Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

I would actually. What happened to Carthage was barbaric. The 'state of things at the time' is really a bad argument that can be used to justify anything. Racial shootings happen now, are you saying people should just walk out today and go shoot a black person? That's just absurd. Do I think the Cathars should have killed the Legate? No, but were all of the Cathars somehow responsible? No. (For a rleigion that preaches humility, and being just -- the Church is really bad at it) Do I think the Church was a large bag of anal twits back then? Definitely. I would have preferred them leave the Cathars alone, but dear lord if you insult the Pope and get his panties in a wad.

[Luminesa]

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."

I have heard that last phrase was actually not spoken. Though I would have to find the site where I had found that. But yes. As much as I would disagree with the Cathars-and they were violent as well, so it's not like either side was necessarily innocent-flipping forcing anyone to wear any sort of stamp on their shirt that marks them in a certain group is awful. This is...utterly disturbing.

[Salus Maior]

I would actually. What happened to Carthage was barbaric. The 'state of things at the time' is really a bad argument that can be used to justify anything. Racial shootings happen now, are you saying people should just walk out today and go shoot a black person? That's just absurd. Do I think the Cathars should have killed the Legate? No, but were all of the Cathars somehow responsible? No. (For a rleigion that preaches humility, and being just -- the Church is really bad at it) Do I think the Church was a large bag of anal twits back then? Definitely. I would have preferred them leave the Cathars alone, but dear lord if you insult the Pope and get his panties in a wad.

Well, your condemnations aren't going to do anything.

The people involved with the Albigensian Crusade are all dead, the Romans are all dead, the circumstances around what they did, the culture that allowed them to do those things are things long under the bridge. Why get your panties in a twist over it?

Racial shootings and such are things that are happening now and we can do something about it. It would be relevant to be upset about it and have a position and do things about it.

[Free Maronites]

I would actually. What happened to Carthage was barbaric. The 'state of things at the time' is really a bad argument that can be used to justify anything. Racial shootings happen now, are you saying people should just walk out today and go shoot a black person? That's just absurd. Do I think the Cathars should have killed the Legate? No, but were all of the Cathars somehow responsible? No. (For a rleigion that preaches humility, and being just -- the Church is really bad at it) Do I think the Church was a large bag of anal twits back then? Definitely. I would have preferred them leave the Cathars alone, but dear lord if you insult the Pope and get his panties in a wad.

This is extremely unfair. Pope Innocent III attempted to peacefully convert the Cathars, sending several legates to the Cathar region. And what about Saint Dominic? He believed that only preachers with humility, zeal, sanctity, etc could successfully convert the Cathars, leading to the establishment of the Dominican Order.

'Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.'

[Yagon]

This is extremely unfair. Pope Innocent III attempted to peacefully convert the Cathars, sending several legates to the Cathar region. And what about Saint Dominic? He believed that only preachers with humility, zeal, sanctity, etc could successfully convert the Cathars, leading to the establishment of the Dominican Order.

'Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.'

No! Shooty Shooty! Stabby Stabby! Jihad! Crusade! Your people are different than mine! To arms! For God!

Give in to your hate! Let it flow!

[Luminesa]

I would actually. What happened to Carthage was barbaric. The 'state of things at the time' is really a bad argument that can be used to justify anything. Racial shootings happen now, are you saying people should just walk out today and go shoot a black person? That's just absurd. Do I think the Cathars should have killed the Legate? No, but were all of the Cathars somehow responsible? No. (For a rleigion that preaches humility, and being just -- the Church is really bad at it) Do I think the Church was a large bag of anal twits back then? Definitely. I would have preferred them leave the Cathars alone, but dear lord if you insult the Pope and get his panties in a wad.

Well, your condemnations aren't going to do anything.

The people involved with the Albigensian Crusade are all dead, the Romans are all dead, the circumstances around what they did, the culture that allowed them to do those things are things long under the bridge. Why get your panties in a twist over it?

Racial shootings and such are things that are happening now and we can do something about it. It would be relevant to be upset about it and have a position and do things about it.

Careful, Salus, don't take the black-pill. History exists so we may look back and seek to avoid the pattern that brought us to do what we did. No Christian should kill out of glee, out of the sake of desiring to kill. If anything, a Christian should only kill out of self-defense, or out of defense for a sacred place. If history is forgotten, we will be forgotten as well. Because we will become part of that history, and if we forget that history because we feel it is unimportant, why should we expect those who come after us to feel any differently?

[Luminesa]

I would actually. What happened to Carthage was barbaric. The 'state of things at the time' is really a bad argument that can be used to justify anything. Racial shootings happen now, are you saying people should just walk out today and go shoot a black person? That's just absurd. Do I think the Cathars should have killed the Legate? No, but were all of the Cathars somehow responsible? No. (For a rleigion that preaches humility, and being just -- the Church is really bad at it) Do I think the Church was a large bag of anal twits back then? Definitely. I would have preferred them leave the Cathars alone, but dear lord if you insult the Pope and get his panties in a wad.

This is extremely unfair. Pope Innocent III attempted to peacefully convert the Cathars, sending several legates to the Cathar region. And what about Saint Dominic? He believed that only preachers with humility, zeal, sanctity, etc could successfully convert the Cathars, leading to the establishment of the Dominican Order.

'Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.'

St. Dominic was also not violent. The Dominicans are a teaching order. Politics got involved, and that was how things like the Inquisition and whatnot happened.

[Luminesa]

This is extremely unfair. Pope Innocent III attempted to peacefully convert the Cathars, sending several legates to the Cathar region. And what about Saint Dominic? He believed that only preachers with humility, zeal, sanctity, etc could successfully convert the Cathars, leading to the establishment of the Dominican Order.

'Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.'

No! Shooty Shooty! Stabby Stabby! Jihad! Crusade! Your people are different than mine! To arms! For God!

Give in to your hate! Let it flow!

The Emperor Palpatine has an NS account, guys! (Let's make sure he and Darth Vader don't run into each other on the same page.)

[Free Maronites]

St. Dominic was also not violent. The Dominicans are a teaching order. Politics got involved, and that was how things like the Inquisition and whatnot happened.

That was my point...?

[Yagon]

No! Shooty Shooty! Stabby Stabby! Jihad! Crusade! Your people are different than mine! To arms! For God!

Give in to your hate! Let it flow!

The Emperor Palpatine has an NS account, guys! (Let's make sure he and Darth Vader don't run into each other on the same page.)

Whats worrying me about myself is I'm so poorly educated that when I first saw "Legate", I thought of the Legate in Fallout: New Vegas, and him standing in a Cathar town in his bizarre metallic armor telling people it was going to be the Pope's way or everybody was getting shot.

[Lady Scylla]

I would actually. What happened to Carthage was barbaric. The 'state of things at the time' is really a bad argument that can be used to justify anything. Racial shootings happen now, are you saying people should just walk out today and go shoot a black person? That's just absurd. Do I think the Cathars should have killed the Legate? No, but were all of the Cathars somehow responsible? No. (For a rleigion that preaches humility, and being just -- the Church is really bad at it) Do I think the Church was a large bag of anal twits back then? Definitely. I would have preferred them leave the Cathars alone, but dear lord if you insult the Pope and get his panties in a wad.

This is extremely unfair. Pope Innocent III attempted to peacefully convert the Cathars, sending several legates to the Cathar region. And what about Saint Dominic? He believed that only preachers with humility, zeal, sanctity, etc could successfully convert the Cathars, leading to the establishment of the Dominican Order.

'Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.'

Part of the issue is that I don't believe in Saints, and I don't believe in the notion of 'Sainthood' -- it's just farcical nonsense to me. In regards to the crusade: I see it as the Church showing lack of restraint, resolve, and letting their pride get in the way of their faith, and as a result, they drew blood. But they're dead, so yes, my condemnations now aren't going to help them, but my 'condemnations' weren't being aired for that reason. I find it curious that people still follow religion, especially the Church despite these things; I wonder if it's because of naivety, blindness, apathy, or maybe some think they could make the Church better. Why would a person support a Pope, or organisation, despite these actions in the past or more recent? That's what I'm after.

[Salus Maior]

Well, your condemnations aren't going to do anything.

The people involved with the Albigensian Crusade are all dead, the Romans are all dead, the circumstances around what they did, the culture that allowed them to do those things are things long under the bridge. Why get your panties in a twist over it?

Racial shootings and such are things that are happening now and we can do something about it. It would be relevant to be upset about it and have a position and do things about it.

Careful, Salus, don't take the black-pill. History exists so we may look back and seek to avoid the pattern that brought us to do what we did. No Christian should kill out of glee, out of the sake of desiring to kill. If anything, a Christian should only kill out of self-defense, or out of defense for a sacred place. If history is forgotten, we will be forgotten as well. Because we will become part of that history, and if we forget that history because we feel it is unimportant, why should we expect those who come after us to feel any differently?

I'm quite aware.

But at the same time I'm not going to read a history book and say "They should've done this instead!" every time they did something that they believed was acceptable at the time. Of course, I'm not going to say that they were right to do clearly wrong things.

[Salus Maior]

*Snip for DOUBLEPOST*

[Salus Maior]

*snip for TRIPLE POST*

[Free Maronites]

Part of the issue is that I don't believe in Saints, and I don't believe in the notion of 'Sainthood' -- it's just farcical nonsense to me. In regards to the crusade: I see it as the Church showing lack of restraint, resolve, and letting their pride get in the way of their faith, and as a result, they drew blood. But they're dead, so yes, my complaints now aren't going to help them, but my 'complaints' weren't being aired for that reason. I find it curious that people still follow religion, especially the Church despite these things; I wonder if it's because of naivety, blindness, apathy, or maybe some think they could make the Church better. Why would a person support a Pope, or organisation, despite these actions in the past or more recent? That's what I'm after.

Saints are just people that are believed to be in Heaven by the Grace of God, and are recognized by the Pope.

Also, a possible, minor reason is that we've had several Popes after Pope Innocent III. The Church has changed, for the better in my mind. Following your logic, there is absolutely no reason to support the United States, which partook in the genocide of Native Americans in the past.

[Lady Scylla]

Part of the issue is that I don't believe in Saints, and I don't believe in the notion of 'Sainthood' -- it's just farcical nonsense to me. In regards to the crusade: I see it as the Church showing lack of restraint, resolve, and letting their pride get in the way of their faith, and as a result, they drew blood. But they're dead, so yes, my complaints now aren't going to help them, but my 'complaints' weren't being aired for that reason. I find it curious that people still follow religion, especially the Church despite these things; I wonder if it's because of naivety, blindness, apathy, or maybe some think they could make the Church better. Why would a person support a Pope, or organisation, despite these actions in the past or more recent? That's what I'm after.

Saints are just people that are believed to be in Heaven by the Grace of God, and are recognized by the Pope.

Also, a possible, minor reason is that we've had several Popes after Pope Innocent III. The Church has changed, for the better in my mind. Following your logic, there is absolutely no reason to support the United States, which partook in the genocide of Native Americans in the past.

I don't support the US, or any country for that matter.

[Yagon]

Saints are just people that are believed to be in Heaven by the Grace of God, and are recognized by the Pope.

Also, a possible, minor reason is that we've had several Popes after Pope Innocent III. The Church has changed, for the better in my mind. Following your logic, there is absolutely no reason to support the United States, which partook in the genocide of Native Americans in the past.

I don't support the US, or any country for that matter.

Great, so basically we murdered all those cultures for nothing.

[Free Maronites]

I don't support the US, or any country for that matter.

I'm not too surprised, but the logic remains the same. Organizations change over time, sometimes dramatically.

The Church has learned from their mistakes. You don't see the Pope calling for crusade against Muslims now do you?

[Salus Maior]

Part of the issue is that I don't believe in Saints, and I don't believe in the notion of 'Sainthood' -- it's just farcical nonsense to me. In regards to the crusade: I see it as the Church showing lack of restraint, resolve, and letting their pride get in the way of their faith, and as a result, they drew blood. But they're dead, so yes, my condemnations now aren't going to help them, but my 'condemnations' weren't being aired for that reason. I find it curious that people still follow religion, especially the Church despite these things; I wonder if it's because of naivety, blindness, apathy, or maybe some think they could make the Church better. Why would a person support a Pope, or organisation, despite these actions in the past or more recent? That's what I'm after.

That's a criminally simplified view of the Crusades, completely disregarding the political, historical, and social situation at the time.

Also, people doing wrong things in the Church doesn't discount Church teaching. I mean, they're human. If you had to stop following a movement because someone in that movement did something wrong, nobody would follow anything.

[Free Maronites]

The Crusades certainly helped the Maronites, for which I'm thankful.

[Salus Maior]

Saints are just people that are believed to be in Heaven by the Grace of God, and are recognized by the Pope.

Also, a possible, minor reason is that we've had several Popes after Pope Innocent III. The Church has changed, for the better in my mind. Following your logic, there is absolutely no reason to support the United States, which partook in the genocide of Native Americans in the past.

I don't support the US, or any country for that matter.

Well, way to not believe in anything substantial. Some of us actually want to.

[Yagon]

Part of the issue is that I don't believe in Saints, and I don't believe in the notion of 'Sainthood' -- it's just farcical nonsense to me. In regards to the crusade: I see it as the Church showing lack of restraint, resolve, and letting their pride get in the way of their faith, and as a result, they drew blood. But they're dead, so yes, my condemnations now aren't going to help them, but my 'condemnations' weren't being aired for that reason. I find it curious that people still follow religion, especially the Church despite these things; I wonder if it's because of naivety, blindness, apathy, or maybe some think they could make the Church better. Why would a person support a Pope, or organisation, despite these actions in the past or more recent? That's what I'm after.

That's a criminally simplified view of the Crusades, completely disregarding the political, historical, and social situation at the time.

Also, people doing wrong things in the Church doesn't discount Church teaching. I mean, they're human. If you had to stop following a movement because someone in that movement did something wrong, nobody would follow anything.

I think the difference is, if you claim to speak for God and want your policies applied with the same obedience as if they came from God, you have to live up to the standard.

You must live up to as much power as you claim over other people's lives.

If you say "God said this!" you better get it right.

[Salus Maior]

I think the difference is, if you claim to speak for God and want your policies applied with the same obedience as if they came from God, you have to live up to the standard.

You must live up to as much power as you claim over other people's lives.

If you say "God said this!" you better get it right.

The Pope doesn't exactly speak for God. The Pope is a man and as such he's going to be fallible for the most part.

You have to set realistic expectations, but obviously yes, that would be the desired standard.

[Yagon]

I think the difference is, if you claim to speak for God and want your policies applied with the same obedience as if they came from God, you have to live up to the standard.

You must live up to as much power as you claim over other people's lives.

If you say "God said this!" you better get it right.

The Pope doesn't exactly speak for God. The Pope is a man and as such he's going to be fallible for the most part.

You have to set realistic expectations, but obviously yes, that would be the desired standard.

If you expect your policies to be obeyed as if they are the will of God, you are presuming to speak for God. You can write it up however you like, but "God says you must live like this, do this, not that!" means that you are saying what God thinks and wants apparently on his behalf, and demanding everyone take your word for it. That is speaking for God.

If your results are murder and shit and death and child rape and basically a society just a rife with any of the issues that strike those of other religions, it turns out you don't speak for God.

[Salus Maior]

If you expect your policies to be obeyed as if they are the will of God, you are presuming to speak for God. You can write it up however you like, but "God says you must live like this, do this, not that!" means that you are saying what God thinks and wants apparently on his behalf, and demanding everyone take your word for it. That is speaking for God.

If your results are murder and shit and death and child rape and basically a society just a rife with any of the issues that strike those of other religions, it turns out you don't speak for God.

I get the feeling you don't really know how the Church works, or the Papacy.