what I can on these subjects, and trying to recall what I learned about them during my (Catholic) education.
I did stumble across this quote from Bernard of Clairvaux though, and seem to recall reading it in school:
“If you interrogate them, no one could be more Christian. As to their conversation, nothing can be less reprehensible, and what they speak they prove by deeds. As for the morals of the heretics, they cheat no one, they oppress no one, they strike no one.”
I just thought it was lovely.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Quasi-Buddhism? Huh?
“Satan’s as God’s equal adversary” is not Buddhism.Apart from contradicting the book of Genisis, they saw Satan as God’s equal adversary
The Buddha never taught that Nirvana could be achieved by vacating this life as soon as possible.The ideal that Christ taught could only be achieved by vacating this life as soon as possible in order to start the next reincarnation in the journey towards not Nirvana but the Spirit of Love.
Not-eating meat has nothing to do with avoiding a dead relative, since, if you read your Buddhist scriptures, you’ll find that the Buddha Himself ate meat and never denied eating meat to His disciples.One must respect their dicipline not to eat meat, as it may be a reincarnation of your deceased loved one’s or neighbour you are eating!
S
Sixtus
Guest
Ahimsa posted:
Catharism definitely was not a Christian sect. The nearest I can describe belief in reincarnation and not eating meat in case it is your relative, is Buddhism. Buddhists are vegetarian. They do not eat meat or indulge in any form of killing [all credit to them]. Commendably they fish with a rod without a hook. Actually Zen-Buddhists do it for meditation. So as not to hurt a fish, ensure there is no hook on the end of the line.
I said Cathars are a sort of quasi-Buddhist, not Buddhist per se. That is the nearest one can get to describing them. Whatever or whoever they were, they definitely were not Christian.
Catharism was undoubtedly a major influence to the early Reformers some of whom claimed Catharism as their ancestry.
I would not deny anyone their legitimate claims to the past, they may well have been right
I never said that it was, so why mis-quote me?
Catharism definitely was not a Christian sect. The nearest I can describe belief in reincarnation and not eating meat in case it is your relative, is Buddhism. Buddhists are vegetarian. They do not eat meat or indulge in any form of killing [all credit to them]. Commendably they fish with a rod without a hook. Actually Zen-Buddhists do it for meditation. So as not to hurt a fish, ensure there is no hook on the end of the line.
I said Cathars are a sort of quasi-Buddhist, not Buddhist per se. That is the nearest one can get to describing them. Whatever or whoever they were, they definitely were not Christian.
Catharism was undoubtedly a major influence to the early Reformers some of whom claimed Catharism as their ancestry.
I would not deny anyone their legitimate claims to the past, they may well have been right
S
Sixtus
Guest
Under torture, Cathars admitted to some pretty horrific crimes.
They signed confessions admitting to almost any and every perversity imaginable including murder, infanticide, witch-craft etc etc the list goes on and on and on.
If they were innocent as Mirdath suggests, then why under torture did they willingly and of their own hand sign to say they committed such barbaric and cruel acts themselves?
They signed confessions admitting to almost any and every perversity imaginable including murder, infanticide, witch-craft etc etc the list goes on and on and on.
If they were innocent as Mirdath suggests, then why under torture did they willingly and of their own hand sign to say they committed such barbaric and cruel acts themselves?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
OK, but part of my point was that Buddhists are not essentially vegetarians. Many Buddhists are indeed vegetarian, but that’s not an essential Buddhist teaching. The Dalai Lama isn’t vegetarian! The Buddha Himself wasn’t vegetarian!
S
Sixtus
Guest
Ahimsa posted:
He is a very spiritual and holy man. I do not see why his name is being raised to support unsustantiable arguements
His holiness the Dali lama is a man second only to his holiness the Pope.
He is a very spiritual and holy man. I do not see why his name is being raised to support unsustantiable arguements
- Status