Speaker 1: Oh weal ts are hello and welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: This is the Cult of Conspiracy, and my name is Jonathan,
Speaker 2: and today we are getting to the long awaited, long
Speaker 2: teased conversation about the Cathars.
Speaker 3: This is gonna be a fun one. Indeed, indeed, there's
Speaker 3: a lot of uh, there's a lot of things that
Speaker 3: are surrounding with the Cathart conversation. Historically speaking, right, an
Speaker 3: entire crusade was waged against them at one point in time,
Speaker 3: called upon by Pope Innocent the Third, But it wasn't
Speaker 3: just him. There was multiple popes that were associated with this,
Speaker 3: multiple lords of France that had a hand in this.
Speaker 3: There's Catholic narratives, there's Gnostic narratives. There's a whole backstory
Speaker 3: to this, and then there's even questions still abounding in
Speaker 3: our modern day and age about the validity and truth
Speaker 3: behind all of it. It's gonna be a fun one.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, it's gonna be a great time. And
Speaker 2: it's it's it's interesting because like you said, I mean,
Speaker 2: there are myths every which way about the Cathars. You're
Speaker 2: talking about damn near a thousand years ago, you know,
Speaker 2: like it was, uh, it was back in the gap,
Speaker 2: as they say, But you know, I was curious, you
Speaker 2: know how many and for those that don't know, the
Speaker 2: Cathars they were a Gnostic sect, that were if you
Speaker 2: if we are to believe you know, the history, if
Speaker 2: such history still exists, which is what we're gonna get
Speaker 2: to today, that they were a Gnostic sect. And allegedly,
Speaker 2: the story goes, the Catholics took them out within crusades
Speaker 2: and inquisitions, and it was carried out initially by Pope Innocent.
Speaker 2: He was the first one that initiated the Albagensian crusade,
Speaker 2: and that well, he called for it in eleven ninety eight,
Speaker 2: and he carried through with the crusade until twelve sixteen.
Speaker 2: And then you have your boy Pope Gregory the ninth,
Speaker 2: who continued the efforts against the Cathars from twelve twenty
Speaker 2: seven to twelve forty one.
Speaker 3: And then finally Pope.
Speaker 2: Urban the Fourth who supported the inquisition against the Cathars
Speaker 2: from twelve sixty one to twelve sixty four. So a
Speaker 2: series of at least three popes that were carrying this out.
Speaker 3: Now you' if you notice there is a little.
Speaker 2: Gap of twenty years in between here which I find
Speaker 2: pretty interesting because I was finding differing stories as to
Speaker 2: how many different popes were actually carrying this out, right,
Speaker 2: and I saw that as many as nine popes carried
Speaker 2: it out, and then you come over to Duck Duck go,
Speaker 2: and it says, well, it was only three, right, and
Speaker 2: so you know, but then again there's this gap right here.
Speaker 3: But it's interesting.
Speaker 2: It says Pope Innocent the Third initiated the Albagencia and
Speaker 2: Crusade against the Cathars, which lasted from twelve to nine
Speaker 2: to twelve twenty nine, leading to the deaths of many Cathars.
Speaker 2: While he was the primary pope involved, subsequent popes continued
Speaker 2: the efforts against Catharism, but specific numbers of popes directly
Speaker 2: responsible for kings are not clearly defined. So these are
Speaker 2: the ones that are understood to be the ones that
Speaker 2: carried it out.
Speaker 3: Could have been probably were.
Speaker 2: A couple of more popes that had a couple more
Speaker 2: hands into it. And that's where I thought it was interesting. Why,
Speaker 2: you know, if they are such a nuisance, it's almost like,
Speaker 2: you know, we talked about the flat earthers or you know,
Speaker 2: the nine to eleven deniers of the ja denies whatever. Right, Like,
Speaker 2: if these people are so innocent and what they believe
Speaker 2: is so far fetched and so crazy, how were they
Speaker 2: able to convince so many people to convert from Catholicism?
Speaker 2: And so I was like, that's interesting, let's look into
Speaker 2: what they believed. Why would anybody convert over to this anyway?
Speaker 2: Because narcissism was a sect that was allegedly for the
Speaker 2: elites of the time, and they were kind of snobby
Speaker 2: about it. From what I understand, it was usually a
Speaker 2: secret doctrine that only those who were initiated could really understand.
Speaker 2: And I was like, all right, let me look a
Speaker 2: little bit into this gnosissism, right, And for the longest time,
Speaker 2: I really didn't even touch on gnarscissism because I was
Speaker 2: trying to distance myself from religion in general, because religion
Speaker 2: in general usually carries out such things like this, where
Speaker 2: you have religious wars and people are killing in religious wars,
Speaker 2: and I'm like, well, that doesn't sound very religious of you,
Speaker 2: So why would I look into either one of these things?
Speaker 3: Right? But which you have to look into the gnosticism
Speaker 3: because this is a conspiratorial show, and how many conspiratorial
Speaker 3: content creators bring up Gnostic texts and Gnostic gospels and
Speaker 3: how this is a section of history that's kind of
Speaker 3: shrouded in mystery and secret schools and all these things.
Speaker 3: You literally can't separate conspiratorial conversation from forbidden hidden religious
Speaker 3: text in conversation. The two go hand in hand. In
Speaker 3: my opinion, I would think so too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, well now I think so because I
Speaker 2: have gone down so many rabbit holes about the Cathars.
Speaker 2: I've watched countless documentaries, I've read countless articles on the
Speaker 2: whole thing, and I just continue to be fascinated by
Speaker 2: all of it, you know, And I'm also fascinated that
Speaker 2: there's even question about their existence. I'm like, man, if
Speaker 2: this is really something that was made up, it, I mean,
Speaker 2: the information spread like wildfire, and there seems to be
Speaker 2: shitloads of documentation about something that allegedly never existed.
Speaker 3: But the documentation is all from Catholic sources, not entirely,
Speaker 3: not entirely.
Speaker 2: No, there's and That's what I've been finding because I
Speaker 2: heard you bring that up and I was like, is
Speaker 2: that true? And the majority of it is, but not
Speaker 2: the book.
Speaker 3: Of like the Secret Supper is not written by a
Speaker 3: Catholic source. That's fair, right, some of their literature is
Speaker 3: not written by Catholic sources. But as far as the
Speaker 3: claims that were made, as far as the propaganda pieces,
Speaker 3: and as far as the what the Catharist believed and
Speaker 3: why they're so evil in this and this, a lot
Speaker 3: of that is from secondhand Catholic sources. That's all I
Speaker 3: was trying to say.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, for sure, And a lot of times, you know,
Speaker 2: if you're trying to look for it in a book,
Speaker 2: this is a lot of other people have been trying
Speaker 2: to do like a shitload of research on this as well,
Speaker 2: And if you're trying to look.
Speaker 3: For it in a book, they are.
Speaker 2: They're mentioned, but not in great detail, like it is
Speaker 2: like a fart in the wind that was something that happened, which,
Speaker 2: to me, in my conspiratorial mind, I'm like, oh, they're
Speaker 2: trying to erase this from history, right, either that or
Speaker 2: or I And that was the thing that really baffled
Speaker 2: me the most about the idea that they never even existed,
Speaker 2: because if they never existed, why would you even you know,
Speaker 2: why would there ever be a claim that there was
Speaker 2: a genocide or an extermination of people for differing beliefs.
Speaker 2: You know, you wouldn't think that the Catholics would want
Speaker 2: that on their books, just you know, logically speaking, right.
Speaker 3: Yes and no, I could understand both sides on this one. Right,
Speaker 3: you would understand why the Catholics, if the Catholic Church
Speaker 3: really did wage a genocide, they killed depending on the claim,
Speaker 3: some say a couple hundred thousand, some say a million.
Speaker 3: And even still those numbers are quite a claim to make,
Speaker 3: because we're talking about specifically the Lungadoc region of France,
Speaker 3: and I don't know what their population density looked like
Speaker 3: in the twelve hundred's a d here, But you say
Speaker 3: that a million people were killed from this one region,
Speaker 3: is that's preposterous. But then I also don't know how
Speaker 3: strong the claim is to say two hundred thousand people
Speaker 3: killed in this region did even have a population of
Speaker 3: that at the time. But even that being said, the
Speaker 3: Catholics wanting to push it under the rug and kind
Speaker 3: of forget it as one of the darker chapters of
Speaker 3: their history, and they don't look fondly upon it. They're
Speaker 3: looking more towards the positive future in this In this, okay,
Speaker 3: I could understand that conversation. But you also got to
Speaker 3: keep in mind the great schism that took place and
Speaker 3: all these Protestant religions came out. Now, these Protestants would
Speaker 3: point at every single issue that they had with the
Speaker 3: Catholic Church, and a lot of them would point out
Speaker 3: the genocide that took place against the Cathars as a
Speaker 3: point of contention to say, look, you claim you're so pious,
Speaker 3: yet you murder people who are mining their own business,
Speaker 3: So what the fuck? Right? So I can understand how
Speaker 3: even that pointing out the Cathar genocide could be a
Speaker 3: propaganda piece by Protestant sects of Christianity. Right, But there,
Speaker 3: I can see it from both angles.
Speaker 2: There were multiple, you know, call them sects of Gnostic
Speaker 2: belief that were allegedly genocided, you know, like it wasn't
Speaker 2: just the Cathars. There was three or four at least
Speaker 2: different groups of Gnostics that were completely taken out.
Speaker 3: And that's why it was such a shocker when in was.
Speaker 2: It nineteen forty six, nineteen forty eight, whenever they found
Speaker 2: the Nagamadi scrolls right like that was a fucking holy shit.
Speaker 2: I can't believe they preserved this information to I mean,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter what you believe about it, it's what
Speaker 2: they believed of it, you know what I mean, Like, yeah,
Speaker 2: you might think, oh, it's just heretical.
Speaker 3: Stories or whatever. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean I think that everything's kind of worth at
Speaker 2: least a look into. And so I really started going
Speaker 2: into the Nagamadi over the past couple of years, and
Speaker 2: I was like, man, this is this is a completely
Speaker 2: different way of looking at like, you know, biblical history,
Speaker 2: even pre biblical history and everything.
Speaker 3: And then of.
Speaker 2: Course, you know, you look into what was it the
Speaker 2: Pseudopigrifa and like all the stories of people claiming like
Speaker 2: what was the main Enoch right, and many other stories
Speaker 2: that are in there, and you're like, man, people really
Speaker 2: hang their hat on this Enoch stuff. Meanwhile, it's less
Speaker 2: like it's less I don't know, it's less valid than
Speaker 2: even the Gnostic stuff, which is crazy.
Speaker 3: You know, people are so.
Speaker 2: Crazy about the Nephilom and so crazy about the giants,
Speaker 2: and I firmly believe it within my beliefs. Meanwhile, it's
Speaker 2: like the Bible mentions it like two or three times,
Speaker 2: but then most people are pulling you know, the giants
Speaker 2: and the Nephilom from the Book of Enoch, which confirmed
Speaker 2: not real, right, I say, within quotations, right, Like they
Speaker 2: confirm it's.
Speaker 3: A plagiarism, and it's a known plagiarism. It's the same
Speaker 3: thing with the Book of Jasher that was written in
Speaker 3: the fourteen hundreds, Like that's not an ancient text of
Speaker 3: the same time as the Old Testament and all these things.
Speaker 3: Same with the Book of Enoch. But they believed it
Speaker 3: because back then they're going off of the most credible
Speaker 3: information they have at the time, and we are going
Speaker 3: off of even more credible information because we're able to
Speaker 3: pull for more sources and do actual archaeological studies into things.
Speaker 2: But that being said, though, it is interesting whenever you
Speaker 2: look into the actual construction of the Bible. The Bible
Speaker 2: wasn't even put together until the mid three hundreds, right,
Speaker 2: But a lot of these Gnostics texts are you know,
Speaker 2: first century and some like sometimes early second right, And so.
Speaker 3: It there is a little bit of validity.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that, you know, just because it's older
Speaker 2: makes it more valid, but I am saying that, like
Speaker 2: at least it wasn't like stories off of the already
Speaker 2: created Bible now, I know that the Bible is a
Speaker 2: is an amalgamation of a bunch of different texts and everything,
Speaker 2: So say what you want about that. I know that
Speaker 2: there's you know, there's some stories of the Bible that
Speaker 2: are way older than some other stories of the Bible,
Speaker 2: which we're actually going to get to today because we're actually, dude,
Speaker 2: it is so interesting whenever you look at the like
Speaker 2: the the construction of the like in the order of
Speaker 2: which the four main Gospels were created with Matthew, Mark, Luke,
Speaker 2: and John, and a lot of them say, well, you know,
Speaker 2: it's just by going off of the information that we have,
Speaker 2: a lot of them say that the Book of Mark
Speaker 2: had to have been written first, Like that's from what
Speaker 2: I found.
Speaker 3: The Book of Mark had to have been written first.
Speaker 2: And what they say is is that because it's a
Speaker 2: whole like scholar thing where they try and figure out
Speaker 2: like how far these things go back, and some people
Speaker 2: were cemented in their minds as to when they were
Speaker 2: written and when they were put together and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: Some people are like, wait a second, doesn't really check out.
Speaker 2: Whenever you look at like they're mentioning things that weren't
Speaker 2: even created until like after the year one hundred, like
Speaker 2: weird things, right, like as if that they're they're talking
Speaker 2: on things that you know, it doesn't make sense for
Speaker 2: the time, and so a lot of people will try
Speaker 2: and you know, come up with, well, they came up
Speaker 2: with they had to have gotten these stories from a
Speaker 2: original source, which is a lot of times called the
Speaker 2: Q source strikingly oddly enough, or the Q actually translates
Speaker 2: to source in another language. But anyway, so yeah, I
Speaker 2: thought that that was pretty interesting looking at that, because
Speaker 2: even the oldest gospel, they say that Mark or the
Speaker 2: author of Mark had to have gotten it that information
Speaker 2: off of another source. And that's where you get the
Speaker 2: idea of a Q source, right, And I don't know, dude.
Speaker 2: And then you look at the Book of Mark and
Speaker 2: when was it actually written. Some people say seventy a
Speaker 2: d some people say, you know, as late as one
Speaker 2: hundred and ten AD, which is pretty interesting.
Speaker 3: So all right, talking about the gospels themselves, and you're
Speaker 3: right that the Bible as we know it was compiled
Speaker 3: in and around the three hundreds AD from Constantine, right.
Speaker 3: So the reason why that was was because there were
Speaker 3: so many gospels quote unquote that were circulating during the
Speaker 3: first and second centuries AD, and a lot of those
Speaker 3: were Gnostics. So they realize there's all these books floating
Speaker 3: around that are referencing this dude named Jesus, and if
Speaker 3: Christianity is going to become the state religion of Rome,
Speaker 3: we need to know what is christian and what is
Speaker 3: like you would say, stud of Pigrifa. So I need
Speaker 3: somebody to bring me every single scroll that's got anything
Speaker 3: to do with Jesus, and we're going to decipher to
Speaker 3: see which ones do hold water and which ones are
Speaker 3: Obviously fanfic, that was what a lot of these councils
Speaker 3: and synods were about for the first few centuries of Christianity.
Speaker 3: Now that being said, the Book of Mark written, Yeah,
Speaker 3: let's argue if it was seventy a d. Or after
Speaker 3: one hundred a d. Mark himself wrote this down. But
Speaker 3: whenever he had it and he gave it to one
Speaker 3: of his followers, a new convert into Christendom or what
Speaker 3: at that time was called the Way, it wasn't called Christianity,
Speaker 3: it was just called the way. They took it and
Speaker 3: they wrote it down to further, you know, preserve it right.
Speaker 3: A lot of these gospels are written in that way,
Speaker 3: so while it wasn't actually written from the hand of Mark.
Speaker 3: The first one that's in the uh, what is it,
Speaker 3: the Codex Sinaticusts, which is arguably the first compiled Bible
Speaker 3: that there is in existence.
Speaker 2: There's now all different variations of it too. It wasn't
Speaker 2: just the Codex Sinaticus. Another interesting one to look into
Speaker 2: is the Codex Vaticanus.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, so, which it's well, that came about after,
Speaker 3: and that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the
Speaker 3: Codex an Atticus holds more or less validity to these
Speaker 3: early codices. What I'm saying is that that is arguably
Speaker 3: one of the first complete compilations of the Bible as
Speaker 3: we would recognize it today, that was ever put together, right, But.
Speaker 2: They're being said very slim. It didn't have the amount
Speaker 2: of books that the Bible has today.
Speaker 3: No, no, it doesn't. But that being said, the Gnostics
Speaker 3: were kind of taking some Old Testament things and blending
Speaker 3: it with some of the teachings of Jesus. And now
Speaker 3: when you look at what the Gnostics and therefore the
Speaker 3: Cathars believed, it's obvious to see why the Catholic Church
Speaker 3: would feel some type of way about this, because while
Speaker 3: the Protestants may believe something different than the Catholics, no
Speaker 3: Protestant is arguing if Jesus actually physically existed. No Protestant
Speaker 3: is arguing a dualistic universal nature. Where they're is an
Speaker 3: inherent good that is spiritual and inherit bad that it's physical,
Speaker 3: So everything on this earth is evil. There's layers upon
Speaker 3: layers to decipher with this. But that is why some
Speaker 3: would speculate that while they led a crusade against Gnostics
Speaker 3: and Cathars and Waldians, they didn't lead a crusade against
Speaker 3: the Protestants, because at least the Protestants were speaking about
Speaker 3: some kind of biblical truth, right right.
Speaker 2: And there was also the I believe they were called
Speaker 2: the Polytians as well.
Speaker 3: I got an article put up on them too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, which I'm you know, say what you want.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm not the biggest fan of Paul personally. That's
Speaker 2: why I don't even like to mention it.
Speaker 3: But but I still would love to know your reasons
Speaker 3: for that. But that's not for today. Not today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's that's an entirely different rabbit hole. And
Speaker 2: by the way, I do want to say something just
Speaker 2: you know, I'm just gonna stop sharing the screen here
Speaker 2: for a second because I want to.
Speaker 3: Get us out in the open. I am.
Speaker 2: I know some people think that like I just got
Speaker 2: a hard on for religion and Christianity in general, and
Speaker 2: that's really not the case. I am an individual that
Speaker 2: is searching for truth. I'm a natural born truth seeker.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm trying to go after. I'm not a follower.
Speaker 2: I don't believe what other people tell me. If I did,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't be into conspiracies having a mind for my own, okay.
Speaker 2: And one thing that I've found is is through my
Speaker 2: journey of trying to discover what the absolute truth about
Speaker 2: this reality is is that there are many, many, many
Speaker 2: different religions out there, many different philosophies out there, many
Speaker 2: different forms of spirituality out there, and you have to
Speaker 2: look at all of it as a whole. I don't
Speaker 2: like to zone in or hone in on one specific thing.
Speaker 3: I like to kind of look at it as a whole.
Speaker 2: I've long said that, you know, I'm almost like the
Speaker 2: coexist bumper sticker in my mind.
Speaker 3: That's really where I look into.
Speaker 2: I will say this one thing that I find very
Speaker 2: fascinating is that every single group, every single religion has.
Speaker 3: A almost like a stras, a spiritual branch off of it, right,
Speaker 3: like a deeper, more philosophical trying to understand like the
Speaker 3: more mystical version of the religion itself, every single one
Speaker 3: of them. So you know, within Islam you have Sufism,
Speaker 3: Within Judaism, you have the Kabbalah. Within Christianity you have
Speaker 3: Ronostism and Rosicrucianism and stuff like that. And there seems
Speaker 3: to be thinkers of every religion that has ever well,
Speaker 3: every you know, well documented religion has had its thinkers
Speaker 3: that have really tried to understand it at a more
Speaker 3: deeper level. And so that's where I like to go.
Speaker 2: I like to understand, all right, what did the fucking
Speaker 2: prime thinkers of all of these religions, Because in my mind,
Speaker 2: man just accepting something as truth and just say well,
Speaker 2: I have faith, I could never get behind that, because
Speaker 2: it's it's like my parents telling me that Santa Claus
Speaker 2: is real. You just got to have and that's kind
Speaker 2: of and I'm not even judging anybody, I'm just saying
Speaker 2: that's how my mind works, right, I can't just have faith.
Speaker 3: I need to know, all right, And some people say, well,
Speaker 3: that's your issue, right there, buddy, that's your issue right there. Pw.
Speaker 3: You just need to know.
Speaker 2: Like, No, that's why we look into conspiracies in general, right, Like,
Speaker 2: I have a genuine curiosity about the true nature of
Speaker 2: this reality. And one thing I found out is that
Speaker 2: with every single religion, they all have a mystic branch,
Speaker 2: and if you look into them, they all fucking rhyme.
Speaker 3: Dude, Like that's the craziest thing to me. And I
Speaker 3: agree with that statement. I absolutely agree, which is why
Speaker 3: a lot of people will write off mysticism as a
Speaker 3: whole because when you look at it, this one is
Speaker 3: saying this side of things, this one is saying this
Speaker 3: other side, this one is saying this. They're all pretty
Speaker 3: much saying the exact same story, maybe with some different names,
Speaker 3: in different terms and different phrases, but the overall message
Speaker 3: and the overall things that you're supposed to apply to
Speaker 3: your life rhyme. Just like you said, So let me
Speaker 3: ask you this, and this is not trying to call
Speaker 3: you out or whatever, Okay, just like you said, every religion,
Speaker 3: the Vedics, the Buddhists, the Tao, the Fucking, the Jews,
Speaker 3: the Christians, the Muslims. Every group has their own sect
Speaker 3: of some sort of mysticism that is not countercultural, although
Speaker 3: sometimes that is true. But sometimes they go in line
Speaker 3: with the faith, just in a different way. And sometimes
Speaker 3: they are opposed to the faith and they use certain
Speaker 3: words from the faith, or whatever the case it be.
Speaker 3: My question to you is, why, then, do you find
Speaker 3: more truth in mystics as a whole than you do
Speaker 3: in the religion itself as a whole. What is it
Speaker 3: about the mysticism of all of these religions, not just Christianity,
Speaker 3: not just the Gnostics, not just the Kabbala, and not
Speaker 3: just all of it. You seem to naturally gravitate towards
Speaker 3: mystic philosophical conversation rather than spiritual in a religious sense conversation.
Speaker 3: What is it about you that draws you to mysticism?
Speaker 2: There's just something about the nature of this reality that
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily check out to me.
Speaker 3: Now, maybe that's because of the DMT trips and the
Speaker 3: mushroom trips, but I've had my reality shattered several times,
Speaker 3: and a lot of times it's not even due to
Speaker 3: psychedelic drugs.
Speaker 2: It's due to information that we're reading. And I'm like,
Speaker 2: oh my god, it completely shatters my reality. It completely,
Speaker 2: It destroys everything that I thought I knew. Right And
Speaker 2: there seems to be some kind of mystical underlay in
Speaker 2: life that some people, you know, maybe they don't notice.
Speaker 2: Maybe you know, it doesn't maybe maybe they do kind
Speaker 2: of notice, but they don't know what box to really
Speaker 2: put it in. In my mind, I'm like, no, Like,
Speaker 2: everything has to be explainable. There can't be unexplainable things,
Speaker 2: right like, And I see, well, what do you mean
Speaker 2: by that? There's all kinds of unexplainable things. I mean,
Speaker 2: like personal unexplainable things, Like everybody has a personal mystical
Speaker 2: experience that they can talk about that doesn't necessarily, you know,
Speaker 2: one hundred percent check out with the story we've been
Speaker 2: told or any you know, religious story we've been told.
Speaker 2: And so people look a little bit deeper, right like,
Speaker 2: even for you, like you had an example of a
Speaker 2: demon and an angel named Jonathan. Nowhere in any Bible,
Speaker 2: in any religious text, has there ever been an angel
Speaker 2: named Jonathan. You would think, if it's real, maybe it
Speaker 2: was documented somewhere. So if that happened to me. In
Speaker 2: my mind, I'm like, all right, I know I saw
Speaker 2: this guy, right like, I know that he exists. I
Speaker 2: saw him save me. There is no doubt in my mind,
Speaker 2: one hundred percent, there is an angel name Jonathan. And
Speaker 2: so especially you, being more of the logical mind, you're like,
Speaker 2: all right, was I just trippin'? And if I wasn't
Speaker 2: just tripping, then that name had to have been talked
Speaker 2: about for a very long time. So then you start
Speaker 2: digging a little bit deeper, right, And that's kind of
Speaker 2: like where I take it is that people have strange
Speaker 2: things that happened to them that don't check out, and
Speaker 2: they don't necessarily hold water.
Speaker 3: And whenever you.
Speaker 2: Go and ask questions, of course, you're just told just
Speaker 2: to have faith and believe in a lot of time.
Speaker 3: That is enough for some people. It's not enough for me.
Speaker 3: There's no record of all of the names of the angels,
Speaker 3: by the way, that's not a thing they have. We
Speaker 3: have the names of the archangels, sure, but we don't
Speaker 3: have a list of names of every single angelic host
Speaker 3: that floats around with you with God like that. That's
Speaker 3: not a thing that exists. And also Jonathan means gift
Speaker 3: from God, does it not? Yes, it do. And in
Speaker 3: that situation, I was being tormented and God sent a
Speaker 3: gift to put that to rest. So I think that
Speaker 3: it's very possible that, yes, that was a I believe
Speaker 3: in my heart of hearts that was a real angel.
Speaker 3: But to your point, it didn't lead me down a
Speaker 3: rabbit hole of trying to find any record of the
Speaker 3: name of Jonathan within angels. I mean, there's hundreds, if
Speaker 3: not thousands of angels that are never listed.
Speaker 2: Right, which blows my mind about you. I mean why, Well,
Speaker 2: because you're a very logical individual, like you don't believe
Speaker 2: in spirituality, Like that's just you think that the world
Speaker 2: is what it is, and we're here, we're sinners, and
Speaker 2: we just accept it.
Speaker 3: Rightly, there's a spiritual realm on top of what we
Speaker 3: have going on. Absolutely, Yeah, well, I mean the way
Speaker 3: I also believe in Noah's flood. Keep that in mind.
Speaker 3: While I am logic in certain regards, I do have
Speaker 3: faith in other regards of some things that are just unexplainable.
Speaker 3: That's I understand that that might make me a walking hypocrite.
Speaker 3: I get that, but I believe that you have to
Speaker 3: have a little bit of both to make existence happen.
Speaker 2: Well, my thing is is that there are countless, you know,
Speaker 2: mystical things that don't necessarily always translate to any one
Speaker 2: specific religion. And that's you know, kind of where I'm
Speaker 2: at right Like, it's interesting how there will be people
Speaker 2: that believe in you know, miraculous and mystical, crazy prophecies
Speaker 2: and stuff like that, only if it's coming from their religion.
Speaker 2: If it comes from anywhere else, it has to be wrong.
Speaker 2: It has to be somebody who is lying to you.
Speaker 2: It has to be a deceiver. Clearly, that's a demon. Clearly,
Speaker 2: that's the devil. There's never a men gen of fucking
Speaker 2: aliens in most of these you know, religious texts or anything.
Speaker 2: You know, if there are aliens, well why were they
Speaker 2: never mentioned?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: And it's like, I don't know. I think that it
Speaker 2: excites people to do a little bit.
Speaker 3: More of their own research.
Speaker 2: And that's really where I go because throughout all of
Speaker 2: my experiences and even down to the most minute synchronicities
Speaker 2: right now, I just said synchronicities, it's fucking eleven forty four,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean, Like, maybe that's a coincidence.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's just eh, I mean statistically it's possible, right,
Speaker 2: But like, why why why does there seem to be
Speaker 2: some kind of matrix overlay to this? And why whenever
Speaker 2: they did the Imperial College London studies with the continuous
Speaker 2: DMT trip just a couple of years ago, why did
Speaker 2: they say that whenever people are on DMT they're more
Speaker 2: likely having the filter of reality taken off, in that
Speaker 2: they're seeing more logically than what we do on a
Speaker 2: regular basis about how we're only seeing about I mean, dude,
Speaker 2: we're seeing less than one percent of the entire color spectrum,
Speaker 2: which means that there is a lot more here than
Speaker 2: what we know about. And so in my mind, I'm like,
Speaker 2: I accept that as fact. It's a scientific fact.
Speaker 3: There is no not proving it, right, So if that
Speaker 3: is a fact, you have to factor it in. And
Speaker 3: if you have to factor it in, well, even most
Speaker 3: religious scriptures themselves do a terrible job at explaining this
Speaker 3: physical reality, right, Like, and if you would do a
Speaker 3: terrible job.
Speaker 2: At explaining this physical reality and you're not even mentioning
Speaker 2: the other ninety nine percent of the color spectrum and
Speaker 2: everything else that is going on, like, you hold almost
Speaker 2: no validity in my mind, you are.
Speaker 3: In my mind you are you're describing something from the
Speaker 3: mind of a man two thousand and three thousand, four
Speaker 3: thousand years ago that clearly didn't have the tools that
Speaker 3: we have today to be able to determine the nature
Speaker 3: of this reality, so therefore cannot be fact in my mind,
Speaker 3: I agree with that, right, But then at the same time,
Speaker 3: mysticism holds zero validity with anything that can be fact
Speaker 3: checked scientifically or historically. Meanwhile, religious texts absolutely do. So
Speaker 3: why does mysticism hold more validity to you than religious texts?
Speaker 3: Because again, we've had this conversation about yeah, it was
Speaker 3: written by a man, and we have to trust the source.
Speaker 3: We have to have a level of faith in the
Speaker 3: source itself. The same could be said for any mystic book. Ever,
Speaker 3: there has to be faith and whoever wrote it that
Speaker 3: they knew what the fuck they were talking about. Then
Speaker 3: we get into the conversation of test the spirit and
Speaker 3: test the fruit. Right, then we hold that to the
Speaker 3: same scrutiny that we would hold biblical text or you know,
Speaker 3: Quronic text or Turonic text or whatever, to say, where
Speaker 3: is the historicity here? How much of this is myth,
Speaker 3: how much of this is legend, how much of it
Speaker 3: can be verified in fact check with hard empirical data
Speaker 3: that we can do these days, and mysticism holds pretty
Speaker 3: much no water. So why does mysticism hold more validity
Speaker 3: to you? Personally? We were just talking about science.
Speaker 2: I was hoping that it was going to go here,
Speaker 2: but I did come prepared in the case of this.
Speaker 2: Did you know that there is a sect of belief
Speaker 2: that believes that Moses himself never even existed, that there
Speaker 2: actually is no evidence of his existence anywhere.
Speaker 3: Do you know that they just found his box two
Speaker 3: years ago on top of a mountain and they carbon
Speaker 3: dated it to the correct time and place. Then there's
Speaker 3: Egyptian records to also say that he existed and he
Speaker 3: was the stepbrother of Ramses the second. Yeah, except for
Speaker 3: most scholars would tell you the lie detector test determined
Speaker 3: that was a lie, sir. Unfortunately, Look, I'm not the
Speaker 3: lie detectors anymore. Actually, but continue, well, you know what
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 2: Just as far as actual factual physical proof, there seems
Speaker 2: to not be.
Speaker 3: Now, I will say this is from a guy.
Speaker 2: He has been making his rounds in the conspiratorial realm.
Speaker 2: I'm not even going to try and invite him on
Speaker 2: the show because I know it would just come and
Speaker 2: ruffle feathers. I'm not even But he did write an
Speaker 2: article recently in July. His name is Bishop Raymond Taylor.
Speaker 2: Anybody that's ever heard of him, I mean, very interesting
Speaker 2: because he is a scholar. You know, he he was
Speaker 2: going to school, I think to be a pastor or
Speaker 2: a priest or something like that, went through all the studies,
Speaker 2: and you know, on his on his own accord, through
Speaker 2: his own understanding, and through looking at the facts, he
Speaker 2: was able to determine that that Moses most likely didn't exist,
Speaker 2: and that is that it is based upon a myth
Speaker 2: of sorts. And so I just want to read this
Speaker 2: here for a second because you're you're kind of standing
Speaker 2: on business whenever you say that mysticism is even crazier
Speaker 2: than religion, right, and and that there isn't any proof
Speaker 2: that mysticism was ever really any kind.
Speaker 3: Of truthful, factual thing.
Speaker 2: Whenever I brought up many of different instances of you know,
Speaker 2: great thinkers and philosophers and spiritual people, and you think
Speaker 2: about the Hindus and the Buddhists, and how are they
Speaker 2: able to find that the the yin yang actually does
Speaker 2: exist at the quantum le whenever you're talking about quantum entanglement.
Speaker 2: How did they figure that out? You're talking about people
Speaker 2: that are going so deep and really understanding the nature
Speaker 2: of this reality by going in which kingdom of heaven
Speaker 2: is with Then I'm just throwing it out there.
Speaker 3: I'm not going, yeah, I'm not even gonna go down that.
Speaker 3: But the yin yang thing being what we're looking at
Speaker 3: with the toroids at the quantum level, that is not
Speaker 3: what they meant by ying and yang is a simbol.
Speaker 3: It's the same thing that there was a Christian conversation
Speaker 3: that was happening. If you look at the way our
Speaker 3: cells are constructing on our body, they're interlocking crosses, right,
Speaker 3: and they're like, see even more confirmation that Christ is king.
Speaker 3: And it's like, bro, the cross conversation came about in
Speaker 3: thirty A. D ourselves have been made this way for
Speaker 3: thousands and thousands and thousands of years. You're if you're
Speaker 3: looking for anything, you'll find it the yin and yang
Speaker 3: to say, there's a little good and every evil, and
Speaker 3: a little evil in every good is not the same
Speaker 3: thing as the image that we're looking at at the
Speaker 3: quantum level of toroids. That's that's kind of making some
Speaker 3: thing out of nothing, the same way the Christians with
Speaker 3: the cross symbolism, with the cell structure.
Speaker 2: Not entirely so the the the yin yang symbol is
Speaker 2: very interesting and and you can meditate on it and
Speaker 2: speculate on it, you know, for forever, and try and
Speaker 2: really apply that kind of philosophy to just about everything
Speaker 2: about how there's a little bit of darkness within every light,
Speaker 2: and there's a little bit of light within every darkness. Right,
Speaker 2: It's a it's a duality. It's a dualistic system, which
Speaker 2: I'm so happy you brought that up, because this is
Speaker 2: actually a lot of Gnostic thought depends entirely on dualism.
Speaker 2: Like that's all they were was a dualist sect, right,
Speaker 2: which I mean, And to be honest, you could kind
Speaker 2: of say that about most religions if you really look
Speaker 2: at the bare bones of it, right, And and we're.
Speaker 3: Gonna do what I'm telling you.
Speaker 2: It is crazier than most people think, especially whenever it
Speaker 2: comes to this this whole last Supper script that we're
Speaker 2: going to get to but it's it's wild. But you know,
Speaker 2: they were from what I was able to find, they
Speaker 2: were basically an algamation of thought, you know, like they
Speaker 2: took a little Chinese philosophy, they took a little dow,
Speaker 2: they took a little this, they took a little that,
Speaker 2: they took, they added in philosophy, and they're kind of,
Speaker 2: you know, almost like a eclectic.
Speaker 3: In that way.
Speaker 2: And to be honest, that's why I like it. Like
Speaker 2: I love eclectic thought. I love that we don't have
Speaker 2: to only pull from this section of this year, of
Speaker 2: this reality, from these people's thoughts to get to the
Speaker 2: absolute truth.
Speaker 3: Why not bring it all together, because whenever you do that,
Speaker 3: you get conflicting ideologies. Right, Buddhism and Taoism and Islam
Speaker 3: conflict each other, and they all conflict the Vedics, and
Speaker 3: those all conflict the Gnostics. So when you take a
Speaker 3: little thing that you like from this group and a
Speaker 3: little thing that you like from this group, that doesn't
Speaker 3: make it more true. But that means that you're cherry
Speaker 3: picking information, and that's not a good way to go
Speaker 3: about business either.
Speaker 2: But what happens whenever you find the similarities within each
Speaker 2: of them, see most people are very geared in the
Speaker 2: mind to try and find what are our differences.
Speaker 3: I mean, look at the world.
Speaker 2: Today, we're more you could say that, you know, the
Speaker 2: we are more divided now than we have ever been
Speaker 2: because people are so focused on well, I'm this way
Speaker 2: and I know you're not that way, and you're just
Speaker 2: so focused on how different we are about everything, when
Speaker 2: in the nature of reality is is that we're all here, We're.
Speaker 3: All experiencing the nature of this reality.
Speaker 2: We're all living as human beings, we all have thoughts,
Speaker 2: we all well, most of us, I don't know. Supposedly
Speaker 2: there are some people out there that have no internal dialogue,
Speaker 2: which I don't know. That might be a myth, but
Speaker 2: but most people really want to try and understand what
Speaker 2: the fuck are we actually doing here? And that's why
Speaker 2: you get, you know, some people to go off into
Speaker 2: their religious you know sect, I mean even the the
Speaker 2: oh what do they called, the non believers that don't
Speaker 2: believe in anything? Atheism, Yeah, Like, even atheism is a belief, right, Like,
Speaker 2: you can't escape the realm of belief because there just.
Speaker 3: Has to be a belief.
Speaker 2: There needs to be something that is holding all of
Speaker 2: this together, right.
Speaker 3: But that's the point, right, If you look at the
Speaker 3: similarities between everybody, which there are, there are, absolutely.
Speaker 2: Regardless of way more similarities that we have in common
Speaker 2: than we have differences.
Speaker 3: I disagree with that. I think that the main ones. Yes,
Speaker 3: all right, everybody, regardless of sex, religion, nation, they live
Speaker 3: in whatever. They want decent health care, they want good
Speaker 3: education for their children. They want to not worry about
Speaker 3: where their next meal is coming from. Look, I'm not
Speaker 3: talking about our wants and our needs. I'm talking about
Speaker 3: the nature of what it means to be a human.
Speaker 3: We have way more similarities than we have differences. No, No,
Speaker 3: that's what I'm saying. As far as just being a
Speaker 3: human goes. Take away politics, religion, all that shit. Everybody
Speaker 3: wants a good future for their children, right, regardless of
Speaker 3: where you grow up or what religion. That is a
Speaker 3: similarity that we all share. And I can agree with that.
Speaker 3: And we could take this to the religion conversation too.
Speaker 3: Every religion claims that they are a peaceful group. Everyone
Speaker 3: wants to live and let live. Everybody wants to find
Speaker 3: deeper meaning in life. Everybody wants to do right by
Speaker 3: their community. Yes, you're right, the these core tenants are
Speaker 3: pretty substantial across the board. That being said, when you
Speaker 3: get below surface level things, these religions completely conflict each other.
Speaker 3: If you were to take all of these religious dogmas
Speaker 3: and say that five fuck ten percent of all of
Speaker 3: this religious dogmas talking about the same thing and ninety
Speaker 3: percent is not, I would definitely say that there is
Speaker 3: more differences than similarities, dude.
Speaker 2: And that's why people, at least, you know, my breed
Speaker 2: of people, are more interested in looking at the gnostic
Speaker 2: thought and the more mystical thought because it does seem
Speaker 2: to correlate with most others beliefs. And that's what I'm
Speaker 2: trying to say. I mean, look at it this way.
Speaker 2: Are you gonna have more in common with let's just
Speaker 2: go all.
Speaker 3: The way crazy here, a liberal transgender atheist who believes
Speaker 3: that she is a he, right like, are you gonna
Speaker 3: have more in common with that? Or an alien from planet.
Speaker 2: Fleeb Flob who eats deep daub out of a hole
Speaker 2: of a fucking hippopotamuss dick.
Speaker 3: You went well out on that one, But all right,
Speaker 3: that's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is is that we are so much
Speaker 2: more alike than we are different. And that would mean
Speaker 2: that we are so much more alike in the mind
Speaker 2: than we are different. Right, just how our minds work.
Speaker 2: We all see this reality as linear. I mean, unless
Speaker 2: you're a fucking psychic, you're seeing this reality as linear.
Speaker 2: That's the way our minds are. Here's the interesting fact.
Speaker 2: If you see nature, the nature of reality is linear,
Speaker 2: and I see the nature of reality as linear. I
Speaker 2: look back at yesterday and I say that was yesterday.
Speaker 2: I look forward tomorrow that I say, that's tomorrow now
Speaker 2: is now?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: How about you've never lived a yesterday, You've never lived
Speaker 2: to tomorrow. Every day that you live is always today,
Speaker 2: It's always right now.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Then you start to look into you know, some of
Speaker 2: the science is suggesting that time isn't even necessarily linear,
Speaker 2: it's fucking cyclical. And you're like, wait a second, how
Speaker 2: could it possibly be cyclical? Remember yesterday, I'm looking forward to tomorrow.
Speaker 2: I know that whenever the sun comes up and I
Speaker 2: have a breath in my lungs, that I will experience tomorrow.
Speaker 3: We all plan our days according to tomorrow, right like
Speaker 3: most people will do that. But that's a very small similarity. Dude,
Speaker 3: that is if we're looking if we're focusing on just
Speaker 3: that time is linear, okay, cool, the sky is blue, okay, Yes,
Speaker 3: we can all agree on that water is wet. Well apparently,
Speaker 3: never mind, that's a bad example because half the internet
Speaker 3: doesn't believe that anymore. Yeah, if we look at the
Speaker 3: very superficial, obvious similarities, sure there's a ton of those.
Speaker 3: But if you look again, just below superficial levels and
Speaker 3: get to the meat and potatoes of what makes a
Speaker 3: person a person, there are far more differences in ideologies
Speaker 3: and philosophies and religion than there are similarities. And I
Speaker 3: feel like we should be focusing on the bigger picture,
Speaker 3: not the small minute you know, nuances.
Speaker 2: I couldn't disagree more, but let's move on. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: you know what, I'm not even gonna read this because
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to rough any feathers on this episode necessarily.
Speaker 2: So the myth of Moses, I just want to say
Speaker 2: for everybody out there that's saying absolutely, historically we have
Speaker 2: the proof. There is factual evidence. Check yourself before you
Speaker 2: wreck yourself, do a little bit of research, and you know,
Speaker 2: if you're trying to stand on business, stand on business, Okay,
Speaker 2: you just want.
Speaker 3: To throw that out there. And for the record, even
Speaker 3: one of our cult members who was a Catholic, believes
Speaker 3: that Moses was a mythical person who was probably comprised
Speaker 3: of like five or six different people made into one figure.
Speaker 3: So it's not like this is a crazy thing that
Speaker 3: nobody thinks. Yeah, there's a big school of thought to
Speaker 3: say that Moses would never actually existed. But again, please
Speaker 3: everyone do your research and do your history in fact
Speaker 3: checking on it. I agree with you on that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I definitely agree on that. Don't just take something
Speaker 2: as faith. And look, I'm not even coming after people
Speaker 2: who just want to accept this, you know, the nature
Speaker 2: of their reality as just taking it on faith, taking
Speaker 2: it on somebody's word, taking it on God's word, taking
Speaker 2: it on your connection to God. Have no issue with that.
Speaker 2: You want to do that on a personal level, that's fine.
Speaker 3: But whenever you start condemning other people for having varying
Speaker 3: beliefs just because of what because it differs from what
Speaker 3: you believe, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: You got to bring the fucking receipts. You're gonna like,
Speaker 2: you can't argue. You can't argue with somebody like that
Speaker 2: otherwise should Now you're arguing against faith. Now you're arguing
Speaker 2: against belief, And I'm sorry, faith and belief don't hold
Speaker 2: water whenever you're trying to win an argument and convince
Speaker 2: other people.
Speaker 3: It just not agrees. You shouldn't be contempt condemning anybody
Speaker 3: for believing something different than you. However, respectful debate and
Speaker 3: conversation I think definitely have their place. Yeah, no doubt.
Speaker 3: So all right.
Speaker 2: This is actually from Thecathar dot info website, which I dude.
Speaker 3: What a wealth of information. This website is where I
Speaker 3: pulled up my article talking about the genocide of the
Speaker 3: Cathars and the Waldians and the other Catholics. So when
Speaker 3: I saw this article, like, oh shit, this isn't the
Speaker 3: exact one that I have pulled up, but I have
Speaker 3: a feeling it's gonna be pretty close. Oh dude, they have.
Speaker 2: I mean, we can get into, however, many different branches
Speaker 2: of this that you want to get into, because they
Speaker 2: got you know, their their beliefs, their basic tenets, the
Speaker 2: implications the elect at the afterlife, heaven and hell, and
Speaker 2: like I mean, who led the crusade in the medieval warfare?
Speaker 2: And it brings up, the the Dominicans and the Frans
Speaker 2: get it goes on and on. I mean, it is
Speaker 2: a full on fucking encyclopedia everything Cathar, which I was like,
Speaker 2: I've all right, that makes my job a little easier
Speaker 2: because I don't need to go to a thousand different websites.
Speaker 3: I mean, I do have several pulled up, but I
Speaker 3: was like, holy shit.
Speaker 2: But anyway, it says the Cathars grew an influence in
Speaker 2: the long Is it langa doc or langa doc?
Speaker 3: I've heard it pronounce both ways. I think it's tech
Speaker 3: supposed to be pronounced langa doc. I think so. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So they grew an influence in the Langadoc throughout the
Speaker 2: twelfth century. Now this is southern France, is what we're
Speaker 2: talking about. Catholic chroniclers record that Cathars had become the
Speaker 2: majority religion in many places, and that Catholic churches were
Speaker 2: abandoned and in ruin. Of the Catholic clergy that remained, some,
Speaker 2: perhaps most, were themselves Cathar believers. The papacy responded initially
Speaker 2: by integating uh intigating, integrating preaching campaigns, and engaging in
Speaker 2: public debates, both of which proved humiliating features for the
Speaker 2: crack teams of theologians sent by the pope. The next response,
Speaker 2: in twelve oh eight was a war, or more accurately,
Speaker 2: a series of wars. Modern writers referred to them as
Speaker 2: the Cathar Wars, but traditionally the series was referred to
Speaker 2: as the Albigensian Crusade. It was a formal crusade in
Speaker 2: this full sense of the word, preached and directed by
Speaker 2: the papacy and offering participants the remission of sins and
Speaker 2: an assured place in heaven.
Speaker 3: Bro. Yeah, come on, I can't believe people bought this. You, Like,
Speaker 3: most of the crusades were waged in very similar ways.
Speaker 3: Keep in mind they were selling what's it not pardons.
Speaker 3: They were selling like bones of saints as remission for
Speaker 3: sins and like to get your family member out of
Speaker 3: purgatory for a couple of decades if you buy this
Speaker 3: finger knuckle of you know this particular saint. Yeah, it was,
Speaker 3: it was. It was wild, bro. It's like Valhalla is
Speaker 3: what we're talking about right here. If you go to
Speaker 3: war and you die when you're in war and you're
Speaker 3: defending our belief, then you automatically get brought in. It's
Speaker 3: like fucking Odin and his army are going.
Speaker 2: To you know, it's like so ridiculous to even think
Speaker 2: that that you're just going to get in heaven by
Speaker 2: murdering an opposition.
Speaker 3: It's like man killing killing, not murder. Well, no, with
Speaker 3: the Gnostics, it would have been a murder, not a killing.
Speaker 3: But like the Crusades that were waves in the Holy
Speaker 3: Land and stuff that was that was murder. That was
Speaker 3: not murder, rather that was killing because they were armed combatants.
Speaker 3: But yes, the same same kind of thought process that
Speaker 3: was a big push is that they told all these
Speaker 3: peasant class people who could not read that it says
Speaker 3: right here in this book that you can't read that
Speaker 3: if you die in the name of God in combat,
Speaker 3: you get an automatic remission of sins for you and
Speaker 3: your family, and you're guaranteed to go to heaven. And
Speaker 3: there's like, well, I guess I'm taking a little little
Speaker 3: boat ride. Man. You are talking about the pope saying this,
Speaker 3: the alleged closest thing to God on earth that there
Speaker 3: is is saying this. Yeah, whenever I say test the fruit,
Speaker 3: I mean test the fucking fruit. Okay, So it says
Speaker 3: it was the Crusaders regarded themselves as being an on
Speaker 3: God's business and referred to themselves as pilgrims. From the
Speaker 3: first major siege at Beziers in twelve oh nine, the
Speaker 3: war became one of French plus their allies against the
Speaker 3: independent people of Langadoc plus their allies. Instead of Catholics
Speaker 3: against Cathars. It was up until at least twelve forty
Speaker 3: two consistently Catholics on the side against Cathars and Catholics
Speaker 3: on the other. The war saw many sieges, including Beziers, Carcione, Brahm, LeVar.
Speaker 3: I can't I'm not even gonna try and read the
Speaker 3: most of those, but it was a bunch of different
Speaker 3: cities and towns, villages.
Speaker 2: Whatever the sieges were of castra i e. Castles and
Speaker 2: their associated walled villages, towns or cities. Some gave up
Speaker 2: without a fight, the desired result of the crusader's deliberate
Speaker 2: terror tactics. These included Fanjo and Castle Naudri. After the
Speaker 2: fall of Beziers and Carsone, it says terror tactics included mass,
Speaker 2: indiscriminate slaughter at Beziers and MArmand, and planned for Toulouse.
Speaker 2: Various atrocities at Brahm and LeVar and mass burnings at Uh.
Speaker 2: These are French words, so it's hard. It's hard to say,
Speaker 2: but I can't read it because it's too small.
Speaker 3: My scream. But yeah, French word, French place.
Speaker 2: So now we get to the abagency and Albergenzy and crusade.
Speaker 2: The Albergency and Crusade was a crusade against the people
Speaker 2: of the Langa Doc which began in twelve oh eight.
Speaker 2: It is also known as the Cathar crusade. Like all crusades,
Speaker 2: it was I think we're kind of just reading over
Speaker 2: what we were reading, Okay, so it says in order
Speaker 2: to so, all right, why was it called the Albergensian
Speaker 2: crusade rather than the Cathark Crusade. In order to answer this,
Speaker 2: it is important to remember that Cathar is only of
Speaker 2: many names the Roman Church invented for members of this
Speaker 2: project brand of Gnostic dualism, many among other names, or
Speaker 2: among many other names. They were called Albigensians from the
Speaker 2: erroneous belief that they were concentrated in the town of Albi.
Speaker 2: The term Cathar has become the standard term for them
Speaker 2: only in recent times. That is why you probably can't
Speaker 2: find too much information on him because the names changed.
Speaker 3: Right, It's like the.
Speaker 2: Opposing forces are the ones that gave this name out,
Speaker 2: almost like the term pagan, right, like you know, the
Speaker 2: Pagans of the times didn't call themselves pagan, sure, sure,
Speaker 2: kind of like in that sense. The term Albigensian crusade
Speaker 2: is only used loosely to describe a series of formal
Speaker 2: crusades interpreted or yeah with continual warfare against the people
Speaker 2: of the Langadoc, which lasted for some forty years. The
Speaker 2: target of the crusade was Raymond the fifth of Toulouse
Speaker 2: and his vassals, but Raymond joined the crusade himself. This
Speaker 2: meant that he and his vassals came under the protection
Speaker 2: of the Church. That is why the first stages of
Speaker 2: the crusade were directed against the Beziers and the Carson,
Speaker 2: which did not belong to Raymond of Toulouse, but to
Speaker 2: a close relative, Ramon Roger Trancavel. The trick did not
Speaker 2: work for very long, and soon Raymond was excommunicated and
Speaker 2: his castles were under attack. After the initial seizure sieges
Speaker 2: of Berzier and Carson, the crusader forces were led by
Speaker 2: Simon de Montfort and later his son Omri de Montfort,
Speaker 2: who were responsible for series of bloody battles, sieges, and massacres.
Speaker 2: Voltaire wrote about this crusade against the people of the
Speaker 2: Langa doc Now.
Speaker 3: Real quick, this is also one of the arguments to
Speaker 3: be made to say that it didn't exactly happen as
Speaker 3: the story goes. Is because this dude, Raymond, he wasn't
Speaker 3: a Cathar, right, but he joined the crusade to kill
Speaker 3: the Cathars and then later was excommunicated for god knows
Speaker 3: what reason. There is documentation on that. But my point
Speaker 3: is there is an argument to say that all this
Speaker 3: was way more politically motivated than it was spiritually motivated. Well, yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm sure the Catholics didn't need, you know, their followers
Speaker 3: unbelieving in going into gnosticism. I mean, that's as not
Speaker 3: as it gets. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying
Speaker 3: that it was way more drumming up charges against certain
Speaker 3: groups and certain people just for political reasons. Think of
Speaker 3: the Salem witch trials, right, all these people that were
Speaker 3: tried and executed for being witches. How many of them
Speaker 3: were actually practicing witchcraft. Fucking none. They were drummed up
Speaker 3: charges as a way to make it feel like, oh see,
Speaker 3: we're ridden to the world of the evil and all
Speaker 3: these things. So that is another reason why the scholars
Speaker 3: are saying that it may not be what we originally thought.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that I believe that one hundred percent,
Speaker 3: but yes, there's levels upon levels of things to unpack
Speaker 3: on this, oh for sure. Yeah, I mean take it
Speaker 3: all with a massive grain of salt.
Speaker 2: Anytime you're talking about something that happened us thou and
Speaker 2: years ago. I mean, we look at that even the
Speaker 2: most recent history, you know, like all of that COVID
Speaker 2: vaccine information. You know, they're they're putting it literally on
Speaker 2: the back burner for the next sixty or seventy years.
Speaker 2: We're not going to have access to that, even though
Speaker 2: a lot of it's coming out, you know, but the
Speaker 2: actual science behind a lot of it. They're saying, Yeah,
Speaker 2: the people of right now, like they should not fucking
Speaker 2: look into this because we convinced a lot of people
Speaker 2: to get a lot of these vaccines, and let's just
Speaker 2: wait until they're dead and then we'll tell their kids.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like crazy, But so who led the crusade. Most
Speaker 2: short accounts of the Cathark crusades mentioned only Simon de Montfort,
Speaker 2: and many of them confuse him with his son, also
Speaker 2: called Simon, who played such an important role in English history.
Speaker 2: The truth is slightly more complex. There was are no
Speaker 2: Omri Abbot of Siteaux, and then there was Simon de Montfort,
Speaker 2: Amri de Montfort, and then the king of France. So
Speaker 2: these were the main people that were leading the charge
Speaker 2: in the cruise sad. Then it gets into the different
Speaker 2: techniques of the medieval warfare, which is pretty interesting. But
Speaker 2: for the most part, yeah, I mean, you had a
Speaker 2: series of crusades, uh that were that were going on
Speaker 2: and slaughtering these people, and and it was hard to
Speaker 2: really try and figure out exactly why the crusades are happening,
Speaker 2: you know, And.
Speaker 3: That's that's where, uh, it gets a little murky. So
Speaker 3: I have an article pulled up, and I don't know
Speaker 3: if you have one that you're about to lead into.
Speaker 3: But from this exact same source that talks about the
Speaker 3: beliefs of the Cathars and the Waldians and the Boga
Speaker 3: mills and these things, which might lead a little bit
Speaker 3: of some uh, some backstory as to the why honestly,
Speaker 3: but we'll get doing a bit.
Speaker 2: Well, and that's I mean, I have it all pulled
Speaker 2: up right here. So if you want to get to
Speaker 2: the beliefs. My point is is that what you just
Speaker 2: you just go around killing somebody that that believes different
Speaker 2: from you.
Speaker 3: No, it's not just that there was the beliefs that
Speaker 3: were different. It was that these And again I'm not
Speaker 3: saying that this is justification before I say what I'm
Speaker 3: about to say, Please don't think that I'm on the
Speaker 3: side of the Catholic Church here. What I'm saying is
Speaker 3: that these beliefs weren't just contradictory. They were outright insulting
Speaker 3: to the Christianity of the day and age, to the Catholics.
Speaker 3: And yeah, there was Protestantism that was taking root, but
Speaker 3: they weren't insulting the Bible.
Speaker 2: They were insulting the Pope, well, specifically insulting the Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: I mean they specifically called out the Catholic Church for
Speaker 2: being the actual whore of Babylon.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, no doubt. But then when you also look
Speaker 3: at the Gnostic texts and you look at the Cathlart beliefs,
Speaker 3: and they believed in the dualistic society and that all
Speaker 3: of earth was created by Satan. That completely spits in
Speaker 3: the face of the Bible, not the Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: No, it actually doesn't. It actually doesn't. And we're gonna
Speaker 2: get to it. But how many times throughout the Bible
Speaker 2: that says that essentially the earth is the Devil's playground,
Speaker 2: that he is the prince of all of the land, right.
Speaker 3: He didn't create it? Well, I don't know. I mean
Speaker 3: hold him becoming the ruler of Therefore, that came way
Speaker 3: way way later than the creation of the earth, dude.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, if you're to take it on belief, sure,
Speaker 2: And that's the thing is, like, when did all of
Speaker 2: these stories originate?
Speaker 3: Right, That's my point. We're talking about conflicting beliefs. There's
Speaker 3: no historical document to say God created this earth and
Speaker 3: then and or the devil created this earth. Both of
Speaker 3: these are faith based conversations. One of them completely insults
Speaker 3: the other. And this they conflict. They're not. They're butting
Speaker 3: heads on this, That's what I'm saying. It's not just
Speaker 3: like saying, oh they're not they're not entirely conflicting, is
Speaker 3: what I'm trying to say. Okay, well, I can't wait
Speaker 3: till we get to the Book of the Supper, because
Speaker 3: I promise you it is completely conflicting, even to the
Speaker 3: historical accounts of Jesus himself. But we'll get to it.
Speaker 2: I'm not even gonna go down that rabbit hole. I'm
Speaker 2: not gonna say what I want to say about that.
Speaker 2: But let's let's just move So there were if we
Speaker 2: want to try and understand what the cathar beliefs are,
Speaker 2: maybe you never really looked into a Gnostic gospel. Maybe
Speaker 2: you think that it's heretical to even think about looking
Speaker 2: into it.
Speaker 3: I get it.
Speaker 2: But for the people that are a little bit more
Speaker 2: open minded, you know, we don't have boundaries that we
Speaker 2: have to abide by.
Speaker 3: So it's a little bit more fun on this end.
Speaker 2: But anyway, it says Cathar's clearly regarded themselves as good Christians.
Speaker 2: Literally is what their name translated to, since that is
Speaker 2: exactly what they called themselves good Christians. On the surface,
Speaker 2: their basic beliefs seem unremarkable. Most people would have a
Speaker 2: difficulty in distinguishing the principal Cathar beliefs from what are
Speaker 2: now regarded as conventional Orthodox Christian beliefs. However, pursuing their
Speaker 2: fundamental beliefs of their logical conclusion revealed surprising implications. For example,
Speaker 2: that the Roman Catholics were mistakenly following a Satanic God
Speaker 2: rather than the beneficent God worshiped by the Cathars. Like
Speaker 2: the earliest Christians, Cathars recognized no priesthood. They did not, however,
Speaker 2: distinguished between ordinary believers and a smaller inner circle of
Speaker 2: leaders initiated in secret knowledge, known at the time as
Speaker 2: the bonnie Hominism, which just translates to good men, now
Speaker 2: generally referred to as the elect as the parfates.
Speaker 3: I've heard it also called the perfects perfectie. Yeah, let's
Speaker 3: say they definitely acknowledged the priesthood. There's a whole thing
Speaker 3: your baptism. It wasn't like through water, it was through
Speaker 3: the laying of hands of the perfectee or the elite.
Speaker 3: So they absolutely acknowledged the priesthood. But okay, yeah, that's
Speaker 3: what it's saying.
Speaker 2: So the Cathars had a church hierarchy and a number
Speaker 2: of rites and ceremonies. They believed in reincarnation and in heaven,
Speaker 2: but not in Hell as it is normally as it
Speaker 2: is now normally conceived by mainstream Christians. The Cathar view
Speaker 2: was that their theology was older than the Roman Catholic Church,
Speaker 2: and that the Roman Church had corrupted its own scripture,
Speaker 2: invented new doctrine, and abandoned the beliefs and practices of
Speaker 2: the early Church. The Catholic view, of course, was exactly
Speaker 2: the opposite. They imagined Catharism to be a badly distorted
Speaker 2: version of Catholicism in addition the accusing. In addition to
Speaker 2: accusing the Cathars of false theology, they imagined a range
Speaker 2: abominable practice practices which would have been amusing except that,
Speaker 2: converted into propaganda, they led to the death of countless
Speaker 2: thousands of countless thousands Through the cathart Crusades and the Inquisition.
Speaker 2: The Roman Church seem to have successfully extirpated Cathars and
Speaker 2: Cathar beliefs by the early fourteenth century, but the truth
Speaker 2: is more complicated. For one thing, modern historians have shown
Speaker 2: that many Catholic claims were false, while they while they
Speaker 2: have vindicated many Cathar claims interesting and there is a
Speaker 2: case that the Cathar legacy is more influential today than
Speaker 2: it has been at any time over the last seven
Speaker 2: hundred years. Cathars were duellists, that is, they believed in
Speaker 2: two universal principles, a good God and a bad God,
Speaker 2: much like the Jehovah and Satan of mainstream Christianity. As dualists,
Speaker 2: they believe to a tradition that was already ancient in
Speaker 2: the days of Jesus, so before even Jesus.
Speaker 3: That's I don't understand the source on that one, but
Speaker 3: let's let's keep going. No, dualism definitely precedes Jesus. Ah
Speaker 3: got you, got you, gotcha, Okay, yeah, yeah uh. They
Speaker 3: revered Magi in the in the Nativity story where where
Speaker 3: Zoroastrians Persian dualists. So dualism came and still comes in
Speaker 3: many flavors, even the Cathar variety came in more than
Speaker 3: one flavor, but the but the principal one was this.
Speaker 3: The good God was the God of all immaterial things
Speaker 3: such as light and souls. The Bad God was the
Speaker 3: God of all material things, including the world and everything
Speaker 3: in it. So that's that's really the divide.
Speaker 2: They're saying. Look, this is an illusion. What we're living
Speaker 2: in right now is not the real world. The real
Speaker 2: world is that is that of the world of God,
Speaker 2: the one that is immaterial. The things that are that
Speaker 2: are not like things that you can't bring with you
Speaker 2: after death. And that's where I kind of align with it,
Speaker 2: because you can't bring any of this stuff with you
Speaker 2: after death, so therefore it's not the real stuff compared
Speaker 2: to the real stuff in God's house.
Speaker 3: Right. I don't understand what you're saying anyway, but you
Speaker 3: understand that what you just said is completely conflicting to
Speaker 3: biblical narrative, both Old and New Testament. When he talks
Speaker 3: about that I'm the God of all things seen and unseen.
Speaker 3: There are no other gods other than myself. There is
Speaker 3: only one creator all of these things. They are basically saying, yeah,
Speaker 3: but we're doing this other thing anyway because it makes
Speaker 3: more sense to us. Uh, well, that's what they're saying. That.
Speaker 2: What the Cathars are saying is that the Roman Catholic Church,
Speaker 2: you know, they they kind of fudge the numbers, they
Speaker 2: change some words, they put in books that only led
Speaker 2: to their power, their control, And that's what they were
Speaker 2: trying to say, is that, you know, like, if you
Speaker 2: look at what the Roman Catholic Church stands for, it
Speaker 2: seems to be more representative of the physic nature of
Speaker 2: reality and not so much God's nature of reality, is
Speaker 2: what they're trying to say.
Speaker 3: But we're gonna We're gonna go on a little bit more. Okay,
Speaker 3: So the bad.
Speaker 2: God was, uh, the bad God was the god of
Speaker 2: all material things, including the world and everything in it.
Speaker 2: He had contrived to capture souls and imprison them in
Speaker 2: human bodies through the process of conception. As Cathar has
Speaker 2: put it, we are all divine sparks, even angels, imprisoned
Speaker 2: in tunics of flesh, which is I mean, look, if
Speaker 2: you just get yourself out of the religion, like out
Speaker 2: of the I don't want to say brainwashing to whatever,
Speaker 2: but I'm just saying, if you're to think outside of
Speaker 2: the box, what if that is real?
Speaker 3: Though, like on some real shit. And this is where
Speaker 3: I go with it, because there's no way to prove
Speaker 3: any fucking thing, right, Like, what if you were to
Speaker 3: just completely jump outside of the box and have a
Speaker 3: mind of your own?
Speaker 2: What if it is true that like we are kind
Speaker 2: of imprisoned in tunics of flesh. But we're really like
Speaker 2: angels or divine sparks or souls or whatever, like imagine
Speaker 2: that to be a reality.
Speaker 3: I mean, no, no, I see what they're saying. For sure,
Speaker 3: we are spirits. We are souls having a human experience,
Speaker 3: and so we when we and you have talked about
Speaker 3: that many many times.
Speaker 2: And then you get into Bob Lazar saying that, you know,
Speaker 2: it's documented that all we are is just fucking containers.
Speaker 3: You know. And I get this too, But that being said,
Speaker 3: it's to say that we are or our spirits or
Speaker 3: our souls are angels.
Speaker 2: That's again, very very conflicting. Speak for yourself. I heard
Speaker 2: of an angel named Jonathan Ones. But anyway, so.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I heard of a Jacob that became Israel
Speaker 3: in the Bible. I'm not him. My spirit is not
Speaker 3: his spirit. Like, that's not how that goes either. Maybe
Speaker 3: you never know.
Speaker 2: So according to later cath Our ideas, when we die,
Speaker 2: the when we die, the powers of the air throng
Speaker 2: around and persecute the newly released soul, which flees into
Speaker 2: the first lodging of clay that it finds this quote
Speaker 2: unquote lodging of clay might be human or animal. The
Speaker 2: soul would therefore be condemned to a cycle of rebirth
Speaker 2: trapped in another physical body. By leading a good enough life,
Speaker 2: human beings or rather souls, could win freedom from imprisonment
Speaker 2: and return to Heaven, the immaterial realm of the Good God.
Speaker 2: For members of the elect, those who had undertaken the Consolamentum,
Speaker 2: death was no more than taking off a dirty tunic.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean, the Consolamentum was their version of
Speaker 3: a baptism, which when you look at the practice itself,
Speaker 3: there was no water. They actually saw water as inherently
Speaker 3: evil too, because it is a physical thing, right, and
Speaker 3: so it must be created by, for lack of better words,
Speaker 3: the demi urge. And I'm not saying that they use
Speaker 3: that term, but it makes more sense than the gnostic
Speaker 3: and dualistic conversations. Basically demiurge. Yeah, yeah, And so they
Speaker 3: believed that the baptism was from the laying of hands
Speaker 3: upon the head of the New Initiate. But that also
Speaker 3: kind of makes no sense because they're laying physical hands,
Speaker 3: which are evil, onto the physical head, which is evil
Speaker 3: of the New Initiate. So it makes no sense to me.
Speaker 3: But yes, they didn't do the baptisms in the same way.
Speaker 3: It because the energy of the hands.
Speaker 2: It wasn't the hands themselves, it was the energy that
Speaker 2: was being like transferred from the hands onto the other
Speaker 2: person's body.
Speaker 3: But then why didn't they just like put a hand
Speaker 3: out and not touch them. You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but
Speaker 3: it doesn't have to. I get it. I mean, yes,
Speaker 3: the fact is is that most religious shit doesn't make sense. Like,
Speaker 3: can we just say that, like across the board, most
Speaker 3: of it don't make sense, right, And that's what I
Speaker 3: did the whole disagree.
Speaker 2: That's what I did, the whole Nephilum and the fucking
Speaker 2: Noah's Ark and all that shit, just to show you
Speaker 2: that it's you know, if you want to try and
Speaker 2: point out that everybody else is crazy for their beliefs,
Speaker 2: understand that you are equally as crazy, at least equally
Speaker 2: as crazy.
Speaker 3: Respectfully, I disagree. We've talked about how water is a
Speaker 3: spiritual substance and has a memory and has all these things.
Speaker 3: So there's reasons to why people would think that baptism
Speaker 3: by water is such a spiritual thing. I'm you know, yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't believe that that is a crazy thing to
Speaker 3: say that water is a spiritual substance. We need it,
Speaker 3: We're made up of seventy percent of it. There's anyway anyway.
Speaker 3: My point is that, yes, the Gnostics believed in a
Speaker 3: type of quote unquote baptism, but it did not involve water.
Speaker 3: It involved the laying of hands and then this one
Speaker 3: thing would make the soul ready to get out of
Speaker 3: the reincarnation cycle. However, they also believe that you could
Speaker 3: fall back like you could, you could backslide in your beliefs,
Speaker 3: and you would have to rego through this process to
Speaker 3: get right with the benevolent God in order to break
Speaker 3: the cycle again. So like you had to be on
Speaker 3: your p's and q's. It wasn't like a one time,
Speaker 3: saved for life kind of thing. Well, neither is baptism.
Speaker 3: How many people get multiple baptisms in life. It's that
Speaker 3: is supposed to be a one and done. Also, that's
Speaker 3: that's not supposed to be a thing that you do.
Speaker 3: Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that you're
Speaker 3: supposed to ask for forgiveness multiple times for the same sin.
Speaker 3: Once you're forgiven, you're forgiven, you're forgiven. That's how that goes.
Speaker 2: But anyway, sure, but that's not their nature, that's not
Speaker 2: the reality of it. I mean, I'm sure you can
Speaker 2: come up with at least twenty people that were baptized
Speaker 2: more than once.
Speaker 3: Oh, I mean sure, But that's that's a them thing.
Speaker 3: The Bible doesn't say to do that.
Speaker 2: The realm of the Good God, heaven was filled with
Speaker 2: light just to go on. Some Cathars regarded the stars
Speaker 2: as divine sparks or souls or angels in heaven regarded
Speaker 2: the stars as that the realm of the Bad God
Speaker 2: was the material world in which we serve out our
Speaker 2: earthly terms. Satan had entrapped these divine sparks and created
Speaker 2: humankind as their prison. Thus there was a part of
Speaker 2: the Good God trapped in all men and women, longing
Speaker 2: to rejoin its maker. The Bad God filled with humankind
Speaker 2: with temptations to frustrate souls from ever making that reunion.
Speaker 2: They could be tortured by disease, famine, and other travials
Speaker 2: or travails, including man's own inhumanity to his fellow man.
Speaker 2: Yet the Bad God had no power over the soul,
Speaker 2: a divine spark of the Good God. His remit was
Speaker 2: confined to matis burial things. Any hell that existed was
Speaker 2: here on this material earth. To confound the bad God,
Speaker 2: it was necessary to abstain from all earthly temptations and
Speaker 2: to strength strengthen the inner spirit by prayer. It was
Speaker 2: an argument that seemed to provide a rational explanation for
Speaker 2: all of the misfortunes of the world. Dualist ideas had
Speaker 2: a long history, stretching back well into pre Christian times.
Speaker 2: All of the essentials were known to the Greek philosophers.
Speaker 2: Plato held that the soul yearns to fly home on
Speaker 2: the wings of love to the world of ideas. According
Speaker 2: to him, it longs to be freed from the chains
Speaker 2: of the body. Early Christianity had adopted Neoplatonist ideas. Neoplatonism
Speaker 2: taught a doctrine of salvation alongside dualism. And by the way,
Speaker 2: you know, it is said that there are a lot
Speaker 2: of Platonic ideas within the Bible, and I know that
Speaker 2: some people would disagree with that. I got a recede
Speaker 2: on it, and you can agree or agree to disagree
Speaker 2: either way. But the idea that Plato had some form
Speaker 2: of influence, and that was that's kind of a main
Speaker 2: talking point, is that what the Catholics will bring up,
Speaker 2: they'll say, see, uh, the Cathars and narcissism in general
Speaker 2: was majorly influenced by Plato and a lot of his philosophy.
Speaker 3: Right, but the Bible itself, right, not Plato. It was
Speaker 3: Platinus that they took their influences from. For Platonism, correct, well,
Speaker 3: it all comes from Plato.
Speaker 2: But yeah, Platinus turned it into Neoplatonism, which is just
Speaker 2: the newer, more in depth version of Platonism.
Speaker 3: Okay, fair enough.
Speaker 2: So it says human bodies were material objects made of
Speaker 2: earth and dust, but but our immortal souls were not.
Speaker 2: They were sparks of the divine. The divine was characterized
Speaker 2: as light opposed to the darkness according to Platinus, which
Speaker 2: I love that you mentioned because he's one of my favorites.
Speaker 2: According to Platinus, souls were illuminated by the divine light. Matter,
Speaker 2: on the other hand, was just darkness and had no
Speaker 2: real existence. These Platonists ideas were an integral part of
Speaker 2: early Christianity, later dropped in mainstream Christianity when it switched
Speaker 2: from Plato's philosophy to Aristotles as a result of Thomas
Speaker 2: Aquina's attempts to reconcile Christianity with Aristotle's philosophy. The Cathar's
Speaker 2: teachings on this, as on many other matters, reiterate those
Speaker 2: of the early Church. They provide one of a number
Speaker 2: of pieces of circumstantial evidence that the origins that their
Speaker 2: origins date from early Christian times. The idea that flesh
Speaker 2: was inherently evil became popular in mainstream Christianity too. It
Speaker 2: was formalized in the concept of original sin and was
Speaker 2: enormously popular up until the twentieth century. Significantly, the doctrine
Speaker 2: of original sin was invented by Saint Augustine, a Christian
Speaker 2: who had been previously a Manaicean or a Manichean i e.
Speaker 2: A Gnostic duellist. Today this traditional teaching is played down,
Speaker 2: and it comes as a shock to many Christians to
Speaker 2: hear the words like that of the Burial Service from
Speaker 2: the Book Book of Common Prayer, contrasting an evil material
Speaker 2: body with a good spiritual one. Our Lord Jesus Christ,
Speaker 2: who shall change our vile body that it may be
Speaker 2: like to His glorious body.
Speaker 3: I don't understand why that's such a weird thing for
Speaker 3: Christians to wrap their heads around, like to say that
Speaker 3: we're born into sin and like that our bodies. Even
Speaker 3: Paul says, I strike my flesh to get it to
Speaker 3: submit to my will because the flesh is weak, but
Speaker 3: the soul is strong. It blows in mind that so
Speaker 3: many Christians have an issue with that. But you know,
Speaker 3: most Christians that I know understand that we are born
Speaker 3: into original sin. And yes, not every baby that's born
Speaker 3: is a sinner, but they will be within the first
Speaker 3: five years of their life, because that's human nature.
Speaker 2: It's not crazy, It's not even just a Christian thing.
Speaker 2: I'll say this, Like most people are so convinced that
Speaker 2: they are their body, they are their mind, and that
Speaker 2: this is all I ever have been. This is why
Speaker 2: you have like people that you know that don't believe
Speaker 2: in anything, you know, like because all I am is
Speaker 2: just this right and it's a it's a shitty creation
Speaker 2: at that, Like we get sick.
Speaker 3: You know, we break bones.
Speaker 2: We are basically like fucking just flesh suits and for
Speaker 2: what just to go to work and pay taxes and
Speaker 2: people you know, like those kind of people. Unfortunately, they
Speaker 2: almost like lose their purpose to even then and their
Speaker 2: will to even live because they just believe that all
Speaker 2: we are is just a body and after this nothing
Speaker 2: happens and it was, you know, our creation was an accident,
Speaker 2: and it's like fucking crazy. No, I agree, I agree,
Speaker 2: And it's it's unfortunate that people have led themselves to
Speaker 2: believe that. Like the fact that your brain, the fact
Speaker 2: that your heart is beating right now without you having
Speaker 2: to think about it to make it do so. To me,
Speaker 2: the fact that your body is such a well orchestrated
Speaker 2: instrument of machinery that there's no way that any human
Speaker 2: could be smart enough to actually like blueprint and draw
Speaker 2: out in this way.
Speaker 3: That is mind blowing. Yeah. Yeah, but so also a
Speaker 3: lot of you know, I I'm not gonna say I
Speaker 3: agree with the atheists of the world.
Speaker 2: But I can at least empathize a little bit, because
Speaker 2: with all of the good things that are in this world,
Speaker 2: all the good things that are created, there is equally,
Speaker 2: if not more bad. Right Like, if you are it
Speaker 2: depends are you looking at it glass alf or or
Speaker 2: your glass half empty, because you can really make a
Speaker 2: case for both of them, right like, And to say
Speaker 2: that like, see, it's primarily good, but what about all
Speaker 2: this evil.
Speaker 3: We'll see it's primarily evil, but what about all this good? Right,
Speaker 3: like you can kind of weigh it, you know, on
Speaker 3: a scale like that. So no, no, I agree with that,
Speaker 3: and and to that example, I am of the belief
Speaker 3: that everything has to operate in harmonious balance. Right, So
Speaker 3: like let's talk about the Ying Yang for instance. Right,
Speaker 3: for equal parts good, there's equal parts evil. Now I'm
Speaker 3: not saying that within every human being, and I'm not
Speaker 3: saying that within the entire scope of whatever. But when
Speaker 3: you look at it, for every good thing, there is
Speaker 3: a bad thing that is there to offset it, and
Speaker 3: vice versus. So with the glass half full versus half
Speaker 3: empty conversation, the glass is at the halfway mark. It
Speaker 3: is half full and half empty at the same time.
Speaker 3: Both are true at the same time. I think that's
Speaker 3: a lot more in line with how reality has to function.
Speaker 3: And I don't like that, but I believe that that's
Speaker 3: kind of the way it's like designed.
Speaker 2: It's a hermetic principle of polarity, that's what it is. Like,
Speaker 2: They're every single thing. You can't name one thing.
Speaker 3: That is not on a polar scale. Okay, I guess,
Speaker 3: but I mean even this is why it just tell
Speaker 3: they say the same thing, though not just the Bible.
Speaker 3: Other religions will say say, like you said the Ying
Speaker 3: Yang earlier, that's that's not a hermetic principle, but they
Speaker 3: have found that philosophical truth in themselves for sure. So
Speaker 3: if we look at the nature of this reality as
Speaker 3: being absolutely like polarities, right, like there's for every good,
Speaker 3: there's a bad and vice versa, and a lot of
Speaker 3: gray in between. Right.
Speaker 2: If we look at the nature of reality as that
Speaker 2: and all the different aspects of it, and then put
Speaker 2: that even an overlay of all, right, what created us
Speaker 2: it has to be. Therefore, if we're looking at the
Speaker 2: fruit of whatever created us, some of it has to
Speaker 2: be good, some of it has to be bad.
Speaker 3: It is like, if you are.
Speaker 2: Sticking to the principle of polarity, the nature of this
Speaker 2: reality says there has to be a good and a bad.
Speaker 2: And so this is where the Gnostics and the Cathars
Speaker 2: believed in a dualistic dualistic gods, essentially that there was
Speaker 2: a good God and a bad God. And and to
Speaker 2: be honest, I don't know why that's so crazy, you know,
Speaker 2: And the Bible talks about Jesus and the devil. It's
Speaker 2: like that's the polarity, you know, like that's that's exactly
Speaker 2: what you're talking about. But well, as soon as you
Speaker 2: say that they're dualistic, it's like.
Speaker 3: I don't know, no, no, I can understand the thought
Speaker 3: process to get to the dualistic God scenario, especially like
Speaker 3: you just said, if we're looking at creation and we're
Speaker 3: testing the fruit, we see it. I get that. But
Speaker 3: I'm also of the belief that free will is what
Speaker 3: has led us to have the evil on this earth,
Speaker 3: not the all divine and all good creator. But stand
Speaker 3: where somebody would draw their conclusions to say that there
Speaker 3: is a dualistic nature. I get it.
Speaker 2: But even God himself, if we are to believe the
Speaker 2: literature says, I am the light and I am the darkness,
Speaker 2: like I create all things good and all things evil.
Speaker 3: So God himself is a dualist or out of context?
Speaker 2: No, it's not, I mean, what hold on, what do
Speaker 2: you mean it's out of context?
Speaker 3: In what way? He's saying that he created everything. He's
Speaker 3: not saying that he's got part evil within him. He's
Speaker 3: saying He created everything, even the evil shit. That's different.
Speaker 3: The fruit of God uhuh is good and bad, right,
Speaker 3: but he didn't make bad fruit. Free will turned the
Speaker 3: fruit bad. And that's just my opinion. Also with that
Speaker 3: being said, I understand.
Speaker 2: The computer coder of all the nature of reality, every
Speaker 2: single thing that was ever created, good and bad, was
Speaker 2: God allegedly.
Speaker 3: But the program has the ability to do what the
Speaker 3: fuck it wants. Keep that in mind. It's not a
Speaker 3: program where it's all slave systems that are gonna do
Speaker 3: as they're told regardless.
Speaker 2: But what no, I think I don't think you understand
Speaker 2: what I'm trying to say. Like, if you're writing a code,
Speaker 2: let's just say.
Speaker 3: I don't know, you're you're bringing back fucking pac Man. Okay,
Speaker 3: like pac Man. If you are the computer coder to
Speaker 3: the game of pac Man, you're gonna like you're gonna
Speaker 3: be like, all right, you know, let's let's let miss
Speaker 3: pac Man eat all these meat meat meat, meat, meat
Speaker 3: meat things.
Speaker 2: Right to keep to allowed survival. Right, But then you
Speaker 2: also had the little evil things what were they called
Speaker 2: the ghosts, the little ghosts? Right, Like somebody put those
Speaker 2: ghosts in the game. Yeah, somebody put that in there.
Speaker 2: They didn't put octopuses, they didn't put cats in that game.
Speaker 3: They didn't put dinosaurs. There was no dragons. They put
Speaker 3: those ghosts specifically. It was coded that way.
Speaker 2: It wasn't even possible to to come and come in
Speaker 2: contact with the dragon.
Speaker 3: It wasn't even possible. You're not gonna find Char's art
Speaker 3: in pac Man.
Speaker 2: You know what I'm saying, And that's what I'm trying
Speaker 2: to say is the nature of this reality was coded
Speaker 2: in such a way to literally like there is no
Speaker 2: such thing as no bad, Like it had to have
Speaker 2: been programmed as a polarization if everything was created as
Speaker 2: only good can be coded into it. But like you're
Speaker 2: going to allow that good to be bad. It's like,
Speaker 2: if you allow something to be bad, you have to say,
Speaker 2: all right, well, in what way are we going to say? Like,
Speaker 2: in what way can we make them bad? You know,
Speaker 2: whenever somebody turns bad, they don't start shooting fireballs out
Speaker 2: of their chest. You know, Like what is bad? What
Speaker 2: is allowed for bad? What does the coding allow for
Speaker 2: bad behavior?
Speaker 3: Right? Because and it's not all you can't say that,
Speaker 3: you know, just free will is the only thing that
Speaker 3: is determined. What bad is cancer? Did people create cancer? Yes?
Speaker 3: Did people create.
Speaker 2: Look at nature? I mean it's cyclical. I mean, trees live,
Speaker 2: they thrive, they die.
Speaker 3: Right, there is something good is bad? Well, it's a
Speaker 3: philosophical you know belief at that point that is an inevitability. Bro,
Speaker 3: That's that's That's what I'm point like to say that
Speaker 3: free will created this whole existence I believe is good.
Speaker 3: But there is also the free will for the individuals
Speaker 3: to do what they want with it. You can choose
Speaker 3: to do good, you can choose to do bad, and
Speaker 3: when given the opportunity, humans will always make the wrong choice.
Speaker 3: And that's been proven throughout the course of history.
Speaker 2: Interesting, So it is only humans that bring out the bad.
Speaker 2: Everything else is good? Is that what you're trying to say?
Speaker 2: All other animals in nature rely on instinct. They don't
Speaker 2: have thought forms, right, not how that goes, but.
Speaker 3: The coding of the animals.
Speaker 2: Animals have disease animals, I mean there are there are pestilences,
Speaker 2: there are sicknesses, there are there are diseases that can
Speaker 2: be transferred to humans allegedly, right, Like think about rabies,
Speaker 2: you know, I.
Speaker 3: Think about the black plague. Yeah, who created rabies. Honestly,
Speaker 3: I don't know. I believe that was a mutated gene. Okay,
Speaker 3: so I don't know that for a fact, but I
Speaker 3: think so. What I'm saying is is that there is
Speaker 3: fucked up shit in nature, and it wasn't determined strictly
Speaker 3: because of free will. No. But I mean, even look
Speaker 3: at when the Europeans first made their way to North America.
Speaker 3: The North Americans had almost no level of sickness ever,
Speaker 3: and they have been operating in this way harmoniously with
Speaker 3: nature for thousands of years. The first time that white
Speaker 3: dudes landed in America, they gave them smallpox and shit. Right,
Speaker 3: So that's my point. When left alone nature just doing
Speaker 3: nature shit, everything will level out the correct way because
Speaker 3: nature is good. Does free will cause stillborn deaths? Don't
Speaker 3: really know. I think that that just might be one
Speaker 3: of those things.
Speaker 2: But again, I don't see death as a negative and
Speaker 2: can be one of those things we're talking about. The
Speaker 2: creator of everything would have had to have implemented that
Speaker 2: code into the nature of this reality.
Speaker 3: Okay, Sure, stillborn babies are a thing, right, Miscarriages are
Speaker 3: a thing, one hundred percent, But also again, death is
Speaker 3: not a negative thing. It shouldn't be viewed as such.
Speaker 2: See that's what I'm saying. Then you can't describe what
Speaker 2: evil is. No, no evil is doing harm to somebody
Speaker 2: or something. The most horrible thing you can do is
Speaker 2: kill something. Oh okay, hand stillborn is not killing something.
Speaker 2: That is something dying When it's it's like saying a
Speaker 2: tree dying in the woods that nobody killed it, No
Speaker 2: thing killed it.
Speaker 3: It died of old age. That's a different thing. Stillborn
Speaker 3: is a natural occurrence.
Speaker 2: If this reality is a matrix, it is a code.
Speaker 2: And if that and this is just a very fucking
Speaker 2: stupid example of trying under trying to understand how God
Speaker 2: created things. Right if if if God created everything through
Speaker 2: the lens of coding. And that's why I even bring
Speaker 2: up the matrix, right if we're if we're looking at
Speaker 2: like he constructed it bit by bit, right like pixel
Speaker 2: by pixel, let's just look at it in that way.
Speaker 3: You you would have.
Speaker 2: To say then that he created the possibility of stillborn death,
Speaker 2: He created the possibility of childhood cancer, created the possibility
Speaker 2: of all of these negative things. We can go we
Speaker 2: can go down the list. You can't say that it
Speaker 2: was all brought upon by human will. But that is
Speaker 2: where the argument is is because you can say, well,
Speaker 2: that's just one of those things, that's just one of
Speaker 2: it can't be one of those things. You're talking about
Speaker 2: the creator of every pixel of this reality.
Speaker 3: Right, I get that, But then there's also again, not
Speaker 3: only is there free will, but there is certain things
Speaker 3: that are chalked up to just what it is.
Speaker 2: There is no such thing as what it is in
Speaker 2: God's eyes. And dude, you're talking about the nature of
Speaker 2: you're talking about the fucking nature of this reality.
Speaker 3: God created everything. There is nothing that God didn't create.
Speaker 3: Would you agree? Sure? Sure, agreed? Agreed.
Speaker 2: So he's the coder, which means he had to put
Speaker 2: code in that would allow for good, code end, that
Speaker 2: would allow for bad.
Speaker 3: Yeah, your name, he put in code to make the
Speaker 3: decision on our own.
Speaker 2: Yes, oh my god, there's just And this is why
Speaker 2: it's it's impossible because and you can't have like a
Speaker 2: like a logical conversation whenever it comes to this kind
Speaker 2: of stuff with most religious people, because because there is
Speaker 2: no such thing as it is what it is, it
Speaker 2: can't be.
Speaker 3: Why why not? Why can that not be?
Speaker 2: If you were God and you created everything, and you
Speaker 2: can create your entire little reality.
Speaker 3: Let's just say your your your SIMS world. Sure, sure, okay,
Speaker 3: now let's do the SIMS world, not even all the
Speaker 3: characters the free will to choose and do whatever they want.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't even go with the Sims because that
Speaker 2: would say that you were the All right, are you
Speaker 2: the first person to ever create the video game called
Speaker 2: the Sims.
Speaker 3: You can look at it from that way. Sure, fine,
Speaker 3: Well I'm not even saying that you're playing the game.
Speaker 3: I'm saying you created the fucking game and then you
Speaker 3: continue to play it. Now you're the programmer, and you
Speaker 3: never made it to public. It is just something that
Speaker 3: it's a project that you're working on at your house,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean. Whatever, And it's not even
Speaker 3: called the Sims. It's called something else. But just for
Speaker 3: the sake of argument, let's just put it under that content.
Speaker 3: You're the computer programmer of the Sims and so you
Speaker 3: got But you know Henry and Susan, and you know
Speaker 3: they're they're getting busy, they're trying to pro create, they're
Speaker 3: trying to build a family.
Speaker 2: Henry goes to work, you know, Susan stays home. Takes
Speaker 2: care of the kids, tends to the garden, tends to
Speaker 2: the kitchen, whatever, traditional you know.
Speaker 3: Household values or whatever. Why why are they doing that?
Speaker 3: Why are they doing that? If you give them free will?
Speaker 3: Keep that in mind, you're not just programming mindless slaves
Speaker 3: to do as you command. And the SAME's example is
Speaker 3: a little contrived because everything that the characters do you
Speaker 3: tell them to do. Right, So keep in mind, you
Speaker 3: create the world, you create the characters, and then you
Speaker 3: give them free will to do what they want, and
Speaker 3: you walk away. You don't have them, no, no, no, no, no no,
Speaker 3: you don't walk away kids and all these things. No, no, no.
Speaker 3: For this example, you let the system run.
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, that's perfect. I'm so fucking happy you went there. Now,
Speaker 2: let's just say that Henry and Susan and their kids,
Speaker 2: they're they're enjoying their day. Maybe it's a weekend. You know,
Speaker 2: Dad's watching the Steelers whip some Bengals ass tonight. Right,
Speaker 2: Let's just say that Dad's sitting at home watching TV,
Speaker 2: kids are playing video games, crocheg whatever, right, just enjoying
Speaker 2: a regular sunday in the.
Speaker 3: Fucking middle of April. For example, Well, I guess I
Speaker 3: know their free will, they've choose to do these things.
Speaker 3: I'm with you, okay, And against their free will, a
Speaker 3: fucking asteroid strikes down on their house and completely fucking
Speaker 3: annihilates everything that they ever thought they knew. They ceased
Speaker 3: to exist. What they were once were bits of pixels
Speaker 3: on a screen, and now they have disintegrated and nobody
Speaker 3: even has a memory of them, right, right, So that's
Speaker 3: my fault, is the programmer for putting that in. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so it's because of some sort of divine justice that
Speaker 3: the programmer decided that these characters need to be gone.
Speaker 3: And like, the only way that that could have happened
Speaker 3: is because he said so. And yes, I understand that
Speaker 3: he is the one that creates and makes everything happen.
Speaker 3: But at the same time, there might be a reason
Speaker 3: for that to happen that we don't see it on
Speaker 3: the onset. This is what I'm trying to say you, Like,
Speaker 3: there's all like God always intends for good, right is
Speaker 3: that what you're trying to say? I believe so that
Speaker 3: good would inherently be out of the material realm, like
Speaker 3: for the betterment of your life after this physical incarnation
Speaker 3: is what you're trying to say, and I believe also
Speaker 3: for the betterment of your life in this physical carnation. Yes,
Speaker 3: at that point it's like Pascal's wager.
Speaker 2: What I'm trying to say is the Cathars weren't inherently crazy.
Speaker 2: Whenever they said that there is evil here. There has
Speaker 2: to be there has to be dualism. Yeah, sure there's good,
Speaker 2: but there is evil here. And in God's realm and
Speaker 2: perfection allegedly Heaven, whatever God's kingdom or whatever.
Speaker 3: That can't happen. It's impossible, there is believe, so.
Speaker 2: Tell them that's That's what I'm saying, is that they
Speaker 2: believe that this couldn't be the real nature of reality.
Speaker 2: This had to be the dominion of some psychopathic, fucking, crazy,
Speaker 2: evil God that allowed for all of these terrible things.
Speaker 2: And yes, humans do have somewhat of a free will,
Speaker 2: and yeah, we we do certain things, but the nature
Speaker 2: of this reality allows it, which means that it was
Speaker 2: coded into this reality, which means that God allowed these
Speaker 2: evil things to happen, even against their will. So therefore
Speaker 2: the God of the Bible has to be some kind
Speaker 2: of sick, demented, twisted individual that just wants to see
Speaker 2: people suffer, and wants to see people sick, and wants
Speaker 2: to see people go through terrible things. And yet the
Speaker 2: Catholic Church is the ones that's saying that that is
Speaker 2: the good God. Clearly it has to be the good God.
Speaker 2: Cathars are like yo, the good God, the all loving God. Whatever,
Speaker 2: there's no way. And so they believe that the actual God.
Speaker 3: That the.
Speaker 2: Catholic Church was worshiping had to have been the bad God,
Speaker 2: because the bad God ordered crusades.
Speaker 3: The bad God said, we got to kill all these people,
Speaker 3: the bad godden order that mankind ordered Christ.
Speaker 2: Oh, the pope said it, so it came directly from God,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean?
Speaker 3: Right? And also Moses said it, so it came directly
Speaker 3: from God. If it wasn't for Moses, we wouldn't even
Speaker 3: we wouldn't have anything of the Old Testament, and therefore
Speaker 3: there would have been no creation of the Bible in
Speaker 3: the first place. Right. So you have to rely at
Speaker 3: this point on the people that are carrying out the
Speaker 3: fucking negative atrocities. No, dude, Once again, we have talked
Speaker 3: about this, how many times that people take away Christianity.
Speaker 3: For a second, people have used their religion to justify
Speaker 3: horrible shit. That doesn't mean that they're speaking on behalf
Speaker 3: of their religion or on behalf of their deities. They
Speaker 3: think that they are, but they are bastardizing and conflating
Speaker 3: and twisting the word.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's what most people would say about Moses,
Speaker 2: is my point, dude.
Speaker 3: The Moses thing that oral tradition predates Moses. He's the
Speaker 3: first person to put pen to paper, but the stories
Speaker 3: of the Torah predate him by a long shot. Well,
Speaker 3: that's where all the stories allegedly come from is through Moses.
Speaker 3: That again, he's the first person to write them down.
Speaker 3: The stories don't come from Moses. Well, hold on, the
Speaker 3: oral traditions predate him by thousands of years, so it couldn't.
Speaker 2: So you're trying to tell me that the stories of
Speaker 2: the Bible were not told to Moses, that Moses was
Speaker 2: told all of these other stories by somebody else not
Speaker 2: named God.
Speaker 3: Is saying no, no, no, I'm saying that these stories that
Speaker 3: he wrote down were divinely inspired and told to him
Speaker 3: by God. But he was also this These stories are
Speaker 3: also told to his people for a long time. The
Speaker 3: the Hebrews that were enslaved in Egypt believed the stories
Speaker 3: of the Torah before Moses was ever born. They didn't
Speaker 3: write it down. It was an oral tradition.
Speaker 2: A lot of mental gymnastics with that one. But look,
Speaker 2: can we can debate this back and forth. My point
Speaker 2: being that the Cathars, I'm not even saying that they're right,
Speaker 2: but to say that they that they deserved a genocide
Speaker 2: is apparently wrong to right.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't believe they deserve that at all.
Speaker 3: Regardless of what you believe. I don't believe you should
Speaker 3: be genocided for your beliefs.
Speaker 2: That's that's preposterous, right, right, unless you want death of
Speaker 2: others who don't believe in what you believe then, which
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that you have the right to not
Speaker 2: necessarily like those kind of people. You've got a right
Speaker 2: to defend yourself, for sure.
Speaker 3: If you've got a group of people that are out
Speaker 3: to kill you, you have a right to take up
Speaker 3: arms and defend your life, for sure. But you also
Speaker 3: shouldn't go and lead a massive slaughter in genocide on
Speaker 3: a group because they have a different ideology than you.
Speaker 3: That's fucking ridiculous, I agree.
Speaker 2: So just to carry on. The Cathars were also gnostics.
Speaker 2: Gnostics believed and still believed the divine knowledge is granted
Speaker 2: only to an inner elite. Like the esoteric knowledge of
Speaker 2: the Pythagoreans, the inner elite undertook a long period of
Speaker 2: training before becoming before becoming being formally accepted as members
Speaker 2: of the elite, and thereafter leading severely ascetic lives. Lives
Speaker 2: rather there are lives of meditation, fasting, hardship, poverty, and
Speaker 2: good works, matched exactly the highest ideals of Catholic and
Speaker 2: Orthodox hermits, monks, and friars. The cath are elect are
Speaker 2: now popularly known uh parfits par looks like parfas.
Speaker 3: Parfas, and the females were like parfay it's or.
Speaker 2: Something yeah, otherwise known as perfects, though they never referred
Speaker 2: to themselves as such. They also believed in metem psychosis,
Speaker 2: or the transmigration of souls has had the Pythagorans. In
Speaker 2: other words, both Pythagorans and Cathars believed not only in reincarnation,
Speaker 2: but in the rebirth of the souls, in the rebirth
Speaker 2: of the soul and animals as well as humans, and
Speaker 2: both refrained from eating meat for exactly this reason. They
Speaker 2: were like vegetarians, although they were also episcatalians because they
Speaker 2: eat fish, which is interesting.
Speaker 3: Well, they said that the fish didn't have souls, Yeah,
Speaker 3: which is weird. The Hebrews believe that too. Somehow fish
Speaker 3: were not classified as meat in the like Hebrew tradition.
Speaker 3: So it's interesting how you could see that certain Gnostic
Speaker 3: beliefs kind of took a little bit from here and
Speaker 3: took a little bit from there. It's wild to look at. Really.
Speaker 2: I think all beliefs, whether they want to, you know,
Speaker 2: admit it or not, have pulled from somewhere.
Speaker 3: But then you also look at how the Catholics will
Speaker 3: eat fish during lint. Yeah, yeah, that's an interesting one.
Speaker 2: Some people will actually say that that is based upon
Speaker 2: the Cathars practice.
Speaker 3: I can't say, I can't confirm or deny.
Speaker 2: I don't know what came first, chicken or the egg
Speaker 2: kind of situation, but some people believe that.
Speaker 3: Some most of would say that it goes back to
Speaker 3: the Hebrew tradition of fish not being meat.
Speaker 2: Well, it says Cathars were also universalists, which means that
Speaker 2: they believed in the ultimate salvation of all human beings.
Speaker 2: Here's an account of how they saw themselves, recorded in
Speaker 2: eleven forty three by Eberwind, prior of the primon strettin Singhian.
Speaker 3: I don't know these are hardburts, it says of themselves.
Speaker 3: They say, we are the poor of Christ.
Speaker 2: We who have no fixed abode and flee from city
Speaker 2: to city like sheep amidst wolves, are persecuted, as were
Speaker 2: the apostles and the martyrs, despite the fact that we
Speaker 2: lead a most strict and holy life, person veering day
Speaker 2: and night in fast and abstinence, in prayers, and in labor,
Speaker 2: from which we seek only the necessities of life.
Speaker 3: We undergo this because we are not of this world.
Speaker 2: But you, lovers of this world, have peace with it,
Speaker 2: because you are of the world. False apostles, who pollute
Speaker 2: the word of Christ, who seek after their own interests,
Speaker 2: have led you and your fathers astray from the true path.
Speaker 2: We and our fathers of Apostolic Apolistic, Amostolic Apostolic descent,
Speaker 2: have continued in the grace of God, and shall so
Speaker 2: remain to the end of time to distinguish between us and.
Speaker 3: Christ.
Speaker 2: Said by their fruits you shall know them. Our fruits
Speaker 2: consist in following the footsteps of Christ.
Speaker 3: So that was their beliefs, right, And also I'm glad
Speaker 3: they also said abstinence, Like they they hated sex, and
Speaker 3: that's another thing that they thought. Any animal that you're
Speaker 3: eating that was formed from some sort of a sexual
Speaker 3: contact by even animals, is inherently evil, which is why
Speaker 3: they also didn't eat meat. It wasn't because of like
Speaker 3: a do no harm kind of thing. It's like, why
Speaker 3: would I eat beef? You know how cows are made
Speaker 3: cow sex, dude, Not.
Speaker 2: Because they were of this world. And that was the
Speaker 2: idea that you didn't want to eat something that pro
Speaker 2: created to bring people and bring animals and bring souls
Speaker 2: into the shackles of this incarnation.
Speaker 3: That was just like a firm belief and pretty interesting,
Speaker 3: which is that's crazy because plants have sex. That's how
Speaker 3: plant husbandry is a thing. That's how pollination takes place.
Speaker 3: So even eating plants means you're eating something that procreated
Speaker 3: by sexual intercourse in some way, shape or form.
Speaker 2: But yep, yeah, I mean that's I don't know, that's
Speaker 2: that was just their beliefs. So the basic tenets were
Speaker 2: that Cathars were gnostic dualist Christians, who claimed to retain
Speaker 2: many of the beliefs and practices of the early Christian Church.
Speaker 2: All of their beliefs stem from logical deductions from a
Speaker 2: combination of these three fundamental beliefs gnosticism, dualism, and Christianity.
Speaker 2: So those were the core tenets that merged altogether. For example,
Speaker 2: they displayed contempt for everything material, a position with enormous
Speaker 2: ramifications based on their dualism. We don't have to get
Speaker 2: into their dualism. Everything is dualistic ideology, but that it
Speaker 2: gets into gnosissism.
Speaker 3: Which which is dualist, which is dualist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, inherently it's all harmeticism, you really think about it.
Speaker 2: So the implications, Oh, this is interesting. So the implications
Speaker 2: of Cathar beliefs. It says, the idea that human beings
Speaker 2: were sparks of light trapped in tunics of material flesh
Speaker 2: had a number of logical consequences. Procreative sex was bad,
Speaker 2: since conception would result in another soul being trapped. For
Speaker 2: this reason, normal sex between man and wife was as
Speaker 2: bad as any other procreative sex. Marriage was worthless, while
Speaker 2: contraception is regarded with approval.
Speaker 3: Yeah, which the Catholics have always been and are still
Speaker 3: are vehemently against contraception right right, which unfortunate because but
Speaker 3: I mean, the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply.
Speaker 3: So again, this is another example of them going completely
Speaker 3: against Christianity in its very biggest core tenant of having
Speaker 3: a bunch of children.
Speaker 2: Does that ever say when you should stop multiplying? No,
Speaker 2: so you should just multiply until your death pretty much.
Speaker 3: Wow, that's interesting.
Speaker 2: Why would you have you know, women get to a
Speaker 2: certain point where they can have kids anymore.
Speaker 3: That's God's plan, dude. He didn't say shit about that.
Speaker 3: He's saying, be fruitful and multiplying, have tons of babies,
Speaker 3: get married. The Cathars are.
Speaker 2: Like, no, you so, I mean, but even still, you
Speaker 2: can't say the one hundred percent agree with that because
Speaker 2: you don't want to have You don't be You don't
Speaker 2: want to be walking around with fucking twenty kids, do you.
Speaker 3: Oh no, I've got plenty. I'm good on that. But
Speaker 3: I mean, at the same time, that doesn't mean that
Speaker 3: I'm spitting in the face of God by not having
Speaker 3: twenty kids. He's also saying that if you live a
Speaker 3: life and don't have kids, and like, what the fuck
Speaker 3: was your point of your life?
Speaker 2: Then well, that's what I'm trying to say, Like, if
Speaker 2: we are to hold that as like an absolute truthful statement,
Speaker 2: then anything outside of that would be against him. Right,
Speaker 2: would you disagree with that that it goes to give.
Speaker 3: A number designation of like a point to where you
Speaker 3: should stop. But he's basically saying, they're like, no, you
Speaker 3: need to have children, and it's all about leaving a legacy.
Speaker 2: Right, and so therefore, if you are ever having sex
Speaker 2: that is not pro creative, you're defeating the whole purpose, right.
Speaker 3: I guess, Yeah, that's what the Catholics believe.
Speaker 2: So anybody, So anybody that pulls out right pretty bad,
Speaker 2: anybody that masturbates.
Speaker 3: Actually, there was we talked about it in the Old
Speaker 3: Testament Oman I think his name was, who pulled.
Speaker 2: Out and was cursed for it, right, right, And they
Speaker 2: actually said, you know, they believed in old times that
Speaker 2: if you uh, if the masturbation was worse than rape,
Speaker 2: that's how much they believed in conceiving.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, so I agree with that principle, but
Speaker 3: that's you know, that's my own personal belief. It's not
Speaker 3: based in anything other than what I find Well, and
Speaker 3: that's true.
Speaker 2: That's the that's the you know, kind of weird place
Speaker 2: that we're in because how far like it's almost like
Speaker 2: absolutes are always extreme ideologies.
Speaker 3: Right, But because of that, they also believe that. And
Speaker 3: this is an example of that being used in a
Speaker 3: very negative way. Okay, very very much human beings using
Speaker 3: misquoted scripture to justify the worst of human behavior. So,
Speaker 3: especially in the early you know, seventeen hundreds, if a
Speaker 3: woman was raped and conceived a baby, clearly she needs
Speaker 3: to marry her rapist because God wanted this baby. Therefore
Speaker 3: he obviously wanted this union. Otherwise she wouldn't have conceived
Speaker 3: Thank God. Fuck think God should have probably clarified on that. No,
Speaker 3: it absolutely does not say that rape is a good
Speaker 3: thing in the Bible. But that's my point. They will
Speaker 3: take things and misquote it and use it to justify
Speaker 3: the absolute worst of human behavior. Oh.
Speaker 2: So we were talking about the fish earlier. This is
Speaker 2: this is why we're about to read it. It says the
Speaker 2: less one had to do with evil i e. Material things,
Speaker 2: the better. Eating animals or animal products was particularly abhorred.
Speaker 2: Though fish were allowed, and the reason why they were
Speaker 2: allowed is that it says, as they were thought to
Speaker 2: reproduce a sexually, and we're not therefore able to imprison
Speaker 2: a soul.
Speaker 3: Which we know that to be absolutely false. But that
Speaker 3: was that was a thought. For sure, that's not false.
Speaker 3: Fish don't produce a sexually. Dude, You ever had caviar?
Speaker 3: That's fish eggs. I'm pretty sure there's a lot.
Speaker 2: I can't speak on all fish, but I'm pretty sure
Speaker 2: most fish are asexual.
Speaker 3: No, sir, you ever heard of the spawn? You ever
Speaker 3: seen like two fish fucking? That's not how they do it.
Speaker 3: But yeah, fish will lay her eggs. A female fish
Speaker 3: will lay eggs. A male fish will come by and
Speaker 3: f and his tail and spread his seed all over
Speaker 3: the eggs, and they will reproduce. You ever seen finding nemo? Sure,
Speaker 3: that's the eggs from the clownfish you've ever had row
Speaker 3: on a fucking piece of sushi? That's fish eggs. In
Speaker 3: my dad's bass pond in his backyard. As a matter
Speaker 3: of fact, he has a whole ledge made with rocks
Speaker 3: because bass lay their eggs more predominantly on hard surfaces
Speaker 3: rather than mud. So yeah, no, there are certain breeds
Speaker 3: of the aquatic nature, like sponges, for instance, they reproduced
Speaker 3: by butting. Right, there are certain types of fish that
Speaker 3: do something similar, But by and large, the fish that
Speaker 3: we are gonna eat, nobody's eating a sea sponge. The
Speaker 3: vast majority of fish that you eat absolutely reproduced by
Speaker 3: eggs and by spawning. But then there's even aquatic mammals.
Speaker 3: Look at the whales and dolphins. They fuck.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, I mean, I'm just saying what they said,
Speaker 2: but I'm pretty sure that that's what I wanted to
Speaker 2: buil up here. It says there is no simple answer
Speaker 2: to the question are fish ace as It depends on
Speaker 2: the species. Some fish reproduced through external fertilization, where a
Speaker 2: female lays eggs and allows them to be fertilized by
Speaker 2: nearby males.
Speaker 3: So that's a sexual There was no fucking. That is
Speaker 3: procreative sex for that species. Asexual means that, like, without
Speaker 3: any contact from an outside source, a female can just
Speaker 3: produce a life within her and give birth to it
Speaker 3: and then die without any interference from another I see
Speaker 3: what you're saying. I see what you're saying. It says.
Speaker 2: Other fish, like some species of sharks or anglerfish, reproduce
Speaker 2: asexually or have a unique reproductive system that allows them
Speaker 2: to switch genders, says. The reason behind these variations in
Speaker 2: reproduction among different species of fish are quite fascinating. For example,
Speaker 2: some deep seafish may hardly ever encounter a mate due
Speaker 2: to their remote habitats, hence their ability to reproduce asexually
Speaker 2: ensure survival of the species. Understanding how the various fish
Speaker 2: species reproduce can help us understand more about evolution in
Speaker 2: the environment. So there are fish that reproduce a sexually,
Speaker 2: but they didn't know about that in the first century AD,
Speaker 2: and they certainly didn't know about these. They didn't know
Speaker 2: what deep sea life was looking like during the time
Speaker 2: of the Cathars.
Speaker 3: This is my point. The Hebrews, the ancient Hebrews had
Speaker 3: a belief that fish did this. So did the Catholics,
Speaker 3: and so did the Gnostics and the Cathars. But again, scientifically,
Speaker 3: we know that even plants reproduced through some sort of
Speaker 3: a sexual contact. So I'm just saying they believed it.
Speaker 3: That is also certifiably false, but it is a belief
Speaker 3: that they held true to You can't say certified be false.
Speaker 3: If there are fish that reproduce asexually, we just read Jonathan.
Speaker 3: That is the minority, that is not the majority of
Speaker 3: aquatic life. I believe in making rules for the majority,
Speaker 3: not the exceptions.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if you're God and you're creating all
Speaker 2: the rules in the first place, why wouldn't it just
Speaker 2: be either a they all produce sexually or they all
Speaker 2: produce asexual. So God wrote it in the code to
Speaker 2: have a sexual fucking fermentation or non fermentation, but a
Speaker 2: well kind.
Speaker 3: Of unplantation of egg and sperm. Yes, there's most of
Speaker 3: the fish in the world do that, like the vast majority. Yeah,
Speaker 3: to each their own. But it was their thought, is
Speaker 3: what I'm trying to say. It was just their.
Speaker 2: Thought, Okay, right, right, So it says, the sooner we
Speaker 2: can shed this tunic of flesh, the sooner our souls
Speaker 2: could be free to fly like a spark of light
Speaker 2: back to Heaven, the realm of the Good God. There
Speaker 2: was therefore no reason to discourage suicide, which is.
Speaker 3: They were very big with suicide.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which I guess coming from this understanding, you know,
Speaker 2: I get it again.
Speaker 3: This is one of those that are very conflicting with
Speaker 3: religious dogmas at the time, especially out of the Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: The Catholic Church sees life as the greatest gift that
Speaker 3: God could ever give you, aside from the death of
Speaker 3: his son Jesus. The Catars were like, no, dude, if
Speaker 3: you want to end it sooner, please get yourself out
Speaker 3: of this cycle. But make sure you get the hand
Speaker 3: laying baptism first though, and then just do what you
Speaker 3: got to do.
Speaker 2: Man, why would again, why would physical life be the
Speaker 2: greatest gift that God could ever give? Because the soul,
Speaker 2: the soul is what goes on, So you would think
Speaker 2: that that would be the greatest gift.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, right, but again, where souls living in a
Speaker 3: flesh suit.
Speaker 2: Right right, in a temporary flesh suit. Our soul lives
Speaker 2: forever right like it is. It can't be destroyed. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so you would, wouldn't you think that the thing that
Speaker 2: lives forever is a little bit more valuable.
Speaker 3: Okay, if you want to look at it that way. Yes,
Speaker 3: it's like the light bulb conversation the animals.
Speaker 2: It's like the light bulb conversation when you had the
Speaker 2: light bulb mafia or whatever. Right, like the light bulbs,
Speaker 2: if you can find a fucking light bulb, you know,
Speaker 2: they still got that one that's been going for like
Speaker 2: one hundred years or something like that. If you can
Speaker 2: find a light bulb that can last you one hundred years,
Speaker 2: you'd probably be willing to pay a higher price than
Speaker 2: one that only lasts two or three years, right, right, right,
Speaker 2: So therefore the more valuable thing that is the one
Speaker 2: that either forever or last longer than this temporary situation
Speaker 2: we got going on here.
Speaker 3: Okay, I guess you're true. You could have been born
Speaker 3: as a you know, a deer with no soul, So
Speaker 3: I guess fine. You being born as a human with
Speaker 3: a soul intrinsically inside of you is a pretty solid gift,
Speaker 3: That's my point. But we see life as a gift,
Speaker 3: not as a sentence. So again, the Cathars saw this
Speaker 3: life as a sentence. This is again how they were
Speaker 3: very conflicting to the Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, nobody's denying that they were conflicting. Otherwise they wouldn't
Speaker 2: have been fucking, you know, rampaged so allegedly my God,
Speaker 2: So there was not any reason to regard men as
Speaker 2: better than women. Church didn't like that part. The important part.
Speaker 2: The soul was the same, only the vile material body
Speaker 2: was different. Since material objects were creations of the Bad God,
Speaker 2: it was absurd to imagine that they could be of
Speaker 2: any virtue. So, for example, jewels, money, relics, the Eucharist,
Speaker 2: reproductions on the cross, and the church buildings were of
Speaker 2: no value whatsoever. Similarly, the Catholic teaching about resurrection of
Speaker 2: the body was absurd. The very idea of a physical
Speaker 2: body in heaven was ridiculous. Further, it was not plausible
Speaker 2: that the Good God would send anyone from his realm
Speaker 2: into the evil material world of the bad God. Jesus
Speaker 2: must therefore have been a sort of phantom, looking like
Speaker 2: a man, but in fact immaterial. So that is their
Speaker 2: ideology that Jesus couldn't have been right.
Speaker 3: He couldn't have been a physical being. He had to
Speaker 3: be a at least give the image or the appearance
Speaker 3: that he was a physical man, but actually wasn't. And
Speaker 3: that was another big thing that they believed, and a
Speaker 3: lot of Gnostics believed that, and even the Muslims believed
Speaker 3: that in a weird way, which actually, there's no way
Speaker 3: that's possible, dude, like, not even close, and not even
Speaker 3: talking about the shroud of tour in which that in
Speaker 3: and of itself proves that at least Jesus lived and
Speaker 3: died and walked again. There's tons of secular sources, not religious,
Speaker 3: that would obtain or at least that would back that claim.
Speaker 3: But everything about his life, laying hands on people, like
Speaker 3: breaking bread, all of these things clearly show that he
Speaker 3: was a physical, mortal man.
Speaker 2: More than half of the New Testament is based upon
Speaker 2: what Paul saw in a vision.
Speaker 3: So it's not that crazy, no dude, No, no, no,
Speaker 3: no no. Most of the New Testament is teaching people
Speaker 3: how to found and start their early church. Giving an
Speaker 3: account of Jesus. No no, no, Paul is not giving an
Speaker 3: account of Jesus walking the earth. Paul is giving an
Speaker 3: account of how we should live our lives.
Speaker 2: In a Christian way, allegedly according to what Jesus told
Speaker 2: to him, not in the flesh, on the road to Damascus.
Speaker 2: The road to Damascus was the first conversation that they had.
Speaker 2: Later on, he went to a mountain where he spent
Speaker 2: time with the spirit of Jesus. But again he had
Speaker 2: his story backed and verified by the apostles that walked
Speaker 2: with the physical Jesus. So again there was eyewitnesses that
Speaker 2: are like, oh, no, No, you saw the same guy clearly, Like,
Speaker 2: there's no way you could be making this up because
Speaker 2: there's things that you know about that nobody that wasn't
Speaker 2: there would have known about. Okay, I mean, that's that's fine.
Speaker 2: I mean I understand that you know you coming from
Speaker 2: that point of view. I'm not even trying to say
Speaker 2: that I'm right at all, Like I don't know shit.
Speaker 3: Right, I mean, the shroud of touring is an example.
Speaker 3: There is only two people, there's only two examples in
Speaker 3: history of a Jewish person dying from crucifixion and getting
Speaker 3: a proper Jewish burial with the death shroud. One of
Speaker 3: them did not get the shit beat out of him,
Speaker 3: the other one did. One of them predates Jesus by
Speaker 3: a little bit, another one is literally Jesus.
Speaker 2: If it's so conclusive, why do most modern scholars either
Speaker 2: a agree that it's not, And why do most popes
Speaker 2: agree that it's not. If it's so conclusive it's so obvious,
Speaker 2: why is that.
Speaker 3: Bro There was one pope that disagreed with it, and
Speaker 3: he's dead now. For the record, Francis was the only
Speaker 3: pope that was like anti shroud of touring. First off, Second, off.
Speaker 3: Most scholars would say that at least if nothing else
Speaker 3: known about Jesus, we could argue about if he was
Speaker 3: or was not the son of God. But this being
Speaker 3: the shroud for Jesus, most scholars would agree that that
Speaker 3: is correct.
Speaker 2: Well, I know that's where you get me wrong.
Speaker 3: You can't say most scholars, like, is there a survey
Speaker 3: that says most scholars believe No, it's the scholars that
Speaker 3: like you tend to agree with and so you're trying
Speaker 3: to find, you know, ideology that agrees with you, and
Speaker 3: through that perspective, most scholars believe. That is not inherently correct.
Speaker 3: Myscho search in such a way. Do not belittle my research.
Speaker 3: You did an entire episode on the Shroud of tour
Speaker 3: and where we sold skeptic sources on it.
Speaker 2: You have a basic you have a basic understanding. You
Speaker 2: have not a basic in a negative way. I mean
Speaker 2: you have an understanding, right, you have a belief system.
Speaker 2: And if you're trying most of the time, you you
Speaker 2: have to admit most of the time the research that
Speaker 2: you search is biased. Like that is, you're trying to
Speaker 2: find things that confirm your belief.
Speaker 3: At one point in time, I was doing research completely
Speaker 3: for the reasons of disproving the Bible. You did that
Speaker 3: for like a year or two three years, Yes, out
Speaker 3: of thirty some odd years huh, out of thirty some
Speaker 3: odd years of your life. Yeah, for the majority of
Speaker 3: my early life I wasn't doing research into the Bible
Speaker 3: as an adults. Yeah. And again, there's secular sources that
Speaker 3: you can find, non Christian sources that you can find
Speaker 3: that will tell you if anything is known about this
Speaker 3: dude named Jesus. He absolutely lived and died and was
Speaker 3: crucified under ponscious pilot, and people saw him walking after
Speaker 3: his death. That's like, that's look, that's that's a totally
Speaker 3: perfectly fine belief. But it is a belief. No, but
Speaker 3: that's my point. He physically existed. He wasn't like an
Speaker 3: ethereal spiritual type of thing that made it look like
Speaker 3: he was real. So again, the Gnostics and the cathars
Speaker 3: is another view that completely conflicted the Catholic Church of
Speaker 3: the time. So this is another reason why they saw
Speaker 3: them as enemies. Sure, sure, I mean I understand.
Speaker 2: What I'm trying to say is is that it takes
Speaker 2: a certain amount of belief on either side. It really
Speaker 2: does like sure, like every side is crazy, So we takes.
Speaker 3: A certain amount of to believe that Alexander the Great
Speaker 3: live too. I mean, can we find where he's buried?
Speaker 3: That's what you need to prove it.
Speaker 2: I mean, at least there would be some kind of
Speaker 2: verifiable physical evidence of a man named Alexander the Great.
Speaker 3: Wouldn't you say there's tons of verifiable evidence. Do you
Speaker 3: know how many alexandra As there are.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying that there's not a whole lot of
Speaker 2: physical evidence that leads to the physical Jesus, there are stories,
Speaker 2: but we're talking about talking about relics.
Speaker 3: Something that he would have left behind, and the turn
Speaker 3: is not universally verified. Your opinion on the Shroud has
Speaker 3: shifted so much the more you delve into mysticism. I
Speaker 3: remember at the end of that episode, you were at
Speaker 3: least convinced that the Shroud was a legitimate article.
Speaker 2: That was a couple of years ago, and my research
Speaker 2: has evolved. That's how the research has not changed since
Speaker 2: we've done that episode. Dude, nothing new has been uncovered
Speaker 2: about the Shroud. My understanding of the nature of this
Speaker 2: reality is shifted, is what I'm trying to say, Sir,
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 3: What are you trying to say.
Speaker 2: Are we supposed to just stay in our beliefs and
Speaker 2: just stay stagnant and not supposed to be evolve anything.
Speaker 3: If that's the case, what do we do on the
Speaker 3: show for? No, dude, When you find truth, you're supposed
Speaker 3: to hold on to it. You're not supposed to try
Speaker 3: to find different ways of looking at said truth. N
Speaker 3: That's absolutely not the scientific way at all. No, the
Speaker 3: scientific way of seeing. Like, Okay, if I was to
Speaker 3: combine sodium and chlorine, I get sodium chloride. That's salt, excellent.
Speaker 3: I only need to look at other ways to combine
Speaker 3: sodium and chloride to show something else. But if sodium
Speaker 3: and chloride don't always equal salt, you need to look
Speaker 3: into why it doesn't. Sometimes. No, no, but that's my point,
Speaker 3: and it always does because that's a fact. I agree. Yes,
Speaker 3: So it's a truth that you can hold on to.
Speaker 3: You don't need to look at things through a different
Speaker 3: nobody's calling for the conspiracy of salt though. That's my point.
Speaker 3: Whenever you find a truth, a legitimate truth, you don't
Speaker 3: need to try to look in a different way on it.
Speaker 3: You can just accept it as a truth and take
Speaker 3: that with you.
Speaker 2: But it should be able to hold up to skepticism
Speaker 2: if it is absolute truth.
Speaker 3: Would you say, I agree, all of these things that
Speaker 3: I'm saying does hold up to skepticism according to you,
Speaker 3: according everybod experts, dude, not religious leaders, the experts. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we have talked about that. There were scientific tests that
Speaker 3: were done on the shrout for instance. Did you do
Speaker 3: any research against the Shroud of turn sir? Yes, we did,
Speaker 3: as a matter of fact. What the people that were
Speaker 3: saying that it was a medieval forgery and all of
Speaker 3: these things. But again, healthy dose of skepticism, and you
Speaker 3: got to look at the claims for and the claims
Speaker 3: against with that same level of skepticism, it doesn't hold water. Look,
Speaker 3: this is not supposed to be an anti Christian episode.
Speaker 2: This is what I was trying to prevent because now
Speaker 2: everybody's gonna think that I'm the fucking bad guy again.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to go there. No, No, you're trying
Speaker 2: to argue with me to try and like depict what
Speaker 2: my beliefs are. I'm just saying that my beliefs evolve
Speaker 2: and some people's beliefs stay where they're at.
Speaker 3: There's nothing wrong with it either way. All I was
Speaker 3: trying to do is say that this is another example
Speaker 3: of how the Cathars were completely going against the message
Speaker 3: that the Christian Church was portraying at that time, and
Speaker 3: there is another reason why they were seen as enemies, Yes,
Speaker 3: the Catholic Church and the Princients, which still to this day.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, if Catholicism was absolutely right, there would
Speaker 3: have never been all these different branches of it. You
Speaker 3: would be a Catholic.
Speaker 2: But even you disagree with the Catholic belief so are
Speaker 2: you're going against God?
Speaker 3: Now? Now there's core tenants of Catholicism with a capital
Speaker 3: see that I disagree with.
Speaker 2: Yes, Okay, So I'm just saying that you would have
Speaker 2: been murdered during this time for your beliefs, just so
Speaker 2: you know, Martin Luther wouldn't. I'm just saying, dude, there
Speaker 2: were a lot of people that were disregarded for a
Speaker 2: lack of you know, a more dangerous word for their
Speaker 2: beliefs back in these days. So let's just move on,
Speaker 2: because I feel like we have not really gotten to
Speaker 2: any information yet because we just are just going back
Speaker 2: and forth. So so since material objects, okay, that's where
Speaker 2: I was. Similarly, the Catholic teaching about the resurrection was absurd,
Speaker 2: the very.
Speaker 3: Idea did I already read that? Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: Anyone who attached great value to material things was at
Speaker 2: best mistaken and at worst a disciple of the bad God.
Speaker 2: It was no secret that the Pope was the richest
Speaker 2: man in Europe.
Speaker 3: Cardinals, bishops, priests lived in great luxury and dressed in
Speaker 3: gorgeous robes. Even worse, the Roman Church encouraged the worship
Speaker 3: of material objects such as the relic of saints, the
Speaker 3: relics of saints, and worse yet, it venerated the cross,
Speaker 3: not only a material object, but also an instrument of torture,
Speaker 3: which I do find interesting. There was no escaping the
Speaker 3: logical conclusion Roman Catholics were worshiping the wrong God, the
Speaker 3: God of evil who had created this world. The behavior
Speaker 3: of devout Catholics seemed to confirm this conclusion. Cathar's referred
Speaker 3: to the Roman Church as the Church of wolves, and
Speaker 3: I could at least agree with that core tenant. We
Speaker 3: shouldn't be holding on to material possessions or to life
Speaker 3: too tightly, So I can at least agree with the
Speaker 3: Cathar Tenant in that regard.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that I do kind of find it strange that, Like,
Speaker 2: it's like the most important image of Jesus is when
Speaker 2: he's being tortured, you know, like if you're just to
Speaker 2: look at it, like, forget that he died for your
Speaker 2: sins for just just a second, just looking at the imagery.
Speaker 3: All of the amazing things that Jesus did.
Speaker 2: You could I got a relic of him smiling, a
Speaker 2: relic of him, you know, healing somebody, a relic of
Speaker 2: him turning one loaf of bread into a thousand loaves
Speaker 2: of bread, all.
Speaker 3: Of the amazing things.
Speaker 2: And yet the venerated image is when he's being fucking sacrificed.
Speaker 3: Well, the other image is that of a fish. But
Speaker 3: then people start to give the whole age of Aquarius
Speaker 3: conversation rather than being like, no, that was a sign
Speaker 3: of Jesus kind of thing, So Pisces not Aquarius. Excuse me.
Speaker 3: My point is that, yeah, regardless whatever symbol you choose,
Speaker 3: somebody's gonna say that that's not what his true intent
Speaker 3: was supposed to be. But yeah, I get it.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, you know, if he was healing people,
Speaker 2: that I don't think anybody would have an issue with
Speaker 2: that if that's the venerated image of Jesus, like of people.
Speaker 2: But no, let's let's have let's have the venerated image
Speaker 2: of him being fucking sacrificed and tortured, like that's what
Speaker 2: we want to remember.
Speaker 3: So how do you make an image that you would wear,
Speaker 3: like in a necklace or something like that, of him
Speaker 3: healing people? They'd be like a whole ass medallion, which
Speaker 3: there are. As a matter of fact, there are medallions
Speaker 3: of different types too. Every medallions are fucking sweet. This
Speaker 3: is very true. It's very true. But it's a lot
Speaker 3: simpler to just make a simple thing like a cross.
Speaker 3: And I'm not saying it was done like that for
Speaker 3: pragmatic reasons. I think it was a lot more of
Speaker 3: like this is a sign of the ultimate sacrifice that
Speaker 3: saved me of my sins kind of thing. Although I
Speaker 3: can understand the thought process and say that it's very
Speaker 3: weird that the symbol of the religion is the torture
Speaker 3: device to which the Messiah was crucified upon. I get it.
Speaker 3: It's a weird thing, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I wanted to get over what they believed
Speaker 2: hell was because I mean, their idea of heaven is
Speaker 2: basically the same thing. But hell is interesting, it says.
Speaker 2: Hell to the Cathars was not a remote place under
Speaker 2: the earth. For them, Hell was here and now, the
Speaker 2: world itself, the creation of the Bad God was the
Speaker 2: only hell that they knew. Torture, pain and misery of
Speaker 2: this life was all the hell they needed to contemplate.
Speaker 2: The objective for all Cathars was to escape from the
Speaker 2: cycle of reincarnation, to earn the right to return to
Speaker 2: Heaven and avoid another term of imprisonment here in hell
Speaker 2: on earth. There was only one way to do this,
Speaker 2: and that was to be reunited with the Good God
Speaker 2: through the agency of the Holy Spirit. In certain defined circumstances,
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit would descend as it had descended on
Speaker 2: Jesus and release the soul, but the release was contingent
Speaker 2: until the person died, he or she was obliged to
Speaker 2: continue trapped in a corporeal mantle, living a good life
Speaker 2: in an evil world. The power to call down the
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit was conferred on an ascetic elite consisting of
Speaker 2: men and women who themselves had won their contingent release
Speaker 2: from the cycle of rebirth. These par fates and parfdes,
Speaker 2: I guess which are the men and women who were
Speaker 2: elected initiates. I guess alone could induce the Holy Spirit
Speaker 2: to descend and create another par fate or parf tee.
Speaker 2: This they did through the Cathar ceremony called the Consolamentum.
Speaker 2: The requirements were rigorous, and new evidence did live lives. Wait,
Speaker 2: I just skipped a whole fucking thing. Man, these words
Speaker 2: are so tiny. It's I keep on getting mixed up.
Speaker 3: Dude, zoom in arcane on this screen.
Speaker 2: I guess I can a little bit. Okay, let's see.
Speaker 2: The requirements were rigorous.
Speaker 3: Da da dah.
Speaker 2: They were expected to live lives of the utmost purity,
Speaker 2: and from all of the evidence, they did.
Speaker 3: Live lives of the utmost purity.
Speaker 2: They lived as Christian monks have always aspired to as
Speaker 2: an almost impossible deal, extreme simplicity, poverty, strict adherence to
Speaker 2: the commandments, severe fasting, abstinence and deprivation, constant prayer, pacifism,
Speaker 2: the carrying out of good works, spreading the good Word,
Speaker 2: and so on.
Speaker 3: If they lapsed in any way, they lost.
Speaker 2: Their status, their ability to pass on the gift of
Speaker 2: the Holy spirit and their soul's place in heaven. Unless
Speaker 2: they underwent the console lamentum again, which seems to have
Speaker 2: happened on a few occasions, they would be condemned to
Speaker 2: another life sentence in hell here on earth.
Speaker 3: So interesting way I'm looking at it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And by the way, I'm not even trying to
Speaker 2: say that I like, no, no buy into all this.
Speaker 3: Like as to what they believe, that's all. That's all
Speaker 3: I mean. Yeah, I'm more inclined to believe with.
Speaker 2: Gnostic thought as opposed to the literal see of a
Speaker 2: lot of things.
Speaker 3: But even still, like that's they believe this literal They
Speaker 3: believe in this gnostic belief system. But they believe this
Speaker 3: to be literal, not metaphorical, and non philosophical. They live
Speaker 3: this life in such a pious way as to break
Speaker 3: the cycle of their reincarnation. This was not just a
Speaker 3: philosophical thought process to these people.
Speaker 2: No, I agree, it's just understanding the world in a
Speaker 2: gnostic thought. I mean, you can have gnostic thoughts literally,
Speaker 2: is what I'm trying to say. It's just the deeper,
Speaker 2: more poetic, philosophical understanding of the nature of this reality
Speaker 2: and then applying it literally is what they were doing.
Speaker 3: Okay, I guess then you know, and we can go
Speaker 3: on and on. I mean, there's a lot here. Let
Speaker 3: me zoom back out, because the articles on this website
Speaker 3: are extensive. Dude, Oh they are, dude.
Speaker 2: Then it gets into like, there are dude, you want
Speaker 2: to talk about the Catholic propaganda of the Cathars is crazy. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: the Roman Catholic propaganda, It says, this is not how
Speaker 2: the Roman Catholic Church sees the Cathars and their heresy.
Speaker 2: The Church's modern views, expressed by writers like Hilaire block And,
Speaker 2: are not very different from those of the medieval Roman
Speaker 2: Catholic Church. To most objective authorities, the most serious accusations
Speaker 2: against the Cathars appear to be based on no more
Speaker 2: than propaganda. No organization has ever used propaganda's to such
Speaker 2: good effect as the Roman Church. The very word propaganda
Speaker 2: is derived from the name of the part of the
Speaker 2: Roman Church set up to propagate the faith. For many centuries,
Speaker 2: the Catholic Church provided the set menu of accusations against
Speaker 2: any group of which it did not approve. Pagans, Eastern churches,
Speaker 2: apostible states, schismatics, heretics, Jews, Muslims, witches, Templars, numerous peoples.
Speaker 3: Of the New World, and so on.
Speaker 2: They were all accused of black magic, worshiping Satan, consorting
Speaker 2: with demons, raping, aping, Catholic rituals aping I don't know
Speaker 2: what that means, murder, cannibalism, incest, bestiality, sodomy, and a
Speaker 2: range of sexual excesses. Cathars were no exception. All of
Speaker 2: the preceding accusations were made against them, however scant or
Speaker 2: contrary the evidence. An example of the contrast between propaganda
Speaker 2: and truth is provided by the disparity between alleged and
Speaker 2: real attitudes to sex. According to Catholic propaganda, Cathars, including
Speaker 2: Parfates and Parfaitte's, habitually engaged in sexual excesses, including regular orgies.
Speaker 2: So they were so against even like procreating and fucking
Speaker 2: in general. Catholic Church says no, they were getting down
Speaker 2: in orgies, right.
Speaker 3: So that was part of the propaganda with We're say
Speaker 3: some of these claims were also made by Catholic converts
Speaker 3: from Catharisms, right. A couple of famous examples, as a
Speaker 3: matter of fact, would be Rainieress Seiko and derand of Hueyska.
Speaker 3: Both of these talked about what they were Cathars, the
Speaker 3: things that they were exposed to. And again I am
Speaker 3: not saying that this is credible sources, because we have
Speaker 3: to take that with a grain of salt. And it's
Speaker 3: very possible that once they became Catholics, they were like,
Speaker 3: they bought in and were like, you can't believe the
Speaker 3: evil that these people are doing. Right, But some of
Speaker 3: these claims, again were given from first person accounts allegedly,
Speaker 3: but also allegedly the Cathars never existed. So what do
Speaker 3: you believe? Now, Yeah, exactly exactly made up boogeyman by
Speaker 3: the Catholic Church. But we'll get to that theory here
Speaker 3: in a bit. Oh, they definitely made them into a boogeyman.
Speaker 2: But it says We have a striking example from the
Speaker 2: twelfth century in the Archdiocese of Reims, where a group
Speaker 2: of heretics called the pabli Canti were discovered through the
Speaker 2: refusal of a young girl to submit to the attention
Speaker 2: of a clergyman. The refusal of a girl to submit
Speaker 2: to a clergyman sexual demands appears to have been so
Speaker 2: unusual that she was questioned and admitted that she believed
Speaker 2: that she had an obligation to keep her virginity. As
Speaker 2: a result, she and her friends were investigated more closely,
Speaker 2: and soon a nest of heretical believers was exposed. The
Speaker 2: heretics were described by the Archbishop Samson, who asserted that
Speaker 2: heresy was being spread by inert inert weavers who encouraged
Speaker 2: sexual promiscuity. The Roman Church accused Cathars of various crimes
Speaker 2: and sins. These claims range from the true to the preposterous.
Speaker 3: Here we untangle them.
Speaker 2: Each of the following charges is dealt with separately, So
Speaker 2: the claims of the Cathar blasphemies. It claims that the
Speaker 2: Cathar's rejected marriage, claims that they practiced incest, claims that
Speaker 2: they practice sodomy, bestiality, other sex crimes, suicide, contraception, vegetarianism,
Speaker 2: advocated sexual equality and perverted the natural oor. So I mean,
Speaker 2: we can click on any one of those. Let's click
Speaker 2: on the incest one, because that's an interesting one. Incest
Speaker 2: it said there is no evidence that Cathars were given
Speaker 2: to practice incest. The accusation probably stems from the observation
Speaker 2: that the Cathars regarded all procreative sex as equally bad.
Speaker 2: So Catholic theologians Regent reasoned, Cathars must regard sex between
Speaker 2: man and wife as being as sinful as sex between
Speaker 2: man and a mother, and that they must have practiced
Speaker 2: the latter.
Speaker 3: Right. I think this group hated sex, so to say
Speaker 3: incest is kind of wild, But I mean, there are
Speaker 3: some other claims. Let's keep going into it with the sodomy.
Speaker 2: Sodomy it says there is no evidence the Cathars were
Speaker 2: given to practice sodomy. The accusation probably stems from the
Speaker 2: observation that the Cathars regarded procreative sex as worse than
Speaker 2: nonprocreative sex, So Catholic theologians Regent reasoned, Cathars must regard
Speaker 2: sodomy as being less culpable than conventional sex, and they
Speaker 2: must have practiced the former. This was an effective and
Speaker 2: persistent accusation. Remember that Cathars were given many names. When
Speaker 2: they first appeared in Western Europe. They were known to
Speaker 2: have come from the area we know as Bulgaria. They
Speaker 2: were thus called Bulgars or bulgers, a word that the
Speaker 2: Church propaganda turned into French bulger and English bugger. Ironically,
Speaker 2: Sodomy has always been widely practiced in the Catholic Church,
Speaker 2: though never formally condoned. Various church orders were famous for it.
Speaker 2: Voltaire was particularly fond of rubbing or rubbing fond of
Speaker 2: ribbing the Jesuits about how widespread it was in their order.
Speaker 2: And it was not only practice between Catholic men. Anal
Speaker 2: sex was commonly practiced in Catholic countries between man and
Speaker 2: wife as a means of contraception. Since Cathars had no
Speaker 2: moral objection to other forms of contraception, it seems likely
Speaker 2: that on average Cathars would have had less need for
Speaker 2: recourse to this practice as a means of contraception. So
Speaker 2: it is possible that they practice sodomy rather than their
Speaker 2: Catholic counterparts.
Speaker 3: So real quick, The only real contention that I have
Speaker 3: with what was said thus far, as far as the
Speaker 3: Bogger Thing, the Book of John the Evangelist and the
Speaker 3: Gospel of the Secret Supper, these are both Boga Mill
Speaker 3: apocryphal texts. So the Bogo Mills were another Gnostic sect
Speaker 3: of believers, possibly based on the what we would now
Speaker 3: call like the Lost Polygian Treatise, which also became important
Speaker 3: to the cathar scripture. So the Bogomills are seen as
Speaker 3: kind of the forefathers of Catharism, if we're going to
Speaker 3: be honest, and the Bogo mills did spawn from Bulgaria.
Speaker 2: And the Bogo mills were absolutely taken off the face
Speaker 2: of the planet too, absolutely, as well as the Polygians, right,
Speaker 2: a lot of them were Yeah, the genocide at big time.
Speaker 3: Then there's beast reality. We don't need to get into
Speaker 3: a lot of this stuff sexual equality.
Speaker 2: They just these are you know, some of the some
Speaker 2: of the claims from the Catholic Church. I want to
Speaker 2: see this vegetarianism because they do say that there Why
Speaker 2: is it a false claim if they agreed that meat
Speaker 2: was bad, So that kind of confuses me, but it says,
Speaker 2: let's check it out. This is one charge that is undeniable.
Speaker 2: Cathar's or at least the parfates and training par fates
Speaker 2: refused to eat animal products, not only meat, but also milk, cheese,
Speaker 2: and eggs, anything that resulted from coitionin like coitus. Some
Speaker 2: at least refuse to eat honey, apparently on the grounds
Speaker 2: that it, like the morning dew, was the product of
Speaker 2: monthly copulation between the Sun and the moon.
Speaker 3: They took it to the extreme, and again it's completely
Speaker 3: not true. We know how honey is made, but at
Speaker 3: this time they didn't have the science to back it up,
Speaker 3: so they saw they saw honey as basically the sun
Speaker 3: and moon's sex juices, which is wild, but all.
Speaker 2: Right, it's pretty funny. Actually, that's pretty cool, fucking wild dude.
Speaker 3: In many respects, Cathar par fates resembled modern day vegans,
Speaker 3: except they did eat fish. That we went into the justification.
Speaker 2: It says that that fish reproduced asexually was a genuinely
Speaker 2: and widespread belief in Middle Ages. The same error underlay
Speaker 2: the Catholic practice of eating fish on fasting days. This
Speaker 2: practice is still alive in the Roman Church, and a
Speaker 2: vestige of the same error in the common practice of
Speaker 2: serving fish on Fridays, Fridays having been traditional fast days. Incidentally,
Speaker 2: the Roman Church classified such diverse animals as beavers, and
Speaker 2: we've talked about that one as beavers and Barnacle geese
Speaker 2: as fish, with the happy consequence that their fast day
Speaker 2: diets were not as boring as they might have otherwise been.
Speaker 2: Another such wheeze was to eat animal embryos on the
Speaker 2: grounds that they lived in water, the fluid within the womb,
Speaker 2: and so also counted as fish. Inexplicably. Inexplicably, but happily,
Speaker 2: the logic does not seem to have been applied to
Speaker 2: human fetuses, which is a good thing. For many centuries,
Speaker 2: the Roman Church regarded vegetarianism as a capital crime, on
Speaker 2: the grounds that God had given man dominion over the
Speaker 2: earth and had provided animals for him to eat. Inquisition
Speaker 2: records include cases of people being required to kill and
Speaker 2: eat animals.
Speaker 3: This is interesting one.
Speaker 2: So they required people to kill and eat animals. Shit,
Speaker 2: where was I totally lost my spot?
Speaker 3: Yeah, here we go.
Speaker 2: They were required to eat and kill animals, often chickens,
Speaker 2: to prove that they were not cathars, and failure to
Speaker 2: do so meant death.
Speaker 3: I like it, no what. I believe that everybody should
Speaker 3: learn how to kill and clean and prepare their own meal. Absolutely,
Speaker 3: some people just don't like meat. I mean, yeah, that's
Speaker 3: a personal preference, but at least you should know how
Speaker 3: well farming for your own plants. I believe in the
Speaker 3: same way I believe that you should know how to
Speaker 3: kill and clean a chicken. I believe that you should
Speaker 3: also know how to raise crops, at least in small
Speaker 3: scale or I should learn that knowledge. Check this out.
Speaker 2: The mainstream church was hostile to vegetarianism well into the
Speaker 2: twentieth century. In Britain, a government, a government minister John
Speaker 2: soln Gummer could still publicly ridicule vegetarians as being anti
Speaker 2: Christian as late as the nineteen eighties, citing the traditional
Speaker 2: argument that God had given man dominion over the earth
Speaker 2: and provided animals for.
Speaker 3: Him to eat. So if you were a vegetarian, you
Speaker 3: were not a goodly a Satanist trying to just eald
Speaker 3: in plants, but you hate Jesus. You want to eat
Speaker 3: no Hamburger bro That's fucking hilarious, And it says.
Speaker 2: Vegetarians are still regarded as vaguely anti Christian by many
Speaker 2: denominations even today.
Speaker 3: I can speak on behalf of my own denomination. That
Speaker 3: is incorrect. So you don't have a denomination, which is huh,
Speaker 3: you don't have a denomination. Non denominational is its own
Speaker 3: denomination dog that is like, that's like an oxymoron. I
Speaker 3: get it, but you could look it up. Non denominational
Speaker 3: is classified under its own branch of Christendom. Yes, that's
Speaker 3: so weird. Well makes sense though. So then there's the
Speaker 3: Roman Catholic propaganda perverting the natural order, which I don't
Speaker 3: need to get into so much. Oh this, wait, go
Speaker 3: back to that chart real quick. I wanted to see that. Oh,
Speaker 3: the natural order, meaning the nobility class all the way
Speaker 3: down to the surfs. The Cathars were trying to say
Speaker 3: that everybody's equal, and that upsets the natural order of things,
Speaker 3: you know, because the kings are obviously ordained by God
Speaker 3: because of their blue blood, and God said so, otherwise
Speaker 3: they wouldn't have been born to that house. The Cathar's
Speaker 3: over here saying everybody's equal, Well, that just flies in
Speaker 3: the face of God. Yeah, I could see that, Okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean either way, either way you look
Speaker 2: at it, whether you're a Cathar or Catholic. There was
Speaker 2: like a lot of really strict beliefs, right, Like, I
Speaker 2: don't know, but yeah.
Speaker 3: They're not going to take away from the cathars devotion
Speaker 3: to their beliefs, you know, if they did in fact exist.
Speaker 2: And so you know what I want to move on here.
Speaker 2: The Book of the Secret Supper, so allegedly all of
Speaker 2: the Cathars were killed, right, except for the story goes
Speaker 2: that there was still four Cathars that that the Catholic
Speaker 2: Church tried to convert on, like at the very last minute,
Speaker 2: they were like, look, we already burned your entire fucking village.
Speaker 2: We killed basically everybody.
Speaker 3: That you know.
Speaker 2: You you either need to convert or die, like, we're
Speaker 2: gonna give you this one last this one last shot.
Speaker 2: And it said that instead of converting, they walked into
Speaker 2: the flames, uh, singing what's the hymns?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: But it said that whenever they went in there, they
Speaker 2: were they were either holding on to this relic or
Speaker 2: that they almost like a like a kill switch. They
Speaker 2: they hit it somewhere in hopes that humanity eventually one
Speaker 2: day would find it, and that they say that the
Speaker 2: main reason why the Cathars were being persecuted was because
Speaker 2: of this one book.
Speaker 3: Now that's just a story. It's not the story.
Speaker 2: I mean, let me say, what relic the book itself?
Speaker 2: You mean the book itself called The Secret? Yeah, so
Speaker 2: this is just the Wikipedia. And then we have eleven
Speaker 2: minute video that goes into it a little bit more deeper.
Speaker 2: You know, I can't really rely too much on Wikipedia,
Speaker 2: but at least a decent outline of it.
Speaker 3: So The Book of the Secret Supper.
Speaker 2: Called the Sina Secretia or Secreta, also known as the
Speaker 2: Interrogatio Iohannes or the Questions of John, the Book of
Speaker 2: John the Evangelist and the Gospel of the Secret of
Speaker 2: the Secret Supper, was a bogamil apocryphal text from Bulgaria,
Speaker 2: possibly based on a now lost Polytioni treatise, which also
Speaker 2: became an important Cathar scripture. The book was translated into
Speaker 2: Latin and introduced to Italy in the late twelfth century,
Speaker 2: then taken to province before the Abagensian crusade by the
Speaker 2: Kashar bishop Nazarials or Nazario. Two manuscripts survived. One was
Speaker 2: found in the archives of the Inquisition in the French
Speaker 2: town of Carson and Langadoc, a Cathar stronghold, and the
Speaker 2: other was kept in a national library in Vienna, Austria.
Speaker 2: There are significant differences between the two texts, indicating independent
Speaker 2: manuscript traditions. A PostScript added to the Carson manuscript by
Speaker 2: the inquisitors states that this is the secret of the
Speaker 2: Heretics of con Corezo, brought from Bulgaria by Nazarreal's their bishop.
Speaker 3: It is full of errors, they say.
Speaker 2: So the contents is that the book of the Book
Speaker 2: of the Secret Supper is a first person narrative beginning
Speaker 2: and quotes I John dot dot dot, in which John
Speaker 2: the evangelist poses a series of questions to Jesus at
Speaker 2: a secret supper in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Speaker 3: So this was something that happened, not on the material
Speaker 3: realm allegedly, so, it says.
Speaker 2: The book begins with a story of opposing cosmic forces, God,
Speaker 2: the invisible Father and creator of good, and Satan, the
Speaker 2: creator of evil. This book exhibits a mitigated dualism by
Speaker 2: stating that Satan was a former angel of God before falling,
Speaker 2: shining white before his fall and burning red. After Jesus
Speaker 2: tells John how Satan took over the semi created world,
Speaker 2: descending from the Third Heaven and recruiting angels to join him.
Speaker 2: According to the plan of the Governor Most High, Satan
Speaker 2: brought forth all living things plants, animals, fish, and birds,
Speaker 2: then created man and woman from clay in order to
Speaker 2: serve him, animating the man with an angel from the
Speaker 2: Second Heaven and the woman with an angel from the
Speaker 2: First heaven. The angels were distressed at having to inhabit
Speaker 2: material forms. Satan encouraged them to sin, but they did
Speaker 2: not know how. So Satan filled the woman with a
Speaker 2: longing for sin, then created a serpent from his spittle,
Speaker 2: inhabited it, and seduced her with its tail. He then
Speaker 2: filled Adam with lust for debauchery, with the result that
Speaker 2: all their children were offspring of the devil and of
Speaker 2: the serpent.
Speaker 3: So pretty interesting twist. So Satan is the snake in
Speaker 3: the garden of Eden? Was the creation of Satan's spit? Interesting? Okay,
Speaker 3: Then it gets to the last judgment.
Speaker 2: We're not gonna read the whole thing, but it says
Speaker 2: the final part of the book is a description of
Speaker 2: the last judgment. And those who have followed an angelic
Speaker 2: life shall be honored, while those who live the life
Speaker 2: of iniquity shall find wrath, fury, and distress, and everlasting fire. Satan,
Speaker 2: after waging war upon the just, will be bound with
Speaker 2: unbreakable bonds and cast into a poll of fire. Then
Speaker 2: the Son of God will sit on the right hand
Speaker 2: of his father. The righteous will be set among the
Speaker 2: choir of angels. God shall be in the midst of
Speaker 2: them and wipe away their tears, and of his kingdom.
Speaker 2: There shall be no end forever and ever.
Speaker 3: This doesn't exactly make sense to me. And I'm not
Speaker 3: saying this is some sort of an expert on Catherism,
Speaker 3: but they believed in reincarnation and that this cycle would
Speaker 3: go on for forever, Like I, I, how does it
Speaker 3: get to an endpoint if that's the case. Oh God,
Speaker 3: this guy. I love this guy. Uh shot. This guy's
Speaker 3: a fucking tool.
Speaker 2: I like him. He might be a little toolish, but
Speaker 2: I like him. He's pretty well read, at least on
Speaker 2: you know, certain things.
Speaker 3: He's like a new Billy Carson dog.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, it's up to the interpreter. But this
Speaker 2: is called Morgue Underscore official on TikTok. Pretty interesting fellow.
Speaker 2: But anyway, there's a video. And the only reason I
Speaker 2: brought him up was I was trying to look for,
Speaker 2: you know, good sources of this whole book, right, the
Speaker 2: supposed book of which why the Cathars were being taken
Speaker 2: out at least from their vantage point.
Speaker 3: And he describes it really well. So it's eleven minutes.
Speaker 3: We can stop.
Speaker 2: You tell me when to tell me when you want
Speaker 2: to stop if at all, But the way he describes.
Speaker 3: It as is really good. Tail.
Speaker 4: Satan was an angel who rebelled against God, then got
Speaker 4: kicked out of heaven and became the devil. But the
Speaker 4: Cathars said, not so fast, hold my wine, because yeah,
Speaker 4: there was a rebellion, but you guys got it completely backwards.
Speaker 4: According to them, the God of the Bible was actually
Speaker 4: Satan pulling a cosmic rebellion. Sound kind of confusing. Okay, well,
Speaker 4: let's unravel this with the text itself, because the Secret
Speaker 4: Supper does not hold back. In the Secret Supper, John
Speaker 4: directly asks Jesus about Satan's or rjeins and status before
Speaker 4: the fall, and Jesus answers that Satan used to be
Speaker 4: a top angel in heaven before pride overtook him. And
Speaker 4: I said, Lord, before Satan fell in, what glory abode
Speaker 4: he with thy Father? And he said, unto me? And
Speaker 4: such glory was he that he commandeth the powers of
Speaker 4: the heavens. So Satan started out as a big boss angel.
Speaker 4: He commanded other angels under the true God. Who's the
Speaker 4: true God?
Speaker 3: Then?
Speaker 4: Well, the Cathars believe that behind all things was a
Speaker 4: being of pure light and unity, who did not create
Speaker 4: this world of flesh, but the realm of spirit. And
Speaker 4: Satan he wanted that power, the Secret Text continues, And
Speaker 4: he saw the glory of Him that moveth the heavens,
Speaker 4: and he thought to set his seat above the clouds
Speaker 4: of heaven and desired to be like unto the most High.
Speaker 4: So Satan sees the glory of the true God and says, hey,
Speaker 4: I want a throne above the clouds.
Speaker 3: I want to be God.
Speaker 4: Now here's where he gets wild, because the Secret Supper
Speaker 4: describes in detail how Satan launched his rebellion. He didn't
Speaker 4: just say I'm God now and poof God expect. No,
Speaker 4: he went through a journey through what the ancients believed
Speaker 4: formed creation, which were the four classical elements air, water, earth,
Speaker 4: and fire. And here's where it goes full metaphysical acid trip.
Speaker 4: The textas this about Satan. And when he had descended
Speaker 4: into the air, he said, unto the Angel of the Air,
Speaker 4: open unto me the gates of the air. And he
Speaker 4: opened them unto him. So first air. Now, in the
Speaker 4: theory of elements, air represents the intellect. So Satan asks
Speaker 4: the Angel of the Air to open the gates so
Speaker 4: he's getting permission to pass through this atmospheric veil. He's
Speaker 4: like an evil Obi wan Kenobi using a Jedi mind trick.
Speaker 3: Let me hear identification. You don't need to see his identification.
Speaker 3: We don't need to see his identification.
Speaker 4: It's not a violent overthrow at this point. It starts
Speaker 4: with access, consent, persuasion. And he sought to go further
Speaker 4: downward and found the angel which held the waters, and said,
Speaker 4: unto him, open, unto me the gates of the waters.
Speaker 4: And he opened to him. All right, we went through air.
Speaker 4: Now we're a water, and symbolically water represents emotion and
Speaker 4: the depths of the unconscious and intuition. Again, he's not
Speaker 4: breaking things open, he asks the Angel of water. These
Speaker 4: elemental angels are like caretakers of reality's layers, and they're
Speaker 4: being duped into helping the adversary descend. And he passed
Speaker 4: through and found all the face of the Earth covered
Speaker 4: with waters. So earth symbolically represents the physical world, and
Speaker 4: here the Earth is submerged. So this is pre genesis,
Speaker 4: the beta version of reality. So the Earth hasn't even
Speaker 4: emerged from the waters at this point yet. Okay, but
Speaker 4: something strange happens. And he passed through beneath the earth
Speaker 4: and found two fishes lying upon the waters. And they
Speaker 4: were as oxen yoked for plowing, holding the whole earth
Speaker 4: by the commandment of the Invisible Father, from the west
Speaker 4: even unto the sun rising. Okay, what the hell are
Speaker 4: these fish doing? Two fishes yoked together holding the earth.
Speaker 4: Who wrote this? The archangel doctor Seuss. Okay, I know
Speaker 4: it sounds a little crazy, but I want you to
Speaker 4: think about how similar this is to yin yang symbolism
Speaker 4: see in Daoist. In Chinese philosophy, the yin yang is
Speaker 4: sometimes called the double fish. Two swirling fish chasing each other,
Speaker 4: one dark, one light, perfectly balanced, eternally flowing.
Speaker 3: I've always circled each other in an eternal balance. They
Speaker 3: balance each other.
Speaker 4: So the two fish as oxen yoked suggest a paired,
Speaker 4: balanced force that must stay united to uphold the world.
Speaker 4: They're beneath the earth, under the waters, meaning they're a
Speaker 4: foundational structure. The line from the west even unto the sunrising,
Speaker 4: or in other words, from sunrise to sunset, reflects a
Speaker 4: cyclical process a lot like the yin yang symbol. So
Speaker 4: here the fish are like the engine of duality beneath everything,
Speaker 4: holding it up, bound together in unity. So while it's
Speaker 4: highly unlikely but not impossible that the Cathars were actually
Speaker 4: influenced by ancient Chinese philosophy, it is cool how similar
Speaker 4: these ideas are, and this passage shows that archetypal imagery
Speaker 4: can transcend cultures. Okay, okay, enough with the fish, let's
Speaker 4: get back to the devil. After his trip to the
Speaker 4: transcendental aquarium, he goes down even further, and when he
Speaker 4: had gone down, he found hell, that is the gehenna
Speaker 4: of fire, and thereafter he could go down no further
Speaker 4: because of the flame of the burning fire. All right,
Speaker 4: now we've hit fire, the final element here, and traditionally
Speaker 4: fire represents ashion, energy and willpower. But here this is gehenna,
Speaker 4: another name for hell, the burning edge of reality. Satan
Speaker 4: has hit the floor of the universe and he can't
Speaker 4: go any further. So look at what we've got here.
Speaker 4: Satan has descended through the four elements, air, the intellectual mind, water,
Speaker 4: the emotional depths and water of the unconscious Earth, physical reality,
Speaker 4: but currently submerged fire, the burning embers of passion, desire, energy,
Speaker 4: and in this text the boundary of creation. So this
Speaker 4: is a full initiation through the four elements, but instead
Speaker 4: of ascending towards enlightenment, Satan is descending into conquest. The
Speaker 4: four elements were considered to be the building box of
Speaker 4: creation and what is say and do? He descends through them,
Speaker 4: but then he flips it around. He wants to build
Speaker 4: a world to replace the divine, a copy, a counterfeit.
Speaker 4: And Satan returned back and filled up, passed over again
Speaker 4: the paths, and entered in unto the angel of the
Speaker 4: Air and to him that was over the waters, and said,
Speaker 4: unto them, all these things are mine, all right, So
Speaker 4: he can't pass the fire, so he turns back around
Speaker 4: and starts going back up. But he's about to launch
Speaker 4: a cosmic hostile takeover. See the angels of Air and water,
Speaker 4: they already opened their gates, and so Satan knows that
Speaker 4: they're persuadable. So he knows that he needs these elemental
Speaker 4: angels on his side, so he offers them a deal.
Speaker 4: Satan says, all these things are mine if ye will
Speaker 4: harken unto me, I will set my seat in the
Speaker 4: clouds and be like the most high, and I will
Speaker 4: take the waters from this upper firmament and gather together
Speaker 4: the other parts of the sea, and thereafter there shall
Speaker 4: be no water upon the face of all the earth,
Speaker 4: and I will rain with you over the world without end.
Speaker 3: All right, So.
Speaker 4: What's all this about. Well, at this point, the earth
Speaker 4: is submerged in water, and he's saying, hey, if you
Speaker 4: join me, I'll gather the waters into oceans, turning the
Speaker 4: submerged earth into dry ground, so we can build an
Speaker 4: empire on it and will rule forever. So this is
Speaker 4: a spiritual pyramid scheme. He's literally offering the angel's ocean
Speaker 4: front property in his fake asked version of Heaven.
Speaker 3: I'm going to lead you down rock and.
Speaker 4: Guess what, some angels bought it. He went out through
Speaker 4: all the heavens, seducing the angels of the Invisible Father.
Speaker 4: In other words, Satan started recruiting followers among God's angels
Speaker 4: as he ascends through heaven, and a lot of the
Speaker 4: angels they fell for it, hook line and sinker. Not
Speaker 4: only did they fall for it, but they literally became
Speaker 4: fallen angels. The true God, the Invisible Father of Light,
Speaker 4: saw to that. Then the Father commanded his angels, saying,
Speaker 4: take away their garments, and the angels took away their
Speaker 4: garments and their thrones and their crowns from all the
Speaker 4: angels that hearkened unto him, the rebel angels had everything
Speaker 4: taken away. So Satan may have descended through the power
Speaker 4: of the four elements. But and this is important, he
Speaker 4: wasn't able to grasp the hidden fifth element spirit. Only
Speaker 4: the true God had power over that. The Father essentially said, hey,
Speaker 4: you want to follow Satan, fine, but you're not doing
Speaker 4: it as my angels and my realm. So they got
Speaker 4: booted out of heaven. But what did they become? Not demons?
Speaker 4: No way, Let's find out. John then asks Jesus, well,
Speaker 4: weird did Satan and his followers end up after being
Speaker 4: cast out? And I asked the Lord? When Satan fell
Speaker 4: in what place? Dwelty? And he answered, my Father changed
Speaker 4: his appearance because of his pride, and the light was
Speaker 4: taken from him, and his face became like unto heated iron,
Speaker 4: and his face became holy, like that of a man. So,
Speaker 4: according to this, when Satan was expelled, his angelic form
Speaker 4: was burned away, his face became like a red hot iron,
Speaker 4: and he became probably what we'd recognize as a demonic figure.
Speaker 4: But what about the angels? And he drew with his
Speaker 4: tail the third part of the angels of God, and
Speaker 4: was cast out from the seat of God and from
Speaker 4: the stewardship of the heavens. And Satan came down into
Speaker 4: this firmament, and he could find no rest for himself
Speaker 4: nor for them that were with him. So Satan dragged
Speaker 4: down a third of the angels with him. That's thirty
Speaker 4: three point three percent of all divine staff gone. Now
Speaker 4: if that sounds familiar, it's because it's in the Bible
Speaker 4: Revelation twelve four says and his tail drew a third
Speaker 4: part of the stars of Heaven and cast them to
Speaker 4: the earth. So basically they all got yeeded out of Heaven.
Speaker 4: And suddenly these ex angels find themselves in the material universe,
Speaker 4: wandering around in darkness, not being able to rest anywhere.
Speaker 4: But what happens when Satan realizes he can't get back
Speaker 4: to Heaven. He builds his own kingdom right here, this world,
Speaker 4: this earth, the world of flesh, of suffering, of death.
Speaker 4: This isn't God's kingdom. According to the Secret Supper, this
Speaker 4: is Satan's sandbox. The Secret supper describes what Satan does next.
Speaker 4: And so sat he in the firmament and commanded the
Speaker 4: angel that was over the air, and him that was
Speaker 4: over the waters. And they ran raised up the earth,
Speaker 4: and it appeared dry. And he took the crown of
Speaker 4: the angel that was over the waters, and of half
Speaker 4: thereof he made the light of the moon, and half
Speaker 4: the light of the stars, and of precious stones. He
Speaker 4: made all the hosts of the stars. All right, let
Speaker 4: that sink in. The devil is creating the world, and
Speaker 4: even steals the crown of the water angel, and he
Speaker 4: uses it to create the moon and the stars. And
Speaker 4: we have a lot more symbolism going on here, because
Speaker 4: the moon is associated with the waters of the unconscious. See,
Speaker 4: the devil's kingdom is a psychological trap designed to pull
Speaker 4: your awareness down and keep you in the dark. He's
Speaker 4: not done. And he commanded the earth to bring forth
Speaker 4: every beast for food in every creeping thing, and trees
Speaker 4: and herbs. And he commanded the sea to bring forth
Speaker 4: fishes and the fowls of the heaven. Right, do you
Speaker 4: see what this text is saying. It's telling you that
Speaker 4: the God of Genesis, the creator, God of the Bible
Speaker 4: is not the true God, that creator God is actually
Speaker 4: the Devil. In fact, the Bible itself says that Satan
Speaker 4: is the ruler of this world multiple times. For example,
Speaker 4: John twelve thirty one says, now the ruler of this
Speaker 4: world will be cast out, and in Second Corinthians, Paul
Speaker 4: even calls Satan the god of this world. The God
Speaker 4: of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers
Speaker 4: to keep them from seeing the light of the Gospel,
Speaker 4: of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Speaker 4: And if that's not enough. In the Bible, the devil
Speaker 4: literally tries to give Jesus the world in exchange for
Speaker 4: Christ's worship. The devil showed him all the kingdoms of
Speaker 4: the world and their splendor. All this I will give you,
Speaker 4: he said, if you bow down and worship me. Why
Speaker 4: would the devil offer Jesus the world unless he was
Speaker 4: the one who built it? Don't These verses make a
Speaker 4: lot more sense when we consider that God didn't create
Speaker 4: the world, that Satan was cast from heaven and he
Speaker 4: created it.
Speaker 2: Now, Okay, so that's you know, it's actually like thirty
Speaker 2: eight minutes long, this whole video, So we're not going
Speaker 2: to watch the whole thing, but I was just like, man,
Speaker 2: it's an interesting belief and now to see where the
Speaker 2: correlations are being made, right, But this is just some
Speaker 2: of their beliefs. So I kind of just wanted to
Speaker 2: mention that that was allegedly the story of the of
Speaker 2: the what was it called the creation?
Speaker 3: Well that was in the that that story was in
Speaker 3: the Secret Supper. As what I'm trying to say, Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's a very interesting fanfic in my opinion, which I
Speaker 3: think most of the Gnostic texts are very interesting. I
Speaker 3: don't think that they are uh you know, nobody should
Speaker 3: be killed for these beliefs, but it is very interesting,
Speaker 3: uh literature, It is very interesting.
Speaker 2: It's a if you really think about it, like that
Speaker 2: last part that he said, you know where uh you know,
Speaker 2: Jesus is being offered to to you know kind of
Speaker 2: be to sit on the devil's throne or something like that.
Speaker 3: That is within the kingdoms of Earth, that's what you mean.
Speaker 2: Right, But like and and and then you got another
Speaker 2: part which it just said about about how if this
Speaker 2: was not the devil's playground, like it literally says that
Speaker 2: it is right, like this is like everything and if
Speaker 2: it's the devil's playground, whether you want to say that
Speaker 2: he created it or not, at least he, you know,
Speaker 2: is kind of sovereign over it, like he's kind of
Speaker 2: the god of this world.
Speaker 3: He's been given dominion over it.
Speaker 2: That is what the Bible says, which even says in
Speaker 2: the Bible right, It's like, it's so strange, and yet
Speaker 2: the Gnostics are crazy because they believe that the material
Speaker 2: realm is evil, even though it is understood that the
Speaker 2: material realm is being governed by the devil. So it's
Speaker 2: not that far fetched if you really think about it.
Speaker 3: This is again a very heretical thought, because the Bible
Speaker 3: tells us that God created the earth then later on
Speaker 3: gave Satan dominion over it. The Gnostics and the Cathars
Speaker 3: believe that the only way that Satan could have dominion
Speaker 3: over this earth is if he created himself. So I
Speaker 3: understand at least where they're drawing their conclusions from.
Speaker 2: Whether you think that the devil created this place or
Speaker 2: he's just a governor of it. Either way, it's like,
Speaker 2: that's interesting, though, Why would God allow the devil to
Speaker 2: rule a place of people of which he created and allegedly,
Speaker 2: why wouldn't you just get away, you know, do away
Speaker 2: with the devil at that point? I mean there, that's
Speaker 2: one of the biggest questions, right Why why? Indeed, and
Speaker 2: almost as if he has to because if you wanted
Speaker 2: to do too. But I believe that his creation requires it.
Speaker 2: But if he's the one that created all the rules, right,
Speaker 2: like just logically think like forget, forget everything else, just
Speaker 2: like trying to solve a mac problem. Right, If he's
Speaker 2: the one that created the earth, why would you then
Speaker 2: say we want the most I want to put in
Speaker 2: a place of power essentially a judge of this entire
Speaker 2: earth and a governor whatever whatever kind of you know,
Speaker 2: municipality you want to apply to it.
Speaker 3: But it's like a sheriff. Yeah, because God's the ultimate judge.
Speaker 3: But you got the dude who's over here laying the
Speaker 3: SmackDown on people. You know, I'm with you, Constable.
Speaker 2: You know, if you're the one that wrote the code,
Speaker 2: why would you write that into the code if you
Speaker 2: just had to guess like your best.
Speaker 3: Yes, I honestly don't know. These are one of the
Speaker 3: biggest why questions that has plagued mankind since the beginning dude,
Speaker 3: I do not know why we have to have this
Speaker 3: go down this way. I feel like that's all part
Speaker 3: of the divine plan and purpose, and I believe that
Speaker 3: it kind of it's not It's not like God was
Speaker 3: forced to have this happen. I believe that it happened
Speaker 3: in spite of it, but at the same time, it
Speaker 3: was all a part of the plan. Even still, all right,
Speaker 3: we're talking about things that are like fuck five D chess,
Speaker 3: We're talking like thirteen D chess here. I think it's
Speaker 3: things that our human minds really can't wrap our heads around. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Maybe, or the devil's the one that created this and
Speaker 2: that's why he is the governor of it. Because you
Speaker 2: think about it like that's like saying, all right, Jacob,
Speaker 2: let's say you you have you have several kids, right,
Speaker 2: you got a whole fucking basketball team over there. It's
Speaker 2: like if you were to create all your kids.
Speaker 3: And then put them with literally the most heroine addicted
Speaker 3: babysitter of all time, I mean toutally murders, brutally rapes.
Speaker 2: You're talking about like handing your kids over to somebody
Speaker 2: worse than even ed Gin, Right, Like, huh, the most
Speaker 2: unfathomable babysitter you could possibly imagine. But you love your
Speaker 2: kids so much, right, you love your kids so much
Speaker 2: and as a matter of fact, like you'd be willing
Speaker 2: to go to the ends of the earth for them.
Speaker 2: But let's put them under the jurisdiction of the most evil,
Speaker 2: worst thing that you can possibly even imagine.
Speaker 3: Would you do that personally? No? But we could look
Speaker 3: at another example of history of people doing this. The Spartans,
Speaker 3: for instance, they would send their eight year old boys
Speaker 3: to the Udogi, which was the warrior training camp that
Speaker 3: they would not leave until they were thirty, okay, And
Speaker 3: there they would be raped by older boys. They would
Speaker 3: be taught how to be violent and how to bring
Speaker 3: out the absolute worst animalistics things of their nature. Now,
Speaker 3: why would they do that, especially from these moms who
Speaker 3: genuinely loved their babies. They were forced to do it,
Speaker 3: and they did it anyway. But why because the overarching
Speaker 3: goal was to turn them into the most fierce warriors
Speaker 3: of the world had ever seen.
Speaker 2: So you believe that God is trying to turn us
Speaker 2: into fucking warrior Spartans?
Speaker 3: Kind of guess what.
Speaker 2: Do you think would be the reason for that? If
Speaker 2: heaven is what we believe it is. You wouldn't necessarily
Speaker 2: need to be a spartan in heaven, would you.
Speaker 3: Oh? No, I do believe that there's a spiritual war
Speaker 3: to come and that we will all have a role
Speaker 3: to play in it. Yes, And I don't mean in
Speaker 3: this lifetime, in the time that I am alive now,
Speaker 3: I mean my soul one day when I get there,
Speaker 3: there is more of a plan to play. I do
Speaker 3: believe that. Yes. Is that written or is that just
Speaker 3: a belief? Now? It's in the Book of Revelation.
Speaker 2: What does it say about that that whenever you die,
Speaker 2: that there's going to be a war in heaven. No, No,
Speaker 2: there's gonna be a final battle that takes place here.
Speaker 3: Now that being said, maybe I will be a part
Speaker 3: of that warrior class, maybe I won't. Maybe whatever job
Speaker 3: funk I have in heaven whenever I get there, will
Speaker 3: whatever it is, I hope that it does serve God's
Speaker 3: purpose to the fullest right. That that's my hope and dream.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I do believe that what we do on
Speaker 3: this life does echo through to eternity, and I think
Speaker 3: that that also plays into the heavenly realm as well.
Speaker 3: So even heaven sucks, is what you're saying.
Speaker 2: No what that there's still war, there's still death, there's
Speaker 2: still torment, there's still battle, there's still con.
Speaker 3: There's death and torment and not no, no what. That's
Speaker 3: That's what war is, isn't it. The final war won't
Speaker 3: take place in heaven. I just said that it takes place.
Speaker 2: On earth, right, But you will be coming from heaven
Speaker 2: if you're dead, right, Like that's the idea that even
Speaker 2: whenever you're in heaven, you still gotta do this shit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, no, so sing as a free lunch. I
Speaker 3: guess so, I guess so.
Speaker 2: So this is from This is actually from a Catholic
Speaker 2: website called the Veritas Catholica atha dot com. So this
Speaker 2: is from the Catholic's point of view. So it says,
Speaker 2: how did Nissism challenge the true faith? The subtle danger
Speaker 2: of Gnostic thought? And I thought, man, what an interesting article, right,
Speaker 2: because how dare you have a mind of your own?
Speaker 3: A lot? Like, you know, doing your own research is dangerous.
Speaker 2: So it says, in the twilight years of the Apostolic age,
Speaker 2: as the last disciples of Christ's original followers passed from
Speaker 2: the scene, a new and dangerous movement began infiltrating Christian
Speaker 2: communities across the Roman Empire. This movement, which would come
Speaker 2: to be known as Narcissism, presented itself not as a
Speaker 2: rival to Christianity, but as its truest, most spiritual expression.
Speaker 2: Yet beneath its veneer of piety lay a radical reinterpretation, indeed,
Speaker 2: a complete subversion of the Gospel message, posing the challenge
Speaker 2: of Narcissism to true Christianity. The early church fathers recognize
Speaker 2: this threat immediately. Sat Eraneus of Lions, writing around one
Speaker 2: hundred and eighty a, d observed with alarm how these
Speaker 2: new teachers put forth their own compositions with great audacity,
Speaker 2: styling them Gospels, while really they deserve no such title.
Speaker 2: His monumental work against Heresy stands as one of the
Speaker 2: most important early witnesses to this spiritual battle, preserving for
Speaker 2: prosperity both the arguments of the Gnostics and the Church's
Speaker 2: decisive refutations. What made Nissism particularly dangerous was its ability
Speaker 2: to adapt Christian terminology while emptying it of its true meaning.
Speaker 2: As the late cardinal Jean Denielleu noted in his seminal
Speaker 2: work the theology the theology of Jewish Christianity. The Gnostics
Speaker 2: were masters of theological camouflage, adopting the language of faith
Speaker 2: while subverting its content. This pattern would repeat itself throughout
Speaker 2: church histories, making the study of ancient narcissism not merely
Speaker 2: an academic exercise, but a vital preparation for recognizing the
Speaker 2: challenge of narcissism to true Christianity and modern times. It says,
Speaker 2: than to the philosophical and religious roots of Gnostic thought,
Speaker 2: do you understand narcissism fully? We must examine its complete
Speaker 2: origins and the religious and philosophical currents of the ancient world.
Speaker 2: The movement did not emerge x nilo, but grew from
Speaker 2: the rich soil of Hellenistic syncretism, drawing elements from multiple
Speaker 2: traditions while remaining fundamentally alien to all of them. From Platonism,
Speaker 2: the Gnostics borrowed the concept of radical dualism between spirit
Speaker 2: and matter, though they pushed this division far beyond anything
Speaker 2: playto envisioned. While the Athenian philosopher saw the material world
Speaker 2: as an imperfect, imperfect reflection of ideal forms, the Gnostics
Speaker 2: viewed creation as the product of an evil or ignorant demiurge,
Speaker 2: a shocking departure from the Jewish and Christian understanding of
Speaker 2: a good creation brought to brought into being by a
Speaker 2: loving God. This theological innovation would become central to the
Speaker 2: challenge of narcissism to true, true, true Christianity, as it
Speaker 2: undermine the Christian doctrine of the goodness of creation. Persians
Speaker 2: or e Astriism, contributed the dramatic cosmic struggle between light
Speaker 2: and darkness, though the Gnostics transformed this into a narratives
Speaker 2: of spiritual elites escaping from the material bondage rather than
Speaker 2: the ultimate triumph of good over evil. Jewish mystical traditions,
Speaker 2: particularly Mercaba mysticism in certain apocalyptic texts, provide a raw
Speaker 2: material that Gnostics reinterpreted through their dualistic lens. Perhaps most dangerously,
Speaker 2: even early Christian heterodox groups such as the followers of Synthus,
Speaker 2: Simon Magus, and certain Encritite sects, provided the vocabulary in
Speaker 2: some of the conceptual framework that Gnostic teachers would exploit.
Speaker 2: Terms like pleroma or fullness, Eon, and even gnosis itself
Speaker 2: were adopted and redefined within Gnostic systems, blurring the line
Speaker 2: between orthodoxy and heresy and making these teachings especially difficult
Speaker 2: to unmask. The second century Church fathers seeing Hippolytis is
Speaker 2: A in his refutation of all heresies meticulously traced how
Speaker 2: these various influences combined to form the complete Gnostic systems
Speaker 2: that threatened Orthodox Christianity.
Speaker 3: So then it just goes.
Speaker 2: On about like why it views gnarscissism as very bad
Speaker 2: and obviously an evil that needs to be extinguished and
Speaker 2: stuff like that. So I'm not trying to say that
Speaker 2: like you know, it was. I mean, I do understand
Speaker 2: why it would be an issue for the Catholics. I
Speaker 2: get it right, they're saying that essentially yo, like they're
Speaker 2: saying that we're evil, They're saying that we have succumbed
Speaker 2: to the material world. They're saying that we, you know,
Speaker 2: worship the devil, essentially right. And but conversely, if you
Speaker 2: look at it from the Gnostic point of view, that
Speaker 2: is exactly what you know would happen. You know, if
Speaker 2: you look at the Catholic Church, well, yeah, they you know,
Speaker 2: the pope was the rigist man in Europe. The pope
Speaker 2: did have riches and gold and all the fine linens
Speaker 2: and you know. I mean it was a rich thing,
Speaker 2: which you know, was something that you know, Jesus was
Speaker 2: inherently against. You could argue, I mean he was not
Speaker 2: about succumbing to the material world. I mean he probably
Speaker 2: walked around with no shoes, you know what I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe some songs, I don't know, he had sandals. But
Speaker 2: to your point, yes, he lived a nomadic life of
Speaker 2: poverty in which he instructed pretty much people to do.
Speaker 3: But there was reasons for that. I'm with you. I'm
Speaker 3: with you on this. The one Austics would see the
Speaker 3: Catholics as the ultimate slap in the face of God,
Speaker 3: especially the fact that they believe that they were worshiping Satan.
Speaker 3: The Catholics are saying, you think we're worshiping Satan. Meanwhile
Speaker 3: you're doing this type of shit. So you can understand
Speaker 3: why these two groups saw them as the antithesis of each.
Speaker 2: Other, right right, Which is interesting because if you got
Speaker 2: Catholicism saying that they are the first I guess true church,
Speaker 2: true like first followers of Jesus, I guess that have
Speaker 2: really put it, put together all the books and all
Speaker 2: the documentary and like if anybody knows how to follow Jesus,
Speaker 2: it would be the Catholic Church, at least that's how
Speaker 2: they would have you say.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Meanwhile, it's not necessarily that they're worshiping Jesus. And there's
Speaker 2: a difference. I believe in following someone and trying to
Speaker 2: replicate someone right like would you would like? So if
Speaker 2: you're trying to be like Jesus, that's very different than
Speaker 2: following Jesus. Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 3: No, I think you're on something there. And again, if
Speaker 3: you look at the Catholic Church, even the early Catholic Church,
Speaker 3: and you compare that to the early churches right that
Speaker 3: Paul was going and starting across the Mediterranean Sea, they
Speaker 3: would look completely different from each other. Just so we're
Speaker 3: all clear. Although the Catholics claimed that they were the
Speaker 3: first Christians and all these things, when you look at
Speaker 3: the original Church of Antioch, the original Church of Ephesus,
Speaker 3: the original Church in rome Bro, that is not what
Speaker 3: the Catholic Mass looks like today. This is when they
Speaker 3: took it and put it into a human box and
Speaker 3: tried to turn it into something else with a hierarchy instruction.
Speaker 3: All these things. And keep in mind also Paul was
Speaker 3: very clear that we should exonerate women. It was not
Speaker 3: about keeping women under the fucking heel of mankind. There
Speaker 3: was one mention to a very specific church about how
Speaker 3: women are supposed to be silent and submissive. But even
Speaker 3: within that letter, he praises a couple of women that
Speaker 3: were in that church and calls them by name as
Speaker 3: being amazing followers. And listen to the words that they say.
Speaker 3: In all these things, people take things out of context.
Speaker 3: And I am of the belief that the Catholic Church
Speaker 3: took a lot of things out of context and made
Speaker 3: it their own. Rather than following the way, they were
Speaker 3: more focused on following the Catholic way.
Speaker 2: Well, which is why you know, even they would say that,
Speaker 2: like what is it called the Eucharist, which is what
Speaker 2: the reason why they say the Eucharist would be bad.
Speaker 2: First of all, it's it's of the physical world anyway,
Speaker 2: So it's all bad right anyway, if you look at
Speaker 2: it from that way. But if you think about it,
Speaker 2: you know, whenever Jesus was talking to his followers apostles,
Speaker 2: I can't remember. I think it was his apostles, whenever
Speaker 2: he introduced and said that if you eat of me
Speaker 2: and drink of my blood and all that stuff. Then
Speaker 2: you're basically gonna be you know, you're what is the term, like,
Speaker 2: basically you're gonna take on the right soul.
Speaker 3: I don't know. He essentially was saying that if you
Speaker 3: accept my sacrifice, then you will live forever. He wasn't saying,
Speaker 3: actually eat my skin and drink the blood from my veins.
Speaker 3: This was supposed to be a symbolic gesture. However, the
Speaker 3: Catholics believe that that bread, that little wafer really does
Speaker 3: become the physical flesh or Jesus once you eat it,
Speaker 3: which that is mind blowing to me. But there was
Speaker 3: even in inquisitions, dude, there were people that didn't believe
Speaker 3: that that were imprisoned because they didn't believe that the
Speaker 3: wafer becomes Jesus's skin when you eat it, which is
Speaker 3: not what he was even saying, you know, it's not.
Speaker 2: They took it literal, you know what I mean, And
Speaker 2: so much so that like, and I've said this before,
Speaker 2: but there was like fucking people that literally take it
Speaker 2: literal that whenever you eat the wafer, that it literally
Speaker 2: like creates Jesus's physical body inside.
Speaker 3: Of you this day that believe that. Yeah, dude, some.
Speaker 2: People went and got their shit tested and actually found
Speaker 2: bits of flesh in their shit. So that's like it
Speaker 2: confirms it in their mind that they literally took on Jesus,
Speaker 2: which is.
Speaker 3: Wild, dude. That is also pretty fucking insane to say. Like,
Speaker 3: for instance, if you take a urine sample, you'll find
Speaker 3: blood in it. Yeah, you know that's what the yellow
Speaker 3: coloring is in your urine is blood. It's clear that
Speaker 3: the blood of Jesus or yours. What to say that
Speaker 3: you took it from a stool sample? Huh? I didn't
Speaker 3: know that the yellow came from blood. Yeah, that's why
Speaker 3: whenever it's like super dark, it means you're dehydrated. That's
Speaker 3: more blood in your urine. Yeah. Fuck, how did I
Speaker 3: not know that? I don't know that. Most people they
Speaker 3: fucking should I know that. I don't know. Like you,
Speaker 3: not to call you out, but you won't even know
Speaker 3: your blood type. That blows my There's a ton of
Speaker 3: adults out there that just are walking around that don't
Speaker 3: know their blood type. And it's like, bro, how how
Speaker 3: do you not? Because whenever it's my time, it's my time, baby,
Speaker 3: What the fuck? Okay? But into the whole try no Jesus. Yeah. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 3: according to the Cathars, you should have offered yourself as
Speaker 3: soon as you got the holy hands laid on you,
Speaker 3: which now you show the mind. It's not that you
Speaker 3: should have it's just that it was accepted. Yeah, Which
Speaker 3: then what's the purpose of living well? To wake up?
Speaker 3: To wake others up?
Speaker 1: Ah?
Speaker 3: I see, to grow the movement because they wouldn't have kids,
Speaker 3: because that's evil inherently. So you got to grow the
Speaker 3: movement by proselytizing the people. Sound familiar, Yeah, except we
Speaker 3: want to have kids. Yeah, and keep everybody in chains. Weird. Yeah,
Speaker 3: according to the fucking Cathars, that's what I'm doing. I'm
Speaker 3: just imprisoning souls left and right over here. But yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I that's not how I get down. But
Speaker 3: but then the whole stool sample conversation, Bro, do you
Speaker 3: realize how much dead skin cells you ingest on a
Speaker 3: regular daily basis, or how about hair, or how about
Speaker 3: even the bits of a nail or something like that.
Speaker 3: So to find human DNA in your stool sample, did
Speaker 3: they confirm if it was their DNA or maybe a
Speaker 3: hair that fell into a burger at a place that
Speaker 3: they went and ate and they didn't see the hair
Speaker 3: and they ate it and things like this. It's like, dude,
Speaker 3: to say that you found DNA in your stool or
Speaker 3: blood or urine, is like, that doesn't confirm the Eucharist.
Speaker 3: But if that's what justification you need to decide that
Speaker 3: your faith is legitimate, then like, all right, God bless you,
Speaker 3: but that is not how you should be looking at things. Well,
Speaker 3: I wanted to pull this up right here too. This
Speaker 3: is on the same website, but it says why spiritual
Speaker 3: but not religious or my truth is gnostic at heart,
Speaker 3: which I agree. I believe that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, It says subjectivism and relativism. It says gnostic
Speaker 2: thought often and emphasizes subjective personal knowledge or gnosis, as
Speaker 2: the key to salvation rather than an objective or communal truth.
Speaker 2: Gnostics believe that truth was hidden from the masses and
Speaker 2: only accept accessible to a select group of enlightened individuals. Similarly,
Speaker 2: the modern idea of my truth suggests that truth is
Speaker 2: subjective and individualized rather than universal or objective. This is
Speaker 2: a hallmark of gnostic thinking. Truth is not something grounded
Speaker 2: and shared reality or tradition, but is rather constructed by
Speaker 2: the individual and then it says the escape from the
Speaker 2: material world. Nascissism traditionally rejects the physical world as something
Speaker 2: inferior or even evil, created by the ignorant or malevolent demiurge.
Speaker 2: The modern spiritual seeker might be influenced by the idea
Speaker 2: of transcending ordinary material existence, emphasizing an inner spiritual journey
Speaker 2: over engagement with the material world. In religious community, this
Speaker 2: resembles the gnostic desire to escape the confines of physical
Speaker 2: reality and gain spiritual enlightenment apart from the body or
Speaker 2: material cancer. Then there's individualism over community. Narcissism often fostered
Speaker 2: an elitist mindset where only those with access to secret
Speaker 2: knowledge could be truly saved. Modern phrases like spiritual but
Speaker 2: not religious reflect a similar disdain for communal religious structures
Speaker 2: in favor of personal, individualized spirituality. It reduces faith to
Speaker 2: a private, personal affair, which is a stark contrast to
Speaker 2: the communal aspect of traditional Christianity. So I just wanted to,
Speaker 2: you know, throw that out there with you know, it's
Speaker 2: interesting because it's talking about objective truths, and you know,
Speaker 2: here's the deal, Like I don't.
Speaker 3: Know me and you have had this debate a time
Speaker 3: or two. I mean, yeah, you and I disagree on
Speaker 3: what truth is. And that's the same debate that the
Speaker 3: Gnostics were having, that the Cathars were having against organized religion,
Speaker 3: even though the Cathars were an organized religion.
Speaker 2: But yeah, my point is is that you have both
Speaker 2: sex that are saying that their subjective truth is objective truth.
Speaker 2: So and that's that's basically my point is that you know,
Speaker 2: you can't sit here and say that every single thing
Speaker 2: in the Bible is objective.
Speaker 3: A lot of it is subjective.
Speaker 2: Like it can be viewed through the lens of objective,
Speaker 2: but that is only you're accepting of that truth. Just
Speaker 2: because you accept the truth does not mean that it
Speaker 2: can be you know, like you can still poke holes
Speaker 2: in that as has been done, you know, right. That's
Speaker 2: what I'm trying to say, is that if it was objective,
Speaker 2: there can be no holes that are punched into it,
Speaker 2: like it's objective.
Speaker 3: Right. Respectfully, I disagree with you and me and you
Speaker 3: have very different points on this. I believe that the
Speaker 3: Bible is objective truth and it's not open to interpretation
Speaker 3: about what is and is not.
Speaker 2: Factually, the key term was you said, I believe the
Speaker 2: Bible is objective. There is no belief in objectivity.
Speaker 3: Well, if I objective or it's not objective, then that
Speaker 3: would spark a whole other debate that we don't need
Speaker 3: to have. I yeah, I see the Bible is completely objective.
Speaker 3: You see it? Yes, the world not the enter if
Speaker 3: the here's the deal.
Speaker 2: If it was objective, nobody would disagree with it, Like,
Speaker 2: everybody would get on board. There wouldn't be a million
Speaker 2: different you know, atheists and religious people and spiritual people
Speaker 2: and philosophical people. If it was so objective and so
Speaker 2: clear and so obvious, you wouldn't have other people not
Speaker 2: seeing the same thing that you're seeing.
Speaker 3: So that being said, how many of these people have
Speaker 3: we even had on the show to say, look, we
Speaker 3: understand the Bible is true, but it's been misinterpreted in
Speaker 3: such a way that mankind has turned it to where
Speaker 3: I don't want to be considered a Christian. Nobody denies
Speaker 3: the truth of the Bible. They deny the way that
Speaker 3: the Bible has been used. Uh, you can't say nobody
Speaker 3: denies the truth of the Bible. That is another sube.
Speaker 3: But there's also a audience that will tell you that
Speaker 3: one plus one equals three. It's yeah, it's not even
Speaker 3: the vast majority.
Speaker 2: The vast majority of religious people would say that, but
Speaker 2: not the vast majority of all people that have ever
Speaker 2: existed on earth would.
Speaker 3: Oh, there's biblical scholars that are atheist. Dude, Yeah, I know.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm trying to say is that you can't
Speaker 2: say the vast majority believe that this is true, because
Speaker 2: that's not true.
Speaker 3: That's not a true statement. Most people that you talk
Speaker 3: to will say that, yes, the Bible is sound truth,
Speaker 3: but religion has made it something else, not not most
Speaker 3: people I talk to, most people we've had on this
Speaker 3: show will say that. Maybe some of them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wouldn't say most. Okay, I mean there's a lot.
Speaker 2: I'm not even trying to water it down. There are
Speaker 2: definitely a lot of people that look at the Bible
Speaker 2: as if it's truth. But you can't just say that
Speaker 2: they are the vast majority and watering down those that
Speaker 2: question it.
Speaker 3: Aside from the Book of Genesis right which there's miraculous
Speaker 3: unexplainable things, and aside from the miracles that Jesus performed,
Speaker 3: everything else, aside from the prophetic messages that have yet
Speaker 3: to pass. Let's give those distinctions. Now, all other parts
Speaker 3: of the Bible have been historically fact to be correct
Speaker 3: and accurate, not true, aside from the creation stories and
Speaker 3: the whole everything from the Book of Genesis, aside from
Speaker 3: the miracles of Jesus, and aside from prophetic messages.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like, give an example of something that has absolutely
Speaker 2: been proven true without a shadow of a doubt.
Speaker 3: Well, there's examples in the Old Testament of certain kings
Speaker 3: that presided over certain lands, and they give the time
Speaker 3: stamps to where this happened, and they talk about certain
Speaker 3: things that happened in this land, famines or a war
Speaker 3: that took place, or whatever the case is, that nobody
Speaker 3: really saw as a truth until later archaeological records proved
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, no, that absolutely happened, just like the Bible
Speaker 3: of let's goo and New Ti. We're talking New Ti here, Okay,
Speaker 3: let's talk about that. When they're talking about which Roman
Speaker 3: Caesar was in charge during a certain time frame, or
Speaker 3: when they're talking about how the Christians were being martyred
Speaker 3: by the local Jewish population. Again, all this has been
Speaker 3: documented to be correct outside of biblical sources. Interesting.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, there's I'm sure that there's bits of
Speaker 2: truth throughout it. But to say that just because you
Speaker 2: are naming certain things that happened and you're including it
Speaker 2: into your story and your worldview of perspective, To say
Speaker 2: that all of it is absolutely true just because there
Speaker 2: are facets of facts in there is not.
Speaker 3: That's not logical at all. No, I mean we I'm
Speaker 3: not going to list out the entire Bible. This is
Speaker 3: not a Bible show. But yes, to say that the
Speaker 3: entire storyline of the Bible has been proven to be accurate,
Speaker 3: that's That's like there's a lot of scholars with years
Speaker 3: and years worth of trying to debunk the Bible under
Speaker 3: their belt that can't do so. But then there's also
Speaker 3: a lot of scholars that have that's incorrect.
Speaker 2: I can look, give me a day and I will
Speaker 2: come up with countless scholars that have debunked a lot
Speaker 2: of things of the Bible.
Speaker 3: They may have debunked some of the philosophical conversations, but
Speaker 3: they cannot debunk the historical precedence to it. I don't
Speaker 3: know there's no historical precedence to Moses. But we already
Speaker 3: went there, and we're not just said aside from Genesis.
Speaker 3: I just mentioned that.
Speaker 2: Now, look, if your house of cards is built on lies,
Speaker 2: then the top tippy top card of the last statement
Speaker 2: that was talked about in the New Testament, when you're
Speaker 2: talking about revelation, is.
Speaker 3: Even built on shaky ground. That's a prophetic book. Like
Speaker 3: I said, we're talking about things that can be historically
Speaker 3: fact checked. Prophecy cannot be historically fact check. That's why
Speaker 3: I gave the distinction to leave that one out.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, But what I'm saying is is that if
Speaker 2: it's built on myth, that's all I'm saying. You know, if,
Speaker 2: for example, if Moses was a mythological character and not
Speaker 2: an actual real character, I'm not even saying that that's
Speaker 2: the truth, but I'm saying, what if, right, if he is, then.
Speaker 3: It's built on very very shitty foundation. Personally, Jesus, we know,
Speaker 3: was a real dude. Historically, secularly and religiously. He walked
Speaker 3: the earth, he died and rose again, fulfilling prophecies. Now
Speaker 3: that being said, when Jesus said to hold the Torah
Speaker 3: as truth, I listen, the Torah does include the Book
Speaker 3: of Genesis. Now, that does not mean that every single
Speaker 3: thing within it teaches us every step of how things
Speaker 3: took place. I believe it is our portion. It is
Speaker 3: the story to teach us how we got to the
Speaker 3: point of needing Jesus, and I take it as that,
Speaker 3: and I'm good with that. But yes, Jesus also said
Speaker 3: to acknowledge the Torah as facts. Therefore I do.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not coming at your beliefs like that.
Speaker 2: And that's the thing, like, I'm not trying to dissuade
Speaker 2: anybody from what they believe in. I'm really not just
Speaker 2: I'm just giving at least some I'm trying to balance
Speaker 2: it out here so that everybody else's perspective is not crazy.
Speaker 2: They're not going to hell. They're not you know less
Speaker 2: than you. You're not to be judgmental, which you know
Speaker 2: I'm not even saying to you. I'm saying, we have
Speaker 2: people out there that absolutely believe that anybody that believes
Speaker 2: differently from me is obviously going to hell right Well,
Speaker 2: to be honest, I asked you that same question a
Speaker 2: couple of years ago.
Speaker 3: Okay, I am not the one to make the judgment.
Speaker 3: I know that the Bible says to do this, and
Speaker 3: I believe that if you follow it, you go to heaven.
Speaker 3: If you don't follow it, do you go to hell?
Speaker 3: The Bible says that. But I'm also not the one
Speaker 3: in the judgment seat to cast judgment on anybody. So
Speaker 3: I can't make that kind of a claim.
Speaker 2: Right, It's not a judgment, it's a belief, right, Like,
Speaker 2: but even still you hold true the belief that I mean,
Speaker 2: by your book, I'm going to Hell.
Speaker 3: I can't make that distinction, dude. I don't know what's
Speaker 3: going on in your heart of heart. No, but you
Speaker 3: know the rules. I know the rules, sure, and according
Speaker 3: to the rules to use the sacrifice, then like you're
Speaker 3: not gonna have your name written in the Book of Life,
Speaker 3: and like, okay, but I'm not the dude to make
Speaker 3: the determination whether Jonathan and his heart of hearts has
Speaker 3: acknowledged Jesus Lord and Savior or not. That is between
Speaker 3: you and God. That is not up to Jacob to decide.
Speaker 3: And it's also not up for me to decide to
Speaker 3: look down on anybody for any of that. That is
Speaker 3: a them and God thing. Right.
Speaker 2: I do not acknowledge Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
Speaker 2: I mean, and I don't say that's SPI fully, it's
Speaker 2: just not my belief.
Speaker 3: And that is a thing between you and God.
Speaker 2: Brother, So by your belief, by those standards you and
Speaker 2: not only I'm not even just coming after you, but
Speaker 2: most people would look at me and say, wow, have
Speaker 2: a fun ride to the to the dark Lord, right,
Speaker 2: And and I get it.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's it's a belief system.
Speaker 2: Like there has to be you know, checks and balances
Speaker 2: and beliefs and you know, weighing of the heart and
Speaker 2: stuff like that. Right, But like I'm just saying, I
Speaker 2: don't know, like I feel like that. That is a
Speaker 2: more you want to talk about, you know, the round
Speaker 2: Earth and flat Earth being divisive. That is way more
Speaker 2: divisive than anything.
Speaker 3: And it had been for thousands of years, dude.
Speaker 2: It's the reason for religious wars. It is the underlying,
Speaker 2: absolute reason for religious wars. You think differently from me,
Speaker 2: You're already.
Speaker 3: Going to hell. Let me do God's job for you.
Speaker 3: But take away religion. That's the same reason for political wars.
Speaker 3: That was the reason for the Civil War, for the
Speaker 3: Revolutionary War, for the French Revolution, for the all of
Speaker 3: these things. Beliefs are what cause conflict. Yes, it's barbaric,
Speaker 3: it's human nature. It is human nature to be warring,
Speaker 3: whether that's a religious reason or resource reason, a political reason, whatever, And.
Speaker 2: That is the divine difference, sir. What I'm trying to say,
Speaker 2: you just said it perfectly. It's human nature. What the
Speaker 2: Cathars and the Gnostics believed is that we are temporarily
Speaker 2: in these human bodies, but we must not succumb to,
Speaker 2: you know, the human nature, like it is against our
Speaker 2: nature to be of human nature.
Speaker 3: So therefore, anything that you.
Speaker 2: Carry out as a result of, you know, being in
Speaker 2: this world and of this world is inherently evil. So therefore,
Speaker 2: if you are looking and judging and condemning and killing
Speaker 2: and murdering and all this other shit, it is in
Speaker 2: the human nature, which therefore is the devil's playground in
Speaker 2: the first place, is their argument. So just to kind
Speaker 2: of give a little credence here, it does make a
Speaker 2: little more sense on that side, right, yeah, And I.
Speaker 3: Can respectively sup portion of the philosophy that goes behind
Speaker 3: that one hundred percent. But at the same time, we
Speaker 3: do have to live our life in this world, and
Speaker 3: if conflict comes to us, are you going to just
Speaker 3: lay there and let it happen to you? Or Are
Speaker 3: you going to take up arms and defend yourself against
Speaker 3: whatever's trying to attack you? WWJD indeed, and he said
Speaker 3: to carry a sword. Yeah, he show did so, And
Speaker 3: so I wanted to get over here.
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to give a little trying to
Speaker 2: show both sides here because, like I said, I I'm
Speaker 2: not a Cathar. I like looking into Gnosticism. I like
Speaker 2: certain parts of narcissism. I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a Gnostic.
Speaker 2: I like certain parts of the Bible. I don't consider
Speaker 2: myself a Christian, you know what I mean? And I'm
Speaker 2: somebody call it cherry picking, whatever you want to say.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying I like looking at certain things from
Speaker 2: certain spiritualities and religions and philosophies and seeing like, where
Speaker 2: you know, my spirit.
Speaker 3: Aligns with You're an eclectic eclectic?
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, And so I was like, all right, they
Speaker 2: keep on saying nosis, and for anybody that doesn't know
Speaker 2: what nosis is, it keeps on saying that it's a
Speaker 2: secret knowledge. And I was like, it's not secret, like
Speaker 2: secret society, Like you have to.
Speaker 3: Go through an initiation. That's exactly how the Gnostic Church
Speaker 3: did things. And the cath Our Church did things.
Speaker 2: Initially, yeah, but the underlying current of narcissism is not
Speaker 2: entirely that. And so I just pulled it up. I said,
Speaker 2: define nosis. So nosis is a Greek word meaning knowledge
Speaker 2: or awareness. That's all nosis is. It's just a knowledge
Speaker 2: or an awareness awareness that is inherent within you, often
Speaker 2: referring to spiritual or esoteric knowledge that is essential for salvation.
Speaker 2: In Gnostic beliefs, it emphasizes personal, experiential understanding rather than
Speaker 2: intellectual knowledge. So it's more of an inner understanding rather
Speaker 2: than gaining some intellect from a college or whatever.
Speaker 3: Right I mean, but both can be true at the
Speaker 3: same time. It's like it's like the mystery schools, right,
Speaker 3: these mystery cults of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, the
Speaker 3: same thing that the Gnostics did their uh basically based
Speaker 3: their practices off of. And then, like we just learned
Speaker 3: about with the Cathars, the PREFECTI you could only do
Speaker 3: that once you were initiated, and then they would teach
Speaker 3: you all of the ways of how to be a
Speaker 3: good Cathar, right right, And so whenever you say test
Speaker 3: the spirit, they they kind of tested the spirit a
Speaker 3: little bit more than some other people would have. I
Speaker 3: don't know. When I say test the spirit, I'm saying
Speaker 3: that if the knowledge is secret, then it's not something
Speaker 3: you should deal with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's not necessarily secret. It's something that you
Speaker 2: would unlock within yourself. A secret that you're keeping from
Speaker 2: yourself is what they're what they're saying.
Speaker 3: Okay, they're gonna they're gonna portray it that way, just
Speaker 3: like every good cult leader will tell you that, like
Speaker 3: once you drink the kool aid, you'll gain the knowledge
Speaker 3: within yourself of dot dot dot. But you have to
Speaker 3: be taught that by somebody. And if they're not willing
Speaker 3: to teach you unless you're initiated into the sect, then
Speaker 3: that's a problem.
Speaker 2: M Yeah, but you had to be taught a lot
Speaker 2: of things to follow a religion too, So that's.
Speaker 3: Not secret knowledge at all. It's not something you have
Speaker 3: to go through step one through five and then we'll
Speaker 3: finally make you this. And that's another reason I have
Speaker 3: an issue with the Catholics.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I was about to say, the Vatican
Speaker 2: has a large library that they don't let anybody access
Speaker 2: unless you're qualified.
Speaker 3: No, No, not even the library, not even that I'm
Speaker 3: talking about just to be a Catholic. You have to
Speaker 3: get your first baptism, your first Communion, your first confession,
Speaker 3: you have to go through catechism, and then you can
Speaker 3: be a confirmed Catholic. That goes against the entire principle
Speaker 3: of Jesus in my personal opinion. So again that's I'm
Speaker 3: not just shitting on the Gnostics for this one. I
Speaker 3: also think that you have to go through years of
Speaker 3: initiatory practices to even be considered a Catholic. That's fucking absurd.
Speaker 2: Well, and the same thing with the Eucharist, It's supposed
Speaker 2: to be symbolism, and yet people take it literal.
Speaker 3: Know, well, that's the thing in the Catholic faith. You
Speaker 3: have to have your first communion, that's when you take
Speaker 3: your first Eucharist. That's it's a part of the process
Speaker 3: to becoming a good Catholic. And you can only do
Speaker 3: that after you've heard confession or after the priests has
Speaker 3: heard your confession. So there's like a first confession process
Speaker 3: to it this. There's these initiatory steps to being a
Speaker 3: good Catholic, and I think that that completely denotes how
Speaker 3: Jesus said, No, all you have to do is follow me.
Speaker 3: All you have to do is accept my sacrifice into
Speaker 3: your life. That's it. But yeah, anyway, Yeah, it's no
Speaker 3: different than like Jewish temple and stuff like that. There's
Speaker 3: a process to becoming a Jew, absolutely a Jewish convert
Speaker 3: that takes years in order to become this.
Speaker 2: Right, right, So, and all Jesus says is that, you know,
Speaker 2: except that I died for your sins and automatically you're in, right. Yeah,
Speaker 2: So it's a little bit different, smaller of a process,
Speaker 2: still a little bit of a process. I mean, you
Speaker 2: still got to give up a little bit of yourself
Speaker 2: and a little bit of your you know, logical mind.
Speaker 3: But still you have to pray a prayer. That's it.
Speaker 3: You have to pray a prayer, right, right. So they
Speaker 3: also say to get baptized later on, but that's that's
Speaker 3: a conversation for another day. It's not like if you
Speaker 3: don't get baptized, you don't go to Heaven. That's different,
Speaker 3: but it's anyway anyway.
Speaker 2: So I wanted to see how did Plato influence the
Speaker 2: early Church? And we don't have to read the whole thing,
Speaker 2: but I just want to try it to because what
Speaker 2: the what the Catholics will have you believe is that
Speaker 2: you know that the Cathars and narcissism in general was
Speaker 2: like crazily influenced by Plato. And I was like, well,
Speaker 2: that's an interesting kind of thing to just throw out there,
Speaker 2: because the Bible is too not exactly, but let's get
Speaker 2: into it. Well, yeah, and you'll see how this is
Speaker 2: from the collector. Well, we're not going to read this
Speaker 2: whole thing, but it just basically shows all right, So
Speaker 2: Plato's effect on the early Church.
Speaker 3: So and then it brings up justin Martyr. You'll see
Speaker 3: how it says.
Speaker 2: In the midst of these complicated times, many were coming
Speaker 2: to believe the Christian message message because of its ability
Speaker 2: to meet the intellectual chanlenges of the day. Answers could
Speaker 2: be found by synthesizing Christian teachings Greek and Greek philosophy,
Speaker 2: and many early Church fathers defended the faith through the synthesis.
Speaker 2: Plato has often been considered a sort of poster child
Speaker 2: for Greek philosophy as a whole, and several Church fathers
Speaker 2: made much use of his work to defend the Christian
Speaker 2: message against Roman persecution and Gnostic promulgations. Plato's influence is
Speaker 2: clearly seen in the works of the following church fathers.
Speaker 2: So Justin Martyr, which we've mentioned before. It says as
Speaker 2: as a Christian, Justin's main concern was to have men
Speaker 2: recognize Jesus as the true Logos by the Greeks and
Speaker 2: at the same time as the predicted Messiah by the Jews.
Speaker 2: As a man well educated in the philosophies of his day,
Speaker 2: Justin Martyr was uniquely equipped to meet his intellectual the
Speaker 2: intellectual challenge of unbelieving thought and give a defense of Christianity.
Speaker 2: His method for defending Christianity relied heavily upon synthesizing Christianity
Speaker 2: with Greek philosophy to defending the faith against Rome's false
Speaker 2: charges of atheism, Justin writes, and so too Plato, when
Speaker 2: he says the blame is his who chooses, and God
Speaker 2: is blameless, took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it,
Speaker 2: for Moses is more ancient than all the Greek, all
Speaker 2: the Greek writers, and whatever both philosophers and poets have
Speaker 2: said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death,
Speaker 2: or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind.
Speaker 2: They have received such suggestions from the prophets as have
Speaker 2: enabled them to understand and interpret these things, and hence
Speaker 2: there seems to there seems to be seeds of truth
Speaker 2: among all men, but they are charged with not accurately
Speaker 2: understanding the truth when they assert contradictories.
Speaker 3: So that is so he's basically saying that Plato got
Speaker 3: his notes from Moses because Moses predates Plato. That's what he's.
Speaker 2: Saying, ye, right, yeah, And so it goes on to
Speaker 2: say that Justin believed the Greeks were very close to
Speaker 2: the truth with respect to God. This clearly seen in
Speaker 2: how he views the impersonal God of Plato. Van Till
Speaker 2: notes that the God of Plato is nothing more than
Speaker 2: a vague idea that somehow eternally exists. Eternally existent matter
Speaker 2: is molded by as it is attracted to from interesting word. So,
Speaker 2: not realizing this, Justin assumes that when Plato speaks of
Speaker 2: the creation of the cosmos, he has a Biblical view
Speaker 2: of creation in mind. When we see this in Justin's
Speaker 2: first apology, where he writes, with respect to Plato's God
Speaker 2: in quotes and that you may learn that it is
Speaker 2: from our teachers that Plato borrowed his statement that God
Speaker 2: made the world hear the very words.
Speaker 3: Spoken through Moses.
Speaker 2: It's kind of a weird statement to say, uh really,
Speaker 2: to say that Plato was what receiving downloads from you know,
Speaker 2: Moses or God.
Speaker 3: No, that to say that the philosophical and poetic nature
Speaker 3: that Moses wrote down made its way around the Mediterranean,
Speaker 3: and that Plato may have picked up on something of
Speaker 3: that later on. And I'm not saying there's any historical
Speaker 3: precedence to back that claim, but that's what Justin Martin
Speaker 3: thought anyway. So all right, which is interesting because I
Speaker 3: can't remember exactly Plato was around, like was it four hundred?
Speaker 3: Was it four hundred? Okay, so and supposedly I looked
Speaker 3: this up the other day, but it was like Mos
Speaker 3: was like fourteen hundred BC or something, Yeah, thirteen fourteen
Speaker 3: hundred something like that. So I mean, yeah, yeah, So,
Speaker 3: I mean I'm not saying I agree with that. I
Speaker 3: don't think that Plato was taking his notes from Moses,
Speaker 3: but that is at least what the belief was. So
Speaker 3: they're saying that Plato and all of Platonism actually stemmed
Speaker 3: from Moses and the Torah, which, you know, to say
Speaker 3: that Plato knew nothing of that would be kind of crazy.
Speaker 3: Because during Plato's time, like, the Jews were a thing
Speaker 3: in Israel, right, So the Jews and the Hebrews had interchanging,
Speaker 3: you know, dialogue with each other. So is it possible
Speaker 3: that some of the philosophers of ancient Greece might have
Speaker 3: picked up on some of the fullilosophies of an ancient
Speaker 3: religion like the Hebrews. It's possible, yeah, sure, so, yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean, it's basically just going down the list of
Speaker 3: the early Church fathers. I misspoke whenever I said that
Speaker 3: the Bible took from Platonism or vice versa, it's the
Speaker 3: early Church fathers. A. So, the writings of those previously
Speaker 3: mentioned clearly demonstrate that Plato had a major influence on
Speaker 3: the early Church. But how far did this influence go.
Speaker 3: Is Christianity simply a baptized Platonism. Plato's influence is surely
Speaker 3: still seen in modern movements like Christian Platonism, But to
Speaker 3: conclude wholesale that Plato's influence on the Early Church resulted
Speaker 3: in an inseparable mixture of Platonic philosophy and Christian doctrine
Speaker 3: would be a grave overstatement. Firstly, free access to information
Speaker 3: in today's world allows us to parse out Plato and
Speaker 3: Christianity in ways that the early Church fathers could have
Speaker 3: never done. Who knows what these Church fathers would have
Speaker 3: written had they had the same access to today's information.
Speaker 3: As a result, we can clearly distinguish which aspects of
Speaker 3: Platonism and Christianity share similar in which aspects are completely different.
Speaker 3: More importantly, Plato's influence upon the early Church gave Christianity
Speaker 3: the kind of stress it needed to formulate its own
Speaker 3: positions with regard to metaphysics, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Looking
Speaker 3: back upon the early Church fathers, we can see their
Speaker 3: use of Plato compromise the very foundations that allowed for
Speaker 3: the possibility of knowledge. Philosopher theologians of later centuries have
Speaker 3: been able to learn from the mistakes of their forerunners
Speaker 3: and properly expound a rigorous Christian philosophy that answers the
Speaker 3: pagan world, including Plato, in ways the Church fathers could
Speaker 3: not could have only dreamed of. In the final analysis,
Speaker 3: Plato's influence upon the early Church more than help firm
Speaker 3: up the articulation of Christianity in the face of paganism
Speaker 3: in later centuries. So that's basically what Plato was basically
Speaker 3: used to go against Christianity, and they were using his
Speaker 3: philosophical thoughts as a way to give a Christian answer
Speaker 3: to the Platonic questions. And that's fair.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's just trying to explaining it in
Speaker 2: a more philosophical way. But then to say that the
Speaker 2: Bible is based in Platonism, or even that some of
Speaker 2: the scriptures are platonically based, that's completely out of the
Speaker 2: realm here. Yeah, no, that's not what I'm saying. I
Speaker 2: misspoke whenever I said that, gotcha, gotcha. So, and this
Speaker 2: is just to get over to it. This is an
Speaker 2: interesting website called church Instate dot org dot uk. So
Speaker 2: the lesson and this is the last one I think
Speaker 2: that I'm gonna show, but the lesson from France, the
Speaker 2: bloody extermination of the Cathars at Beziers. Kill them all
Speaker 2: for the Lord knoweth them that are his. So this
Speaker 2: is the idea that basically the Pope and all the
Speaker 2: people that were trying to carry out the genocide of
Speaker 2: the Cathars you know, well, lord, how do I know
Speaker 2: you know which one is a Cathar and which one's
Speaker 2: not because everybody dressed the same. It's not like they
Speaker 2: were all dressing in uniforms. You know, it's not like
Speaker 2: it was green versus white, or blue versus yellow or anything.
Speaker 2: You couldn't determine it just by looking at him for
Speaker 2: the most part, because most people, Yeah, and you had
Speaker 2: your certain like extreme Cathars that took it to the extreme.
Speaker 2: They didn't have sex, they only ate veggies, they ate
Speaker 2: fish sometimes, and they believed, you know, this this gnostic
Speaker 2: thought to be a literal way. But then you had
Speaker 2: your other you know, Cathars that were like, yeah, that's
Speaker 2: what I believe. But you know, I'm I'm still imperfect,
Speaker 2: I'm still a center whatever. Like you know, we're in
Speaker 2: this world. You may as well enjoy it a little
Speaker 2: bit a lot. Like most religious people nowadays, you're not
Speaker 2: so stringent and so extreme on what your what your
Speaker 2: beliefs lead you to to be of this regard is.
Speaker 3: That a true statement? Were there's some like, uh, what
Speaker 3: would you call them, like moderate Cathars because there's no
Speaker 3: historical record to back that kind of a claim.
Speaker 2: Well, the the record is is that only the people
Speaker 2: that what was it called the consolamentum. Only the people
Speaker 2: that did the consolamentum were like the extremists the people
Speaker 2: and a lot of people chose not to do the
Speaker 2: consolamentum because that means that you would have to be
Speaker 2: stringent and strict about your beliefs every day for the
Speaker 2: rest of your life. It was like it was a vowel, right,
Speaker 2: and so if you if you chose not to do that,
Speaker 2: then you can kind of be a little bit more
Speaker 2: loosey goosey with it, which is why most of the
Speaker 2: Cathars in that time they would either only do the
Speaker 2: consolamentum if they were first of all, either devout, maybe
Speaker 2: they would do it on their you know, on their deathbed,
Speaker 2: like they waited, they tried to push it off if
Speaker 2: they weren't trying to be as strict as they as
Speaker 2: they possibly could.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of record to show like deathbed converts
Speaker 3: if you will, to Catherism. But I don't know if
Speaker 3: there's and I'm not trying to like say that you're wrong,
Speaker 3: I'm asking like, is there historical claims to say that
Speaker 3: they were moderate Cathars? The people that kind of heard
Speaker 3: it and said, yeah, I could agree with some of
Speaker 3: your stuff, but I'm not a Cathar. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: just like our boy Royce. You know, it's like you.
Speaker 3: You you ask a Jew a question, or you asked
Speaker 3: three Jews a question, or two Jews a question, you're
Speaker 3: gonna get three answers or whatever. Right.
Speaker 2: Everybody has their own differing beliefs and their different takes
Speaker 2: on it, and it was kind of like that, like some.
Speaker 3: People were to the extreme with it.
Speaker 2: You know, your aocs of the of the world, and
Speaker 2: then you're gonna have your people that are a little
Speaker 2: bit more moderate. You know, I don't know, fucking Ron Paul,
Speaker 2: Maybe I don't know, but but yeah, that's what I'm
Speaker 2: trying to say is that you know, there was there
Speaker 2: was shades of gray as far as the Catholic belief
Speaker 2: so it says. Another reminder of the of the brutal,
Speaker 2: bloodsoaked history of Christianity is to be found in the
Speaker 2: history of the French town of Beziers on the banks
Speaker 2: of the River Orb in the Langadoc region southeast of Montpelier,
Speaker 2: on the edge of the Camargue.
Speaker 3: Came Argue sure it has been.
Speaker 2: It has been, in turn, along with much of the
Speaker 2: area's areas south of Toulouse, under the control of the Greeks, Romans, Visigoths,
Speaker 2: moorsh Moslems from Andalica, Catholic Spain and utterly Catholic France.
Speaker 2: Until recent times, the local language was a dialect of
Speaker 2: French Occitan, which has closely with Catalan. This gave it
Speaker 2: a sense of separate identity from that of France, something
Speaker 2: that concerned King Philip the Second, keen to exert the
Speaker 2: same control over the southern provinces as he had over
Speaker 2: the north. Beaziars is now a peaceful, quiet little market
Speaker 2: town and cultural center, but it was not always so.
Speaker 2: It was until twelve oh nine a stronghold of the Cathars,
Speaker 2: a religious sect which rejected Roman Catholicism in the authority
Speaker 2: of the Pope, which was brutally suppressed in the Albergensian
Speaker 2: Crusade on the orders of Pope Innocent the Third, an
Speaker 2: alliance with King Philip the Second of France.
Speaker 3: It says the.
Speaker 2: Siege of Beziers was a pivotal and infamous event during
Speaker 2: the Abagensian Crusade in twelve oh nine, Baziirs was a
Speaker 2: prosperous city in the Langadoc region of southern France, known
Speaker 2: for its large Cathar population and sympathizers. The Catholic crusaders,
Speaker 2: led by Simon de Montfort and under the authority of
Speaker 2: Pope Innocent the Third, sought to capture the city and
Speaker 2: eliminate the Cathar heresy. Here's a detailed account of the
Speaker 2: Sea of Braziers. So it says in twelve oh eight,
Speaker 2: the Pope had declared a formal crusade against the Cathars,
Speaker 2: labeling them as heretics. Simon de Mottfort was appointed as
Speaker 2: the leader of the crusade, and he began his campaign
Speaker 2: to subdue the Cathar stronghold of Baziers, which was one
Speaker 2: of the major centers of Catharism in the Langadac region.
Speaker 2: The Siege of Baziers began in July of twelve oh nine,
Speaker 2: with the crusaders encircling the city and launching a sustained assault.
Speaker 2: The city's defense was formidable, but the large number of
Speaker 2: defenders and civilians within the walls put up a strain
Speaker 2: on the limited resources and water supply. As the siege continued,
Speaker 2: the crusaders called for the city to surrender and offered
Speaker 2: terms to spare the lives of the inhabitants. The response
Speaker 2: from the city's leaders was a refusal to hand over
Speaker 2: the Cathars within the walls, stating that they would not
Speaker 2: betray their own people. Then, in July July twenty second
Speaker 2: of twelve oh nine, theade we probably should have started
Speaker 2: with this, sorry about that, the crusaders breached the city's
Speaker 2: defenses and storm beziers. The situation quickly descended into chaos
Speaker 2: and violence. According to historical accounts, the crusaders unleashed a
Speaker 2: brutal assault on the city, sparing no one in the process.
Speaker 2: Many sources report that when asked how to distinguish the
Speaker 2: Cathars from the Catholics, the papal legate are No Almric
Speaker 2: or Amalric is famously quoted as saying, kill them all,
Speaker 2: God will know his own. The result was a bloodbath,
Speaker 2: with thousands of people slaughtered, regardless of their religious affiliation.
Speaker 2: The fall of Braziers had a profound impact on the
Speaker 2: course of the Aubagensian Crusade. It's in a powerful message
Speaker 2: to other towns and cities in the region, leading to many,
Speaker 2: leading many to surrender without a fight to avoid a
Speaker 2: similar fate. The massacre Beziers also instilled fear and terror
Speaker 2: in the hearts of those who resisted the Crusaders, furthering
Speaker 2: the Catholic Church's agenda to suppress the Cathar heresy. So
Speaker 2: that is kind of the background of what happened, at
Speaker 2: least from the Cathar's perspective. I thought it was pretty interesting,
Speaker 2: you know, just to throw it out there, like how
Speaker 2: it all happened, and you know, like and that's the thing,
Speaker 2: like and you can't even get people to agree if
Speaker 2: the Cathars were even a real people, which I will
Speaker 2: say it's next, which is kind of what it was
Speaker 2: alluding to. You know that, well, it's not possible that
Speaker 2: you had that many Cathars massacred because there weren't that
Speaker 2: many Cathars. You might say, well, that was the point,
Speaker 2: you know, it was just to go in the into
Speaker 2: the village. Look, this is known to be a Cathar region.
Speaker 2: I don't care if there's one or one thousand fucking
Speaker 2: murder everybody.
Speaker 3: Which is also interesting that it was Philip the second
Speaker 3: of France that did this, Although there's a little bit
Speaker 3: of some historical discrepancy on this one. That was in
Speaker 3: twelve oh seven, twelve oh nine, and it said the
Speaker 3: King Philip the Second led this alber Jean's crusade. Keep
Speaker 3: in mind that the knights Templars were also put on
Speaker 3: trial in thirteen oh nine by King Philip the Second.
Speaker 3: So we're talking about this king was the king for
Speaker 3: over one hundred years in France. That doesn't exactly align either. See,
Speaker 3: these are things where historical records aren't exactly lining up
Speaker 3: with reality. I'm not saying that old crusade did not happen,
Speaker 3: but to say that King Philip led it, I think
Speaker 3: it's a bit of a misnomer. But the crusade didn't
Speaker 3: last for one year, right, This lasted for like two
Speaker 3: hundred years. The last Cathars were killed in was it
Speaker 3: thirteen forties or something like that or something like that.
Speaker 2: But I will say, I mean, you want to talk
Speaker 2: about the cross of that crusade, you want to talk
Speaker 2: about the discrepancies of time. I mean, Moses lived when
Speaker 2: thirteen hundred BC or something like that.
Speaker 3: I said fourteen earlier. I don't, I don't know off top.
Speaker 3: We've talked about it before. But that when he was
Speaker 3: born or when he died, not one hundred percent sure. Honestly,
Speaker 3: I know that he was during the fucking Ramsey's the
Speaker 3: second So whatever timeframe we're talking about there says Moses
Speaker 3: lived nine hundred years. So that was Noah dog Oh
Speaker 3: I thought it was. Wasn't it Moses? No my tripping, Oh,
Speaker 3: I guess it would be Noah.
Speaker 2: I'm tripping, all right, Well Noah, anyway, Look, I know
Speaker 2: people are.
Speaker 3: Gonna come at me. He did see he doesn't know this.
Speaker 3: I'm like, no, I'm still trying to mix it up.
Speaker 3: My point is, though, even in medieval records, historically documented
Speaker 3: things that were only a few centuries ago, there is
Speaker 3: still some things where it's like open to wait a minute,
Speaker 3: that didn't exactly happen as they said, because that couldn't
Speaker 3: have because King Philip wasn't alive in twelve oh nine,
Speaker 3: So how did his name get associated with this? But
Speaker 3: he became the king of France later, so maybe they
Speaker 3: meant King Philip the first who knows, and maybe his
Speaker 3: son took on the mantle of this crusade against the
Speaker 3: Cathars after his dad died. But my point is, though
Speaker 3: if that if there's any water to be hailed within
Speaker 3: this conversation, we could say that the King of France
Speaker 3: was kind of on one as far as crusades and
Speaker 3: murder and all these things to try to make himself
Speaker 3: look like he was amazing, because he's gone down in
Speaker 3: history as King Philip the just so well, yeah, just
Speaker 3: that he was on one.
Speaker 2: He convinced the popes of it too, you know, So
Speaker 2: it's not like he was some kind of mad ruler
Speaker 2: or mad king. I mean he was, you know, given
Speaker 2: the green light by several popes.
Speaker 3: Well that's the thing too, right, How many of these
Speaker 3: popes did he act actually have in his pocket in
Speaker 3: certain regards, and how many of them saw him as like, oh,
Speaker 3: I gotta deal with this fucking guy. What's up Philip? Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: you're in debt again. I know, any chance you're gonna
Speaker 3: make your pain at this month? And well he's got
Speaker 3: to find a bad guy. He's got to find somebody
Speaker 3: to justify why France is in the shitter right now.
Speaker 3: Maybe it was the Cathars and later it became the
Speaker 3: Knights Templar and all these like I could understand historically,
Speaker 3: while politics probably play way more of a role than
Speaker 3: actual religious dogma.
Speaker 2: That being said, which is why I believe that the
Speaker 2: construction of the Bible had a lot to do with
Speaker 2: the political agenda of the time as well.
Speaker 3: I could understand the conversation on that. For sure. I
Speaker 3: have my own inherent beliefs as far as the construction
Speaker 3: of the Bible, but I understand why people would say
Speaker 3: that it was more of a political motivation rather than
Speaker 3: a spiritual one. Fair enough, Now that being said, let's
Speaker 3: talk about the possibility, just the possibility all, not saying
Speaker 3: this is a fact that the Cathars never actually existed.
Speaker 3: There's no way of denying the fact that there were
Speaker 3: Gnostic groups and sects and cults that operated in Europe
Speaker 3: and around the Mediterranean since the time of the first
Speaker 3: century AD until the fifteen hundreds. Like, absolutely this existed.
Speaker 3: But to this scale and scope that the Cathars have
Speaker 3: been talked about, and not only in this episode, by
Speaker 3: many historians for centuries. Is there actually something to be
Speaker 3: said here or is this one of those stories to
Speaker 3: where it was more of a myth that got put
Speaker 3: down onto paper and just kind of became what we
Speaker 3: now know is historical fact. And I'm going to share
Speaker 3: the screen.
Speaker 2: The people that say that are more or less like
Speaker 2: just apologetics.
Speaker 3: Could be, could be, But then we also have kind
Speaker 3: of a misconstrued historical accounts that would tell us at
Speaker 3: least a portion of this is correct and a big
Speaker 3: portion of this is incorrect, and this has led to
Speaker 3: a lot of scholarly debate here in the last few decades.
Speaker 3: I'm going to play a quick little section of this
Speaker 3: clip from Narcissism, Cat and Catherism Historical fact or a
Speaker 3: Delusion of the Inquisition. This is from Esoterica. It's a
Speaker 3: YouTube channel led by doctor Justin Sledge. I am a
Speaker 3: massive fan of him, by the way, because while he
Speaker 3: is Jewish, you could tell because he wears a yamaka.
Speaker 3: He does massive historical deep dives into the occult, the arcane,
Speaker 3: the mystics, and to show the historical precedence to this,
Speaker 3: real looks at what these people believed all of this.
Speaker 3: It is incredible the amount of work that he does,
Speaker 3: and that's what his doctorate is in is a matter
Speaker 3: of fact, so it's not like he's just speaking on
Speaker 3: this as a fanboy of esoteric knowledge. He speaks as
Speaker 3: a actual scholarly source on these things.
Speaker 2: To be fair, I do want to say too, just
Speaker 2: before you play this. If you're going in and ramsacking
Speaker 2: every village and allegedly taking out like every single Cathar,
Speaker 2: would there be much in the terms of relics or
Speaker 2: proof that they even existed anyway?
Speaker 3: Like I don't know.
Speaker 2: How much, but like if you deleted everybody, I can't
Speaker 2: imagine that there would be that much leftover.
Speaker 3: Jonathan, You're on the money. That's my point. That's my point. So, yeah,
Speaker 3: so there's no record of them. You can make the
Speaker 3: story as big and grandiose and heretical, and they're doing incests,
Speaker 3: they're doing beastiality. You can make the story whatever the
Speaker 3: fuck you want because there's nobody to go against that
Speaker 3: clean right, right. So, and I'm not saying that I
Speaker 3: agree with that wholeheartedly, but it is at least a
Speaker 3: theory that is being proposed. So let's listen to doctor
Speaker 3: Justin Sledge himself speak on it.
Speaker 5: Before getting to the specifics of the debate against the
Speaker 5: historical existence of the cutthars. Let's do some framing. First
Speaker 5: Medieval Studies is a surprisingly recent academic effort which only
Speaker 5: really took on a truly scientific rather than a simply
Speaker 5: antiquarian methodology, beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century. Indeed,
Speaker 5: it was only around then that the veritable mountain of
Speaker 5: medieval chronicles, manuscripts, testimonies, and other very obscure volumes was
Speaker 5: even properly documented sordid or even chronologically arranged for that matter.
Speaker 3: Honestly, this is still.
Speaker 5: A very much ongoing process, with new archival discoveries being
Speaker 5: made all the time. We're still sorting out just what
Speaker 5: happened in the Middle Ages. But it's to the mid
Speaker 5: nineteenth century that we must turn to witness the discovery
Speaker 5: or the invention depending on how you want to look
Speaker 5: at it of the Cathars, in the pioneering studies such
Speaker 5: as the eighteen forty nine Charles Schmidt, and the concretizing
Speaker 5: of what is now called the traditionalist narrative in the
Speaker 5: mid twentieth century, especially in the studies of folks like
Speaker 5: Herbert Grundemann, and more recent standard accounts like those of
Speaker 5: the too Malcolm Barber and Lambert Claire Taylor and others.
Speaker 5: So to see what the skeptical camp is rejecting, let's
Speaker 5: lay out the traditionalist position briefly, This position holds that
Speaker 5: a dualist variant of Christianity was introduced into Central Europe
Speaker 5: and took hold, especially in northern Italy and France, especially
Speaker 5: in the Languedoc region of France, with its origins in
Speaker 5: a Eastern European dualist school known as Bogomilism. Such a
Speaker 5: dualist religion may indeed even have its roots way further
Speaker 5: back into the Gnostic schools of late Antiquity, and while
Speaker 5: there existed some internal variation, the central core was that
Speaker 5: reality was divided into ontologically distinct good slash spiritual and
Speaker 5: evil slash physical camps. Human souls were originally angelic beings
Speaker 5: tempted out of heaven into a evil physical world, such
Speaker 5: that that if they don't undergo a process of spiritual purification,
Speaker 5: they would be caught in a cycle of reincarnation forever.
Speaker 5: To achieve this, the Cauthars had spiritual leaders who led
Speaker 5: lives of strict purity, the Prefecti, who would welcome other
Speaker 5: believers or supporters into a life of purity at the
Speaker 5: end of their lives in the soul Cauthar sacrament, the Consolamentum.
Speaker 5: The Caathars rejected the Hebrew Bible as the work of
Speaker 5: the evil God, and denied that Jesus even had a
Speaker 5: physical body at all, its appearance being a kind of illusioned.
Speaker 5: They consumed a pescatarian diet, arguing that creatures born from
Speaker 5: sexual union bore reincarnated spirits. It seems that they thought
Speaker 5: that fish were somehow generated spontaneously. This was a not
Speaker 5: uncommon belief in the Middle Ages, and it's interesting that
Speaker 5: Jewish law also doesn't consider fish meat. In the areas
Speaker 5: where Katharism proved popular, they formed a mostly flat but
Speaker 5: still variegated ecclesiastical structure, with bishops and various forms of administration.
Speaker 5: In this way, and this is really crucial, they formed
Speaker 5: a popular and rapidly spreading counter church to the Catholic Church,
Speaker 5: and it was precisely this that led to the onslaught
Speaker 5: of the Albagensian Crusade and the subsequent generations of inquisitorial
Speaker 5: persecution of the Cathars, resulting in the landmark inquisitors manual
Speaker 5: practic inquisitiones hered k Privitatis of Bernard GHI, with the
Speaker 5: last known Cathar's execution in autumn of thirteen twenty one.
Speaker 5: Of course, there are numerous other things that can be
Speaker 5: said about this Kathar story. The political inns and outs
Speaker 5: involved in the origins and progression of the Albagencian Crusade.
Speaker 5: The military aspects of the crusade itself, mostly a history
Speaker 5: of siege and slaughter. The development of absolute versus moderate dualism.
Speaker 5: The variations on the fall myth. Other alleged Cathar text,
Speaker 5: especially the Liber duobos prinkipiis or the Book of the
Speaker 5: Two Principles, which you best believe is going to get
Speaker 5: its entire own episode. The exact relationship between Satan and
Speaker 5: the so called rex Mundi or the King of the World.
Speaker 5: The role of the Bogo mill misship Nikitas.
Speaker 3: If he existed at all.
Speaker 5: All in all, I think this captures the main dimensions
Speaker 5: of the Kathar narrative as it's come down to us,
Speaker 5: both in academic studies in the past one hundred and
Speaker 5: fifty years, but also in Dan brown popular culture, conspiracy theories,
Speaker 5: and the popular castle tours in the Languadoc region. I
Speaker 5: think I've even drank Kathar wine in Languidoc at some point.
Speaker 5: But by the nineteen nineties, a group of medievalists and
Speaker 5: heresy studies. Scholars began to question this narrative in a
Speaker 5: profoundly radical narrative. Their conclusion is astounding. There just weren't
Speaker 5: ever any Cathars at all. They just didn't exist. Now,
Speaker 5: to get at their counter arguments, I want to lay
Speaker 5: out what I take to be the core of their skepticism.
Speaker 5: The central pillar that skeptics take aim at is the
Speaker 5: idea that there existed a unified dualist, heretical or dissident
Speaker 5: movement organized into a counter ecclesiastical body in Europe, or
Speaker 5: especially in the lands of Languidoc under the protection of
Speaker 5: the Count of Toulouse, with a unified body of beliefs
Speaker 5: and practices taken together and known as the Cathars or
Speaker 5: Katharism in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries, with its origins
Speaker 5: in Balkan Bogomilism. Now, let's be really careful and clear here.
Speaker 5: Both the traditionalists and the skeptics agree that some type
Speaker 5: of acute religious dissidents was present in Languidoc, and that
Speaker 5: dualism does eventually appear to be emerging thread. Indeed, if
Speaker 5: the Cathars did exist, they would join the ranks of
Speaker 5: other established her movements such as the Waldensians, whose existence
Speaker 5: both Cathar skeptics and traditionalists agree upon. So when the
Speaker 5: skeptics argue that there were no Cathars or that Catharism
Speaker 5: didn't exist as such, they are taking aim at the
Speaker 5: traditionalist position that religious dissidents was organized into a duellist
Speaker 5: counter of movement to the Catholic Church. But why what
Speaker 5: warrants such skepticism. Let's work through some of their central arguments.
Speaker 5: The first is that the term cathar just doesn't really
Speaker 5: appear in the records of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
Speaker 5: in the area of Languedoc. No one seems to really
Speaker 5: call others cathars. The inquisitors just used the general term heretics,
Speaker 5: and no one identifies as a Cathar in the records.
Speaker 5: No one says I'm a Cathar and I belong to
Speaker 5: the Cathar church. That's conspicuous. If there were Cathars, why
Speaker 5: didn't anyone use that term for them? Now, the term
Speaker 5: cathar is deployed by someone like Expert of Schoenau to
Speaker 5: describe an alleged group of heretics in the eleven forties,
Speaker 5: which he also likens to Manicheanism, the ancient dualist religion,
Speaker 5: which at that time had long since gone extinct. Also,
Speaker 5: he's referring to people in Cologne, in the area of Germany,
Speaker 5: not in the area of languid doc Now that linkage
Speaker 5: to extinct Manicheanism is going to be really important again
Speaker 5: in just a moment, so hold on to it. Secondly,
Speaker 5: is the problem of the source material. Prior to the
Speaker 5: thirteenth century, there's a real paucity, but through the thirteenth century,
Speaker 5: documentation geometrically explodes in volume, especially in the post Crusade
Speaker 5: Inquisitorial period. Further, these sources, according to the skeptics, have
Speaker 5: been incorrectly read on a number of fronts. First, they
Speaker 5: just historically haven't been read in chronological order. Often traditionalists
Speaker 5: start with later texts from the inquisitorial period, in which
Speaker 5: dualism is sometimes apparent, and then those texts are used
Speaker 5: as evidence for what existed in previous periods as much
Speaker 5: as two centuries earlier. When read in chronological order, according
Speaker 5: to the skeptics, what we see is a generalized dissonance
Speaker 5: being shaped by the leading questions of the Inquisition, so
Speaker 5: as to construct the very thing that they sought to
Speaker 5: discover in the testimony. That is, the inquisition went looking
Speaker 5: for dualist heresy, and by guiding the interrogations through loaded
Speaker 5: and leading questions, found what they were looking for. Whether
Speaker 5: it was there or not. Why dualist heresy to start with,
Speaker 5: though the skeptics argue this emerges from framing the local
Speaker 5: dissidence in Languedoc in classical patristic heresiological terms. More on
Speaker 5: this and a moment to make matters worse. Many of
Speaker 5: the session were conducted through multiple layers of translation from
Speaker 5: Ossitan to French to Latin and back. Many of the
Speaker 5: records of the inquisitional translations of interrogations where Northern French
Speaker 5: speakers are engaging with people speaking Ossitan, and then that
Speaker 5: being transcribed into Latin. These languages were in use, so
Speaker 5: that the records may have been poorly translated or even
Speaker 5: doctor to make the reality of heresy much more real
Speaker 5: than it really was.
Speaker 3: All right, So, if anybody wants to go and look
Speaker 3: at the entire thirty minute video from doctor Justin Sledge,
Speaker 3: I highly recommend it. But essentially what he is saying
Speaker 3: is that the accounts that we have of the quote
Speaker 3: unquote Cathars were typically given at the behest of medieval torture,
Speaker 3: right the same way that King James wrote. The King
Speaker 3: James Bible allegedly says that he got confessions from these
Speaker 3: witches that they had cursed him and his wife and
Speaker 3: his children and all these things. He got those confessions
Speaker 3: from torture, right the same way that the It's simpler allegedly,
Speaker 3: you know, gave testimonies that they were spinning on the
Speaker 3: cross and doing all these things with the head of
Speaker 3: John the Baptist. They acknowledged that after they had been
Speaker 3: tortured for days and weeks and monthly whatever, I just
Speaker 3: stop torturing me kind of thing. So it's very possible,
Speaker 3: and I'm not saying this is one hundred percent fact.
Speaker 3: I'm saying that it's very possible that a lot of
Speaker 3: these Cathar arguments were given at the behest of torture
Speaker 3: for god knows how long about people that may have
Speaker 3: had a dualistic belief system. Maybe not. Maybe they were
Speaker 3: just political dissidents and they were trying to get them
Speaker 3: to admit anything to make them seem like they were
Speaker 3: more and more of an issue than they actually were.
Speaker 3: And through the course of history, they have been named
Speaker 3: the Cathars, the Albergianzi and Crusade. Somewhere is saying that
Speaker 3: there was like two hundred thousand, and I've heard stories
Speaker 3: saying upwards of a million people. Here's the deal. The
Speaker 3: population of France at this time was weive, ever, take
Speaker 3: somewhere around seven to eight. Some accounts are saying nine
Speaker 3: million people. So you're telling me that one out of
Speaker 3: every nine people in France was a Cathar. As they
Speaker 3: were saying that this was only sequestered to the Lunguedoc
Speaker 3: region of France. Again, I'm not saying that Languedoc didn't
Speaker 3: have a dualist Gnostic style religious movement that was trying
Speaker 3: to take root, but I'm saying that the numbers have
Speaker 3: probably been conflated, the stories have probably been conflated, and
Speaker 3: the remaining texts that we do have, like the Secret Supper,
Speaker 3: for instance, how do we know that that's also not
Speaker 3: a plagiarism, very similar to the Book of Enoch and
Speaker 3: the Book of Jasher. I don't know these things to
Speaker 3: be a fact, but that is at least what these
Speaker 3: skeptics are saying as of this time. So I just
Speaker 3: looked it up.
Speaker 2: It says estimates suggest that between two hundred thousand to
Speaker 2: one million Cathars were killed during the Aubagenci and Crusade,
Speaker 2: which lasted from twelve oh nine to twelve twenty nine.
Speaker 2: This campaign is considered by some historians to be an
Speaker 2: act of genocide against the Cathars.
Speaker 3: That's that's from Wikipedia.
Speaker 2: So and you also got to think, like, even if
Speaker 2: it's two hundred thousand, I don't know how many people
Speaker 2: were over there, but it is still over the course
Speaker 2: of twenty years, which is a generation is considered twenty years, right,
Speaker 2: I guess it depends.
Speaker 3: On how you list the generation. But to that point though,
Speaker 3: if the national give or take, they didn't have like
Speaker 3: really great census bureaus at this time, so they're eltimating here,
Speaker 3: right right. Obviously they're estimating that the population of France
Speaker 3: was probably somewhere around seven to eight million, possibly nine
Speaker 3: and they are arguing that somewhere between two hundred thousand
Speaker 3: and one million. Bro, that's a bit of a jump,
Speaker 3: it is.
Speaker 2: That is not a little number, right, right, yeah, because
Speaker 2: how how can you gather such numbers exactly? So I'm
Speaker 2: not again I'm not saying, but there absolutely was a
Speaker 2: crusade that was levied against people for whatever reason the
Speaker 2: Catholic Church Pope Innocent, carried out by the next two
Speaker 2: popes and kings and whatnot that like, like, I don't know,
Speaker 2: just fucking completely wiped out villages for one reason or another.
Speaker 2: Maybe you could say it was because of their Catholic ways,
Speaker 2: or because of their Gnostic ways, or maybe it's maybe
Speaker 2: they were talking shit, so we gotta fucking go let
Speaker 2: them know that that ain't gonna slide.
Speaker 3: You know. Or was it because of political ideations that
Speaker 3: they then took and spun to make it a religious war?
Speaker 3: In reality, it was a political war, the exact same
Speaker 3: thing that was done to the Knights Templar. When you
Speaker 3: look at that, the King of France owed the Knights
Speaker 3: Templar like an insurmountable amount of money, so rather than
Speaker 3: pay his debts, he spun a narrative saying, there are
Speaker 3: a bunch of heretics and homosexuals and we need to
Speaker 3: kill them all, and he got out of having to
Speaker 3: pay his debt. Is it possible that the same King
Speaker 3: of France, allegedly depending on the source, did the exact
Speaker 3: same thing to the Languadoc region for political reasons rather
Speaker 3: than spiritual reasons. They got the pope to sign off
Speaker 3: on it for corruption reasons.
Speaker 2: The term heretic is always seen as a good enough
Speaker 2: reason to go to right, got too, Yeah, Like it
Speaker 2: might be some underlying shit. Maybe I don't know, maybe
Speaker 2: you want to just fuck Homie's wife or something like that.
Speaker 2: Whatever heretic, All right, I found you know, these people
Speaker 2: only eat vegetables.
Speaker 3: I mean, Satan dog burned them, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: And so very well could have been something like that.
Speaker 2: And whenever I talk about these things, I'm not speaking
Speaker 2: of if like I know, I'm not a historian by
Speaker 2: any means. I just watched a few documentaries, I read
Speaker 2: some articles. I thought it was really fascinating. So very
Speaker 2: well could have been for political reasons. Very well could
Speaker 2: have been just because they were Gnostics, and maybe they
Speaker 2: were pulling some of the uh, some of the Catholics
Speaker 2: into their belief I don't know.
Speaker 3: It's very possible that the story that we've been told
Speaker 3: for centuries it happened exactly the way that it has.
Speaker 3: Like he just said, this is a more recent quote
Speaker 3: unquote debunking of the narrative, and it is still hotly debated.
Speaker 3: So please don't think that I'm coming at it saying
Speaker 3: that all this is bullshit. I do not know, but
Speaker 3: if we are going to give the entire story of
Speaker 3: the Cathars, we do in fact need to bring in
Speaker 3: to take that full third eye all the way open here,
Speaker 3: we got to take in the full picture. There are
Speaker 3: some that say that this was one of the darkest
Speaker 3: annals of the Catholic Church's history, and there are some
Speaker 3: that say that this was a myth that got blasted
Speaker 3: into legend. I am personally of the belief that the
Speaker 3: truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I don't know
Speaker 3: that to be a fact either, but just speaking on
Speaker 3: behalf of what I believe, with all the information that
Speaker 3: we have read in on this day, I think it's
Speaker 3: probably somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 2: Right, And that's with most things, you know, like it's
Speaker 2: always somewhere in the middle. There's His truth, herd truth,
Speaker 2: and then the truth kind of thing. So, yeah, just
Speaker 2: kind of wanted to bring it up. That's not something
Speaker 2: that you know.
Speaker 3: I've heard of the Cathars, but I'd never really heard
Speaker 3: much about them. I didn't know that they were even
Speaker 3: into Gnosticism.
Speaker 2: I thought that it was just like, I don't know,
Speaker 2: like Lutheran or something like that, you know, just another
Speaker 2: branch of Christianity.
Speaker 3: Another thing that he brought up was the Waldians. They're
Speaker 3: still around today, as a matter of fact. They have
Speaker 3: a church in New York and in North Carolina, and
Speaker 3: they are also seen as a duellist sect that calls
Speaker 3: themselves Christian, but are a lot more Gnostic in belief.
Speaker 3: So not all of these crusades took out all the
Speaker 3: Gnostic beliefs, and those Waldians can claim their direct lineage
Speaker 3: to the Waldians in question from the Middle Ages.
Speaker 2: Oh fuck yah, happy that some of them still exist. Then,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that you have to have multiple
Speaker 2: different beliefs out there, because to say that you know
Speaker 2: is that's a there's no way for us to know,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean, outside of faith and belief.
Speaker 2: And I don't care who you are. You don't know
Speaker 2: shit about why we're here, where we're going, or anything
Speaker 2: like that outside of taking it on faith. That's the
Speaker 2: facts of it, right, And so I think that you
Speaker 2: need to have multiple different theories, multiple different thoughts. Could
Speaker 2: it be this could it be that because you're never
Speaker 2: going to convince one hundred percent of everybody of one thing.
Speaker 3: It's never going to happen.
Speaker 2: It can't. And so you can't just say, well, fuck
Speaker 2: those people that don't believe. No, they're still here, like
Speaker 2: they're still human, they still have you know, sons and daughters,
Speaker 2: they still go to work, they still pay taxes.
Speaker 3: You know what I mean.
Speaker 2: Like, you can't just completely disregard the non believers. You
Speaker 2: still have to bring them into account. They need something
Speaker 2: to believe too, you know, because we all need something
Speaker 2: to believe, because if you don't believe in anything, then
Speaker 2: I mean, what the fuck is the point.
Speaker 3: Nobody should murder someone else because of a belief system,
Speaker 3: Like you shouldn't go to war over this. But at
Speaker 3: the end of the day, whether it's political beliefs, religious beliefs,
Speaker 3: financial beliefs, whatever the case, that is what has spurned
Speaker 3: on so much conflict within the human race and also
Speaker 3: to the people that are gonna come at you for
Speaker 3: the things that you said on this episode. Jonathan is
Speaker 3: not trying to attack the Christian faith. Let's get this
Speaker 3: out of the way.
Speaker 2: Now, and you're not further satanic by any means just
Speaker 2: everybody knows this.
Speaker 3: But you're also not a gnostic and you know why
Speaker 3: you're not because you like to fuck. And if you
Speaker 3: like to fuck, good Cult member, we have a deal
Speaker 3: for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, go and check out Adam and Eve dot com
Speaker 2: if you are not gnostic. I mean, hey, some there
Speaker 2: was gray areas. I'm sure gnostics. Some gnostics were fucking.
Speaker 2: But I'll tell you one thing they didn't have that
Speaker 2: you have access to, and that's Adam and Eve dot
Speaker 2: com and using the promo code cult to get fifty
Speaker 2: percent off your entire order free shipping discreet shipping.
Speaker 3: You get ten free goodies with that too. You need
Speaker 3: a cock ring? Who doesn't need a cock ring?
Speaker 2: Spice it up, baby, Throw it around your dick, throw
Speaker 2: it around your balls, do it whatever you want.
Speaker 3: Maybe you just want to wear it as a wedding
Speaker 3: ring just to be funny. I don't know, but whatever
Speaker 3: you want to do for whatever kind of reason, we
Speaker 3: have everything over at Adam and Eve dot com and
Speaker 3: it greatly, uh, you know, supports the show, so we
Speaker 3: appreciate everybody that does that does so could you imagine
Speaker 3: that I'm guarantee some sick, fucking couple out there has
Speaker 3: exchanged a cockering and a vaginal aperture in some way,
Speaker 3: shape or form, in exchange of wedding rings. But you
Speaker 3: know you're talking about why you're not. Yeah, yeah, But
Speaker 3: another reason why Jonathan is not a Gnostic slash of
Speaker 3: Cathar is because he does, in fact believe in the
Speaker 3: sacred Herb, and that is a physical thing, and the
Speaker 3: Gnostics believe that everything physical was evil. And if you
Speaker 3: would like to experience a sacred Herb in liquid form,
Speaker 3: in drink form, Jonathan, we got a deal for that too,
Speaker 3: don't we. Now there was a spirits of thine and
Speaker 3: divine herb, but if you'd rather drink it, we do
Speaker 3: have a partnership with a cannabis seltzer company called Good
Speaker 3: Feels that has a unique range of THHC infuse drinks
Speaker 3: perfect for relaxation and enjoyment.
Speaker 2: There's no sugar, no sugar, no carbs, very high quality
Speaker 2: if you're into that kind of thing. If you want
Speaker 2: to just go out for social gatherings, you don't want
Speaker 2: to drink the alcohol.
Speaker 3: You don't need a hangover.
Speaker 2: You just want to be able to take a load off,
Speaker 2: get the monkey off your back and hang out with
Speaker 2: everybody else who's drinking. But you don't want to be
Speaker 2: a square. Maybe you're more of a smoker, but you
Speaker 2: just want to be able to mix in. You don't
Speaker 2: want to be that guy that's walking around with a
Speaker 2: dobe full of people that are walking around with wineglasses.
Speaker 2: Go ahead and get you a good feel. Cannabis selter,
Speaker 2: They're delicious. There's five milligrams of THHC in every can,
Speaker 2: one milligran of CBD as well. So a little healing,
Speaker 2: a little numbing, you know, get back right with nature,
Speaker 2: get a little balance in your life. And that's what
Speaker 2: good feels can bring to you. So just go ahead
Speaker 2: and click that link below. The twenty percent discount will
Speaker 2: already be included.
Speaker 3: Indeed, and if you would like to experience healing technology
Speaker 3: of the non physical, yet somehow completely physical variety, come
Speaker 3: check out Real Rife Technologies. Use the promo code Cult
Speaker 3: at checkout to get ten percent off your order and
Speaker 3: free shipping to your door. Our homeboy, Matthew Rife, the
Speaker 3: great nephew of Royal Raymond Rife, the one that developed
Speaker 3: this technology, has a deal going on for all of
Speaker 3: our good cult members and if you would like to
Speaker 3: experience how sound frequencies can actually do real physical healing
Speaker 3: on your body, then you need to get involved with it.
Speaker 3: Go to Realrifetechnology dot com and get your rife machine today.
Speaker 3: And again, Yes, the Gnostics and the Cathars and the
Speaker 3: Waldians and the what was the other on bullions whatever
Speaker 3: they were from Bulgaria, they didn't want anything to do
Speaker 3: with the physical realm. But here's the deal. We do
Speaker 3: live in this physical realm as of this moment. We're
Speaker 3: souls having a physical human experience. And you don't need
Speaker 3: to live in poverty. You need to set something up
Speaker 3: for a financial future, right, you need to do something
Speaker 3: for your retirement, nest egg. The best and easiest thing
Speaker 3: to do would be involved with some precious metals, some
Speaker 3: gold and silver, bully and some minted coins. And if
Speaker 3: you let to get your start in the buying and
Speaker 3: selling of gold and silver, buoyan and minted coins and
Speaker 3: go to the Lincoln the description below to Coecsilver dot com.
Speaker 3: When you fill out your information, our homeboy Wayne Clark
Speaker 3: is gonna be the one to reach out to you
Speaker 3: and get you squared away. Do you want to buy
Speaker 3: a little bit of gold and silver, a lot a
Speaker 3: bit of gold and silver. Here, listen, here's the deal.
Speaker 3: The kings and queens of old new that silver and
Speaker 3: gold were a great monetary system, and the kings of
Speaker 3: our modern day and age understand that as well. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's a fiat currency system, but that's going to collapse.
Speaker 3: The math is the math, and it's going to collapse eventually.
Speaker 3: They're gonna want something tangible that you're able to cash
Speaker 3: in when that time comes. Silver and gold has always
Speaker 3: maintained a value and they are going to continue to
Speaker 3: increase some value as time goes on. Gold's over three
Speaker 3: thousand dollars an ounce. Unless you got deep pockets, you're
Speaker 3: not buying a gold coin, okay. But silver is a
Speaker 3: little over forty dollars an ounce. It's attainable, it's affordable,
Speaker 3: and it will just continue to increase in value because
Speaker 3: that's how the world works. While it's so affordable. Cocsilver
Speaker 3: dot com link in the description below and get your
Speaker 3: start today. But we want to hear from you, good
Speaker 3: cult members. How do you feel about the Gnostics, about
Speaker 3: the cattars? Is this base in reality? Is this basin
Speaker 3: a myth? Where's you following as far as their belief
Speaker 3: system goes, Do you think they were on something with
Speaker 3: the epescatarian diet? Do you believe that this world is
Speaker 3: inherently evil? We want to hear from you, and the
Speaker 3: best place to let us know would be too Please
Speaker 3: hit the five stars, hit the shares of likes, scribes comment,
Speaker 3: leave a post, reviews, chairs their friends, family shares. If
Speaker 3: we're here's the deal. The more activity the outgoim sees
Speaker 3: across all of our listening platforms, the more we get
Speaker 3: promoted to more potential listeners who could have become potential
Speaker 3: court members. Right Chris, you fine ladies and gentlemen, why
Speaker 3: you're at it? Go check out Minimistics Jonzones of the
Speaker 3: show and he give them the same level of respect
Speaker 3: over here at the five star reviews and the positivity
Speaker 3: in the comments. Come check out CAJA Night and come
Speaker 3: to like each of us were our individual patriars that
Speaker 3: we host every Wednesday night night being Central Banks. Those
Speaker 3: are in the description as well, and we thank you.
Speaker 3: Everybody's already gone and done so. By the way, Moses
Speaker 3: still lived a fucking long time. He lived one hundred
Speaker 3: and twenty years. God damn he lived a long time
Speaker 3: if he existed. But with that being said, this was
Speaker 3: another beautiful episode. I'm the Cult of Conspiracy and my
Speaker 3: name's Jonathan. I'm jacking. There's one very important true the
Speaker 3: vital piece of information we need you to learn just
Speaker 3: as soon as humanly possible. Of Hey, cult members, Jacob
Speaker 3: here just want to ask who wants better sex? The
Speaker 3: best way to get started is to go to Adam
Speaker 3: and Eve dot com Right now. Adam Eve is offering
Speaker 3: fifty percent off just about any item, but that's not all.
Speaker 3: When you get one item, they will also send three
Speaker 3: bonus sexy items and six free movies. They offered a
Speaker 3: screet shipping as your privacy is a priority. Plus free
Speaker 3: shipping on your entire order doesn't matter how much you
Speaker 3: spend or what you buy. All we packaged and sent
Speaker 3: discreetly for free. That's fifty percent off one item and
Speaker 3: ten free gifts to boot bring more pleasure and satisfaction
Speaker 3: into your bedroom. Just go to Adam and Eve dot
Speaker 3: com and select any one item. It could be an
Speaker 3: adventurous new toy or anything you desire. Just enter the
Speaker 3: offer code cult at checkout and you'll get fifty percent
Speaker 3: off almost any item, plus ten free gifts, three bonus items,
Speaker 3: six free movies, and free shipping. Use the offer code CULT.
Speaker 3: That's c U l T at Adam and Eve dot com. Now,
Speaker 3: this is an exclusive offer specific to this podcast, so
Speaker 3: be sure to use this code to get you not
Speaker 3: just the discount and the free goodies, but also the
Speaker 3: one hundred percent free shipping with the code CULT