Catharism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catharism (/ˈkæθərɪzəm/; from the Greek: καθαροί, katharoi, "the pure (ones)")[1][2] was a Christian dualist movement that thrived in some areas of Southern Europe, particularly northern Italy and southern France, between the 12th and 14th centuries. Cathar beliefs varied between communities because Catharism was initially taught by ascetic priests who had set few guidelines. The Cathars were a direct challenge to the Catholic Church, which denounced its practices and dismissed it outright as "the Church of Satan".[3]
Catharism had its roots in the Paulician movement in Armenia and the Bogomils of Bulgaria, which took influences from the Paulicians. Though the term "Cathar" (/ˈkæθɑːr/) has been used for centuries to identify the movement, whether the movement identified itself with this name is debatable.[4] In Cathar texts, the terms "Good Men" (Bons Hommes) or "Good Christians" are the common terms of self-identification.[5] The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament
and the creator of the spiritual realm, as opposed to the bad God, whom
many Cathars identified as Satan, creator of the physical world of the Old Testament.
All visible matter, including the human body, was created by Satan; it
was therefore tainted with sin. This was the antithesis to the
monotheistic Catholic Church, whose fundamental principle was that there
was only one God who created all things visible and invisible. Cathars
thought human spirits were the genderless spirits of Angels trapped within the physical creation of Satan, cursed to be reincarnated until the Cathar faithful achieved salvation through a ritual called the Consolamentum.[6] From the beginning of his reign, Pope Innocent III attempted to use diplomacy to end Catharism, but in the year 1208 Innocent's papal legate Pierre de Castelnau was murdered while returning to Rome after preaching the Catholic faith in southern France.[7] With the option of sending Catholic missionaries and jurists extinguished, Pope Innocent III declared Pierre of Castelnau a martyr and launched the Albigensian Crusade.[7][8]
12.4.14
Marcionism - rejecting the Old Testament God, creating the "New Testatment"
Marcionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ehrman acknowledges many of Marcion's ideas are very close to what is
known today as "Gnosticism", especially its rejection of the Jewish God,
the Old Testament, and the material world, and his elevation of Paul as
the primary apostle. In the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, narrated by Ehrman, Karen King, Elaine Pagels, L. Michael White, and other secular New Testament scholars, Marcion's role in the formation of the New Testament canon
is discussed as pivotal, and the first to explicitly state it. There
were early Christian groups, such as the Ebionites, that did not accept
Paul as part of their canon.
Robert M. Price, a New Testament scholar at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, considers the Pauline canon problem:[28]
how, when, and who collected Paul's epistles to the various churches as
a single collection of epistles. The evidence that the early church
fathers, such as Clement, knew of the Pauline epistles is unclear. Price
investigates several historical scenarios and comes to the conclusion
and identifies Marcion as the first person known in recorded history to
collect Paul's writings to various churches together as a canon, the
Pauline epistles. Robert Price summarizes,
If this is correct, then Marcion's role in the formation and development of Christianity is pivotal.
appeared to die out around the 5th century, although similarities
between Marcionism and Paulicianism,
a later heresy in the same geographical area, indicate that Marcionist
ideas may have survived and even contributed to heresies in Bulgaria and
France. Whether or not that is the case, Marcion's influence and
criticism of the Old Testament are discussed to this very day.
Marcionism is discussed in recent textbooks on early Christianity, such
as Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman. Marcion claimed to find problems in the Old Testament; problems which many modern thinkers cite today (see Criticism of the Bible and Biblical law in Christianity), especially its alleged approval of atrocities and genocide.
Many atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists agree with Marcion's examples of Bible atrocities, and cite the same passages of the Old Testament to discredit Christianity and Judaism.[30]
Most Christians agree with Marcion that the Old Testament's alleged
approval of genocide and murder are inappropriate models to follow
today.[citation needed] Some Christian scholars, such as Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler, have dedicated much of their time to the attempt to resolve these perceived difficulties, while others have argued that just punishments (divine or human), even capital punishments, are not genocide or murder because murder and genocide are unjustified by definition (see Christian Reconstructionism).
On the other hand, because of the rejection of the Old Testament which originates in the Jewish Bible, the Marcionites have been believed by some Christians to be anti-Jewish. Indeed, the terms "Marcionism" and "neo-Marcionism" has sometimes been used in modern times to refer to anti-Jewish
tendencies in Christian churches, especially when such tendencies have
been thought to be surviving residues of ancient Marcionism.
During the Nazi period some aspects of Marcion's ideas were appropriated by the German Christians. They advocated a complete rejection of the Old Testament and everything Jewish in Christianity, which they termed "Positive Christianity". These ideas fell out of favor after Germany's defeat in World War II. (See also Nazism and Religion)
For some, the postulated problems of the Old Testament, and the
appeal of Jesus are such that they identify themselves as modern day
Marcionites, and follow his solution in keeping the New Testament as
sacred scripture, and rejecting the Old Testament canon and practices. A
term sometimes used for these groups is "New Testament Christians".
Carroll R. Bierbower is a pastor of a church he says is Marcionite in
theology and practice.[31] The Cathar
movement, historically and in modern times, reject the Old Testament
for the reasons Marcion enunciated. It remains unclear whether the 11th
century Cathar movement is in continuation of earlier Gnostic and
Marcion streams, or represents an independent re-invention. John
Lindell, a former Methodist and Unitarian Universalist pastor, advocates
Christian deism, which does not include the Old Testament as part of its theology.[32]
Recent scholarship
In Lost Christianities, Bart Ehrman contrasts the Marcionites with the Ebionites as polar ends of a spectrum with regard to the Old Testament.[27]Ehrman acknowledges many of Marcion's ideas are very close to what is
known today as "Gnosticism", especially its rejection of the Jewish God,
the Old Testament, and the material world, and his elevation of Paul as
the primary apostle. In the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, narrated by Ehrman, Karen King, Elaine Pagels, L. Michael White, and other secular New Testament scholars, Marcion's role in the formation of the New Testament canon
is discussed as pivotal, and the first to explicitly state it. There
were early Christian groups, such as the Ebionites, that did not accept
Paul as part of their canon.
Robert M. Price, a New Testament scholar at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, considers the Pauline canon problem:[28]
how, when, and who collected Paul's epistles to the various churches as
a single collection of epistles. The evidence that the early church
fathers, such as Clement, knew of the Pauline epistles is unclear. Price
investigates several historical scenarios and comes to the conclusion
and identifies Marcion as the first person known in recorded history to
collect Paul's writings to various churches together as a canon, the
Pauline epistles. Robert Price summarizes,
| “ | But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly.[29] |
” |
If this is correct, then Marcion's role in the formation and development of Christianity is pivotal.
Marcionism in Modern history
Historic Marcionism, and the church Marcion himself established,appeared to die out around the 5th century, although similarities
between Marcionism and Paulicianism,
a later heresy in the same geographical area, indicate that Marcionist
ideas may have survived and even contributed to heresies in Bulgaria and
France. Whether or not that is the case, Marcion's influence and
criticism of the Old Testament are discussed to this very day.
Marcionism is discussed in recent textbooks on early Christianity, such
as Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman. Marcion claimed to find problems in the Old Testament; problems which many modern thinkers cite today (see Criticism of the Bible and Biblical law in Christianity), especially its alleged approval of atrocities and genocide.
Many atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists agree with Marcion's examples of Bible atrocities, and cite the same passages of the Old Testament to discredit Christianity and Judaism.[30]
Most Christians agree with Marcion that the Old Testament's alleged
approval of genocide and murder are inappropriate models to follow
today.[citation needed] Some Christian scholars, such as Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler, have dedicated much of their time to the attempt to resolve these perceived difficulties, while others have argued that just punishments (divine or human), even capital punishments, are not genocide or murder because murder and genocide are unjustified by definition (see Christian Reconstructionism).
On the other hand, because of the rejection of the Old Testament which originates in the Jewish Bible, the Marcionites have been believed by some Christians to be anti-Jewish. Indeed, the terms "Marcionism" and "neo-Marcionism" has sometimes been used in modern times to refer to anti-Jewish
tendencies in Christian churches, especially when such tendencies have
been thought to be surviving residues of ancient Marcionism.
During the Nazi period some aspects of Marcion's ideas were appropriated by the German Christians. They advocated a complete rejection of the Old Testament and everything Jewish in Christianity, which they termed "Positive Christianity". These ideas fell out of favor after Germany's defeat in World War II. (See also Nazism and Religion)
For some, the postulated problems of the Old Testament, and the
appeal of Jesus are such that they identify themselves as modern day
Marcionites, and follow his solution in keeping the New Testament as
sacred scripture, and rejecting the Old Testament canon and practices. A
term sometimes used for these groups is "New Testament Christians".
Carroll R. Bierbower is a pastor of a church he says is Marcionite in
theology and practice.[31] The Cathar
movement, historically and in modern times, reject the Old Testament
for the reasons Marcion enunciated. It remains unclear whether the 11th
century Cathar movement is in continuation of earlier Gnostic and
Marcion streams, or represents an independent re-invention. John
Lindell, a former Methodist and Unitarian Universalist pastor, advocates
Christian deism, which does not include the Old Testament as part of its theology.[32]
See also
Jehovah's Witnesses - Suppression of free speech and thought
Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, without consultation with other members.[6] The religion does not tolerate dissidence about doctrines and practices;[143][311][312][313] members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings are shunned.[230]
Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from
questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to
be trusted as "God's organization".[313][314][315][316] It also warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[317][318] and would "cause division".[319] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" and "mentally diseased".[320][321][322]
Former members Heather and Gary Botting compare the cultural paradigms of the religion to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four,[323] and Alan Rogerson describes the religion's leadership as totalitarian.[324]
Other critics charge that by disparaging individual decision-making,
the Watch Tower Society cultivates a system of unquestioning obedience[149][325] in which Witnesses abrogate all responsibility and rights over their personal lives.[326][327] Critics also accuse the Watch Tower Society of exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses,[328] controlling information[230][329][330] and creating "mental isolation",[331] which former Governing Body member Raymond Franz argued were all elements of mind control.[331]
Watch Tower Society publications state that consensus of faith aids unity,[332] and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination.[332] Historian James Irvin Lichti has rejected the description of the religion as "totalitarian".[333]
Sociologist Rodney Stark
states that while Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very
democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict
standards," enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close bonds
of friendship and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of
the power structure rather than subject to it."[93]
Sociologist Andrew Holden states that most members who join millenarian
movements such as Jehovah's Witnesses have made an informed choice.[334] However, he also states that defectors "are seldom allowed a dignified exit",[320] and describes the administration as autocratic.[6]
Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, without consultation with other members.[6] The religion does not tolerate dissidence about doctrines and practices;[143][311][312][313] members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings are shunned.[230]
Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from
questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to
be trusted as "God's organization".[313][314][315][316] It also warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[317][318] and would "cause division".[319] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" and "mentally diseased".[320][321][322]
Former members Heather and Gary Botting compare the cultural paradigms of the religion to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four,[323] and Alan Rogerson describes the religion's leadership as totalitarian.[324]
Other critics charge that by disparaging individual decision-making,
the Watch Tower Society cultivates a system of unquestioning obedience[149][325] in which Witnesses abrogate all responsibility and rights over their personal lives.[326][327] Critics also accuse the Watch Tower Society of exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses,[328] controlling information[230][329][330] and creating "mental isolation",[331] which former Governing Body member Raymond Franz argued were all elements of mind control.[331]
Watch Tower Society publications state that consensus of faith aids unity,[332] and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination.[332] Historian James Irvin Lichti has rejected the description of the religion as "totalitarian".[333]
Sociologist Rodney Stark
states that while Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very
democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict
standards," enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close bonds
of friendship and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of
the power structure rather than subject to it."[93]
Sociologist Andrew Holden states that most members who join millenarian
movements such as Jehovah's Witnesses have made an informed choice.[334] However, he also states that defectors "are seldom allowed a dignified exit",[320] and describes the administration as autocratic.[6]
Arianism - the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father
Arianism - Wikipedia
Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God the Father to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.
The Arian concept of Christ
is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is
therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John (14:28)[3]
passage: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to
you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father,
for the Father is greater than I."
See also Colossians 1:15—"He is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of all creation;"; also, Revelation 3:14—"These are the things
that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the
creation by God"; and Proverbs 8:22–29.
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius, supported by the Council of Rimini, which are in opposition to the post-Nicaean Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant
churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large
majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves
Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals). Modern
groups which may be seen as espousing some of the principles of Arianism
include Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism, though the origins of their beliefs are not necessarily attributed to the teachings of Arius.[4] "Arianism" is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).
Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God the Father to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.
The Arian concept of Christ
is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is
therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John (14:28)[3]
passage: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to
you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father,
for the Father is greater than I."
See also Colossians 1:15—"He is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of all creation;"; also, Revelation 3:14—"These are the things
that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the
creation by God"; and Proverbs 8:22–29.
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius, supported by the Council of Rimini, which are in opposition to the post-Nicaean Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant
churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large
majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves
Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals). Modern
groups which may be seen as espousing some of the principles of Arianism
include Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism, though the origins of their beliefs are not necessarily attributed to the teachings of Arius.[4] "Arianism" is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).
8.4.14
Fuck Your G#d - Doug Stanhope (+playlist)
2013 Moore Oklahoma Tornado
Stanhope started a fundraiser for a woman and her family after her home was destroyed by the 2013 Moore tornadoon May 20, 2013. The victim of the tornado, Rebecca Vitzmun, gained
attention by the viral media, as well as criticism by Christians, after
stating in an interview that she was an atheist. Stanhope, along with Penn Jillette, Ricky Gervais, and others contributed and raised over $125,000 for the woman and her family. [16] [17] [18]
Stanhope stated "I didn't do it because I felt sympathy because she got
all her shit destroyed by a tornado. I did it simply to be a prick to
her Okie Christian neighbors, hoping they were all eating off their FEMA
trucks when someone drove up and presented Rebecca with a giant
cardboard check."[19]
Comedic style
Stanhope is infamous for his abrasive and dangerous approach tocomedy, which has been likened by his fans and contemporaries to the
works of Bill Hicks, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce. Stanhope mixes cringe comedy with political satire and grotesque imagery, the latter of which often leads to audience walkouts.
Many of Stanhope's colleagues, including Louis C.K., Sarah Silverman,
and Ricky Gervais have praised Stanhope as one of the best living
comedians.[20]
Much of the praise concerns the controversial nature of Stanhope's act,
with many saying that his fearlessness on stage is unrivaled.
5.4.14
Spinozism - Core doctrine
Spinozism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and he was widely seen as the most infamous atheist-heretic of Europe.
His philosophy was part of the philosophic debate in Europe during the Enlightenment, along with Cartesianism.
Specifically, Spinoza disagreed with Descartes on substance duality,
Descartes' views on the will and the intellect, and the subject of free
will.[14]
In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes
from the position that one is a part of an infinite interdependent
"organism." Spinoza argued that everything is a derivative of God,
interconnected with all of existence. Although humans only experience
thought and extension, what happens to one aspect of existence will
still affect others. Thus, Spinozism teaches a form of determinism and ecology and supports this as a basis for morality.[citation needed]
Additionally, a core doctrine of Spinozism is that the universe is essentially deterministic. All that happens or will happen could not have unfolded in any other way. It has been said that Spinozism is similar to the Hindu doctrines of Samkhya and Yoga. [15] Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition,
is the highest kind attainable. More specifically, he defined this as
the ability for the human intellect to intuit knowledge based upon their
accumulated understanding of the world around them.
Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite,
self-caused, and eternal. From this substance, however, follow an
infinite number of attributes (the intellect perceiving an abstract
concept or essence) and modes (things actually existing which follow
from attributes and modes). He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"),
but readers often disregard his neutral monism. During his time, this
statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God -
which is why he was accused of atheism. For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).
However, one should keep in mind the neutral monist position. While
the natural universe humans experience in both the realm of the mind and
the realm of physical reality is part of God, it is only two modes -
thought and extension - that are part of infinite modes emanating from
God.
Core doctrine
Spinoza's doctrine was considered radical at the time he publishedand he was widely seen as the most infamous atheist-heretic of Europe.
His philosophy was part of the philosophic debate in Europe during the Enlightenment, along with Cartesianism.
Specifically, Spinoza disagreed with Descartes on substance duality,
Descartes' views on the will and the intellect, and the subject of free
will.[14]
In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes
from the position that one is a part of an infinite interdependent
"organism." Spinoza argued that everything is a derivative of God,
interconnected with all of existence. Although humans only experience
thought and extension, what happens to one aspect of existence will
still affect others. Thus, Spinozism teaches a form of determinism and ecology and supports this as a basis for morality.[citation needed]
Additionally, a core doctrine of Spinozism is that the universe is essentially deterministic. All that happens or will happen could not have unfolded in any other way. It has been said that Spinozism is similar to the Hindu doctrines of Samkhya and Yoga. [15] Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition,
is the highest kind attainable. More specifically, he defined this as
the ability for the human intellect to intuit knowledge based upon their
accumulated understanding of the world around them.
Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite,
self-caused, and eternal. From this substance, however, follow an
infinite number of attributes (the intellect perceiving an abstract
concept or essence) and modes (things actually existing which follow
from attributes and modes). He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"),
but readers often disregard his neutral monism. During his time, this
statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God -
which is why he was accused of atheism. For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).
| “ | It cannot be overemphasized how the rest of Spinoza's philosophy—his philosophy of mind, his epistemology, his psychology, his moral philosophy, his political philosophy, and his philosophy of religion—flows more or less directly from the metaphysical underpinnings in Part I of the Ethics.[16] |
” |
the natural universe humans experience in both the realm of the mind and
the realm of physical reality is part of God, it is only two modes -
thought and extension - that are part of infinite modes emanating from
God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)