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