Little Mosque On The Prairie

paul_valaru said:
insignificant? sorta sounds like she was wearing a mini skirt, she deserved to be raped.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but Hitler used it to propagate his own idealogy.

paul_valaru said:
and cathars followed their own beleifs, it was declared hesesy, and they where killed, they did nothing wrong besides follow their own beleifs.
Click to expand...

They [Fundamentalists] identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.
Click to expand...

Source
 
paul_valaru said:
because catholic.com said so, a quick google painted a very different picture of them. reading about cathars on catholic.com is like reading about jews on nazi.com
Click to expand...

The quote I gave you is true about their beliefs and can be cross referenced. They did refuse to take oaths and condemned marriage and so on. If these beliefs were allowed to triumph in a feudal society then there would be trouble. There is no denying that.
 
Gotholic said:
The quote I gave you is true about their beliefs and can be cross referenced. They did refuse to take oaths and condemned marriage and so on. If these beliefs were allowed to triumph in a feudal society then there would be trouble. There is no denying that.
Click to expand...

To the feudal lords who controlled half the world, or the church who controlled the other half? Their beleifs lifted them from the schackles of the lords and the church, or course they had to die.
 
Gotholic said:
The quote I gave you is true about their beliefs and can be cross referenced. They did refuse to take oaths and condemned marriage and so on. If these beliefs were allowed to triumph in a feudal society then there would be trouble. There is no denying that.
Click to expand...

Especially in a feudal society which was the power-base for the Papacy.

A good chunk of North America today refuse to take oaths to the Pope and condemn marriage..time for another Crusade?
 
paul_valaru said:
To the feudal lords who controlled half the world, or the church who controlled the other half? Their beleifs lifted them from the schackles of the lords and the church, or course they had to die.
Click to expand...

You're beating around the bush. It wasn't just about the Church as I have said. It was the fabric of society in general.

MrBishop said:
Especially in a feudal society which was the power-base for the Papacy.

A good chunk of North America today refuse to take oaths to the Pope and condemn marriage..time for another Crusade?
Click to expand...

Religion and marriage are not as important, and do not carry much weight anymore in the fabric of society.

Also, we hold contracts more binding than oaths now.

Though I will say this, at the rate the West is depopulating with contraception and abortion and the way the East is rising in both population and hostility, it will be no surprise that an offensive "Crusade" will one day be launched at us.
 
you lived, died, got married, owned land only with the churches permission back then, how more absolute can you get.

You might as well have been Winston Smith back then with all the control you had over your own life.

The Cathars where the Harry Tuttle's of their time.

(yes I know I am referencing 1894 AND Brazil, and the characters never appear in the same fictional universe)
 
there was reference about something like this somewhere here - but i can't be arsed trying to find it-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qUsXzoRnM0

search was; top gear gets stoned in alabama

They drove into the south with slogans like 'manlove' and 'hilary for president' and 'nascar sucks' etc - painted on their cars with a film crew ...

apparently it aired here 2 nights ago -

(the quality isn't great and the audio levels low)

(btw watched a tiny bit of the little mosque on you tube - was quite funny :D )
 
Inkara1 said:
I've edited something and had it go live immediately before. I'm not a wiki member.
Click to expand...

If ti made sense or spoke true..it probably stayed too. What often happens is something stays until it's trumped by a better or more complete definition...each step taking it closer to the actual.

I've heard of people posting stupid definitions and having them last all of 12 seconds before being veted, changed back etc...

Wiki was a few writers and millions of editors, each one trying to make sure that the right definition is in play. There will always be a few fucktards trying to play jokes using this medium, or slanting it with racist remarks etc..but by and large, I rarely run into a blatantly incorrect definition.
 
They can't put butts in the pews if everyone goes & dies whenever they choose, all willy-nilly like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top