Did you happen to uncover any abuses performed by the Albignesians themselves?  Or was it a one way street?

While you're at it, pick up a copy of "The Templars Have Jesus and Mary Magdalene's Mummified Bodies"

Did you happen to uncover any abuses performed by the Albignesians themselves?  Or was it a one way street?

They poured boiling oil down on the Catholic crusaders who besieged their castles and fortified churches.  I don't think that that was felt to be a fair and noble response, although it didn't quite measure up to the massacres and mutilations conducted by the Inquisition.

I've got a book somewhere that mentioned that the Cathars weren't entirely innocent.  If I ever come across it again I'll see if I can fish out some examples.

Not that I think the Catholics behaved very nicely, mind you.  But like a lot of examples from the past, the 'innocent' ones weren't always so innocent.  Like today, don't you think?

I'm sure that the Cathars had some nasty habits, as did everyone back then.  I don't think that they were the aggressors in many of those wars, however.  Their specialty was defense, and their fortresses were impregnable for a long time.  Ultimately, military advances rendered them ineffective, and the RCC "cleansed" the area of "heresy".

And mine was that they were not as bad as those who viciously attacked and destroyed them.

Good call, EB!  Two Points to you for identifying a hidden argument for theism embedded in the criticisms of an atheism!

And mine was that they were not as bad as those who viciously attacked and destroyed them.

Depends on what you mean by 'bad.'   The Albignesians, Cathars, and Bulgarians (the root for the pejorative 'bugger' if that helps you draw some connections) were at bottom, gnostics.  You think they aren't 'as bad' but you misunderstand gnosticism.  Gnostics believed that matter was evil and only the spirit was real.  God was spirit and God would never condescend to pollute himself with 'matter.'  Thus the incarnation could not have happened.  Jesus was God but only 'appeared' to be flesh.  Innocent, you think.  But that is because you are steeped in literature about the abuses of the Catholic church almost exclusively.

Think about it- if you thought that matter was evil or an illusion altogether, precisely what would be off limits?  Nothing.  Hence, buggers.  Also, murder would be alright.  Heck, you're releasing them from the constraints of matter, so you're doing them a favor.  Various gnostic flareups have occurred through the ages.   As another example, we like to think that the big bad Catholics took advantage of the helpless Arians... but there are cases (Emperor Valens) where the Arians were more than happy to follow suit.

A full fledged gnosticism would be so wicked that even you would admit it, Cop.  Fortunately, since most gnosticism is a bastardized form of Christianity, there is inherited capital about love and redemption and religious crap like that.

Now please, please, don't think I am defending the abuses of the Christian church through the ages.  I'm not.  I'm just making sure we keep them in context.  Hey, in no time we'll be at your tired argument about how all this boils down to the evil of religion and then we'll be at my tired argument about the abuses (by the tens of millions) by atheists and then your tired argument that these atheists were actually religious! 

Good call, EB!  Two Points to you for identifying a hidden argument for theism embedded in the criticisms of an atheism!

Minus four for attempted derail.    Nothing I said had any implications for the so-called objective/subjective morality debate, since subjectivists make roughly the same claims as self-styled "objectivists" about what is moral or immoral.  Try to say something relevant to the OP for a change, EB.

And mine was that they were not as bad as those who viciously attacked and destroyed them.

Depends on what you mean by 'bad.'   The Albignesians, Cathars, and Bulgarians (the root for the pejorative 'bugger' if that helps you draw some connections) were at bottom, gnostics.  You think they aren't 'as bad' but you misunderstand gnosticism.  Gnostics believed that matter was evil and only the spirit was real.  God was spirit and God would never condescend to pollute himself with 'matter.'  Thus the incarnation could not have happened.  Jesus was God but only 'appeared' to be flesh.  Innocent, you think.  But that is because you are steeped in literature about the abuses of the Catholic church almost exclusively.

It is true that the Cathar religion had ties to Armenia and the Bogomirs, but I have not heard that they were into buggery.  I'm not surprised that you found such a link, however.    They apparently were quite diverse as a movement.  The Catholics initially tried to convert them through peaceful means.  When that failed, they used violence.  The Cathars survived only by building impregnable defenses.  BTW, I'm not surprised that you may have found a book or two that were critical of the Cathars, who did not survive to write the history books.

Think about it- if you thought that matter was evil or an illusion altogether, precisely what would be off limits?  Nothing.  Hence, buggers.  Also, murder would be alright.  Heck, you're releasing them from the constraints of matter, so you're doing them a favor.  Various gnostic flareups have occurred through the ages.   As another example, we like to think that the big bad Catholics took advantage of the helpless Arians... but there are cases (Emperor Valens) where the Arians were more than happy to follow suit.

The concept that matter is an illusion is straight out of the vedic tradition, which influenced early Christianity and other Greek mystery religions.  To my knowledge, Hindus are no more fascinated with buggery than Christians. 

A full fledged gnosticism would be so wicked that even you would admit it, Cop.  Fortunately, since most gnosticism is a bastardized form of Christianity, there is inherited capital about love and redemption and religious crap like that.

Gnosticism seems to have been more popular than the "orthodox" version in the earliest days of Christianity.  Irenaeus developed his "fourfold gospel" in response to the widespread diversity of the religious movement.  I actually think of the official imperial religion as the "bastardized" version, since it was shaped to meet the needs of imperial government.

Now please, please, don't think I am defending the abuses of the Christian church through the ages.  I'm not.  I'm just making sure we keep them in context.  Hey, in no time we'll be at your tired argument about how all this boils down to the evil of religion and then we'll be at my tired argument about the abuses (by the tens of millions) by atheists and then your tired argument that these atheists were actually religious! 

Don't confuse me with other atheists.  I do not consider religion to be purely evil--just a side effect of some beneficial evolutionary traits.  I have mixed feelings about its alleged benefits.  As for defending the abuses of the Christian church, I believe that that is exactly what you are doing.  You are biased in favor of the orthodox movement.  I don't see any version of Christianity as more accurate than any other.  All are products of human invention.