Talk:Albigensian Crusade

message: User:Monochrome Monitor removed this article from  with the justification "debatable, as the section indicates". However, I don't think putting an article in that category should require universal agreement among scholars that it was a genocide. The scholarly debate about whether this is a genocide is informative to those trying to understand the topic of genocide, and so on that grounds alone it should be included in the category. Hence, I am putting it back in. SJK (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As another data point,  is a subcategory of , despite the fact that many historians in Turkey dispute the label of "genocide". So, by the same logic, the fact that some historians dispute that this was a genocide does not mean it cannot be added to that category. I think, it should be enough if it is a mainstream (rather than fringe) opinion among relevant scholars, even if it is not a universal one. And, given that Lemkin (who coined the very word genocide) considered the Albigensian Crusade to be one, the viewpoint that it was a genocide cannot fairly be labelled "fringe". SJK (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I know the Genocide Convention. The "religious" part has never been used to charge people with genocide under international law, except in the case of ethnoreligious groups. (bosniaks, armenians, jews...) Lempkin is not the ultimate authority on genocide. Is Watson the world's foremost authority on DNA? Do you realize what a slippery slope it is... so many other religious groups ("heretics") were anihilated in "holy wars". It was not the people they were targeting, it was their ideas- not the way they were born.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply a question of definition. Do we define genocide to include attempts to destroy a religious group? The Genocide Convention says yes. Lemkin says yes. You can't compare Lemkin to Watson, since Lemkin coined a new word, which makes him somewhat of an authority on what it means – by contrast, Watson and Crick didn't even discover DNA, which was already a known substance, nor were they the first to call it by the name "deoxyribonucleic acid", they were simply the first to correctly identify its structure (as their paper makes clear) – besides, DNA is something clearly identifiable in nature, whereas "genocide" is simply an attempt to put a label on some subset of human behaviour which (the vast majority of) people consider gravely wrong, which means that the definitional boundaries of "genocide" are inherently going to be much more arbitrary than those of "DNA". I'd add, as far as I can see, the "historical debate" on this topic isn't actually a historical debate at all, just a debate about how to define the word "genocide" – those who say that the Albigensian Crusade wasn't a genocide don't actually have any disagreement about historical events from those who say that it was, they simply believe the word "genocide" should be given a narrower definition. The real subject of the debate then is not in fact the Albigensian Crusade, but whether to adopt a narrower or broader definition of the word "genocide". SJK (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cat|Genocides}} 

message: Removed the sentences from the Cathar theology section, "On baptism, Cathars claimed that the sacrament should only be given to adults. Cathars regarded baptism not as a sign of God's grace, to be bestowed on anyone, but as necessitating the conscious decision of an adult.
This is left over from an earlier edit that mistakenly identified Henry the Petrobrusian (Henry of Lausanne) as a Cathar preacher. On page 54 of The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade, Costen describes the beliefs of Henry the Petrobrusian as, "Baptism, the first of all sacraments, became the outward sign of a conscious decision of the adult, not a supernatural gift of Grace from God." Costen is describing Henry the Petrobrusian, not Cathar beliefs. I removed the citation with the sentences because p. 54 is only about Peter de Bruys and Henry the Petrobrusian and does not say anything about the Cathars.
According to the Wikipedia article Catharism, they "refused to partake in the practice of Baptism by water" which they saw as "the false sacrament of baptism." Cathars were anti-sacerdotal and had only one central rite, the Consolamentum, which was immersion (or baptism) in the Holy Spirit. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptism 

message: The Pilgrim Church is unsourced revisionist history. It's a work of Baptist successionist apologetics. As such, it's not a proper source for historical background. 2600:4040:2B8D:F800:7DEB:817D:37D3:C046 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Pilgrim Church'', by Broadbent, E. H. (1931) is a not a reliable source for background information on Catharism