Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Is there a patron Saint of car repair?

[Hakons]

I didn't "flamebait" you. I just said you needed to stop, and you went on saying how I'm not qualified to participate in this thread. I'm trying to get things right, instead of you trying to conceal it in every possible way. Also, you can take back the snark; thanks.

Uh you absolutely did. I made a comment that had nothing to do with you, and you turned around and flaimed me. I know I get angry and make poor comments but this isn't that situation. You've completely crossed the line here Kid.

Or we could turn the other cheek

[Hakons]

I can't understand how those white supremacists can call themselves Christian.

I suppose I shouldn't speak for them, but the more KKKish variety are probably operating on some version of the old Southern "Divinely Ordered Society." In which White folks are supposed to embody Christian ethics, and inspire/force lesser races to follow suit in a sort of paternal fashion.

The more Nazi-ish White supremacists (ignoring the pseudo-Pagan variety) are probably operating on old European ideas of blood libel and the view of Jews as Christ killers.

I know it's difficult to reconcile these with modern mainstream Christianity, but we should keep in mind that these two views of Christianity (especially the second one) are very popular historically. Most Christians in Europe would have held some version of them from about the High Middle Ages on. The Catholic Church only repudiated the charge of deicide in 1964.

So apparently it is possible.

I would disagree with this analysis. Nazism has a completely corrupted interpretation of Christianity. They completely disassociated from the old testament because it was "too Jewish." No other group of Christians did that.

[Salus Maior]

I suppose I shouldn't speak for them, but the more KKKish variety are probably operating on some version of the old Southern "Divinely Ordered Society." In which White folks are supposed to embody Christian ethics, and inspire/force lesser races to follow suit in a sort of paternal fashion.

The more Nazi-ish White supremacists (ignoring the pseudo-Pagan variety) are probably operating on old European ideas of blood libel and the view of Jews as Christ killers.

I know it's difficult to reconcile these with modern mainstream Christianity, but we should keep in mind that these two views of Christianity (especially the second one) are very popular historically. Most Christians in Europe would have held some version of them from about the High Middle Ages on. The Catholic Church only repudiated the charge of deicide in 1964.

So apparently it is possible.

I would disagree with this analysis. Nazism has a completely corrupted interpretation of Christianity. They completely disassociated from the old testament because it was "too Jewish." No other group of Christians did that.

I think there actually was one historically. But it was also deemed heretical and died out.

[The Alexanderians]

Depends on how you define "extremists".

Meh.

Meh?

[Reverend Norv]

I would disagree with this analysis. Nazism has a completely corrupted interpretation of Christianity. They completely disassociated from the old testament because it was "too Jewish." No other group of Christians did that.

I think there actually was one historically. But it was also deemed heretical and died out.

Marcionism. Tertullian wrote against it before becoming a Montanist.

[Free Maronites]

What do you guys think of Catharism, a Christian sect centered in Southern France. They denied that Jesus could be God in Human form, and son of God. They also had a bunch of other beliefs, such as disregarding marriage, etc.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What do you guys think of Catharism, a Christian sect centered in Southern France. They denied that Jesus could be God in Human form, and son of God. They also had a bunch of other beliefs, such as disregarding marriage, etc.

They're gnostic heretics.

[Hakons]

I think there actually was one historically. But it was also deemed heretical and died out.

Marcionism. Tertullian wrote against it before becoming a Montanist.

Matcionism was also dualistic, so it's hard to consider it Christian. Christianity is characterized by monotheism.

[The Alexanderians]

What do you guys think of Catharism, a Christian sect centered in Southern France. They denied that Jesus could be God in Human form, and son of God. They also had a bunch of other beliefs, such as disregarding marriage, etc.

They are interesting and have my sympathies on an intellectual level, but calling them "Christian" is stretching it. Much more of their system derives from Gnostic texts and practices than it does from Christian or proper Abrahamic sources.

[Hakons]

What do you guys think of Catharism, a Christian sect centered in Southern France. They denied that Jesus could be God in Human form, and son of God. They also had a bunch of other beliefs, such as disregarding marriage, etc.

Denying Jesus as God is denying Christ and Christianity

[Free Maronites]

I'm not denying that they're heretics.

I just find them interesting, and definitely consider the Albigensian Crusade too extreme.

[The Alexanderians]

I'm not denying that they're heretics.

I just find them interesting, and definitely consider the Albigensian Crusade too extreme.

That goes without saying on all accounts.
-They're heretics.
-They're interesting.
-The Crusade was extreme but at the same time such action was not unexpected given the political climate they created.

[Reverend Norv]

I'm not denying that they're heretics.

I just find them interesting, and definitely consider the Albigensian Crusade too extreme.

That goes without saying on all accounts.
-They're heretics.
-They're interesting.
-The Crusade was extreme but at the same time such action was not unexpected given the political climate they created.

Not unexpected, but utterly wrong. After the massacre at Béziers, the Crusade's papal legate wrote proudly to Innocent III: "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex." After the fall of Montségur, two hundred Cathar perfecti were burned at the stake en masse. For decades afterwards, anyone who had ever expressed sympathy with Cathar ideas was forced to wear a yellow cross sewn onto his clothing - a precedent that, in the wake of the twentieth century, should tell us everything we need to know about the moral balance here. The Cathars may not have been Christians in a doctrinal sense, but there can be no moral equivalency between those who strayed from the faith and those who first coined the phrase: "Kill them all, for God will know His own."

[The Alexanderians]

That goes without saying on all accounts.
-They're heretics.
-They're interesting.
-The Crusade was extreme but at the same time such action was not unexpected given the political climate they created.

Not unexpected, but utterly wrong. After the massacre at Béziers, the Crusade's papal legate wrote proudly to Innocent III: "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex." After the fall of Montségur, two hundred Cathar perfecti were burned at the stake en masse. For decades afterwards, anyone who had ever expressed sympathy with Cathar ideas was forced to wear a yellow cross sewn onto his clothing - a precedent that, in the wake of the twentieth century, should tell us everything we need to know about the moral balance here. The Cathars may not have been Christians in a doctrinal sense, but there can be no moral equivalency between those who strayed from the faith and those who first coined the phrase: "Kill them all, for God will know His own."

Well yes this si the Crusade after all that created the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort them out".

[Salus Maior]

That goes without saying on all accounts.
-They're heretics.
-They're interesting.
-The Crusade was extreme but at the same time such action was not unexpected given the political climate they created.

Not unexpected, but utterly wrong. After the massacre at Béziers, the Crusade's papal legate wrote proudly to Innocent III: "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex." After the fall of Montségur, two hundred Cathar perfecti were burned at the stake en masse. For decades afterwards, anyone who had ever expressed sympathy with Cathar ideas was forced to wear a yellow cross sewn onto his clothing - a precedent that, in the wake of the twentieth century, should tell us everything we need to know about the moral balance here. The Cathars may not have been Christians in a doctrinal sense, but there can be no moral equivalency between those who strayed from the faith and those who first coined the phrase: "Kill them all, for God will know His own."

To be fair, the Cathars weren't exactly innocent either. They killed the Papal Legate the Pope sent to negotiate with them.

And besides, sacking cities was something that was common in war in the Middle Ages. England murdered the entire city of Berwick (which at the time was a Scottish city) and burnt it to the ground.

[Free Maronites]

To be fair, the Cathars weren't exactly innocent either. They killed the Papal Legate the Pope sent to negotiate with them.

And besides, sacking cities was something that was common in war in the Middle Ages. England murdered the entire city of Berwick (which at the time was a Scottish city) and burnt it to the ground.

To be fair?!

I don't think the murder of one Papal legate and the slaughter of an entire heretical sect fall into the same moral scale. Just because it was common, doesn't make it excusable or any less cruel. Personally I think the Cathars should have been the target of a widespread conversion campaign. Failing that, just leaving them alone.

[Salus Maior]

To be fair, the Cathars weren't exactly innocent either. They killed the Papal Legate the Pope sent to negotiate with them.

And besides, sacking cities was something that was common in war in the Middle Ages. England murdered the entire city of Berwick (which at the time was a Scottish city) and burnt it to the ground.

To be fair?!

I don't think the murder of one Papal legate and the slaughter of an entire heretical sect fall into the same moral scale. Just because it was common, doesn't make it excusable or any less cruel. Personally I think the Cathars should have been the target of a widespread conversion campaign. Failing that, just leaving them alone.

What do you think the Legate was negotiating?

The Cathars proved that they didn't want diplomacy. They got what they asked for.

[Lady Scylla]

What do you guys think of Catharism, a Christian sect centered in Southern France. They denied that Jesus could be God in Human form, and son of God. They also had a bunch of other beliefs, such as disregarding marriage, etc.

Stupid they got massacred.

[Lady Scylla]

To be fair?!

I don't think the murder of one Papal legate and the slaughter of an entire heretical sect fall into the same moral scale. Just because it was common, doesn't make it excusable or any less cruel. Personally I think the Cathars should have been the target of a widespread conversion campaign. Failing that, just leaving them alone.

What do you think the Legate was negotiating?

The Cathars proved that they didn't want diplomacy. They got what they asked for.

One man, and killing and suppressing an entire group of people. So that's where the Austro-Hungarians got it from.

[Salus Maior]

What do you think the Legate was negotiating?

The Cathars proved that they didn't want diplomacy. They got what they asked for.

One man, and killing and suppressing an entire group of people. So that's where the Austro-Hungarians got it from.

One man that was going to be the Head of State in the Austro-Hungarian case. That'd be like Iran killing a Presidential candidate.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

[Lady Scylla]

One man, and killing and suppressing an entire group of people. So that's where the Austro-Hungarians got it from.

One man that was going to be the Head of State in the Austro-Hungarian case. That'd be like Iran killing a Presidential candidate.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

I just thought it was an amusing comparison. Almost as amusing as someone seemingly being okay with massacres. It's a mentality that, while disconcerting, is interesting nonetheless. At what level do we decide that, due to the death of a single person, we should suddenly ransack, burn, and rape the countryside? It just seems illogical, and irrational. If I remember correctly, it was also one of the most 'complete' crusades, in that either everyone was completely killed off, went into hiding, and all of their religious history was destroyed outside of a few things. That loss alone should e enough to call the Pope for the time a brainless git.

[Salus Maior]

What do you guys think of Catharism, a Christian sect centered in Southern France. They denied that Jesus could be God in Human form, and son of God. They also had a bunch of other beliefs, such as disregarding marriage, etc.

Stupid they got massacred.

Stupid that they pissed off the powers that be in their time.

[Salus Maior]

One man that was going to be the Head of State in the Austro-Hungarian case. That'd be like Iran killing a Presidential candidate.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

I just thought it was an amusing comparison. Almost as amusing as someone seemingly being okay with massacres. It's a mentality that, while disconcerting, is interesting nonetheless. At what level do we decide that, due to the death of a single person, we should suddenly ransack, burn, and rape the countryside? It just seems illogical, and irrational. If I remember correctly, it was also one of the most 'complete' crusades, in that either everyone was completely killed off, went into hiding, and all of their religious history was destroyed outside of a few things. That loss alone should e enough to call the Pope for the time a brainless git.

I'm not condoning the massacre and I don't condone massacres in general.

I'm saying what the Cathars did was an act of war. They rejected diplomacy so the powers that be went to war against them, and did so in a time where wars often ended in massacres and cities sacked and burned. So, what's there to really condemn? That Middle Ages warfare was brutal? That was just the state of things in that time, and long before then.

Would you also condemn Rome for what they did to Carthage? And religion wasn't even involved with that.

[Free Maronites]

What do you think the Legate was negotiating?

The Cathars proved that they didn't want diplomacy. They got what they asked for.

You do realize that if Castelnau was attempting to negotiate a peace, he was beyond incompetent?

After an intense argument, he excommunicated Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse for abetting heresy.