A
Anonymous
Guest
uhhh whoa...that guy is scary lookin...
Wicker Man
Trooper
Didn't Nostradomus (sorry if it's spelled wrong) say the antichrist would come out of China in 1999?
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Nostradamus said a lot of things, most of them most likely crap. He is a prime example of what the Inquisition feared, a Jew that converted to Catholicism but doesn't take it seriously and still practices Judaism. But putting Nostradamus aside.
I agree with Iron Duke on his assertions of the famous "anti-christ" The devil is overrated in our society thanks to popular theology, movies and pagan ideals that have survived for thousands of years. The devil IS NOT the opposite of God, nor is he equal to him in any way. He is one of his angels. The best examples of what Satan (lucifer, devil, advocate, adversary, azazel) does is in the book of Job and in Mathew Ch. 4. "then Jesus was led by the Spiriit into the desrt to be tempted by the devil" Matt. ch. 4 v. 1 of the New American Bible. It is his JOB to test us, he tested Job and he tested Jesus' human nature. He IS NOT "evil" he is merely doing what he is meant to do. I suggest you guys read [a href=\'http://forum.maidenfans.com/index.php?showtopic=3964&view=findpost&p=93031\' target=\'_blank\']this[/a] to get a better picture as to why "satan" i seen equal to God and why the Orthodox belief (Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Anglican/Episcopalian/Methodists,Lutheran,Calvinist and even Baptist) rejects such silliness.
I agree with Iron Duke on his assertions of the famous "anti-christ" The devil is overrated in our society thanks to popular theology, movies and pagan ideals that have survived for thousands of years. The devil IS NOT the opposite of God, nor is he equal to him in any way. He is one of his angels. The best examples of what Satan (lucifer, devil, advocate, adversary, azazel) does is in the book of Job and in Mathew Ch. 4. "then Jesus was led by the Spiriit into the desrt to be tempted by the devil" Matt. ch. 4 v. 1 of the New American Bible. It is his JOB to test us, he tested Job and he tested Jesus' human nature. He IS NOT "evil" he is merely doing what he is meant to do. I suggest you guys read [a href=\'http://forum.maidenfans.com/index.php?showtopic=3964&view=findpost&p=93031\' target=\'_blank\']this[/a] to get a better picture as to why "satan" i seen equal to God and why the Orthodox belief (Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Anglican/Episcopalian/Methodists,Lutheran,Calvinist and even Baptist) rejects such silliness.
The_7th_Son
Ancient Mariner
[!--QuoteBegin-Ascendancy+Nov 5 2005, 06:18 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Ascendancy @ Nov 5 2005, 06:18 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Follow this link to see the real Anti-Christ! [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[a href=\'http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v36/aoki666/Dani_Filth2.jpg\' target=\'_blank\']The Real Anti-Christ[/a]
Dani Filth is a pussy.
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--] [a href=\'http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v36/aoki666/Dani_Filth2.jpg\' target=\'_blank\']The Real Anti-Christ[/a]
[snapback]122197[/snapback]
[/quote]Dani Filth is a pussy.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-The_7th_Son+Nov 6 2005, 01:48 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(The_7th_Son @ Nov 6 2005, 01:48 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Dani Filth is a pussy.
I know, I was being ironic. It's because he seems to think that he is the anti-christ. The band is crap aswell i must add. [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]122258[/snapback]
[/quote]I know, I was being ironic. It's because he seems to think that he is the anti-christ. The band is crap aswell i must add. [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Nov 5 2005, 04:12 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Nov 5 2005, 04:12 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]... the Orthodox belief ... rejects such silliness.
[atheist rant]
They reject that silliness, but hold on to their "Jesus rose from the dead" silliness?
Seems their silliness barometer is highly selective.
There's a lot more silliness in their religions that ought to be dispensed with. All the mythological elements such as the resurrection, virgin birth, miracles etc. would be a good start.
The only parts of Christianity worth salvaging are the teachings of Jesus, which are (mostly) some of the wisest things ever said.
[/atheist rant]
[snapback]122229[/snapback]
[/quote][atheist rant]
They reject that silliness, but hold on to their "Jesus rose from the dead" silliness?
Seems their silliness barometer is highly selective.
There's a lot more silliness in their religions that ought to be dispensed with. All the mythological elements such as the resurrection, virgin birth, miracles etc. would be a good start.
The only parts of Christianity worth salvaging are the teachings of Jesus, which are (mostly) some of the wisest things ever said.
[/atheist rant]
A
Anonymous
Guest
Good point MisterX, also most of Christianity was stolen off the Jews, and the Pope is always a liar. Some catholic priests are anti-christs beacuse look at all the chil abuse that has happened.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-SinisterMinisterX+Nov 6 2005, 01:38 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Nov 6 2005, 01:38 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--][atheist rant]
They reject that silliness, but hold on to their "Jesus rose from the dead" silliness?
Seems their silliness barometer is highly selective.
There's a lot more silliness in their religions that ought to be dispensed with. All the mythological elements such as the resurrection, virgin birth, miracles etc. would be a good start.
The only parts of Christianity worth salvaging are the teachings of Jesus, which are (mostly) some of the wisest things ever said.
[/atheist rant]
This thread was created to discuss the topic of the antichrist in a movie, not to slagg off Christians and have pot-shots. I wish this thread to be closed down, too many "my opinion is right-ers"
They reject that silliness, but hold on to their "Jesus rose from the dead" silliness?
Seems their silliness barometer is highly selective.
There's a lot more silliness in their religions that ought to be dispensed with. All the mythological elements such as the resurrection, virgin birth, miracles etc. would be a good start.
The only parts of Christianity worth salvaging are the teachings of Jesus, which are (mostly) some of the wisest things ever said.
[/atheist rant]
[snapback]122267[/snapback]
[/quote]This thread was created to discuss the topic of the antichrist in a movie, not to slagg off Christians and have pot-shots. I wish this thread to be closed down, too many "my opinion is right-ers"
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]
[atheist rant]
They reject that silliness, but hold on to their "Jesus rose from the dead" silliness?
Seems their silliness barometer is highly selective.
There's a lot more silliness in their religions that ought to be dispensed with. All the mythological elements such as the resurrection, virgin birth, miracles etc. would be a good start.
The only parts of Christianity worth salvaging are the teachings of Jesus, which are (mostly) some of the wisest things ever said.
[/atheist rant]
[/quote]
and I reject THIS silliness, specially coming from you SMX. Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you are mad at someone not to take it out on someone else? Jesus rising from the dead IS NOT silly if you believe he is GOD (hellooooo all-powerful mean ANYTHING too you?) therefore to say there is a power equal and opposite to this "all-powerful" being IS silly, because it wouldn't be all-powerful now would it? THAT is what I meant by silliness, silly in the eyes of orthodoxy. GEEEEEESSSS.
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Good point MisterX, also most of Christianity was stolen off the Jews, and the Pope is always a liar. Some catholic priests are anti-christs beacuse look at all the chil abuse that has happened.
[/quote]
And THIS comment is beyond silly, closer to off-subect, inappropriate stupidity which I won't even get into.
[atheist rant]
They reject that silliness, but hold on to their "Jesus rose from the dead" silliness?
Seems their silliness barometer is highly selective.
There's a lot more silliness in their religions that ought to be dispensed with. All the mythological elements such as the resurrection, virgin birth, miracles etc. would be a good start.
The only parts of Christianity worth salvaging are the teachings of Jesus, which are (mostly) some of the wisest things ever said.
[/atheist rant]
[/quote]
and I reject THIS silliness, specially coming from you SMX. Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you are mad at someone not to take it out on someone else? Jesus rising from the dead IS NOT silly if you believe he is GOD (hellooooo all-powerful mean ANYTHING too you?) therefore to say there is a power equal and opposite to this "all-powerful" being IS silly, because it wouldn't be all-powerful now would it? THAT is what I meant by silliness, silly in the eyes of orthodoxy. GEEEEEESSSS.
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Good point MisterX, also most of Christianity was stolen off the Jews, and the Pope is always a liar. Some catholic priests are anti-christs beacuse look at all the chil abuse that has happened.
[/quote]
And THIS comment is beyond silly, closer to off-subect, inappropriate stupidity which I won't even get into.
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Nov 6 2005, 02:12 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Nov 6 2005, 02:12 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]...Jesus rising from the dead IS NOT silly if you believe he is GOD...
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\'](italics added by SMX)[/span]
My post was clearly labeled as an atheist rant. Therefore, the italicized portion of the above quote renders your response irrelevant to my rant.
Returning to this thread's original topic:
Assume for a moment that you accept the Christian mythology, and that you agree with Onhell's argument that the Devil is not equal in power to God. This would not preclude the Devil from sending his son to Earth as an Antichrist. It would simply mean that such an Antichrist would eventually be defeated by God.
Recall that this thread was inspired by The Omen. [span style=\'color:red\']Those of you who haven't seen the entire Omen Trilogy may wish to stop reading now because here comes some spoilers.[/span] At the end of the third movie ("Omen III: The Final Conflict"), Jesus returns to Earth (the Second Coming) and kills Damien. Thus this final scene does reflect some traditional Christian views.
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\'](italics added by SMX)[/span]
[snapback]122273[/snapback]
[/quote]My post was clearly labeled as an atheist rant. Therefore, the italicized portion of the above quote renders your response irrelevant to my rant.
Returning to this thread's original topic:
Assume for a moment that you accept the Christian mythology, and that you agree with Onhell's argument that the Devil is not equal in power to God. This would not preclude the Devil from sending his son to Earth as an Antichrist. It would simply mean that such an Antichrist would eventually be defeated by God.
Recall that this thread was inspired by The Omen. [span style=\'color:red\']Those of you who haven't seen the entire Omen Trilogy may wish to stop reading now because here comes some spoilers.[/span] At the end of the third movie ("Omen III: The Final Conflict"), Jesus returns to Earth (the Second Coming) and kills Damien. Thus this final scene does reflect some traditional Christian views.
A
Anonymous
Guest
For those who have read -- and undertood! -- the Bible, Satan himself is roaming the Earth after he was cast down from Heaven by the Archangel Gabriel and his army of angels. Why should he send a son (or daughter, whatever), if he's already there himself?
For the same reason a supposedly omnipresent god needed to send his son to where god supposedly already was. And then kill him because Eve ate an apple.
In other words: it doesn't make sense to me either.
In other words: it doesn't make sense to me either.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oh, and God's son supposedly died for our sins... which are still being committed since the last 2,000 years or so of his death. Talk about a waste of time! [!--emo&--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
I think God should review his PR department and organise a massive restructuration. [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--] I think God should review his PR department and organise a massive restructuration. [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
This reminds me of last night when I was reading SMX's blog for the first time since like May. He needs to update it again. It's high class.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Maverick+Nov 6 2005, 02:55 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Nov 6 2005, 02:55 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]For those who have read -- and undertood! -- the Bible, Satan himself is roaming the Earth after he was cast down from Heaven by the Archangel Gabriel and his army of angels. Why should he send a son (or daughter, whatever), if he's already there himself?
It's because he is fat and lazy! He sits in his armchair eating pies and burgers while listening to Iron Maiden and Ozzy Osbourne. He has 666 children to do his work for him and then Dani Filth comes in and begs to be his servant.
[snapback]122292[/snapback]
[/quote]It's because he is fat and lazy! He sits in his armchair eating pies and burgers while listening to Iron Maiden and Ozzy Osbourne. He has 666 children to do his work for him and then Dani Filth comes in and begs to be his servant.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
[!--QuoteBegin-SinisterMinisterX+Nov 6 2005, 01:46 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Nov 6 2005, 01:46 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]My post was clearly labeled as an atheist rant. Therefore, the italicized portion of the above quote renders your response irrelevant to my rant.
[/quote]
k I was starting to worry I was in a bad twilight zone episode
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Returning to this thread's original topic:
Assume for a moment that you accept the Christian mythology, and that you agree with Onhell's argument that the Devil is not equal in power to God. This would not preclude the Devil from sending his son to Earth as an Antichrist. It would simply mean that such an Antichrist would eventually be defeated by God.
[/quote]
you are not accepting the christian mythology but rather the Zoroastrian mythology. In the christian mythology there is ONE all-powerful, always present, all-knowing God. He also happens to be all loving and all just. If he is in fact all loving NOTHING is bad or evil, we choose to give it that definition. SATAN IS NOT BAD OR EVIL, he is simply one more angel. And since it is clear nobody read the link i supplied above I'll just say it here:
In zoroastrianism you have one all-power (loving, good whatever) God Azura (or Ahura) Mazda (yes like the car) or Divne Wisdom that created everything. he also created to two twin spirits Spenta Manyu and Angra (yes like the band) Manyu. Spenta manyu is a good spirit and Angra manyu is evil, he is the cause for everything evil in this world. We have a choice either to follow spenta's example or Angra's. Now they are in etrnal struggle and at the end of time Azura Mazda will say something to the effect of "ok, I've had enough I'm destroying everything" and in effect defeats Angra manyu. EVERYBODY IS SAVED including the people that chose to do evil and go to "heaven". This is known as COSMIC dualism. and this is ZOROASTRIANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.
In ANTI-cosmic dualism which we have come to know through our firends the Cathars the opposite is believed, where everything physical is bad/evil and only the spiritual is good, thus Jesus was never human but only appeared to and he is in eternal struggle with satan. The cathars merely substituted Azura Mazda with God, Spenta with Jesus and Angra with Satan. and In the end only the elect will go to heaven and everybody else will be damned.
Why is this heresy (in the eyes of orthodoxy!!!!)? 1. It denies Christ's two natures (human and divine) 2. makes Jesus subordinate to God when in fact they are one and the same (the Trinity) and it makes Satan equal to Jesus which would make him equal to god which would mean there are Two gods not one and that can't happen in a monotheistic religion. Not to mention SATAN IS A MERE ANGEL!!! All this crap that "in the bible it says he fell" "in the bible it says he roams" "int the bible blah blah" you guys ever heard of quoting scripture? WHERE does it say that for I've never seen it and I've been looking for it ever since I was 12. The Bible speaks of the fall of a KING in Isaih Chapter 14 v. 1-23:
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. 2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. 3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, 4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. 6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. 7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. 8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. 9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. 10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? 11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? 18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. 21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. 22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD. 23 I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.[/quote]
note this version says "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon" others say "this taunt-song" or satire. this version does use "Lucifer", my NAB Bible uses "morning star".
NOTE: Lucifer was ascribed to Satan BY THE CHURCH FATHERS, not the bible! This clearly speaks of a MORTAL earthly king, not satan/ the devil.
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Recall that this thread was inspired by The Omen. [span style=\'color:red\']Those of you who haven't seen the entire Omen Trilogy may wish to stop reading now because here comes some spoilers.[/span] At the end of the third movie ("Omen III: The Final Conflict"), Jesus returns to Earth (the Second Coming) and kills Damien. Thus this final scene does reflect some traditional Christian views.
[/quote]
Recall I said that this misconception of Satan being in anyway equal in power to God or "sending his son" is a survival of zoroastrian/cathar (dualist) ideas perpetuated by literature and movies such as the Omen.
[/quote]
k I was starting to worry I was in a bad twilight zone episode
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Returning to this thread's original topic:
Assume for a moment that you accept the Christian mythology, and that you agree with Onhell's argument that the Devil is not equal in power to God. This would not preclude the Devil from sending his son to Earth as an Antichrist. It would simply mean that such an Antichrist would eventually be defeated by God.
[/quote]
you are not accepting the christian mythology but rather the Zoroastrian mythology. In the christian mythology there is ONE all-powerful, always present, all-knowing God. He also happens to be all loving and all just. If he is in fact all loving NOTHING is bad or evil, we choose to give it that definition. SATAN IS NOT BAD OR EVIL, he is simply one more angel. And since it is clear nobody read the link i supplied above I'll just say it here:
In zoroastrianism you have one all-power (loving, good whatever) God Azura (or Ahura) Mazda (yes like the car) or Divne Wisdom that created everything. he also created to two twin spirits Spenta Manyu and Angra (yes like the band) Manyu. Spenta manyu is a good spirit and Angra manyu is evil, he is the cause for everything evil in this world. We have a choice either to follow spenta's example or Angra's. Now they are in etrnal struggle and at the end of time Azura Mazda will say something to the effect of "ok, I've had enough I'm destroying everything" and in effect defeats Angra manyu. EVERYBODY IS SAVED including the people that chose to do evil and go to "heaven". This is known as COSMIC dualism. and this is ZOROASTRIANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.
In ANTI-cosmic dualism which we have come to know through our firends the Cathars the opposite is believed, where everything physical is bad/evil and only the spiritual is good, thus Jesus was never human but only appeared to and he is in eternal struggle with satan. The cathars merely substituted Azura Mazda with God, Spenta with Jesus and Angra with Satan. and In the end only the elect will go to heaven and everybody else will be damned.
Why is this heresy (in the eyes of orthodoxy!!!!)? 1. It denies Christ's two natures (human and divine) 2. makes Jesus subordinate to God when in fact they are one and the same (the Trinity) and it makes Satan equal to Jesus which would make him equal to god which would mean there are Two gods not one and that can't happen in a monotheistic religion. Not to mention SATAN IS A MERE ANGEL!!! All this crap that "in the bible it says he fell" "in the bible it says he roams" "int the bible blah blah" you guys ever heard of quoting scripture? WHERE does it say that for I've never seen it and I've been looking for it ever since I was 12. The Bible speaks of the fall of a KING in Isaih Chapter 14 v. 1-23:
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. 2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. 3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, 4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. 6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. 7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. 8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. 9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. 10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? 11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? 18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. 21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. 22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD. 23 I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.[/quote]
note this version says "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon" others say "this taunt-song" or satire. this version does use "Lucifer", my NAB Bible uses "morning star".
NOTE: Lucifer was ascribed to Satan BY THE CHURCH FATHERS, not the bible! This clearly speaks of a MORTAL earthly king, not satan/ the devil.
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Recall that this thread was inspired by The Omen. [span style=\'color:red\']Those of you who haven't seen the entire Omen Trilogy may wish to stop reading now because here comes some spoilers.[/span] At the end of the third movie ("Omen III: The Final Conflict"), Jesus returns to Earth (the Second Coming) and kills Damien. Thus this final scene does reflect some traditional Christian views.
[/quote]
Recall I said that this misconception of Satan being in anyway equal in power to God or "sending his son" is a survival of zoroastrian/cathar (dualist) ideas perpetuated by literature and movies such as the Omen.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Nov 6 2005, 09:13 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Nov 6 2005, 09:13 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Recall I said that this misconception of Satan being in anyway equal in power to God or "sending his son" is a survival of zoroastrian/cathar (dualist) ideas perpetuated by literature and movies such as the Omen.
Isn't the whole church in truth Manichaean? The evolution of Christianity is closely linked to Zoroastrianism. So close, in fact, that some believe both religions are basically the same thing with some slight variations.
The central theme of Zoroastrianism is the fight of good vs. evil, which is where Mani's ideas came from. According to Zoroastrianism, the history of mankind is a reflection of the supernatural struggle of good (personified by Ohrmazd, or Ahura Mazda) and bad (personified by Ahriman, or Angra Manyiu). The world will end when Ohrmazd defeats Ahriman.
Couldn't we say then, that everything earthly, including mankind itself, is a creation of the devil?
Where does Jesus fit in there you ask?
Simple: Go(o)d/Ohrmazd/whatever tries to turn the devil's creation against him, which would be an interesting twist to the Jewish/Christian belief that the devil tries to turn God's creation against him with the original Sin.
We could regard the Paradise as God's very own creation, and the rest of the world as the devil's. God expelled Adam and Eve from paradise to the devil's world, and then repeatedly intends to turn mankind to his side (Ten Commandments, Jesus)- i.e. creating a menace to the devil in his own lair. This would conform with my very own philosophic views I expressed earlier in this thread, that the world we live in is actually hell, and that heaven is the place we must try to reach in our lives. Well, it is almost so, considering I don't believe in God or the devil; though these two could be taken as metaphors to the basic conflict of good and evil in ourselves.
Just some unstructured thoughts.
[snapback]122338[/snapback]
[/quote]Isn't the whole church in truth Manichaean? The evolution of Christianity is closely linked to Zoroastrianism. So close, in fact, that some believe both religions are basically the same thing with some slight variations.
The central theme of Zoroastrianism is the fight of good vs. evil, which is where Mani's ideas came from. According to Zoroastrianism, the history of mankind is a reflection of the supernatural struggle of good (personified by Ohrmazd, or Ahura Mazda) and bad (personified by Ahriman, or Angra Manyiu). The world will end when Ohrmazd defeats Ahriman.
Couldn't we say then, that everything earthly, including mankind itself, is a creation of the devil?
Where does Jesus fit in there you ask?
Simple: Go(o)d/Ohrmazd/whatever tries to turn the devil's creation against him, which would be an interesting twist to the Jewish/Christian belief that the devil tries to turn God's creation against him with the original Sin.
We could regard the Paradise as God's very own creation, and the rest of the world as the devil's. God expelled Adam and Eve from paradise to the devil's world, and then repeatedly intends to turn mankind to his side (Ten Commandments, Jesus)- i.e. creating a menace to the devil in his own lair. This would conform with my very own philosophic views I expressed earlier in this thread, that the world we live in is actually hell, and that heaven is the place we must try to reach in our lives. Well, it is almost so, considering I don't believe in God or the devil; though these two could be taken as metaphors to the basic conflict of good and evil in ourselves.
Just some unstructured thoughts.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
this should clarify a couple of things
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The Cathars: A Case of Heresy Helping Define Orthodoxy
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Dualist origins
II. Cathar Beliefs
a. Bogomil influence
b. Original doctrine
III. Catholic Reaction
a. The Albigensian Crusade
b. Dominicans and Franciscans
c. Fourth Lateran Council
Conclusion
Orthodoxy cannot exist without heresy. One cannot know what is right unless it is clear what is wrong. “The subject is two sided. It takes two to create a heresy: the heretic, with his dissident beliefs and practices; and the Church to condemn his views and to define what is orthodox doctrine.” (Lambert, 5) Christianity has had to deal with heresy since it's inception as the official religion of the Roman Empire. In the 13th century the Church had to deal with several dualist heresies the most notable being Catharism. Catharism helped establish and solidify orthodox Catholicism in Western Europe by challenging the Church.
Dualism is a very old worldview originating in what is today known as Iran dating as far back as 1700 B.C to 600 B.C. with the teachings of Zoroaster. In Dualist thought, the universe is the outcome and the battleground of two principles, good and evil or light and darkness. (Stoyanov 2) In Zoroastrianism, the physical world is in essence a “Good Creation' and, although assaulted by evil, sin and death, it is designed to bring about the ultimate destruction of the evil agency. Conversely, anti-cosmic dualism equated the physical world, the body and matter with evil, delusion and darkness, which are conceived as totally opposed to the spiritual realm, soul and light.
Zoroaster preached about two twin Spirits, Spenta Mainyu ('beneficent' or 'Holy spirit' and Angra Mainyu ('hostile or 'destructive spirit'). Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord) gave birth to both. Ahura Mazda is the ultimate never-born Good creator and the only worthy of worship. The twin spirits established life and death and engaged in an eternal struggle between truth and untruth, which is the bases of ethical Zoroastrianism. (Stoyanov, 7)
Angra Mainya chose to do evil and to oppose Ahura Mazda's good creation and the antagonism is irreconcilable. Angra's 'wrong choice' to do the 'worst things' is responsible for evil in the world. (Stoyanov 8) Later Ahura Mazda was not made responsible for the evil presence in the world and the twin spirits were made the complementary forces of maintenance and destruction, the opposite poles of Mazda's power. Evil is the source of Angra's untruth yet is destined to be defeated by Mazda at the end of historical time. (Stoyanov, 9)
Zoroaster's dualism was the blue print for all other dualist movements to come. All other movements adopted and built upon Zoroaster's ideas finally reaching Byzantium in the form of Manichean thought. Bogomilism based itself on Manichean thought (Stoyanov, 130) and also made it's way to Byzantium where French Crusaders brought it back to western Europe where the seeds of Catharism were planted.
Bogomilism heavily influenced the Cathars, who primarily settled in northern Italy and southern France. Bogomil was a tenth century Bulgarian priest that gave shape to the dualist ideas. He gave voice to the oppressed peasantry and his ideas quickly spread to Byzantium. His dualist teachings explained that all that is seen is evil, even flesh is the creation of the fallen angel Satan given to evil. All that is unseen is spiritual. Bogomil monks lived an extremely ascetic life, “eschewing eggs, milk, cheese, meat, all the products of coition, remaining celibate and fasting ruthlessly.” (Lambert, 63) Sympathizers venerated the initiates and would listen to their preaching but did not have to undergo the extreme ascetics of rejecting products of coition, marriage or parenthood. (Lambert, 63)
In 1143-4 Everwin of Steinfled reported the first outbreak of Catharism to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, telling him that in Cologne a group was detected that was well organized. There were three ranks- auditors, believers and elect. Believers became part of the elect by a ceremony of laying-on of hands and a probation period. They consecrated their meals with the Pater Noster and refused to consume any product of coition and rejected marriage. (Lambert, 62) Furthermore, the Cathars believed,
Spiritual beings, imprisoned in base matter, are purified in a cycle of rebirths. The Son is
the most perfect of created angels and is specially adopted by the Father; the Holy Spirit
is the aeon who is in charge of the celestial spirits who minister to the divine spark in man.
Christ only appeared to be man and neither died nor was resurrected. The New Testament
is the work of God the Old that of the Evil One. (Brown, 257)
The relationship between the Son and the Father is reminiscent of that between Spenta Mainyu and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, where the never-born Father creates both Jesus and Satan (the Evil One) and is clearly superior to both. The church reacted swiftly and decisively to get rid of the heresy in two ways, through force and persuasion. Innocent called the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars to forcefully get rid of the heresy, but he also acknowledged and encouraged two new orders, The Dominicans and the Franciscans, to preach to the heretics and bring them back to the orthodox fold.
The single most important issue of the Albigensian Crusade was the Church's realization that it was not fulfilling the people's spiritual needs. The Cathars were just one of several poverty movements that renounced worldly possessions and criticized the Church's wealth. The fact that they differed on the subject of Christ with the Catholics wasn't as important as the fact that their message of simplicity was highly popular with the masses.
The technical definition of a crusade is: an armed expedition against the enemies of Christendom under papal leadership, which will bring the participants spiritual rewards and it is performed for the good of Christendom. Earlier Crusades fulfilled each requirement for example in the first Crusade urban II organized and sent the expedition promising spiritual rewards to the participants and of course it was for the good of Christendom because they were fighting the Muslim infidels.
In the same vein the Albigensian Crusade was a crusade as it fulfills the requirements set forth by the definition. It was led under the leadership of Pope innocent III, he promised spiritual rewards to those willing to participate in the armed expedition against the Cathars. Robert of Wendover made this clear when he wrote,
Pope innocent was greatly grieved at hearing theses things, and he immediately sent
preachers into all the districts of the west, and enjoined to the chiefs and other Christian
people as a remission of their sins, that they should take the sign of the cross for the
extirpation of this plague. (Peters, 26)
In this case, however, the enemies of Christendom were other Christians with different beliefs from Catholics. The focus on the enemies of Christendom went from being the Muslim infidels to Christian heretics. Innocent had already decreed to send out emissaries to preach and bring people back into the Catholic fold, for example Barber tells us, “During the twelfth century, therefore, the Church tried to isolate the disease by excommunication and anathema, using the church councils as its vehicle for condemnation. This was accompanied by a determined campaign of persuasion.” (Barber, 173) Yet the Cathari murdered one of these emissaries, Peter of Castelnau and that was when Innocent had had enough and called a Crusade against the Cathars. (Barber, 173)
Catholicism wasn't simply losing congregants they were losing power. This is made obvious in the fact that many of the nobles that answered the call of crusade only served long enough to gain material possessions or for as long as they had been contracted, “Henry, count of Champagne came to [Louis the French King], having been employed forty days in the siege and… asked leave to return home, and on the king's refusing his permission, he said that having served his forty days of duty he was not bound to, nor would he, stay any longer.” (Peters 33) Though they successfully diminished the Cathars' power and numbers, the Crusade itself did little to exterminate heresy in southern France.
Preaching proved to be more effective and have a longer lasting effect. In 1206 the Castilian bishop Diego of Osma and his subprior Dominic decided to preach on poverty in terms of equality to the Cathars. Diego died shortly after their preaching campaign had begun, but Dominic carried on preaching and living an exemplary apostolic life. (Lambert 103-4) Francis of Assisi also asked Innocent to approve his lifestyle of extreme poverty and gospel based preaching especially focusing on the sending of the Seventy. (Lambert 104) While the Dominicans engaged in preaching and debating with the heretics, the Franciscans may focus was their preaching by example. The Franciscans extreme poverty, preaching of the sending of the Seventy and religious fervor was similar to that of the Cathars, however they, unlike the Cathars, vowed obedience to the pope and were key in demonstrating the Church could still offer a less worldly way of life. The Struggle with the Cathars culminated in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 in which the Orthodox faith was reaffirmed, plans on how to deal with heresy were laid out as well as the ground work for a fifth crusade.
Just like the council at Nicaea was put together to deal with opposing factions and in the end branding Arianism as a heresy, the Fourth Lateran Council was primarily formed to deal with the Cathars. The Nicaean Council was the first to officially formulate what Christians believe. The belief in one God, the two natures of Christ and the anathema of Arian beliefs were professed. (Tanner, 5)
The phrase, “consubstantial with the Father,” was one of the key theological aspects from which not only Arianism, but also subsequent heresies would deviate from orthodox belief. Just like the Nicaean Creed was a response to Arianism the profession of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council was a direct response to Catharism, professing, the unity of the Trinity and the Equality of the Father Son and holy Spirit, Jesus' two natures, the importance of the old Testament and God as creator of both the spiritual and physical world.
We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only on true God, eternal and
Immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, father, Son and
Holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature…
consubstantial, coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator
of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporal… This Holy Trinity… gave the
teaching of salvation to the human race through Moses and the holy prophets…Jesus
Christ… one person two natures (Tanner, 230)
This is a direct response to the Cathar beliefs that Christ wasn't human, that the physical world is evil because it is Satan's creation, that the Old Testament is the work of Satan and that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. The last declarations in the first canon of the council are that there is only one universal Church and only through it can one be saved and that baptism is consecrated in water. These last two send the message that all who are not Catholic, in other words the Cathars, will not be saved and to reinforce that baptism is through water, not fire like believed by the Cathars.
In the third Canon, or Constitution, the council decrees what will be done with heretics. Heretics will be excommunicated and handed over to the authorities. If they have been excommunicated for a year and they haven't repented they will be branded heretics. If someone is suspected of heresy they will be interrogated to clear up the suspicions. A series of interrogations and involving of the local authorities are involved to deliver punishments, laying the groundwork of what will later become the Inquisition.
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy,
orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics,
whatever names they may go under…Let those condemned be handed over to the secular
authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded
from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated…let secular
authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if
necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure… (Tanner, 233)
This was key to identify and define “orthodox” belief, once stating what orthodoxy was by refuting the Cathars everything that didn't fit under that definition automatically became a heresy. Being the most prominent poverty movement, the Cathars forced the Catholic Church to revise and to some extent reform itself. It made the Church respond by patronizing poverty groups of their own in the Franciscans and the not so famous Humiliati, launching a crusade, putting together a council focused almost exclusively on how to deal with heresy and professing “orthodox” faith and by creating the Inquisition, a body who's sole purpose was to seek and deal with “heretics”. Therefore the biggest deed by the Cathar “heresy” was help define Catholic “orthodoxy”.
[/quote]
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The Cathars: A Case of Heresy Helping Define Orthodoxy
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Dualist origins
II. Cathar Beliefs
a. Bogomil influence
b. Original doctrine
III. Catholic Reaction
a. The Albigensian Crusade
b. Dominicans and Franciscans
c. Fourth Lateran Council
Conclusion
Orthodoxy cannot exist without heresy. One cannot know what is right unless it is clear what is wrong. “The subject is two sided. It takes two to create a heresy: the heretic, with his dissident beliefs and practices; and the Church to condemn his views and to define what is orthodox doctrine.” (Lambert, 5) Christianity has had to deal with heresy since it's inception as the official religion of the Roman Empire. In the 13th century the Church had to deal with several dualist heresies the most notable being Catharism. Catharism helped establish and solidify orthodox Catholicism in Western Europe by challenging the Church.
Dualism is a very old worldview originating in what is today known as Iran dating as far back as 1700 B.C to 600 B.C. with the teachings of Zoroaster. In Dualist thought, the universe is the outcome and the battleground of two principles, good and evil or light and darkness. (Stoyanov 2) In Zoroastrianism, the physical world is in essence a “Good Creation' and, although assaulted by evil, sin and death, it is designed to bring about the ultimate destruction of the evil agency. Conversely, anti-cosmic dualism equated the physical world, the body and matter with evil, delusion and darkness, which are conceived as totally opposed to the spiritual realm, soul and light.
Zoroaster preached about two twin Spirits, Spenta Mainyu ('beneficent' or 'Holy spirit' and Angra Mainyu ('hostile or 'destructive spirit'). Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord) gave birth to both. Ahura Mazda is the ultimate never-born Good creator and the only worthy of worship. The twin spirits established life and death and engaged in an eternal struggle between truth and untruth, which is the bases of ethical Zoroastrianism. (Stoyanov, 7)
Angra Mainya chose to do evil and to oppose Ahura Mazda's good creation and the antagonism is irreconcilable. Angra's 'wrong choice' to do the 'worst things' is responsible for evil in the world. (Stoyanov 8) Later Ahura Mazda was not made responsible for the evil presence in the world and the twin spirits were made the complementary forces of maintenance and destruction, the opposite poles of Mazda's power. Evil is the source of Angra's untruth yet is destined to be defeated by Mazda at the end of historical time. (Stoyanov, 9)
Zoroaster's dualism was the blue print for all other dualist movements to come. All other movements adopted and built upon Zoroaster's ideas finally reaching Byzantium in the form of Manichean thought. Bogomilism based itself on Manichean thought (Stoyanov, 130) and also made it's way to Byzantium where French Crusaders brought it back to western Europe where the seeds of Catharism were planted.
Bogomilism heavily influenced the Cathars, who primarily settled in northern Italy and southern France. Bogomil was a tenth century Bulgarian priest that gave shape to the dualist ideas. He gave voice to the oppressed peasantry and his ideas quickly spread to Byzantium. His dualist teachings explained that all that is seen is evil, even flesh is the creation of the fallen angel Satan given to evil. All that is unseen is spiritual. Bogomil monks lived an extremely ascetic life, “eschewing eggs, milk, cheese, meat, all the products of coition, remaining celibate and fasting ruthlessly.” (Lambert, 63) Sympathizers venerated the initiates and would listen to their preaching but did not have to undergo the extreme ascetics of rejecting products of coition, marriage or parenthood. (Lambert, 63)
In 1143-4 Everwin of Steinfled reported the first outbreak of Catharism to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, telling him that in Cologne a group was detected that was well organized. There were three ranks- auditors, believers and elect. Believers became part of the elect by a ceremony of laying-on of hands and a probation period. They consecrated their meals with the Pater Noster and refused to consume any product of coition and rejected marriage. (Lambert, 62) Furthermore, the Cathars believed,
Spiritual beings, imprisoned in base matter, are purified in a cycle of rebirths. The Son is
the most perfect of created angels and is specially adopted by the Father; the Holy Spirit
is the aeon who is in charge of the celestial spirits who minister to the divine spark in man.
Christ only appeared to be man and neither died nor was resurrected. The New Testament
is the work of God the Old that of the Evil One. (Brown, 257)
The relationship between the Son and the Father is reminiscent of that between Spenta Mainyu and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, where the never-born Father creates both Jesus and Satan (the Evil One) and is clearly superior to both. The church reacted swiftly and decisively to get rid of the heresy in two ways, through force and persuasion. Innocent called the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars to forcefully get rid of the heresy, but he also acknowledged and encouraged two new orders, The Dominicans and the Franciscans, to preach to the heretics and bring them back to the orthodox fold.
The single most important issue of the Albigensian Crusade was the Church's realization that it was not fulfilling the people's spiritual needs. The Cathars were just one of several poverty movements that renounced worldly possessions and criticized the Church's wealth. The fact that they differed on the subject of Christ with the Catholics wasn't as important as the fact that their message of simplicity was highly popular with the masses.
The technical definition of a crusade is: an armed expedition against the enemies of Christendom under papal leadership, which will bring the participants spiritual rewards and it is performed for the good of Christendom. Earlier Crusades fulfilled each requirement for example in the first Crusade urban II organized and sent the expedition promising spiritual rewards to the participants and of course it was for the good of Christendom because they were fighting the Muslim infidels.
In the same vein the Albigensian Crusade was a crusade as it fulfills the requirements set forth by the definition. It was led under the leadership of Pope innocent III, he promised spiritual rewards to those willing to participate in the armed expedition against the Cathars. Robert of Wendover made this clear when he wrote,
Pope innocent was greatly grieved at hearing theses things, and he immediately sent
preachers into all the districts of the west, and enjoined to the chiefs and other Christian
people as a remission of their sins, that they should take the sign of the cross for the
extirpation of this plague. (Peters, 26)
In this case, however, the enemies of Christendom were other Christians with different beliefs from Catholics. The focus on the enemies of Christendom went from being the Muslim infidels to Christian heretics. Innocent had already decreed to send out emissaries to preach and bring people back into the Catholic fold, for example Barber tells us, “During the twelfth century, therefore, the Church tried to isolate the disease by excommunication and anathema, using the church councils as its vehicle for condemnation. This was accompanied by a determined campaign of persuasion.” (Barber, 173) Yet the Cathari murdered one of these emissaries, Peter of Castelnau and that was when Innocent had had enough and called a Crusade against the Cathars. (Barber, 173)
Catholicism wasn't simply losing congregants they were losing power. This is made obvious in the fact that many of the nobles that answered the call of crusade only served long enough to gain material possessions or for as long as they had been contracted, “Henry, count of Champagne came to [Louis the French King], having been employed forty days in the siege and… asked leave to return home, and on the king's refusing his permission, he said that having served his forty days of duty he was not bound to, nor would he, stay any longer.” (Peters 33) Though they successfully diminished the Cathars' power and numbers, the Crusade itself did little to exterminate heresy in southern France.
Preaching proved to be more effective and have a longer lasting effect. In 1206 the Castilian bishop Diego of Osma and his subprior Dominic decided to preach on poverty in terms of equality to the Cathars. Diego died shortly after their preaching campaign had begun, but Dominic carried on preaching and living an exemplary apostolic life. (Lambert 103-4) Francis of Assisi also asked Innocent to approve his lifestyle of extreme poverty and gospel based preaching especially focusing on the sending of the Seventy. (Lambert 104) While the Dominicans engaged in preaching and debating with the heretics, the Franciscans may focus was their preaching by example. The Franciscans extreme poverty, preaching of the sending of the Seventy and religious fervor was similar to that of the Cathars, however they, unlike the Cathars, vowed obedience to the pope and were key in demonstrating the Church could still offer a less worldly way of life. The Struggle with the Cathars culminated in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 in which the Orthodox faith was reaffirmed, plans on how to deal with heresy were laid out as well as the ground work for a fifth crusade.
Just like the council at Nicaea was put together to deal with opposing factions and in the end branding Arianism as a heresy, the Fourth Lateran Council was primarily formed to deal with the Cathars. The Nicaean Council was the first to officially formulate what Christians believe. The belief in one God, the two natures of Christ and the anathema of Arian beliefs were professed. (Tanner, 5)
The phrase, “consubstantial with the Father,” was one of the key theological aspects from which not only Arianism, but also subsequent heresies would deviate from orthodox belief. Just like the Nicaean Creed was a response to Arianism the profession of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council was a direct response to Catharism, professing, the unity of the Trinity and the Equality of the Father Son and holy Spirit, Jesus' two natures, the importance of the old Testament and God as creator of both the spiritual and physical world.
We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only on true God, eternal and
Immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, father, Son and
Holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature…
consubstantial, coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator
of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporal… This Holy Trinity… gave the
teaching of salvation to the human race through Moses and the holy prophets…Jesus
Christ… one person two natures (Tanner, 230)
This is a direct response to the Cathar beliefs that Christ wasn't human, that the physical world is evil because it is Satan's creation, that the Old Testament is the work of Satan and that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. The last declarations in the first canon of the council are that there is only one universal Church and only through it can one be saved and that baptism is consecrated in water. These last two send the message that all who are not Catholic, in other words the Cathars, will not be saved and to reinforce that baptism is through water, not fire like believed by the Cathars.
In the third Canon, or Constitution, the council decrees what will be done with heretics. Heretics will be excommunicated and handed over to the authorities. If they have been excommunicated for a year and they haven't repented they will be branded heretics. If someone is suspected of heresy they will be interrogated to clear up the suspicions. A series of interrogations and involving of the local authorities are involved to deliver punishments, laying the groundwork of what will later become the Inquisition.
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy,
orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics,
whatever names they may go under…Let those condemned be handed over to the secular
authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded
from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated…let secular
authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if
necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure… (Tanner, 233)
This was key to identify and define “orthodox” belief, once stating what orthodoxy was by refuting the Cathars everything that didn't fit under that definition automatically became a heresy. Being the most prominent poverty movement, the Cathars forced the Catholic Church to revise and to some extent reform itself. It made the Church respond by patronizing poverty groups of their own in the Franciscans and the not so famous Humiliati, launching a crusade, putting together a council focused almost exclusively on how to deal with heresy and professing “orthodox” faith and by creating the Inquisition, a body who's sole purpose was to seek and deal with “heretics”. Therefore the biggest deed by the Cathar “heresy” was help define Catholic “orthodoxy”.
[/quote]
Black Ace
Trooper
Onhell, I'm so sorry, but my attention spam just doesen't cut it to read your post. However I read everything posted before.
I would like to say that I'm an agnostic, and doing some research, trying to explain to a friend what an agnostic is, i stumbled apon some sites for the "Atheist Church" and "Agnostic Church" There was even an Atheist Bible. When I saw that crap, i thought WTF??? Since when is a philosphical view considered a religion just because it deals with the existence (or non-existence) of the sureal?
It doesen't have any divinities, it doesen't have a strict dogma, it doesen't have rituals; thus it is not a religion.
In the light of me being an agnostic, I would say that the Antichrist as the son of the devil is as much of a fabulation as the Easter Bunny...
I would like to say that I'm an agnostic, and doing some research, trying to explain to a friend what an agnostic is, i stumbled apon some sites for the "Atheist Church" and "Agnostic Church" There was even an Atheist Bible. When I saw that crap, i thought WTF??? Since when is a philosphical view considered a religion just because it deals with the existence (or non-existence) of the sureal?
It doesen't have any divinities, it doesen't have a strict dogma, it doesen't have rituals; thus it is not a religion.
In the light of me being an agnostic, I would say that the Antichrist as the son of the devil is as much of a fabulation as the Easter Bunny...
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Conor+Nov 6 2005, 01:44 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Nov 6 2005, 01:44 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I wish this thread to be closed down, too many "my opinion is right-ers"
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Discussion of religous beliefs is always a sticky subject. Isn't it.
Everyone always thinks they're right but of course there not. [/quote]
Exactly, this thread is becoming really annoying and off-topic. In arguments like this, nobody will ever win. let's just agree to disagree, as a wise man once said.
[snapback]122269[/snapback]
[/quote][!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Discussion of religous beliefs is always a sticky subject. Isn't it.
Everyone always thinks they're right but of course there not. [/quote]
Exactly, this thread is becoming really annoying and off-topic. In arguments like this, nobody will ever win. let's just agree to disagree, as a wise man once said.