|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 4, 2004 20:22:31 GMT -5
Dobri vyecher. Is anyone familiar with early Christian sects of Manichees, Bogomils and Cathars? The Roman Catholic Church was so thorough in wiping them out, their legacy is all but forgotten. There is an excellent book called The Other God, by Stoyanov, about such Dualism. Manichaeans and other quasi-Christian groups were branches of the early Gnostic Churches. They appeared during different times in history and in countries far apart. One of their basic tenets was abnegation of the Old Testament, which they saw as a product of the Evil God (who seems to have originated with Angra Mainyu/Ahriman). Christ, they said, came as the destroyer of the old god's order, not to perpetuate it, which is exactly why he was killed. (I myself deny the existence of a historical Jesus, but this at least makes sense. The traditional rationale as to why Christ came to us makes NO sense) Personally, I am not a Christian, but if I had to be I would want nothing to do with the Old Testament, as it is perverse and is nothing more than a tribal war mythology.
|
|
|
|
Post by kynikos on May 5, 2004 15:39:43 GMT -5
If you are interested in this kind of stuff, you may want to have a look at the site www.gnosis.org a central site for gnostic Christianity. Even though not very well known, there is a wealth of information about it, mainly through the good fortune of the discovery of the texts of Nag Hamadi. Gnostic Christians DID view the Demiurge, the "Creator" as a "bad" force, at least superficially, but you could not call them dualists. I think the dualistic element comes from Zoroastrian/Chaldean influences, but perhaps this view of the Demiurge is originally Christian. I have actually heard a lot of people speculating that the Hollywood movie "Matrix" revolves around this theme, in some way, but I cannot comment on that...  |
|
|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 5, 2004 20:20:17 GMT -5
Thank you, Kynikos. Yes, I agree that the Dualism came from Zoroastrians (Angra Mainyu/Ahriman), specifically the Mazdaean "Protestant," Mani (hence Manichee/Manichaean), himself from Babylon (Chaldean, possibly. His precise ancestry I can't recall now, though I could look it up another time). Those of southern France, northern Spain & N Italy we refer to as Cathars, ca. 1200. Historians call the Balkan Dualists Bogomils. It is theorized that the major reason Bosnians were easy converts to Islam was because of the lack of any strong, centralized Christian church there. There was a sizable Bogomil presence, as well as the obligatory Orthodox and Catholic churches, plus an independent Bosnian church.
The Roman church burned alive many thousands of Cathars during the Middle Ages. Folks don't realize there were many inquisitions, not just the Spanish ~. I don't intend to "preach" against the Roman Catholic church this very moment, but I dare anyone to disprove this fact: the Roman Catholic church has killed more people in all of history than any other institution/nation/individual. The Mongols of the 13th & 14th centuries, however, win the prize of rapidity of deaths. (I'm no pacifist, by the way.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kynikos on May 6, 2004 5:21:43 GMT -5
The Roman church burned alive many thousands of Cathars during the Middle Ages. Folks don't realize there were many inquisitions, not just the Spanish ~. Technically, I think that the operation against the Cathars was called a CRUSADE, not an inquisitiuon, viz. the Albigensian Crusade. Albigensians was the other name for Cathars, because their power base was centred around Albi in S. France. They had masive support among the locals, including the nobility, so they were not just a movement or a religion - indeed they were practically a state within a state. Obviously, this kind of alien power base did not sit well with Rome, necessitating -finally- a Crusade, i.e. a War, in order to sort out the upstarts. Fascinating stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 6, 2004 8:37:01 GMT -5
Kynikos, I once again agree with you. Yes, it was called the Albigensian Crusade, but of course that was just a euphemism for "inquisition," an excuse to burn heretics. It took the Protestants a little while to learn the trade, and if it hadn't been for the Enlightenment, they would have competed admirably with the RC church, I am sure.
Crusades were often the excuse for land appropriation (not that there is anything wrong with that. It's simply the deception by using god's name that is distasteful), i.e. temporary conquest of Constantinople (establishment of a "Latin" empire) and the drang nach osten of the Teutonic Knights.
|
|
