"It is said"...okay. But the crusade was conducted only after the assassination of a papal emissary by the Cathars. War was declared."
But that's not the "indiscriminate slaughter" against the Waldenes themselves, is it?
No it is not. I hope you are not expecting sympathy for such evil gnostic dualist death cultists? Because you will not get it. If protestants want to align themselves with people who practiced homosexuality, fornication, suicide and euthanasia that's their business. Excesses occur in war. Not to mention the resulting civil war due to the interference of French nobility.
But this is what I've been driving at. The Protestant treats the issues of faith and morals as issues of individuality. The post-modern secular protestant can't even conceive of a time when these matters were not just an internalized belief system. They amounted to something real. So they adopt the Cartesian mindset.
Franciscan Borelli is said to have burned, in 1393, 150 at Grenoble in the Dauphiné in a single day.
"It is said"...Okay. Although I do appreciate your intellectual honesty in acknowledging when necessary that these historical citations are not complete so we can never really know precisely what happened. But I'm not prepared to hang my hat on that little bit of technicality.
I could provide more links -- but I don't see why I should bother -- most RC'ers around here will either argue endlessly and justify past atrocities (while dishing out present-day insults) or just run away when the truth goes against them.
I'm sure you could. I have no doubt that your scholarship is of good caliber. But then I'm not here to win arguments, I leave that to protestants who exemplify the use of modernity to attempt to ridicule their theological opponents by using the methods of Feuerbach.
Since you were in effect [is this one of those material vs. formal things again?] -- justifying murders of persons guilty of nothing much -- other than not submitting themselves to Romish sacerdotalism -- the remainder of your words were not worthy of response.
Are you sure this statement isn't a case of conclusion-selective mind-reading? I said I have no problem with keeping heretics out of our midst. I didn't say which method that should entail. And since we do not agree on what constitutes murder in these matters I don't think its proper to reach the conclusion that I justified murder. You can say it and capitalize it all you want but it doesn't make it so.
In the future -- keep your sneering insults about "Protestants" to yourself.
Or what? You're free to leave at anytime. Just stop posting.
Is that what you are hear for?
Nobody wants to hear that kind of unsubstantiated, broad- based, highly generalized, accusatorial GARBAGE -- where some marginal tendency perceived by your own self to belong to "Protestants" be smeared all over pretty much every single soul of the "Western" portions of Christianity -- who are themselves not Roman Catholic.
You keep inviting me to leave.
If you are here to merely continue spewing such insults -- why don't YOU just leave?
That sort of perpetuated and continuing habit which you've been at for months now -- is abuse of the persons here, and abuse of the forum (and the management thereof) being as it is abuse of the privilege.
You wish!
But the "Protestants" that are most liberal are those who are closest to Rome, whose fruit is far more liberal than those who most strongly hold to what you must attack, that of Scripture being supreme as the assured word of God, accurate in all it teaches.
Indeed, as you among others failed to answer the question as to whether you affirm the carnal means of doing so which Rome sanctioned and set rules for in so doing (which early Prots had to unlearn), that of the torture of suspected "heretics" and even witnesses, and the killing of the former (even if the numbers of those killed by Inquisitions may have been exaggerated)?
And of requiring Catholic rulers to exterminate the heretics, or else his subjects are no longer subject to his authority?