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
>>1269580
>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.
>>1269662
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.
>>1269580
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.
>>1269696
>>1269696
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?
>>1269580
>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.
>>1269734
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.
>>1269891
>They were pissed that some people were not paying them money.
And Catholics make fun of the Russian Orthodox Church for being a mafia.
>>1269580
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
>>1269580
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
>>1269883
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.
>>1269891
>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.
>>1269883
>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.
>>1269907
>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.
>>1269734
To Rome, Christians are heretics.
>>1269883
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.
>>1269691
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 anon'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.
>>1269952
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).
>>1269891
>>1269950
>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.
>>1269952
>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.
>>1269983
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.
>>1269988
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
>>1269996
>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.
>>1270017
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.
>>1269988
>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.
>>1270046
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.
>>1269580
>Welcome to /his/ - History & Humanities: This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, RELIGION, law, classical artwork, archeology....
>>1270042
http://www.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.
>>1270063
>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.
>>1270082
God doesn't exist, idiot.
>>1270082
>it's hard to study infidel teachings
That was the whole point, OP. Allah Akbar!
>>1270063
>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.
>>1270114
Learn some real history.
>>1270107
>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.
>>1270034
>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.
>>1270134
Catholic clergy wasn't behind that event.
Also, heretics are a genuine threat to mankind. Just look at the damage done by Luther.
>>1270026
>You guys really are ISIS.
And so is every other ideology on Earth. Except yours of course.*
>>1270149
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!
>>1270149
>>1270157
Muslims don't have the Truth, we do.
>>1270134
A Massacre!! How Horrible!!! Those have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE OR AFTER BY ANYONE ELSE EVER.
>>1270146
>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
>>1270149
>"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.
>>1269958
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
>>1270157
>What you have is fucking Muslim logic
*human logic
>>1270176
>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
>>1270166
>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.
>>1270208
The Pasants war was also in part caused by Protcocks
I don't like Cockolics but I HATE Protcoksturd more
>>1270176
>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.
>>1270208
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.
>>1270156
>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.
>>1270191
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.
>>1270208
>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.
>>1269891
>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.
>>1269950
> 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.
>>1270223
>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? :^)
>>1270250
>I would love to see some evidence of Cathars "winning" those debates
Me too! Too bad the Catholic Church had all the records burned.
>>1270007
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.
>>1270272
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.
>>1269580
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.
>>1270291
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
>>1270261
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.
>>1270300
>It was basically the rebirth of humanity
It was the rebirth of western european civilization at best.
>>1270298
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.
>>1269580
Spotted the bosnian muslim
>>1270298
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.
>>1270373
>Trying to splinter the Church is very serious
Yeah, because then, the Church doesn't get the tithe money it would have gotten otherwise.
>>1270377
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.
>>1270399
*had no power to persecuted, only the secular government did
>>1270373
>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.
>>1270408
>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".
>>1270250
>talking about actual history and not just memeing it up and pushing your agenda on /his/
disgusting
>>1270408
>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.
>>1270580
Oh goodness gracious you're just like ISIS you brute. Destroying history like that :^)
>>1270593
kek
>>1270593
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
>>1270373
Until the Catholic church was defeated and stripped of it's power it was a political organization.
>>1270414
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.
>>1270896
>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:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II
3rd, do you even know what sociopathy is?
>>1270934
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
>>1270959
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.
>>1270896
>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?
>>1271083
>I don't think the Church should even be a political institution, since I'm Orthodox
You guys sure love blessing military tech though.
>>1271056
>equating the lives of thousands of people lives to the measly sum of $7000
Pure autism.
>>1271093
>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."
>>1271089
We bless the instruments of all professions, in every country we operate, provided the professionals using said instruments want them blessed.
>>1271056
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.
>>1271056
>"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!'
>>1271108
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?
>>1269580
oh, boo hoo
I'm sure the Romans were horrible, history-destroying people too because of all the tribal cultures they erased. Wars are sort of out of the question too, that shit destroys cities and valuable architecture. While we're at it, why didn't every single person in medieval Europe keep a diary in modern American English and provide labelled urine and stool samples for us? Why didn't the medieval Catholic church keep modern historians in mind when handling contemporary documents that held as much value to them as some Tumblrites rants on their fucking blog about gender poltics would to us today? How could they? You know, fuck it, we should invent time machines and genocide all those history-destroying fucks.
You're not interested in history, you're crying about it happening in the first place.
>>1271113
>shitposters on 4chan accurately represent religious doctrine
>the doctrine itself shouldn't be what matters, only the conduct of those who claim allegiance to it matter
Yeah, the group "Catholics for Choice" might claim to be good Catholics while championing abortion, but they are wrong because they are acting in direct opposition of Catholic doctrine.
>>1271145
>Dindu nuffin: the post
Is your pedophile priest promising you the forgiveness of sin if you shill and defend the Church on imageboards?
>>1271156
>2 fedoras have been deposited in your hat collection
>>1271156
not an argument
>>1271156
>muh pedo priests
Dude, the issue with that was how shit it was handled. Statistically priests are more likely to diddle the kiddles than any other man.
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625
>>1271173
>Statistically priests are more likely to diddle the kiddles than any other man.
You know what they say about statistics dude
And since they are representatives of the >One>True
None should be doing it.
>>1271185
Oh so you're one of the tippers who thinks Christians must be themselves incorrupt to proclaim truth.
Nice job missing the entire point of the Church as medicine for the sick, of which all mankind encompasses.
>>1271195
Perhaps - since you're so 'sick' - you should focus entirely on healing yourself first before even bothering trying to 'heal' others.
>>1271200
I am now a #DawkinsMissile
>>1271106
Those instruments of MURDER you hypocritical autist!
>>1271389
While killing in war is a sin, we don't equate it with murder. Blessing a solider's gun is like blessing a knight's sword, not like blessing an abortionist's tools.
>>1271414
What is the meaningful difference between those things you mentioned? They're all tools used in the comission of sin.
>>1271547
Soldiers are still in the Church and if their tools don't function, it can get them killed. Abortionists can't be in the Church, and no one is going to kill them for their tools not working optimally.
>>1271414
>Blessing a solider's gun is like blessing a knight's sword, not like blessing an abortionist's tools.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
What the fuck do you think that soldier is going to do with those weapons? Plow the fucking fields?
An if you think that abortion is murder how is that any different than killing some random shmuck on the battlefield?
>>1271581
Killing at war is considered a sin, but it's not nearly as bad as murder.
>>1270261
Smiri se človeće. Ljepo da si isao na fakultet, dje te sad ljepo učijo marksizma, ali da si ovako ljud na neko istorijo i sve to nije normalno.
>>1271594
Source: my ass.
>>1271594
Why's that?
>>1271626
Also how the fuck do you justify your religion of piece bullshit if you pull out some bible quote to prove that it's ok?
>>1271633
Not him, but do you think all soldiers that have killed in war should go to prison?
>>1271105
But that's not true anon, we want to forgive all who are repentant because we've been there ourselves.
>>1271056
No, you don't get to play victim here, you are just digging yourself deeper here. This thread began with a perfectly reasonable question of asking Catholics how they view their sketchy history. The answer from literally every post above this one was some variant on 'the church can do know wrong' 'destruction of books and murder of children is fine if they are non-Catholic'.
And than when I point out how disguesting this you accuse me of being an "unmerciful debtor". Apparently any criticism what so ever is unreasonable to you. From my perspective all you have typed out of is "I'm a monster. No I won't forgive anyone! I am God's chosen! How do dare you criticism my religion" You have done nothing to show remorse and neither has anyone else in this thread.
>>1271083
You do realize no one other than an Orthodox/Catholic actually thinks your church is any more or less legitimate than the Cathars/Protestants? Divisions in religions exist because, surprise surprise some people have a different view of spirituality. It's pretty fucking hard for a religion to unify people when some people think that you guys are worshipping Satan don't you think?
>>1271093
I think the Cathars are right. Catholics do worship the devil.
>>1271414
I see you don't muder. You just assist in murder.
>>1272281
>we want to forgive all who are repentant
Translated from cult speak
"We forgive all those that say our religion is correct"
This is not forgivness. It's a thinly veiled threat, convert or suffer.
Only something as repulsive as Christianity could give you a fucking threat and say that it's an act of kindness.
>>1272291
But the history is only "sketchy" from your perspective which seems to hold that all historical movements need to be preserved regardless of their content. However from the Catholic perspective, not all historical movements are valuable and in fact, some of them are even harmful. The church viewed Catharism/Bogomilism as a cancer which needed to be removed before it metastasized. Now it is entirely fair to criticize the church for going about this removal in a way that was not in line with the principles taught by Jesus Christ who is ostensibly the leader of the church but this is a spiritual criticism and requires you to acknowledge to validity and authority of Christ's teachings.
If you do not acknowledge Christ's authority, then the church is simply another political institution and political institutions since the dawn of time have completely eradicated rival groups. From Babylon to Rome, it was common practice to completely wipe out your opponents so that not even a trace of their civilization would be left for future generations. Are you as upset about the destruction of Carthage as you are about the persecution of the Cathars?
>>1272300
We forgive all who acknowledge that they've "missed the mark." Even if someone is not a Christian but has enough self awareness to admit when they're wrong they ought to be forgiven. Christians should be the most forgiving people on the planet because we ourselves have been forgiven of so much.
>>1272361
I see. So like all Catholics in this thread you are doing exactly what OP accused you of: not caring about history, culture, of philosophy. These things are not pools of knowledge to be learned from, but simply ways things that do or do not agree with your dogma. So you've told us that you are utterly incapable of appreciating history and philosophy, that ultimtaly your religion is cancer. The trajedy is not that we lost the cathar, pagan, or avverostic works. The trajedgy is that they didn't follow Jesus.
It is not a matter of your whether the church was right, whether it was authentic, or whether they even believed in God. What you seem to do is simply defend the church in ALL things, regardless of situation. The Cathars too believed in your God they just had a different theology. Nevermind that they actually won the theological debates. What matters is they were not the same type of Christian as you.
So we've reached a consesus. You do not feel sorry for the mistakes of your church and I think you guys are massive hypocrites and cancer. I've left this thread with a far lower opinion of your religion than when I entered it, and every single reason for that has to do with the conduct of your disgusting believers. I'm still wrapping my head around the fact that you somehow thought you were the victim here and not the priceless lost books, culture, and thousands of human lives.
>>1272390
This is not forgivness, it's more veiled threats.
"You've fucked up, specifically in the way my religion teaches how to conduct yourself. I will forgive you as long as you conduct yourself within the confines of my specific religion. BTW there is horrible suffering if you don't make these changes"
Christians have such a fucked up view of forgiveness.
>>1271106
I am a prostitute, can a priest bless my pucci?
>>1272430
You've misunderstood me then. I value history, culture and philosophy very much but I'm also aware that not all histories, cultures and philosophies have the same value. Are you upset that Nazi Germany was wiped out? Surely they had a "history, culture, and philosophy" but I wonder if you spend as much time weeping over the Nazis as you do over the Cathars. Furthermore, I do not defend the church in all things regardless of the situation because the church is composed of human beings who make mistakes. Like I said in my last post, it is completely fair to criticize the church when its actions deviate from the example left by Jesus Christ because my loyalty ultimately belongs to Jesus and not the church.
>>1272474
In the name of the Holy Mother. I bless your pucci, may you have the tightness of our blessed virgin's snatch. That will be 50 shekels please!
>>1272442
Sincere repentance is a person acknowledging that they've made a mistake. When someone admits they're mistaken they should be forgiven.
Also to tell someone who is playing in traffic that they will be hit by a car is not a threat, it's a warning.
>>1269580
Isidore of Sevilla
/thread
>>1272483
I'll repeat this again. Whenever I am studying philosophy and I find a great document is missing unless it's from the fucking pre-socratic period or earlier the reason it is missing is ALWAYS your church. I don't even get what you are trying to say with this Nazi analogy? Are you saying that the church with it's massive destruction of life and literature is NOT like the Nazis? Or are you saying that you are dillusioned enough to think everything the church destroyed were Nazis?
>the church is composed of human beings who make mistakes.
A mistake is something done unwittlingly. When the church burns book or kills children this is not a mistake. It knows full well what it is doing. Some of these orders were treated as divine commandments from your God, in other words you've got your own deity approving of this.
>Like I said in my last post, it is completely fair to criticize the church when its actions deviate from the example left by Jesus Chris
Are you literally incapable of understanding there are people that do not give a shit Jesus? You think normal people give a shit about what some dead Jew thinks? This type of thinking is exactly the things that leads to insanity. What "Jesus's law" means is whatever the church says it means. If the Papacy decides Jesus wants you to burn books than Jesus wants you to burn books, that's how history has been played out. So all actions can be justified. Of course you can look back hundreds of years later after irreversible damage has been done and say "It was a mistake" than move onto to your next attack.
>>1272504
You're idea of repentance is joining your cult. It's amazing how you manage twist words.
>>1272562
>Are you literally incapable of understanding there are people that do not give a shit Jesus? You think normal people give a shit about what some dead Jew thinks?
>What "Jesus's law" means is whatever the church says it means. If the Papacy decides Jesus wants you to burn books than Jesus wants you to burn books, that's how history has been played out.
I think what he's saying is that he himself (as a catholic) cares what Jesus thinks and can recognize that the Papacy doesn't speak for Jesus and are open to criticism.
>>1272621
It doesn't fucking matter what he as an individual thinks, because the Church is not a democracy! Lay Catholics have no say and are wholly subservient to the establishment.
>>1272725
They're not wholly subservient to the pope or at least not all of them (using himself as an example), which is his point.
>>1269580
The demons in them keep them deluded, demons can give body pleasures and had thousands of years time to study the body and his biological reactions to stimuli and such - they are spirits, do not eat, do not rest - are not impaired in thinking. And since they were angels before and had various tasks they retain some of the gifts they had.
>>1272774
Did you forget to to take your pills today?
>>1269580
mistakes dont have the right to exist
if a Heresy can be crushed and destroyed completely in its infancy, doing that is the right thing to do. Killing souls is worse than killing bodies.
>>1269580
>Catholics persecuted the heretics
What's wrong with that ?
Are you butthurt because a lot of people will not join you in hell ?
>>1272881
>ISIS persecuted the heretics
What's wrong with that ?
Are you butthurt because a lot of people will not join you in hell ?
>>1269950
Christcuck?
Your post is insulting. Jesus' wife is not know to have committed adultery, therefore Jesus was not cuckolded. His mother may have been an adulteress and therefore Joseph was cuckolded and Jesus was a bastard, but Jesus' wife was a good girl.
Further, if you are referring to the wives of male Christians committing adultery en masse, the term Christiancucks or Christicucks might be more appropriate.
All this notwithstanding, your insult is childish and detracts from your argument.
>>1273196
>Jesus' wife
>>1269580
The Catholic Church made possible the Renaissance and universities, as well as contributing fundamentally to early academic development via the shared language of Latin. I'm an atheist and I can come to terms with the simple facts that:
1) The Inquisition was more complicated than most give credit, and like all human endeavors, is both good and bad in many ways.
2) The Catholic Church is not inherently good or evil - see above.
3) Even things I don't care for can contribute to human development. This is about being read enough to be aware.
>mfw this will probably trigger the shit out of people
>>1273277
Idealogically the Reinnsance was opposed to a lot of Catholic thinking: Avveroism, Neo-Platoism, Hermetism, and Gnostic thinking were a major part of it. Ultimately what enabled the Renaissance were ideologies that allowed people to split with the church and find divine inspiration within them-self and the materialistic conditions that enabled it (ie more power/wealth among non-clergy with the rising merchantile class).
If all it took for the Renaissance to happen was a common language it wouldn't have taken 1,000 years to happen.
>>1272951
ISIS is not an Institution created by God unlike the Church. The Church has right to persecute the heretics and save their souls from damnation.
>>1273329
The Catholic church is not an Institution created by God unlike ISIS. ISIS has right to persecute the infidels and save their souls from damnation.
Allah Akb-I mean Deus Volt!
>>1273306
Without Monasticism the Renaissance would never have happened. The church was the only cross-cultural institution that had the influence and resources to cultivate learning on a large scale. Yes there were other ideologies which influenced the Renaissance but the lion's share originated from within the church.
>>1273341
The Church already survived thousands of years, ISIS is on the verge of collapse ten years after his creation.
Your god and his institution seems pretty weaks.
>>1273398
You arn't getting the point. The thread was never about who's God was real. It was asking how you can Catholic and appreciate history. You've outright told us you cannot affirm any history or philosophy from "heretics". You've basically been shouting that you cannot take an unbiased look at the humanities and everything needs to be seen through the lens of your particular religion.
This is the same logic that has ISIS blowing up archeological treasures and destroying libraries filled with priceless ancient books. As matter of fact you have justified this very thing provided it's been doing in the name of Catholicism not Islam.
>>1273341
Hey dipshit, the Church tried being civil with stopping Cathars. ISIS just went "join or die" from the start. You're comparing a police trying to civiliy negotiate a massive hostage situation for 27 hours before just storming the complex with a SWAT team when they realize negotiations aren't working to a band of Crips telling a gas station clerk to give them free shit, the clerk refusing, and the Crips ransacking the store and shooting the clerk in the face.
>>1269580
Disgust is a fake facial expression.
>>1273426
>Hey dipshit, the Church tried being civil with stopping Cathars
Going apeshit because one dude was murdered in a fashion that can't substantially be linked to the Cathars isn't trying very fucking hard.
>>1273451
Actually disgust is one of the six universally recognizable facial expressions regardless of culture. The others are fear, happiness, sadness, surprise and anger.
>>1273426
The nature of the conflict between the Cathars is noted here
>>1270408
Your church was motivated solely by greed. and even violated it's own theology to attack a peaceful group.
>>1270063
The Catholic approach was to slaughter men, women, and children indescriminatly stopping only to loot.
Where do you get this "hostage situation" anaology from. There was no dispute between the Cathars did everything of their own free will, everything peacefully, the group was well known for their lack of violence.
They were justified both legally and theologically (even today Catholic theology insist tithing is optional) in all actions. Not only were the Cathars legally and theologically justified while being peaceful but the Catholic church even had to make up lies about their practices in order to justify what was essentially an act of genocide against pacifists.
And this wasn't about the Cathars, it was about more than that, the wholesale destruction of culture and the indescriminate burning of books (many of them which contained important philosophy, history, and scientific advances) and your cucks somehow trying to justify this. This is a board that studies history and philosophy, the destruction of textual documents is directly contrary to our learning. Not to mention the murder of literal children for your ISIS cult.
>>1269691
>All historical knowledge is valuable.
Then how do you justify posting on 4chan, a site which destroys it's own content continuously?
>>1273476
You're equating the wholesale destruction of all literature in a society to a fucking image board post (as the church has done many times)? Hell the anaology doesn't even work because 4chan does have an archive.
So far there have only been two types of posts
A "Everyone of a different religion/theology deserves to be destroyed cuz we are God's chosen"
B "Since some historical documents are destroyed by other sources this means it's ok that the church did it intentionally, in massive amounts and for centuries non-stop"
>>1273472
>Cathars dindu nuffin!
>>1273488
But they literally didn't do anything besides disagree with the Catholic church.
>>1273415
>You arn't getting the point. The thread was never about who's God was real. It was asking how you can Catholic and appreciate history. You've outright told us you cannot affirm any history or philosophy from "heretics".
The goal of your thread is clearly to create a "Catholic Guilt" using cuck values like pity tolerance, and freedom of thought, but catholics don't care about your degenerate values.
>You've basically been shouting that you cannot take an unbiased look at the humanities and everything needs to be seen through the lens of your particular religion.
I only said that the Church survived thousands years, and the institutions who have opposed it are all dead or greatly weakened (Roman Empire, four others patriachates, Byzantine Empire, Caliphate, Soviet Union) i guess the Western World will soon join them.
>>1273306
Most of those had their roots in the 13th century, when social and cultural pressures were enormous because of a steady increase in population as well as constant disputes of land and the privileges tied to it. Cities were beginning to grow and bring people in from the country, beyond the reach of the nobility at the time. There was a top-down pressure for those reasons, which in turn fed into "break-away" and heretical/heterodox movements. You have to look at the time as an organic whole, rather than this or that thing in a vacuum. Without the Church's income from indulgences, tithes and property, ecclesiastical offices would have been mere titular positions. Instead, those aforementioned features allowed it to grow into a powerful bureaucratic position which - through its wealth and power - provided vast amounts of patronage to the arts. Florence - and its subsequent achievements in the realms of Western art - would not have been possible. For all its trouble, the Church bequeathed to the rest of mankind a considerable cultural patrimony.
>>1273512
>using cuck values like pity tolerance
>but catholics don't care about your degenerate values.
I thought pity was the basic Christian value. It's all Jesus talks about in the sermon on the mount. And isn't "tolerance" exactly the type of thing your Pope is out spreading. Catholics are suppsoed to believe this man is the representative of God on earth. (Let me guess you are a real Christian but disagree with the Pope....which is exactly what the Catholics said)
Very strange calling your own religion "degenerate". The purpose of the thread was to ask how you can balance religious faith in the church on a boarded dedicated to studying ancient documents/culture while also knowledging the church destroyed a great deal of this. You've given the answer: you can't balance it. Your theology demands that you see your church as something that is always special and right which means you cannot look at things objectively.
>I only said that the Church survived thousands years, and the institutions who have opposed it are all dead or greatly weakened
Compared to the past the Church is greatly weakened. It's literally under the thumb of secular law and many would argue that it has been completely usurped by proggressivism. I lol when Catholics try to present their church as big powerhouse when it's a subordinate to larger political forces.
>>1273540
I see the church's role as being a placeholder until the high middle ages in the 13th century you talked about. From the fall of Rome to high middle ages culture largely stagnated. If you go back far enough, to late Rome you see Christianity was indeed a divider. Early Roman writers wrote of them as being too much against cultural unity and long-held traditions. So Christianity worked because it was a government, it wasn't a particularly good culture seeing as how it took an injection of heresy and paganism to kick off the Renaissance, but it was a good means of control with it's system of local bishops modeled after the system of local governors from Rome. If you were to give credit to any part of the institution it would be the theocracy itself, although this same theocracy become unnecessary and needed to be uprooted eventually.
>>1273490
>b-but the Short Creek Raid was just people who wanted to live a nice peaceful polygamist lifestyle! They were persecuted by the evil Arizona Dept. of Public Safety and National Guard!!!
>>1273588
>it wasn't a particularly good culture
I certainly didn't argue this point, though it perhaps may have come across as though I did. My point is that the Church (more through its wealth than anything) was able to provide a haven for the arts that might not have existed to more practical-minded and perhaps less materialistic noblemen. I'm not condoned the post-Aquinas Church's theology or anything else. I suppose my point is that the Church receives a good amount of vitriol and while some is deserved, it was not entirely an engine for negative growth. On a side note, I suppose I could argue about the Church's role as a placeholder government, given the early struggle with investiture and Alexander II and his successor Gregory's struggle with Henry IV.
>>1273565
There is a difference between speaking "ex cathedra" and speaking outside the see, his discourses outside are merely to please the oligarchy of the west, but ex cathdedra (as a pope) he didn't said anything heretical.
Personally, I find the Bosnian Crusade somewhat more tragic than the Albigensian Crusade.
King Ninoslav of Bosnia (a Catholic) refused to turn against his own Bogomilist subjects, and the result was a Crusade on his lands which ended up destroying both the Orthodox Bosnian church and the Bogomils. And all because Ninoslav refused to persecute his own subjects despite pressure from the Hungarians and the Pope.
Truly, a noble man.
>>1273615
The reason art could only happen in the church was because only they had money, this was the result of it being a vast network. Churches in poor parts of the world were dependant on shipments of cash from churches in wealthier parts of the world. In the middle ages even the nobles were broke and what little money they had to do go to military expenditures since feudalism means there is constant bickering. Mercantilism had taken over the role the church used to of redistributing resources and had put the power in the hands of non-clergy. This is ultimatly why the non-clergy elite needed a religious revolution that exalted their newly found individual power.
People forgot that a great deal of the cool religious art of the Renaissance were actually commissioned by nobles and merchants.
>>1273620
The term "heresy" is completely meaningless to someone like me that isn't Catholic. My point is values like tolerance and pity are Christian values and they are values pushed by all the current leaders of the church. If you think these values are "degenerate" you really need reevaluate your choice in religion.
>>1273654
Tolerance of persons is a Christian value. Tolerance of ideas is not.
>>1273615
>My point is that the Church (more through its wealth than anything) was able to provide a haven for the arts that might not have existed to more practical-minded and perhaps less materialistic noblemen
You're wrong.
The wealthy merchants of the Italian Republics and the County of Flanders and - surprise surprise! - the wealthy and urban polities Languedoc and Catalonia (Cathar heartland) were other havens of art apart from the Church, and more valuable too, because they actually commissioned secular art, rather than spamming the same useless religious crap.
>>1269580
>implying you're not a *boom*
>>1273565
>muh tolerance
Tolerance is for those who deserve it. Jesus didn't tolerate sin or disobedience. He most definitely sends heretics to hell, no matter how much of a pot-loving hippie they are.
Don't play the "christian values" card, because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
>>1273696
>more valuable too, because they actually commissioned secular art, rather than spamming the same useless religious crap
>>1273696
You almost made a good case until the end. No, it is you that is wrong. Go ahead and look at the patronage of the Renaissance masters - you'll find I'm quite correct. And, if we go back further, you'll find earlier masterworks were Church commissions.
>he wealthy and urban polities Languedoc and Catalonia
You should have stopped after Florence. You're also conveniently ignoring the wealth Church offices provided the Medicis, Sforzas and others. But of course you did - it would damage your arguments.
>Langeudoc
>urban polities
Which then? Toulouse? Are you actually serious?
>>1273654
>The reason art could only happen in the church was because only they had money, this was the result of it being a vast network.
I never argued that this wasn't the case, nor do I believe my arguments could have possibly been couched in this context. You are certainly correct about that assertion, however.
>>1273706
>Tolerance is for those who deserve it
And the Cathars and the Bogomils were unworthy of that tolerance...? What more do you want from them? And also, you're on a history board, so pulling the "my religion is right because I say so and that's that" is not a valid excuse, argument, nor even a correct statement.
>>1273706
And what's the state of the theology today? The Pope is basically moving the church in a more and more "tolerant" direction. He's relaxing more and more what it means to "sin" and extending forgiveness to include non-Christians. I know you've probably hung out in lots of role-playing threads and have probably killed hundreds of pagans and heretics with your d20 but the real world is different than your internet circle-jerk. Catholicism very much today represents the "hippy" approach to life, with the oddity that they are strictly against abortion and sex outside of marriage they line up perfectly with proggressivism
Part of being a Catholic means that the church is the spiritual guide for earth. If you don't go agree with this you might as well just switch to Protestant.
>>1273654
>The term "heresy" is completely meaningless to someone like me that isn't Catholic.
Heresy is a deviation of the dogmas, as long you know the dogmas even if you aren't catholic you can judge if someone is heretic or not.
>My point is values like tolerance and pity are Christian values
Nope they aren't, but as you said yourself you aren't catholic so you don't know what is christian or not.
>and they are values pushed by all the current leaders of the church.
There are no leaderS of the Church, there is Christ the Head of the Church and there is the Pope who is the vicar of Christ.
>If you think these values are "degenerate" you really need reevaluate your choice in religion.
If you think you know what is christian or not you need to reevaluate your first statement.
Also tolerance as a value was invented in the eighteenth century by liberal atheists, so this is not a christian value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration#In_the_Enlightenment
>>1273716
>Which then? Toulouse? Are you actually serious?
The areas where Catharism sprouted were noted as being particularly wealthy and prosperous, and relatively urbanized to the rest of feudal France and Spain. Sorry if it doesn't show, though, you'll have to go thank the Church for reducing the whole place to ashes and turning into another feudal hellhole.
One of the reasons the French kings so eagerly supported the Crusade was to usurp the sovereignty of the local lords and the merchant enclaves there that were reluctant to let some distant monarch rule over their affairs.
>>1273723
They were heretics. Heresy deserves no tolerance.
>>1273714
>>1273716
Considering the relative rarity of Medieval secular art-forms and the excess of Medieval religious art, Medieval secular art is much more prized because it can actually show the the more 'day-to-day' aspects of Medieval life, something which we hardly get with the multitude of religious art until the introduction of new motifs and styles in the 16th century.
tl;dr secular medieval art is worth much more than religious medieval art, of which so much exists that it's value is inflated.
>>1273741
So your evidence of its lack of contribution is because it was destroyed? I don't even know how to feel about that argument. You also seem to be vaguely suggesting... something. I don't support the Church entirely, but I do push against the position it was singularly good or evil. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
>>1273754
>"Those heretics who don't believe what I believe deserve to be killed for not believing what I believe! Their lives are worth nothing and they should be eradicated!"
>"What? Oh no! Those disgusting atheists/ muslims are killing ''''innocent'''' Christians! What an outrage! This is disgusting - we need a new Crusade to save them!"
Talk shit, get hit
>>1273754
So what conclusion do we draw this? According to your own statement is it wrong that the Cathars were killed? This was extreme cruelty to people. You had Cathar and Catholic people living side by side and managing to get along until the church decides to go in and kill everyone in the land (yes including other Catholics). Was this "wrong"
Or is the killing of people because they have a different theology correct?
>>1273754
But Catholics were killed too, idiot. The Abbot of Citeaux famously replied - upon being asked on how to distinguish Cathars from Catholics - that all citizens should be killed, for "God will know his own", and the Crusaders would rampage and kill people in the area regardless of religion.
>>1273827
>the IDEAS THEY HELD needed to die
So does your religion.
>>1273827
Well with this mindset the following mind sets are also possible
>Protestantism needed to die for being heresy. It's unfortunate the Protestants themselves were
>Buddhism needed to die for being heresy. It's unfortunate the Buddihists themselves were killed
I could go on, the point is that you've essentially put furth an idealogy where all you need to to justify mass murder is to say "heretic!" and it's justified.
Now here is the fun part about your beleif. I agree with you! I really do! I do not tolerate the idea of Catholicism! The idea needs to die. However if a few Catholics get KILLED along the way that's unfortune, but whining about it won't bring em back! So you see I am very tolerant!!!
>>1273842
Bhuddism isn't heresy. It could never be heresy because it was never Christian to begin with.
>>1273862
So is Protestnaism heresy? You gonna call for a crusade against them lol!
>>1273853
>Again, the IDEAS THEY HELD needed to die. They themselves shouldn't have been killed but there's nothing you can do to change that.
This is the origenal edge. Telling the christ-fag that his "ideas need to die" is just turning his own crusading katana against him.
>>1270399
The Russians seemed pretty fond of using Orthodoxy to justify autocracy. Even though the church didn't act independently of secular power it was still used by autocrats for that purpose. Ivan IV was very fond of using his status as head of the Orthodox church to persecute the boyars for heresy and witchcraft, and claimed that anyone who opposed him was anti-Christian because they threatened to divide the church.
>>1273842
>Now here is the fun part about your beleif. I agree with you! I really do! I do not tolerate the idea of Catholicism! The idea needs to die. However if a few Catholics get KILLED along the way that's unfortune, but whining about it won't bring em back! So you see I am very tolerant!!!
You can try but we already know the Church will survive the persecution as she always does.
>>1273754
from my point of view the Catholics are heretics!
>>1273899
The church has the high ground.
>>1273726
>And what's the state of the theology today? The Pope is basically moving the church in a more and more "tolerant" direction. He's relaxing more and more what it means to "sin" and extending forgiveness to include non-Christians.
You know nothing jon snow. The Church is in its biggest crisis in history right now exactly because of people like him. We were told this shit would happen in 1600 already. Catholic mystics saw the arrival of the Church of two Popes in 1800. You fedora faggots have no idea about how real Catholicism is. This Pope will have to answer to God for misleading some secular degenerates that they will only receive mercy and not judgement.
The gates of hell will not prevail, as they never have. Satan is a weakling that prays on the minds of self-righteous degenerates like you.
> the real world is different than your internet circle-jerk
You have no idea what you are talking about. Not even Francis can change dogma. Nobody can. The deposit of the faith will always be preserved. The Truth will be mantained and the gates of hell won't prevail.
>Catholicism very much today represents the "hippy" approach to life
lmao nice fan-fiction
>Part of being a Catholic means that the church is the spiritual guide for earth
Which is the reason why heresy deserves to be crushed. There is only one spiritural truth.
>>1273899
your point of view is irrelevant, as it does not affect objective truth the slightest
>>1273899
KEK
>>1273921
And the objective fact is that your God is a fake. Your point of view is irrelevant, as it does not affect objective truth the slightest.
>>1273899
From what base and how?
>>1273926
But that's false.
>>1273929
Your assertion is irrelevant, as it does not affect objective truth the slightest
>>1273931
But the objective truth is that Jesus is God.
>>1273926
>>1273931
did I trigger you fedora-boy? You are free to say God does not exist, curse at him and act edgy as much as you want as long as you breath on this earth. Don't complain when you find out what comes after. St.Fausina Kowalska told us that most of the people in hell were those that "didn't believe hell existed". Repent.
>>1273951
stop shitposting anytime now
>>1273951
No our argument is Jesus is God and your argument is that our God is fake. These are different arguments.
>>1273958
You havn't presented any arguement, you've simply presented an assertion "This is God" used to justify thuggery. I and other annons tried to show you that you can just as easily assert that some other thing is God or that there is no God. Because an assertion does not carry weight. "Jesus is God' "Catholics worship the devil" "Mary is swallowing my fat load right now" are equally without weight, they are just assertions not evidence.
I'll put aside the silly question of what is and isn't "God" and say this: if your only method for justifying an action in history revolves around trying to prove your God exists you have a horribly shallow understanding. "My God exists, therefor I am right" is the last resort of someone with no argument, even theological circles it's seen as pathetic. Descartes said something to the effect that "There is no point in trying to relay on God to prove things because our our opponent's have a different idea of what God is. We should relay on rational proofs that do not need God" Yes, even the importaint Christians think "cuz God" is something meaningless.
>>1269580
This is a false accusation because the concept of historical value was not yet or very poorly developed among premodern societies. In fact the whole concept of history is a modern one.
Prople here defend catholics because the crusades were awesome and because crazy protestants.
>>1270300
Thats a really outdated view of western history. If this was still the 19th century such a narrative would be acceptable.
The enlightenment was an intellectual black hole where rhetoricians tried to coast off the genuine successes of the 17th century natural philosophers. Their success was heralded by the reintroduction of Scholasticism to the universities, which allowed for a degree of intellectual rigor that was lost during the Reformation and Renaissance, that plus the new technological developments available lead to the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution was continued on and is the one good thing modernity has to show for itself. But that in itself was primarily a Christian Scholastic affair ( albeit a mutated form of Scholasticism) and ran entirely contrary to the Renaissance.
>>1273588
>From the fall of Rome to high middle ages culture largely stagnated
Naw. Come 800 with the Carolingian Renaissance the culture got going again. The "division of powers" in government, what were essentially trade unions pushing for their rights, Gothic architecture, and the advancement of logic, all got going, to name just a few examples. The mixing of Germanic pagan and Roman Catholic cultures lead to an extremely dynamic culture based on the best of both cultural forms. By the high middle ages, the culture was better than it had ever been, and probably ever will be again.
>>1273991
The hell it was. Many if not most cosmopolitan peoples the world over had a great appreciation for history even if they were incapable of preserving it in a more than rudimentary way.
>>1273992
Based anon is based.
>>1273992
>scholasticism
>intellectual rigor
dude aristotle lmao
>>1273991
>In fact the whole concept of history is a modern one.
This is retarded. The idea of the "field of history" as an academic pursuit might be new, but interest in history is almost as old as people and we've had both oral and written histories for milennia.
It was just that many people didn't have much interest in preserving things they didn't like for the mere sake of future interest, IE "for the record", and why would you if you were a religion?
Had Catharism survived we would've had Marx and communism earlier
Make of that what you wish
>>1274260
How do you conclude that? Historical "what ifs" are pretty stupid
This thread reeks of anglocuck.
I'm glad that the Church thrives, while Protestantism erodes, erodes, and erodes.
>>1274084
Considering that they were the best logicians we had until Frege, yes they were intellectually rigorous. Maybe try learning about the philosophy of that period ( through serious history of philosophy works - not historians trying to understand philosophy through what ever lens they approach history with) before you comment. Also, all the major advancements that saw us moving away from Aristotle had its roots in post 1277 Scholasticism after Aristotle's work started to be seriously improved upon and reworked by thinkers like Scotus, Ockham, Buridan, Oresme, etc. Even moving totally beyond him in some cases, like impetus theory.
>>1274577
As someone actually going throuh the history of philosophy I really gotta say. The scholastic era has got to be the most boring, trivial stage in history. Minor advances in logic at best. Unless you had a super hard on for analytic I don't see much of a reason to not completely skip over everything between the fall of Rome and the start of the Renaissance. It's without a doubt the lowest point in philosophy and frankly seems to have forgotten lessons that were learned by the fucking per-socratics, for instance Thales right off the bat moved us away from religion and towards naturalism.
>>1269580
The Holy Catholic Church built the civilization which you're leeching off, m'lad.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZDj5nM0KbdUTEpoka1oyAR8BtHfIiVJm
>>1274676
>Catholic Church
>"holy"
>>1274765
Read Matt. 16:18-19. Is Jesus' mouth not Holy?
The One True Church will keep on keeping on. Heretics, heathens, and pagans will continue to get fucked.
>>1274641
>Unless you had a super hard on for analytic
Thats actually my point. The analytic style of thought was really foreshadowed in high medieval scholasticism. I prefer to have the rigorous textbook style of thought where all the possible arguments are laid out, all potential objections the author can think of dealt with, the reasoning is actually valid, and the focus is on the community of scholars dealing with issues together. Enlightenment thinkers, idealists, and continentals, are all too self contained and egotistical, skip over too many important potential objections, have too flimsy of reasoning, and don't have very rigorous argument styles. It is "cooler" and more aesthetically pleasing, but it is usually ultra obscurantist ( German Idealism and Continental Philosophy especially) and pretty shallow content wise.
>Minor advances in logic at best
Really ? They were working on things like self referential paradox's which were still a huge deal in the 20th century, and developed temporal and modal logic past Aristotle ( something which again would not be taken up until the 20th century), not to mention all the radical advances in focusing on logic as a facet of language. We didn't get anything more important until Frege and Peirce combined propositional and predicate logic. And Peirce held the Scholastics ability as logicians in high regard.
I would also argue that the Renaissance thinkers forgot the lessons taught to us by Plato and Aristotle that delegitimated the pre-socratic thinkers after thousands of years of people getting that naturalism was a dead end.
>>1274913
analytic philosophy is no more "reasonable" or "well thought out" than any other philosophy. It just uses a mathemtical like formula to have an aura of superiority. It's a narrow use of philosophy while the things you dismissed are flourishing. I can spot Renaissance humanism ideas everywhere, even in your own church. While scholastic and analytic influence is much tinier. Powerful ideas flourish while weaker ideas stay in niche area.
It also speaks volumes that the scholastic/analytic mode ultimatly turned on religion. Ocam's razor was intended to explain miracles, it know cuts them. Centuries of med-evil metaphysics all culminated in Spinoza who used it to destroy Christian and Jewish ideas about God. And the child of scholastics, analytics is ultimately a fedora breeding ground. The autistic hyper-rationility of scholastic demystified your own world, ruined the divine mysteries and destroyed your spirituality from within, leaving a lifeless, positivist legacy that ultimatly denied the divine. While the poet philosophy (neo-platoism, Renaissance Gurus like Pico and Bruno, Hegel, Nietzsche etc) ultimately ended up as an enabler of the spiritual.
>I would also argue that the Renaissance thinkers forgot the lessons taught to us by Plato and Aristotle that delegitimated the pre-socratic thinkers after thousands of years of people getting that naturalism was a dead end.
If you aren't in naturalism you are chasing spooks. The mysticism and anti-naturalism of Plato/Aristotle is ultimately their failing point and why their influence over the world started to drop once Nietzsche hit scene and reunited the mystical and the natural rather than having them as two separate identities. Everything is naturalistic, even idealism ultimately has a material basis in the human brain. Naturalism IS the reality and part of the job of the philosophers is to mystify and exalt it, otherwise nihilism comes crushing down.
>>1274765
>Voltaire
>Not deformed cuck
>>1269580
Because it's the only way. Everything else is heretical. The Truth always previals.
>>1274885
Yeah no. Your church is only thriving in the third-world. The days of christian dominance in north america and europe are either over or soon to be over, and based on how christards such as yourself have acted in this thread I honestly couldn't be happier.
>>1275204
When that happens it will prove it never really was the true church =D
>>1273909
What is it with catholics and this eternal persecution complex? This isn't the early days of the Roman Empire anymore. If anything, since the day Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the catholic church has consistently been the one oppressing and persecuting others.
>>1275375
>the catholic church has consistently been the one oppressing and persecuting others.
ummmm its literally 2016
>>1275375
You sure are cucked if you think the French Revolution """"""""Liberated"""""""" Europe.
>>1275387
Americans aren't a real catholics anyway. County was literally founded by heretics, protestants and masons.
>>1275387
I see some men have been wearing women's dress and you cherry picked some losers from the internet.
This means you are being oppressed and that the religion didn't spend the vast majority of it's life span oppressing others.
>>1275045
>enabler of the spiritual
>once Nietzsche hit scene and reunited the mystical and the natural
>mfw all these spooks.
>>1275387
>hurr durr the '50s were a perfect Golden Age!!
Hate to break it to you, but just because your old TV shows depict a perfect American suburbia doesn't mean it was real.
>>1275398
omg get over it this is now
>>1275409
Nah, Nietzche's spirtual system isn't a spook. It doesn't aim to place itself above the ego.
>>1275416
>watching TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW21rcHiVU0
>>1275424
Ok, quantify spirituality.
Also, you feel happiness because your brain that makes dopamine tells you that the dopamine feels good because it made dopamine in response to external stimuli that it makes dopamine in response to and then tells itself that the dopamine it made feels good. So appealing to nature in order to "prove" spirituality is bullshit.
Anyway, the easy answer to the OP's question is that the Church does, or tries to do, Christ's will on Earth. That's literally the whole reason it exists.
Of course if you don't think Christianity is the truth, this is a pretty flimsy justification for punishing and stamping out heresy. However, the fact remains that that is the reason. Since correct belief is essential to entering Heaven, heresy, which is incorrect belief, must be ruthlessly wiped out.
>>1275431
You have no idea how cringe-worthy you appear to others
>"the 1950s had good music therefore it was a Golden Age of humanity unlike the degenerate today!"
>>1275422
What are you even saying? Didn't the leader of your church make huge steps to make homosexuality more acceptable? He even opened up the gates of heaven to gays and atheists.
>>1275445
I don't think the 50's were a "golden age." I think Western culture has simply gone from bad to worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU8HrO7XuiE
>>1275457
JESUS is the leader of my church ;0)
>>1275450
What I'm telling you is that, from a naturalistic point of view, "mystical" and "spiritual" are bullshit terms for muh fee fees.
>>1275437
Do you even understand what you are responding to? What do you think uniting the spiritual and naturalism mean? Nietzsche was aware of the naturalistic explanation for the sensations and he didn't argue against it. I'm not even sure what you mean by "appealing to nature"
>>1275470
Remade the post you responded to here, to make correciton.
>>1275470
Nietzsche's philosophy is based on passions. You simply cannot get any sort of valuation without going to "feelings". Even basic things like preferring life or death ultimately are traced back to some instincts or another. When someone says that their value system is "true" it just means that the axioms of the system appeal to them on some emotional level. The rejection of spirituality and mysticism is also a manifestation of some personal feeling: it can be a hatred for religious stuff in general, a desire to have the high-ground by appearing more rational, etc. Just as the desire for spirtualkity is the result of some passion. Both are based on feelings.
You can't get an Is from an Ought.
Anyway I could go into details about Nietzche's thinking because the annon I was talking had a background in philosophy so I don't need to explain basic philosophical concepts like I am now (these one's aren't even unique to Nietzsche)
>>1275485
>I do understand what I am responding to
Clearly you don't.
>It doesn't matter if the "spirituality" comes from a rationalistic worldview,
Because you say stuff like this. Nietzsche's spiritualism is not rational, he completely rejects the idea that spiritualism ever can be rational.
>People want to be "spiritual" because they are afraid of being dirty little hedonists.
I have never heard anyone give this as a reason, sounds to me like it's just your little way of pretending to be better than everyone "everyone that is not spirtual is a dirty hedonist, but the only real spirtual system is mine. Making me the victor!" People can have all sorts of reasons for being or not being spiritual.
Now stop embarrassing yourself by trying to criticize a system that you yourself have already shown you haven't read a word from.
>>1275518
I'm not getting an is from an ought. I'm telling you that you are a robot, a with synapses instead of lines of code, but a robot all the same.
By that the metric of that "is" (because it is an "is" not an "ought"), rejection of religiosity is a moot point when the individual then segues into spirituality.
Passion, by the way, is also bullshit. Let me simplify it for you.
You see thing. Brain say "thing good!". You respond "evidence please". Brain make dopamine. You respond "that no more evidence than rock". Brain say "Dopamine feel good!". You respond "what proof do you have?". "Brain say "because me say so!".
You do something that makes you happy. Your happy because brain makes dopamine. The dopamine feels good because your brain says it does. The same brain that makes the dopamine also tells you that the dopamine it has made feels good (no evidence, no proof, not even a theory, just hearsay). Your brain is you. You need to convince yourself that the things that make you happy actually make you happy. Circular logic.
>>1275531
I have made no claims to spirituality.
>>1275559
I am not dying that sensations have a material basis, hell I don't even think free will is a valid concept (although I'm not exactly a determinist either). What I, and Nietzche's system, is trying to present reality in a more enchanted mode of thought.
The human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe, it's not a hamster wheel, and if you know even a bit of psychology the exact mechanisms are incredibly complex and mysterious.
Nietzsche actually anticipated that with the death of God, the increasing power of naturalistic/scientific world view that humans would ultimately trivialize their own existence and passions. His system is the opposite of this, things become significant precociously because your brain is you! The mechanism of the brain become the epic quest for Power which is just another express of the great Will to Power.
I cannot convert you to be Zarathustra's disciple it's based on passions so ultimately you have to experience for yourself and it's ultimately is a system that you need to discover for yourself and create it into your own. So just know I am not trying to proselytize.
>>1275375
>What is it with catholics and this eternal persecution complex?
jews have been trying to destroy the Church since 33AD
protestants have been trying to destroy the Church sine the 1500s
atheists (useful idiots) have been trying to destrot the Church since the 19th century
This is a fact.
