Posted on 10/16/2001 8:12:34 AM PDT by SocialMeltdown
Some Imams have tried to say this but tracing entemology of words and study of ancient Sumerian hyroglyphs pretty much disproves it. That an Arab would claim to be heir to any monotheistic religion prior to Mohammed is laughable anyway.
Genesis 21:12
Genesis 22:2
Genesis 22:16
Matthew 22:31-32
Galatians 3:26-4:31
Why? The Nazis viewed the war as a conflict between Jewish-controlled America and Russia and the Master Race. How would looking at it thru the same distorted lens have helped us defeat them?
Certainly we must understand their view. We don't need to join them in it.
This is wishful thinking. The war with the Church in Rome begun by Henry VIII continues to this day in Ireland virtually unabated.
The question of the day should be "Are the Irish terrorists, including those in Boston part of the current war?" I suspect the Brits think yes. The endeavor will take along time we are told. When Osama and Saddam are gone, it will be time for Jerry Adams unless he repents and atones.
Not anti Catholic or anti Irish or pro Brit. Just telling it like I see it.
In the case of the Albigensian Crusade, the Albigensians (who were a cult, not a population) declared war on their king under the leadership of the Counts of Toulouse. The King of France won the war and afterwards executed a thousand or so Albigensians and others whom he considered ringleaders of the rebellion. The Pope's representative, St. Dominic, protested the harshness of the King's response but was overruled by the secular authority. Pope Innocent did not celebrate or endorse the reprisals. He was glad that an unstable and antiChristian movement was ended, however.
The Inquisition was inaugurated by the Spanish crown in order to root out pro-Muslim fifth columnists. The Spanish throne considered Jews to be among this number due to their perceived collaboration with the enemy during the Muslim occupation. No entire populations were killed - 3,000 people were executed over a period of a century for crimes ranging from assassination to apostasy. A good number of these executions were unjust and politically motivated. No Pope celebrated the Inquisition.
Protestants were persecuted in the Netherlands by Philip V because he felt they were plotting against his rule. Similar persecutions of Catholics were undertaken in England against Catholics at the same time - persecutions which were far bloodier and went on much longer. The Pope neither authorized or approved of Philip V's actions, let alone celebrated them. Philip himself considered them an entirely internal matter.
The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, like the Inquistion, the Albigensian Crusade and the repressive policies of Philip was politically motivated. Again, there was no genocide - remarkably almost all of the thousand or so Huguenots murdered were political enemies of the Medici family. The Pope celebrated the event because he was informed that a plot by Calvinist traitors to overthrow the Catholic King of France was successfully foiled. Only later did he learn that he had been manipulated by the Medicis (and not for the last time). The Thanksgiving Mass he offered was not a gravedance over dead Protestants - it was a celebration of the survival of the French monarchy.
No Pope has ever presided over genocide. Protestants such as Cromwell and freethinkers such as Stalin have attempted genocides against Catholic populations. This doesn't give me license to accuse prominent atheists or Protestants of those crimes.
That's the real history - your implied portrait of Popes ordering hits/dancing for joy over people's deaths is highly inaccurate.
Yesssss. I think I garner your meaning within those quotation marks. I would like 'to understand them' better myself. I would like to sort through some of their entrails after puff the magic dragon flew over them and hamburgerized a few of em. I feel a great and persistent curriosity to get a real close look.
But the British crown has treated the Irish rather vilely over the years. Desiring independence is legitimate - blowing up schoolchildren is a repulsive way to go about it.
I would be happy to see the UDF, RH, RIRA, PIRA and Sinn Fein added to the roster of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc.
The Pope Innocent III excommunicated the Count of Toluse because he would not commit the murders. Simon de Montfort had no such problem and committed the atrocity.
St Dominic founded the Dominican order that held sway over the Inquisition.
The Pope had blood on his hands
Perhaps you need enlightenment.
ON 24 june 1209, Pope Innocent III unleashed Simon de Montfort
What does "unleashed" mean? The Pope did not command or give instructions to de Montfort. Montfort's campaign was his own idea and his own undertaking. Did the Pope say that the King of France was permitted to use force in order to put down the violent rebellion in Southern France? Yes.
on the Christians of southern France because they did not submit to his orthodoxy.
The Albigensians were not Christians. They did not believe that Christ was divine. They believed that the Creator of the world was the Devil. They rejected the Bible and composed their own Scriptures. They believed that salvation was bestowed by the consolamentum - a laying on of hands by a perfected master. They practiced ritual suicide. I don't know any Christian group that considers this kind of belief system Christian.
He slaughtered 20,000 in their homes and villages.
No historical source can substantiate such a fabrication. The leader of the Albigensians, Count Raimond of Toulouse only claimed 6,000 soldiers (not civilians in their homes) - and he was certainly exaggerating.
Since they were dead, it was no problem to appropriate all their lands and goods.
The land and goods of the Albigensians were not appropriated. The lands of the Counts of Toulouse, who had risen in military rebellion against their sworn sovereign, were confiscated and awarded to Montfort. The heirs of Count Raimond then declared war on Montfort's son Amalric and tried to get the land back. Then the King of France overruled both of them and added it to the French crown lands. The Pope didn't make a penny.
Once the wholsale killing was over,
There was no wholesale killing - the loser alleged 6,000 casualties in ten years of war. That's less than would be expected, let alone wholesale slaughter.
it was only a small step to the Inquisition lasting 300 years or so.
The Inquisition began more than 250 years after the Albigensian Crusade.
I suggest you spend a little more time with the books.
Unlike you, I have a degree in Medieval History and have read the actual primary documents of these historical events in the original languages. I suggest you expand your library beyond poorly-researched hate literature.
A great question Mercy. We would be wise to consider this very topic.
No, they weren't. They denied that Christ is God and that the Bible iss the Word of God. They were antiChristians, not Christians.
The Pope declared them to be heretics
True. They were heretics.
and massacred them.
The Pope did not draw a single drop of blood from anyone. Nor were the Cathars massacred. The garrison of soldiers at Toulouse was put to the sword by the King of France - not the entire Cathar population.
It was genocide.
Maybe you're unaware of the meaning of the word genocide. It means the murder of an entire ethnic, linguistic or religious group. That never happened - there were still thousands of Cathars around after the war ended.
The Pope Innocent III excommunicated the Count of Toluse because he would not commit the murders.
No. Pope Innocent III excommunicated Count Raimond because he (a) had permitted members of the clergy to be killed, (b) violated his oath of fealty to his sovereign and most of all, (c) blasphemed the name of Christ.
Simon de Montfort had no such problem and committed the atrocity.
Simon Montfort killed almost every member of the Count of Toulouse's hostile army. That's not an atrocity - in a declared that's called "winning". If those involved did not want to die, all they had to do was not take up the sword against the King of France.
St Dominic founded the Dominican order that held sway over the Inquisition.
The most prominent administrators of the Spanish Inquisition were indeed Dominicans. But any "sway" over the Inquisition was held by the Spanish monarchy which financed it and did the hiring and firing.
The Pope had blood on his hands
I hope these disconnected statements were not intended to be a syllogism. Your claim was that the Popes ordered and supervised genocide. That never happened - it's a historical fiction spun out of Foxe's brain - the same Foxe who smiled with approval as the British Crown and the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury directly ordered St. Margaret Clitheroe, a pregnant wife and mother, to be crushed to death under a millstone for the crime of allowing a Catholic priest to offer Mass in her home.
This boring antiCatholic propaganda is so ridiculous and makes you look so uneducated and backward. Why don't you read up on the slaughter of German Catholics by Protestant armies during the Thirty Years' War. Or the massacres perpetrated by the Calvinist Cromwell in Catholic Ireland. Or the slaughter of Polish Catholics by the Protestant Teutonic Knights. Or the church-burnings by the Protestant Know-Nothings in the US. Or the Star Chamber and Tyburn in England. Or the burning of Servetus. Protestants have committed more than their fair share of atrocities and far more Catholics have died at Protestant hands than the other way around.
I'm willing to let it lie. Stop fabricating pretexts to set Christians at one another's throats. Christendom should be united against the Muslim menace - meanwhile you champion antiChristian groups like the Cathars.
What you are apparently unaware of is that by the time of Mohammad Jews had ceased using YHWH out of respect for the divine name and used other names like Adonai (Lord) and Elohim.
Delitzsch's etymology of Allah is hotly contested by Semitists like Lambdin, Muraoka and others. The Catholic Encyclopedia, while it is an extremely well-researched work, was published more than 80 years ago. Some of the most groundbreaking work in Semitic studies has taken place since WWII, including the discovery of entirely new Semitic languages and grammars like those of the Nabataeans and Ugarits.
The name El was the name of many local gods in the Middle East, it's true. But many of these gods had compound names in which El was a prefix meaning divinity. Which divinity was "El-Lah"? It's certainly not a name of God used by the Jews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.