Opinion of the Cathars?

[Blue3]

https://youtu.be/ySrpKMlhG2c?si=VTDkuQ2pfSRcwiNx

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

movement between the 12th and 14th centuries which thrived in Southern Europe, particularly in northern Italy and southern France. Followers were described as Cathars and referred to themselves as Good Christians; in modern times, they are mainly remembered for a prolonged period of mutual conflict and religious persecution – sometimes regarded as genocide – by the Catholic Church which deemed Catharism a heretical sect.

Catharism emerged in Western Europe in the 12th century. Adherents were sometimes referred to as Albigensians, after the French city Albi where the movement first took hold. Catharism was initially taught by ascetic leaders who set few guidelines, leading some Catharist practices and beliefs to vary by region and over time. The movement was greatly influenced by the Bogomils of the First Bulgarian Empire, and may have originated in the Byzantine Empire, namely through adherents of the Paulician movement in Armenia and eastern Anatolia who were resettled in Thrace (Philippopolis).

Among the most notable and controversial beliefs of the Cathars was the idea of two gods or deistic principles, one good and the other evil. The Catholic Church asserted this was antithetical to monotheism, a fundamental principle that there is only one God, who created all things visible and invisible, as stated in the Nicene Creed. Cathars believed that the good God was the God of the New Testament, creator of the spiritual realm, whereas the evil God was the God of the Old Testament, creator of the physical world whom many Cathars identified as Satan. Cathars believed human spirits were the sexless spirits of angels trapped in the material realm of the evil god, destined to be reincarnated until they achieved salvation through the consolamentum, a form of baptism performed when death is imminent, when they would return to the good God as "Perfect".

The Catholic Church denounced Cathar practices, particularly the consolamentum ritual. From the beginning of his reign, Pope Innocent III attempted to end Catharism by sending missionaries and persuading the local authorities to act against the Cathars. In 1208, Pierre de Castelnau, Innocent's papal legate, was murdered while returning to Rome after excommunicating Count Raymond VI of Toulouse, who, in his view, was too lenient with the Cathars. Pope Innocent III then abandoned sending Catholic missionaries and jurists, declared Pierre de Castelnau a martyr and launched the Albigensian Crusade in 1209. The nearly twenty-year campaign succeeded in vastly weakening the movement; the Medieval Inquisition that followed ultimately eradicated Catharism by 1350.

There is academic controversy about whether Catharism was a real and organized movement or whether the medieval Church imagined or exaggerated it. The lack of any central organization among Cathars, regional differences in beliefs and practices, as well as the lack of sources from the Cathars themselves has prompted some scholars to question whether Catharism existed. Other scholars say that there is evidence of the existence of Catharism, and also evidence that the threat of it was exaggerated by its persecutors in the Church.

Though the term Cathar (/ˈkæθɑːr/) has been used for centuries to identify the movement, whether it identified itself with the name is debated. In Cathar texts, the terms Good Men (Bons Hommes), Good Women (Bonnes Femmes), or Good Christians (Bons Chrétiens) are the common terms of self-identification.

[afleitch]

FF.

As is the case for any group that suffered mass slaughter by the Church for their beliefs that is still, IIRC, without Papal apology.

[PSOL]

A movement that in modern times is more revered for failing and being good victims than actually trying to succeed. The organizers of the Great Peasant Revolt, or even anabaptists for doing societal divorce well, do not get eulogized by spiritual liberals even though they went further than the Cathars in being successful and laying the groundwork for a more successful end to religious-defended abuse as well as being one of the reasons why they won’t be persecuted in modern society.

Is being a good victim and dying for the cause in failure really something more worth praising than succeeding and living if it earns you social stigma by chronic abusers?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Weird cult

[patzer]

It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far which seems theologically reasonable. Most of them tend to have nonsensical views.

[Blue3]

It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far which seems theologically reasonable. Most of them tend to have nonsensical views.

Can you elaborate?

[patzer]

It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far which seems theologically reasonable. Most of them tend to have nonsensical views.

Can you elaborate?

I shall try.

For context, I was raised without religion albeit I occasionally went to church services as a child (once or twice per year on average) so culturally, Christianity feels like a relatively positive thing to me- it's just that a lot of mainstream Christian beliefs have made no sense to me.

For instance, the problem of evil- how can God be omnipotent, good, and yet allow evil. Catharism answers this by saying God is not in control in this world, as the Prince of This World (Satan) is too strong.

The belief in mainstream Christianity that God created a sex+gender binary with the view that people follow it to procreate heterosexually- but the obvious counter is that if a good deity did so, then why did he make people naturally have homosexual feelings. Catharism teaches that people are genderless souls of light merely inhabiting human vessels.

Mainstream Christianity treats humans as being fundamentally different to animals, which is incompatible with scientific evidence of evolution showing the gradual development of hominids from apes. Catharism teaches that humans can reincarnate as animals, so they are not fundamentally different.

Mainstream Christianity teaches of the existence of a hell but does not explain why a good God would allow people to be sent there for eternity with no forgiveness. Catharism teaches that our world is Hell. And that the Good God is fundamentally caring for all, with no judgment of people's actions.

And so on. It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far that doesn't feel like it can be instantly be disproven by basic logic (which is, I suppose, why the historical Cathar Perfects managed to so easily outmanœuvre well-read Catholic priests in debates).

[Samof94]

It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far which seems theologically reasonable. Most of them tend to have nonsensical views.

Can you elaborate?

I shall try.

For context, I was raised without religion albeit I occasionally went to church services as a child (once or twice per year on average) so culturally, Christianity feels like a relatively positive thing to me- it's just that a lot of mainstream Christian beliefs have made no sense to me.

For instance, the problem of evil- how can God be omnipotent, good, and yet allow evil. Catharism answers this by saying God is not in control in this world, as the Prince of This World (Satan) is too strong.

The belief in mainstream Christianity that God created a sex+gender binary with the view that people follow it to procreate heterosexually- but the obvious counter is that if a good deity did so, then why did he make people naturally have homosexual feelings. Catharism teaches that people are genderless souls of light merely inhabiting human vessels.

Mainstream Christianity treats humans as being fundamentally different to animals, which is incompatible with scientific evidence of evolution showing the gradual development of hominids from apes. Catharism teaches that humans can reincarnate as animals, so they are not fundamentally different.

Mainstream Christianity teaches of the existence of a hell but does not explain why a good God would allow people to be sent there for eternity with no forgiveness. Catharism teaches that our world is Hell. And that the Good God is fundamentally caring for all, with no judgment of people's actions.

And so on. It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far that doesn't feel like it can be instantly be disproven by basic logic (which is, I suppose, why the historical Cathar Perfects managed to so easily outmanœuvre well-read Catholic priests in debates).

Mandatory celibacy for everyone seems to be something common in a lot of fringe sects of Christianity throughtout history, including them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far which seems theologically reasonable. Most of them tend to have nonsensical views.

Can you elaborate?

I shall try.

For context, I was raised without religion albeit I occasionally went to church services as a child (once or twice per year on average) so culturally, Christianity feels like a relatively positive thing to me- it's just that a lot of mainstream Christian beliefs have made no sense to me.

For instance, the problem of evil- how can God be omnipotent, good, and yet allow evil. Catharism answers this by saying God is not in control in this world, as the Prince of This World (Satan) is too strong.

The belief in mainstream Christianity that God created a sex+gender binary with the view that people follow it to procreate heterosexually- but the obvious counter is that if a good deity did so, then why did he make people naturally have homosexual feelings. Catharism teaches that people are genderless souls of light merely inhabiting human vessels.

Mainstream Christianity treats humans as being fundamentally different to animals, which is incompatible with scientific evidence of evolution showing the gradual development of hominids from apes. Catharism teaches that humans can reincarnate as animals, so they are not fundamentally different.

Mainstream Christianity teaches of the existence of a hell but does not explain why a good God would allow people to be sent there for eternity with no forgiveness. Catharism teaches that our world is Hell. And that the Good God is fundamentally caring for all, with no judgment of people's actions.

And so on. It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far that doesn't feel like it can be instantly be disproven by basic logic (which is, I suppose, why the historical Cathar Perfects managed to so easily outmanœuvre well-read Catholic priests in debates).

Mandatory celibacy for everyone seems to be something common in a lot of fringe sects of Christianity throughtout history, including them.

     It's part of the duality of Gnosticism. Gnostics of all sects are united by the conviction that the material world is by its nature evil, which engenders one of two responses: extreme abnegation and extreme self-indulgence. These seem incompatible, but they both become valid if one supposes that the flesh is a hated enemy from which we are spiritually saved.

[patzer]

The strange thing is that the celibacy position actually doesn't follow on from the rest of Cathar theology– if you're of the belief that humans also reincarnate as animals, and that the only route to salvation/heaven is if one is a human, then it logically follows on that it is preferable to have more human bodies which souls can reincarnate into.

[Georg Ebner]

It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far which seems theologically reasonable. Most of them tend to have nonsensical views.

Can you elaborate?

I shall try.

For context, I was raised without religion albeit I occasionally went to church services as a child (once or twice per year on average) so culturally, Christianity feels like a relatively positive thing to me- it's just that a lot of mainstream Christian beliefs have made no sense to me.

For instance, the problem of evil- how can God be omnipotent, good, and yet allow evil. Catharism answers this by saying God is not in control in this world, as the Prince of This World (Satan) is too strong.

The belief in mainstream Christianity that God created a sex+gender binary with the view that people follow it to procreate heterosexually- but the obvious counter is that if a good deity did so, then why did he make people naturally have homosexual feelings. Catharism teaches that people are genderless souls of light merely inhabiting human vessels.

Mainstream Christianity treats humans as being fundamentally different to animals, which is incompatible with scientific evidence of evolution showing the gradual development of hominids from apes. Catharism teaches that humans can reincarnate as animals, so they are not fundamentally different.

Mainstream Christianity teaches of the existence of a hell but does not explain why a good God would allow people to be sent there for eternity with no forgiveness. Catharism teaches that our world is Hell. And that the Good God is fundamentally caring for all, with no judgment of people's actions.

And so on. It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far that doesn't feel like it can be instantly be disproven by basic logic (which is, I suppose, why the historical Cathar Perfects managed to so easily outmanœuvre well-read Catholic priests in debates).

Mandatory celibacy for everyone seems to be something common in a lot of fringe sects of Christianity throughtout history, including them.

It's part of the duality of Gnosticism. Gnostics of all sects are united by the conviction that the material world is by its nature evil, which engenders one of two responses: extreme abnegation and extreme self-indulgence. These seem incompatible, but they both become valid if one supposes that the flesh is a hated enemy from which we are spiritually saved.

The centre of all those gnostical sects is irrational selfDeification. Thus they fall apart in dualists and monists; in rigorists and libertinists. The dualistic gnosticism 2000 years ago (ignorants believe this to have been the only appearance of gnosticism), for example, derived not from Persian Parsism, but from the monism of the Stoa and similar schools. A politoLogist like E.VOEGELIN understood that better than the exPert H.JONAS.

[Blue3]

It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far which seems theologically reasonable. Most of them tend to have nonsensical views.

Can you elaborate?

I shall try.

For context, I was raised without religion albeit I occasionally went to church services as a child (once or twice per year on average) so culturally, Christianity feels like a relatively positive thing to me- it's just that a lot of mainstream Christian beliefs have made no sense to me.

For instance, the problem of evil- how can God be omnipotent, good, and yet allow evil. Catharism answers this by saying God is not in control in this world, as the Prince of This World (Satan) is too strong.

The belief in mainstream Christianity that God created a sex+gender binary with the view that people follow it to procreate heterosexually- but the obvious counter is that if a good deity did so, then why did he make people naturally have homosexual feelings. Catharism teaches that people are genderless souls of light merely inhabiting human vessels.

Mainstream Christianity treats humans as being fundamentally different to animals, which is incompatible with scientific evidence of evolution showing the gradual development of hominids from apes. Catharism teaches that humans can reincarnate as animals, so they are not fundamentally different.

Mainstream Christianity teaches of the existence of a hell but does not explain why a good God would allow people to be sent there for eternity with no forgiveness. Catharism teaches that our world is Hell. And that the Good God is fundamentally caring for all, with no judgment of people's actions.

And so on. It's the only branch of Christianity I've come across so far that doesn't feel like it can be instantly be disproven by basic logic (which is, I suppose, why the historical Cathar Perfects managed to so easily outmanœuvre well-read Catholic priests in debates).

Some parts of the Cathar church/denomination/religion makes sense. But it, like Gnosticism, is just too ascetic. Condemning the entire material world, including our bodies and senses and carnal desires, as Evil... it just goes too far, in my opinion. Though the emphasis on the genderless, species-neutral spirits of all the living being the same in the eyes of God, is good. They also seem to keep the hierarchy of the Catholics.

[Irenaeus of Smyrna]

I'm going to let you guess what my opinion of them is.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The strange thing is that the celibacy position actually doesn't follow on from the rest of Cathar theology– if you're of the belief that humans also reincarnate as animals, and that the only route to salvation/heaven is if one is a human, then it logically follows on that it is preferable to have more human bodies which souls can reincarnate into.

     The idea is that the purpose of Cathar practice is to reject the world and sexual desire impedes that rejection. It's similar to why monastics are celibate, except that Catholics and Orthodox don't say only monastics are capable of attaining salvation. I don't think the Cathars worried about a lack of human bodies since most people in the word were not Cathar and so their practices of celibacy would not seriously affect the overall population.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

FF.

As is the case for any group that suffered mass slaughter by the Church for their beliefs that is still, IIRC, without Papal apology.