How do Catholics even justify their being on a board dedicated to historical matters yet continue to fervently defend...

How do Catholics even justify their being on a board dedicated to historical matters yet continue to fervently defend the Catholic Church?

Putting their atrocities and abuses aside, let us look at it from the perspective of academia. In their persecution of various "heretics" (Cathars, Bogomils) in the Medieval period, the Church establishment destroyed all their documents and scriptures, and such was the extent that to this day, we cannot - with authority - claim to know exactly what the Cathars or Bogomils even believed in, which in turns makes it harder to study other lost belief-systems that seemingly contributed to the Cathar/Bogomilistic ideas (Paulicianism, Manicheanism, Valentianism, other Gnostic or dualist sects of which we also know little - if anything - due to their eradication by the mainstream Christian churches).

You're on a history board defending an institution which has a history of destroying and completely eradicating historical records and making the study of it muddier and harder.

>implying I'm a Protestant or Orthodox

Other urls found in this thread:

cathar.info/cathar_beliefs.htm
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>You're on a history board defending an institution which has a history of destroying and completely eradicating historical records and making the study of it muddier and harder.

If it was possible for me to destroy the stupidity of the WE WUZ KANGZ movement, I would do it in seconds. Some knowledge is so fantastically retarded, that it doesn't deserve being preserved.

All historical knowledge is valuable.

Even the WE WUZ movement is valuable in its own certain way, for it would show historians of the future the sociological conditions and trends among black Americans in the 21st century.

Just because it's factually incorrect does not mean it's not valuable in historical terms.

They're godless pagans trying to deceive other people into joining their godless church.

Plus they get to vent their frustration and murderous rage against actual Christians.

You don't belong on a history board, then, if you're defending the destruction of historical material.

>They're godless pagans trying to deceive other people into joining their godless church.

Funny, because the Church destroyed a number of "heretical" sects less because of theological reasons and more for temporal and quite worldly reasons. The reason the Church went apeshit over the Cathars was mostly because of the refusal of the Cathars to pay the Church tithe; the reason the Church asked for the Bosnian Crusade against the Bogomils was due to the Pope being close buddies with the Hungarians, who incidentally, wanted control of Bosnia, and what better way to sanction an invasion and annexation than declaring the whole country heretical, despite the actual Bogomils being quite low-key and distinct from the (orthodox) Bosnian Church?

>How do Catholics even justify their being on a board dedicated to historical matters yet continue to fervently defend the Catholic Church?

Doublethink

As someone studying the philosophy I've pretty much come to terms with the fact that Catholism is the worst thing to happen in history. Whenever I read about a great piece of work which is lost, unless it's some pre-socratic thing than it's pretty much always a result of Catholics burning books. You also read stories of books that narrowly escaped being destroyed from 'heretics' that protected the books, many of them who literally lost their loves protecting such tomes.

The thing is that it's not just religious texts the Catholics burned. It was anything they saw as a rival way of thinking: culture, philosophy, even fiction and biographies. While some of these works did surivve through sheer luck others had to protected by "heretics" like Bruno who ultimately lost their life to protect knowledge. The goal was a dilbereate destruction of all culture that did not kiss the Pope's ass, basically ISIS. Avveroes philosophy was burned alongside his medical books because he proposed a way of thinking that diminsioned the authority of clergymen. I'll repeat that again, Catholics burned books because that told people to question priests.

And ultimatly this thread shows the religious followers do not see this as a bad thing. Catholics didn't do nuffin.

Didn't the Cathars actually have a debate with the Catholics over the autenticity of their religion and won.

I heard how priests would go into Cathar territory to try to convert people and get stumped in theology by peasents.

So ultimatly the church didn't care about "true" or "correct" theology. They were pissed that some people were not paying them money.

>They were pissed that some people were not paying them money.

And Catholics make fun of the Russian Orthodox Church for being a mafia.

As a former Catholic your not giving them a fair shake. True, they destroyed some things. They also preserved things, and in their own backwards way pushed forward with the arts and sciences.

Nor would modern church authorities support the persecutions and book burning of yesteryear

And they also did a great deal of preservation and invention, with many of the greatest thinkers of the past 2000 years being Catholic.

I feel it balances out to the positive - they're decent folk.

Protestants were far worse.

t. a non religious person from a protestant country

Christcucks here will always say the Catholic Church establishment "saved' many books and preserved knowledge after the disintegration of the Empire, but in all truth, the Church only bothered to preserve those pieces that could be construed in a pro-Christian light or that could immediately offer some advantage to the Church establishment or its allies: otherwise, it outright destroyed large number of tomes, or allowed them to rot without transcribing them. This entire story of the Roman Church "preserving" knowledge is very much a myth.

Yes, I do agree very much that the Catholic Church was one of the worst things to happen in human history. It's a real shame it's even allowed to exist and given special status in the present.
>Didn't the Cathars actually have a debate with the Catholics over the autenticity of their religion and won.

There were many debates, and the Catholic representatives always found themselves struggling to defend their stance. And yes, you are right: ultimately, the Church didn't care so much about theology, but about those tithes the Cathars were not paying.

>Whenever I read about a great piece of work which is lost, unless it's some pre-socratic thing than it's pretty much always a result of Catholics burning books

Your worldview is tiny and infantile. The practice of burning books and ideas which are deemed unorthodox has been practiced the world over by all cultures, peoples, and power structures. Rome destroyed entire civilizations and cultures. The Chinese burnt books by the dozen when they entered a reactionary period. To claim that it was "only the Catholic Church" that ever destroyed great works is to live in ignorance.
>"heretics" like Bruno
Bruno was literally a heretic.
>Avveroes philosophy was burned alongside his medical books
Those were Muslims doing the burning, and even if some of the Church was burning his works, they were at the same time they were being integrated into philosophies of Aquinas and Siger of Brabant.

>Nor would modern church authorities support the persecutions and book burning of yesteryear

Of course not because they have been neutered and stripped of their power. In order to civilize the church it first had to be conquered and subjected to foreign law. The best thing to ever happen to the Catholic church was Napoleon.

>They also preserved things
They preserved things that they personally thought were useful for their reign. Aristotle gets high marks because they thought he was a proto-Christian while so much else is heresy. This is like saying ISIS preserves things because they do not burn ALL books

>sciences
All you need to know about the church and science is that the guy who invented the scientific method was a Protestant who had his books banned by the church, the church fought tooth and nail to slow down the secularization (and thus advancement) of science.

See: ()

The Church was never a particularly good protector of knowledge, and its perceived status as one is undeserved.

To Rome, Christians are heretics.

Wait until you start finding out that they're also the most bloody and murderous group of people in the history of mankind.

They make the Holocaust pale in comparison to what they've done.

Including the Holocaust.

Not that guy and I too hate the catholic church (along with the rest of it *tips unironically* ) ... but he does have a point with which I may be able to agree, in a modified version. I understand your "all historical knowledge is valuable" item as well, but I would make my own distinctions about all this.

I would rephrase my version of the catholic user's concept, not in terms of committing idiotic books and ideas to the flames (after all, as you've pointed out, we want to hang onto historical curiosities), but rather, by observing that /certain human cultural practices ///do not deserve/// to be able to reproduce themselves/. Obviously attacking the offending idea itself is an effective counter-measure.

Almost no one takes seriously a Thoth, or a Zeus, or an Ahura-Mazda anymore (there are only a few million Zoroastrians, for example), but there will always be wingnut outliers. The point is that the above have been reduced to cute memes, but regrettably in favor of other cute memes, which are presently taken seriously. The trick would be to have none of the "cute memes" be taken seriously, precisely by reducing them /all/ to the status of "cute memes", to be replaced with /nothing/. Then we should not need to fear that religious ideas lead to any violence of significance or consequence, since they have all been made ridiculous for almost all humans. Sadly, the overwhelming and mistaken human impulse towards worship renders this task difficult.

Insofar as a religious ideology interferes with my conventional modern liberal notions of what a good world ought to be like, and particularly as it entails human suffering, then /that/ idea is to be attacked, and made ridiculous. Religionists will be pleased that I admit that this necessity extends to godless ideologies as well.

Rome didn't destroy "entire civilizations and cultures". The Romans assimilated them. Just look at how gods and deities from different religions became incorporated into Roman religion. Isis, Serapis, Isthar.

The Romans only resorted to the "destruction" of a culture when these revolted against Roman rule. For example, the Romans only destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews after THREE major rebellions. The Romans had even allowed the Jews to maintain their Sanhedrin with some of its ancient prerogatives. The Romans only moved against the Druids after these defied Roman edicts prohibiting human sacrifice (the Romans were willing to tolerate Druidism, simply asking for the aspect of human sacrifice to be discontinued).

>Le Church is evil and greedy and doesn't care about theology meme
You seem to be under the retarded impression that the opponent refuses to come over to your side of the argument, you have "lost" the debate. The theological tenants which the Cathar's preached were in complete opposition to 1000 years of ancient Church tradition and documentation, which as matter of fact is a perfectly valid tool to determine theological dogma in the Catholic Church. Just because they had developed a system of theology which could be self contained does not mean it was right. Historical Precedent had already proved them wrong. And to be WRONG in the eyes of the Church and willingly CONTINUE to be wrong and furthermore SPREAD your wrongness, was and is to risk the eternal DAMNATION of hundreds of thousands souls and uncountable generations, and not only that your very OWN SELF for failing to head off the destruction of others when it was in your own power.

>The practice of burning books and ideas which are deemed unorthodox has been practiced the world over by all cultures
Yes and your religion just happens to have burned 90% of the books I find relevant. The other 10% are so positively ancient that it would be expected they did not survive.

>Bruno was literally a heretic
Do you honestly think this means ANYTHING at all? I'm trying to learn about ancient thinking here.

> they were at the same time they were being integrated into philosophies of Aquinas and Siger of Brabant.

Aquinas is the fucking reason Avveroes got his books burned you colossal faggot! Aquinas basically devoted half his career to trying to undo Avveroes and only preserved the pieces that confirmed his own bias. The guy who actually preserved his work was Bruno and he was killed for it, but ultimatly the thinking he preserved (yes the Heretical thinking) would help spark the Renaissance and pave the way for the modern world.

Catholics have such a warped history because they refuse to acknowledge any faults on their religion. You take nobody like Aquinas who worked to destroy culture and put him on a pedestal and ignore all the big thinkers that are not part of your religion. You'll never see a Catholic praising Bruno or Spinoza.

cont.

Along these lines, let me suggest some more-or-less conventionally abhorrent cultural practices that do not deserve to be able to reproduce themselves: genital mutilation, organized crime, honor killings, etc. The practices themselves deserve to be disrupted and destroyed as human customs; likewise conventional religious observance, /but if we can then make them ridiculous and preserve historical samples as you've suggested, as "Never Forget" object-lessons, then they can be tolerated.

Certain ideas are intolerable to TPTB at certain periods of history. In this respect, I find myself preferring the Catholic's honest apologia of "I want my idea to win.", and this sometimes entails destroying the competition, which in turn makes historiography difficult. I feel exactly the same way, although I am aware that these brute tactics are also employed by leftists these days, and being in their philosophical company along with this one Catholic still kind of sucks.

In the course of writing this, it has seemed to me that we cannot impartially observe nature like watching a wildlife doco on TV, not interfering when the one animal kills the other. We too are in nature of course, and our ideas are bound to conflict with each other. The ideas regularly involve one group of humans killing another for whatever reason, and then we're well and truly back in it, and nature takes its course. Of course, nature also plays out among our ideas.

If an idea is interminable to TPTB, then it and its adherents must be destroyed and made ridiculous to whatever degree TPTB are prepared to wage their campaign - watch out lest you've got a sociopath in charge, which happens regularly. Still, there are certain physical limits to what human beings can actually do to each other, which is cold comfort to the maimed and dead. An idea can only be allowed to resurface once it has been rendered moot by a newly dominant society, made a "cute myth", made ridiculous. Like Zeus.

However, pursuing their fundamental beliefs to their logical conclusion revealed surprising implications (for example that Roman Catholics were mistakenly following a Satanic god rather than the beneficent god worshipped by the Cathars.)

Cathars: 1
Rome: 0

>if their beleifs do not match mine it is ok that we destroyed their culture and burned all the books.

You guys really are ISIS.

I've started to understand why the Protestants think the Catholic church works for Satan.

>The theological tenants which the Cathar's preached were in complete opposition to 1000 years of ancient Church tradition and documentation

The theological tenets of Catharism were completely in-line with the similarly ancient Gnostic/dualistic groups that had existed since the dawn of Christianity and which were also brutally put down.

I'm going to disregard the rest of your rant, since I know you're trying to argue the delusion that "it was right because the Church is truly God's own arm on Earth!".

Well, God doesn't exist, kiddo. The Cathars were certainly better men than any in your Church, whose reputation for corruption and scandal is very well-known. Just read any piece of Medieval literature, and you can see the people's opinions for yourself.

I have to read about this. Is there a source on this?

Frankly I'm not too surprised. When you read Gnostic theology it actually does a pretty good job of establing why the Old Testament God is an inferior deity.

>The Catholic Church didn't destroy "entire tomes of books and ideologies," they assimilated them. Just look at how the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle came to be incorporated into the Christian Religion. The Divine Logos, Aquinas, Augustine.

>The Catholic Chruch only resorted to "destruction" when a faith refused to convert. For example, the Albegensian Crusade was only declared and the destruction of their relgion after A CENTURY OF ATTEMPTED CONVERSIONS AND THE MURDER OF A PAPAL LEGATE.

Are Catholics the original dindus?

I sincerely wish to remind you that this Papal Legate you refer to got so mad that he was being BTFOd in theology by peasants that he began to talk about how the Church would bring down a Crusade and kill and torture them, just like other clergy sent to debate the Cathars had done so.

The Cathars acted in self-defense. Completely justifiable.

Why are you even defending the Church? After all, it was a Church official who ordered even the Catholics should die, with his famous quote: "Kill them all, God will know his own" in reply to being asked by knights as to how they would differentiate Cathar from Catholic.

>Welcome to Veeky Forums - History & Humanities: This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, RELIGION, law, classical artwork, archeology....

BTFO
T
F
O

cathar.info/cathar_beliefs.htm

For showing the world how evil the Vatican was, the Vatican slaughtered all of them.

>it's hard to study heretical teachings
That was the whole point, OP. Deus vult.

>killed women and children

>The crusaders allowed the routiers to rampage and kill without restraint, but quickly stepped in when it came to the loot

Holy shit! This isn't a video game or comic book, this actually happened! Child-killing 'crusaders' attacking peaceful people, looting everything in sight and thinking that they are working for God.

God doesn't exist, idiot.

>it's hard to study infidel teachings
That was the whole point, OP. Allah Akbar!

>Are Catholics the original dindus?
I'm saying you're holding a double standard. The Catholic Church isn't the super special snowflake Source of all Evil people get so booty blasted about. As a large institution composed of men it did just about the exact same thing other large institutions of men did that time period and before, and singling it out as source of all evil just because you have a hate boner for religion is retarded.

>posts on a history board
>writes nonsense like this
It's like talking about Star Wars on Veeky Forums.

>implying

Learn some real history.

>The Catholic Church isn't the super special snowflake Source of all Evil people get so booty blasted about.

That's where you're wrong.

>The theological tenets of Catharism were completely in-line with the similarly ancient Gnostic/dualistic groups that had existed since the dawn of Christianity and which were also brutally put down.

It was more than just their Conceptions on the nature of God which were in error.

> I know you're trying to argue the delusion that "it was right because the Church is truly God's own arm on Earth!"
Not my point. I was arguing that the whole "THEY DID IT FOR THE MONEY" meme is fantastically stupid. We can argue all day on whether it was "just" or not, but them doing it for the money is just stupid.

Catholic clergy wasn't behind that event.

Also, heretics are a genuine threat to mankind. Just look at the damage done by Luther.

>You guys really are ISIS.
And so is every other ideology on Earth. Except yours of course.*

Luther would call Catholics heretics and Cathars thought Catholicism were accidentally worshipping Satan.

What you have is fucking Muslim logic
>there will be peace if everyone converts to the one true religion, which is mine not yours!

...

Muslims don't have the Truth, we do.

A Massacre!! How Horrible!!! Those have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE OR AFTER BY ANYONE ELSE EVER.

>We can argue all day on whether it was "just" or not, but them doing it for the money is just stupid.

Well isn't this cute, a naive idiot who still believes his precious Church is above the want for money

>"it isn't the Church's fault if a bunch of self-proclaimed devout Catholics organized the massacre of thousands of people of another religion, so long as the clergy didn't have a hand in it."
>implying the Vatican didn't jump for joy at the news

Do not forget how close Church and state were intertwined at that period of time. It is probable at least some of the ministers and advisors to Catherine de' Medici were clergymen, and she certainly didn't act alone.

They were a bias preserver of knowledge, but so were most.

I'm not saying that they were pure as the driven snow, but the church did have a tradition of intellectualism that is at least lost on most American protestants, and that I, having left them can still respect

>What you have is fucking Muslim logic
*human logic

>Well isn't this cute, a naive idiot who still believes his precious Church is above the want for money

>Everybody in the Church is a corrupt asshole just because some corrupt assholes got into power

...

>implying there isn't more where that came from

The Albigensian Crusade
The Bosnian Crusade
The Inquisition
The Persecution of the Waldensians
The Hussite Wars/Czech Crusade
The German Peasants' War
The French Wars of Religion
The Thirty Years War
Collaboration with Spain's Fascist regime and involvement in the Spanish Civil War
Collaboration with Croatia's Ustase regime
Sex Abuse Scandal

Probably a ton more, but even I forget, though I think these are enough. Naturally, many other entities have committed massacres and perpetrated abuses. But your Church is one of the only ones that has continually been doing so for almost 1700 years.

The Pasants war was also in part caused by Protcocks

I don't like Cockolics but I HATE Protcoksturd more

>self-proclaimed devout Catholics organized the massacre of thousands of people of another religion
North Korea calls itself democratic. Are you now going to blame democracy for all the shitty things going on in North Korea?

>implying the Vatican didn't jump for joy at the news
Speculation.

Stepinac was the highest ranking Catholic clergyman in Croatia and he opposed the actions of Ustashe. The rest of the list can be dismissed under similar arguments.

>Catholics and Cathars differed over what is the correct way to say the Lord's Prayer. Catholics claim they got their prayer from an 'infallible' source. Cathars claim an oral tradition dating back to the origenal church with a different prayer
>The Cathar prayer is actually the correct one accordign to the oldest documents and the 'infalliable' document of the Catholics are a fake.


Cathars claimed that the words they used were in the original versions of the text of Matthew 6:13. Here is an extract from a Cathar ritual explaining the Lord's Prayer, line by line:

'For thine is the kingdom'. This phrase is said to be in the Greek and Hebrew texts...

The Catholic Church denied that these words should be included as they were not to be found in the Vulgate - a fifth century translation into Latin by St Jerome, which the Roman Catholic Church regarded as infallible. In fact the phrase is to be found in early Greek texts and in Slavonic texts - confirming that the Cathars really did have links to the early Church

>Cathars literally defeated the church's claim to infallibility.

Perhaps there are some good, progressive Catholics: however, the Church is not a democracy, and those progressives have no voice or vote in its governance.

However wholesome some Catholic claims to be, the Church as an institution has displayed nothing but a history of corruption, and even to this day.

>Naturally, many other entities have committed massacres and perpetrated abuses. But your Church is one of the only ones that has continually been doing so for almost 1700 years.

So literally the only that makes the Catholic Church super special evil in your mind is that has lasted longer than the others? Boy wait till you learn about China.

>I heard how priests would go into Cathar territory to try to convert people and get stumped in theology by peasents.

Most Cathars were semi-wealthy( relatively) urban people, not peasants. The church spent many years debating them - in fact one of the reasons why the initially embraced Aristotle was to find neutral ground to debate the Cathars on since citing scripture that the Cathars didn't buy into in the first place was useless in trying to convert them. This is in part where the Dominicans came from , and basically the ground from which Aquinas' intellectual enterprise would spring forth from. It was'nt an issue of "peasants" being better theologians than them, it was an issue of two different theologies with not allot of overlap by which one could sway the other side. The Church reacted to this in two ways, the more politically say administration realized that debates don't really get you anywhere in real concrete affairs and started eliminating them, where the academic class began focusing on enhancing their command of reason and showing a non-self contained defense of the faith through reason, eventually culminating in the most innovative half century of intellectual development in the early 14th century.

> They only preserved works that could be shown in a pro Christian light

Yeah like all those Muslim Philosophical works they translated and taught to their students in the 13th century.

I would love to see some evidence of Cathars "winning" those debates. Everything I've read on the period shows them getting btfo intellectually as hard as they did physically.

>Stepinac was the highest ranking Catholic clergyman in Croatia and he opposed the actions of Ustashe.
>he opposed the actions of Ustashe.

Actually, he only claimed to have opposed the Ustase when his trial came around. He was your typical reactionary idiot who hated Communists, Protestants, Orthodox christians muslims, progressives, atheists, and secularism.

Stepinac hosted a dinner party for Pavelić and the leading Ustaše members the day he was informed by Pavelić that Orthodoxy would not be tolerated in the new state.

He even recorded in his own diary, upon meeting with Pavelić on another occasion:

"Our people has come face to face with its age-old and ardently desired dream. The times are such that it is no longer the tongue which speaks but the blood with its mysterious links with the country, in which we have seen the light of God, and with its people from whom we spring. Do we need to say that the blood flows more quickly in our veins, that the hearts in our breasts beat faster?... It is easy to see God's hand at work here"

The Cathars were heretics, what else do we need to know about them? :^)

>I would love to see some evidence of Cathars "winning" those debates

Me too! Too bad the Catholic Church had all the records burned.

God forbid Aquinas debate another philosopher's work on philosophical grounds. There was a rejection of Averroes around the condemnation of 1277. Aquinas' works were also attacked during that time though.

> The guy who actually preserved his work was Bruno and he was killed for it, but ultimatly the thinking he preserved (yes the Heretical thinking) would help spark the Renaissance and pave the way for the modern world.

Actually the Renaissance was a period of intellectual regression. Early Modern thought comes from the rediscovery of 13-14th century Scholastic Philosophy and Science ( Oresme, Scotus, Ockham, Buridan, Grosseteste, etc) and reworking bits and pieces and moving forward with those ideas. Renaissance humanism, and the blind worship of Averroist Aristoteleanism, Platonic mysticism, and classical rhetoric for its aesthetic values, was a short regression before the intellectual advancement continued on where it left off from the medieval period.

Most likely if there were records of them winning it they would have preserved those. So the fact that no such records exist hint that there was nothing to preserve.

wow, it's almost as if historical peoples did not have the same attitude and ideas about history as we do. It's really hard to take you seriously as somebody that cares about history if you're going to take the SJW route and apply modern moral standards to dead people.

Not that this argument has any fair grounding anyway because of the massive amount of otherwise lost knowledge we would not have without the church.

The Reinnsance is when art stopped sucking and when importaint inventions were being made. It was basically the rebirth of humanity and paved the way for the enlightenment which paved the way for the modern world.

All the cool religious followed those ideologies you diss

No, he opposed Ustashe as soon as they started killing people. He also saved many Serbs and Jews.

>Orthodoxy would not be tolerated in the new state.
Ustashe formed the Croatian Orthodox Church. So much about supposedly not tolerating the Orthodox faith. They also supported Islam.

Stop reading propaganda and start reading history, Jovane.

>It was basically the rebirth of humanity
It was the rebirth of western european civilization at best.

The whole point of History is to learn from the mistakes of the past, so that you can avoid repeating them. If you avoid placing a moral framework on things, then all you have is an autistic pastime with dates.

Spotted the bosnian muslim

The whole point of History is to learn from the mistakes of the past, so that you can avoid repeating them. If you avoid placing a moral framework on things, then all you have is an autistic pastime with dates.

Christcucks are the worst.

Catholic Church destroys historical records/treatsies deemed 'heretical':
>"Good! It was necessary because it was against God's work!"

ISIS blows up ruins of Palmyra because the statues there are deemed 'idolatrous':
>"Barbarian heathens! This is why we need another crusade! Deus Vult!"

Trying to splinter the Church is very serious. The Church isn't just a political organization, it's trans political, applying to many countries. Thus trying to fracture it is even worse than plotting a civil war--especially if you believe in the spiritual.

>Trying to splinter the Church is very serious

Yeah, because then, the Church doesn't get the tithe money it would have gotten otherwise.

In the West, the Church was an extremely, EXTREMELY political institution. It's not like religion in the West is today. We actually had a ton of similar heresies in the East, especially in Russia in the 1700's and 1800's, but they mostly vanished over time. The only heresy that was overwhelmingly persecuted was the Old Believers, and the Patriarch responsible for (encouraging, since the Church itself had not power to persecuted, only the secular government) that was defrocked and basically imprisoned for life. It was different for Orthodox because the Church in the East did not have political power. But in the West, the Church, again, was extremely political, it aimed to be the linchpin of the political power of all nations. Dante strongly objected to this, and that is why he was persecuted--his argument is called De Monarchia, you can read it, it's pretty good.

*had no power to persecuted, only the secular government did

>Trying to splinter the Church is very serious

Neither the Bogomils of Bosnia or the Cathars of Languedoc/Catalonia were actively trying to splinter the Catholic Church, and in fact, they were noted for their simplicity and lack of interest in mundane affairs. There are no reports of Cathar or Bogomilist violence against Catholics, not even in the list of accusations against them from the Church.

They weren't "trying to splinter" anything. Both were grassroots movements embraced by the urban dwellers and peasants which enjoyed popular support, and due to the nature of their beliefs, they didn't seek out power. Hell, neither of them even had an organized hierarchy.

The Church's decision to exterminate both of them was due to many reasons: in the case of the Cathars, because these had stopped paying church tithes; in the case of the Bogomils, because the Pope needed an excuse to allow Hungary to invade Bosnia. In both cases, the Church vented out its anger against two sects that were obviously better and truer versions of Christianity than the bloated, stifling, and very corrupt Church.

>Neither the Bogomils of Bosnia or the Cathars of Languedoc/Catalonia were actively trying to splinter the Catholic Church
They were preaching an "alternative Christianity", which is exactly what splintering the Church is. If they were just of some new religion not making a claim to be Christian, that would be something else, but they were claiming to be the "true Christianity".

>talking about actual history and not just memeing it up and pushing your agenda on Veeky Forums

disgusting

>because these had stopped paying church tithes
Tithes, back then, were part of your taxes, you didn't put money into a plate. Unless you were very well off, this wasn't even in the form of money, it was a cut of your crops. And unless you were a land-owning peasant, you didn't even have those to begin with, your lord did, and you got what you needed to subsist.

Reminder that butthurt fedoras all deserve to be flayed alive in public

Reminder that delusional Christcucks all deserve to have their church treasures melted and the resultant molten liquid poured down their throats.

Reminder that Christ is risen from the dead.

Oh goodness gracious you're just like ISIS you brute. Destroying history like that :^)

kek

Fortunately - by this point - everything about the Christcuck delusion is recorded and accounted for in the historical record, so I doubt if we melted those cheap mass-produced eucharists that our understanding of the religion would be the worse for it

>samefagging

Until the Catholic church was defeated and stripped of it's power it was a political organization.

Using this logic you've justified the murder of anyone as long as they are of a different religion. Of course when the Catholics/Muslims sack the city for which you name is based off it's somehow an outrage.

What truely shows that at heart all Catholics are socio-paths is that there has not been one single bit of apology here. This thread is people filled with people justifying what is essentially wholesale murder and loot of women and children because they happen to beleive something different about God and stopped paying tithes to what is essentially the most corrupt organization in history.

Not only is there no regret for the destruction of culture and importaint books but the very idealogical thinking that justifies book burning is being praised.

>What truely shows that at heart all Catholics are socio-paths is that there has not been one single bit of apology here
First off, it's "sociopath." No hyphen.

Second:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

3rd, do you even know what sociopathy is?

>tl;dr: If it was possible for me to destroy the stupidity of the WE WUZ KANGZ movement, I would do it in seconds.

What you are telling me is that sometime a few decades ago a Pope gave a speech or two and that not only do the Catholics have views that run in the contrary direction which effectively makes the apology meaningless. You essentially have people promoting the very idealogy that enables wanton acts of cruelity and slaughter "they had the wrong religious beliefs because it's ok".

I would say that someone that see's nothing wrong with a mass murder of innocents lacks empathy. Sociopathy perfectly defines the state of Catholics in this thread. The difference between them and ISIS is that ISIS actually has the balls to go through with their beleifs while the Christians are just keyboard crusaders

What do you even want then? I bet you don't like being yelled at for being "a white devil who got rich of negro slave blood" because apparently you are fully responsible for ancestors doing fuck ups.

You just want to bitch. Every Catholic could simoultaniously apologize and you'd just hold it over them like a cunt. You aren't merciful, you don't want to forgive.

You're the fucking unmerciful debtor who kicked a guy's ass for not paying back $20 after being pardoned of a $7000 debt.

>Using this logic you've justified the murder of anyone as long as they are of a different religion.
No, not really, since being of a different religion is not the same thing as causing division within an existing religion. For instance, a few Muslims preachers moving to Europe could have hardly caused what Luther and Calvin did. Because one is asking you to renounced your faith, which people are not as likely to do, whereas another is spreading lies within the faith, which is much, much, much easier.

I'm not trying to justify it, I don't think the Church should even be a political institution, since I'm Orthodox. But I am giving you the reason why it would be a very serious issue as a political institution--suppose you're French and in England and you are loyal to a different king, okay; now suppose you are English and telling people the REAL king of England is not the guy on the throne, but his second cousin; do you see how the latter is much more politically dangerous?

>I don't think the Church should even be a political institution, since I'm Orthodox
You guys sure love blessing military tech though.

>equating the lives of thousands of people lives to the measly sum of $7000

Pure autism.

>not understanding the point of that parable

You want all the forgiveness you can get for yourself, but refuse to forgive another because "fuck you, got mine."

We bless the instruments of all professions, in every country we operate, provided the professionals using said instruments want them blessed.

Why should we forgive?

"Forgiving" the Church establishment is simply too light a penalty for all they have done and continue to do. The Church needs to be dismantled and stripped of every prerogative, its buildings turned to museums and handed over to their respective countries' government or the UNESCO, its schools closed, its charities to come under the control of non-profits or governmental relief agencies, clergy members disbanded, and full-scale investigations into the financials of the Church and trials for those involved.

There is no reason to give the Church a free pass.

>"hurr durr you should forgive!"
>every Christcuck post across every thread on this board is to the effect of 'Protestants/Catholics/Orthodox/atheists/muslims/anyone I don't like should be shot/executed/burned at the stake/flayed alive!'

Does the "sins of the father" argument extend to modern countries? Should China be dismantled for the Cultural Revolution? Belgium for the Congo? Russia for the USSR?