Bede

No evidence, Michael?

Nevermind, I hardly expect you to admit it.

Time for another break from this madhouse of a discussion board.

Ta, all.

NOGO

Instead of using propaganda as you have above behaps it would have been better for you to show with evidence where I have used it.

This statement is really puzzling. You made the statement that you and some enlightened atheists accept the evidence as is. The evidence you are talking about is the Gospels. So I ask you if you accept a passage in the Gospel of Matthew. What is so mysterious about that.

You missed an essential element. Let me point it out to you.
"YOU ARE TESTIFYING AGAINST YOURSELVES"

What this means to me is that by saying that they are the children of those who killed prophets the Pharisees are incriminating themselves.

What does that mean to you?

Why have you so conveniently ommitted this part?

Is this is the part that you cannot accept?

If the Pharisees are testifying against themselves for being the children of those who killed the prophets then Jesus is saying that they are guilty by association.


"more than just this last crime"

Then it includes this last crime which is just being the children of those who killed prophets.


As I thought. You do not accept the evidence as is.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Blown away, so now you are running away. Can't even read a simple scholarly paper. I can't believe you thought Darnton's paper on the Great Cat Massacre had anything to do with Stephen's point. You're a sad case, Bede. Come back when you have evidence that any of our claims about cats, demons and the middle ages are a myth.

Let's have Stephen's quote again:

"I've read that in Medieval times, the Church preached that cats were the work of the devil, consequently priests and their lackeys went out on cat hunts, the cats they caught being put in baskets which were hung from posts and set fire to."

And from Encyclopedia.com:

"Cats were venerated in the ancient Egyptian and Norse religions; they have also been the object of superstitious fear, especially in the Middle Ages, when they were tortured and burned as witches."

And what did we have from Bede? Bede's disproof of Stephen's statement consisted of an article about an event in the 18th century that nowhere discusses in any detail the events of the Middle Ages.

The really ironic thing here is that if you follow the back links on the website Bede cited, you will soon come to the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/pashathecat/History/Cat.html" target="_blank">main page on the history of cats</a>, where it says:

• "Generally during the Middle Ages, however, cats were feared and hated. Because of their nocturnal habits, they were believed to consort with the devil. This association with witchcraft has been responsible for many acts of cruelty toward cats through the centuries."

Bede said:
"If they did it in the Middles Ages too, we have no records....So, you are blaming something on the Church they actually had nothing to do with and, if anything, opposed."

But, as a Papal Bull describing cats as satanic showed, the Church was very much a major factor in the cat killings of the Middle Ages.

Poor Bede. All he had to do is graciously admit that he misunderstood the Darnton article, and actually has not yet made his case that Stephen has bought into myths. Instead, he runs away after fouling up massively. I was right -- he has been taking Nomad lessons.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Bede

Michael,

You are still being a hypocrite (yes, I'm rising to the bate, fool that I am).

Stephen and you have presented no scholarly evidence that priests hunted cats in the Middle Ages. All you have is some unreferenced scraps from the internet which, as you should have learnt by now, tells us nothing.

Instead, Stephen's story sounds remarkably similar to something we know happened later and is reported by Darnton (who mentions events back to the sixteenth century and NOT just one event in the eighteenth).

My contention - Darnton is saying what really happened and what he describes has been added to 'priest' and 'middle ages' to produce the myth as repeated by your sources. This is, as you also know, how myths are often constructed. You sceptics give Christians enough lessons about this so your should be able to recognise the tell tail signs of the process.

Actually, I have no doubt cats were hunted in the Middle Ages even though there are no records. However, I want to see real evidence before I accept that priests were involved or such behavior was a regular church sanctioned activity(the bull you have in mind simply mentions cats in a long list of popular superstitions which are clearly picked up from folklore).

In summary we have a fact: cats were hunted by superstitious non-clerics in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. We have a contention: cats were hunted by priests and their lackies in the the Middle Ages. A reasonable person, knowing as much about the formation of mythology as you and I, can easily see how one could lead to the other and until direct evidence for the later is produced, the reasonable person will contend it is myth.

And that, Michael, is that.

Incidently, I note Nomad has been welcomed and accepted by the academics on crosstalk while your effort was panned for being inappropriate. As academia is what interests me, rather than ranting with you lot here, I think I'll take some more Nomad lessons.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

Michael,

You are still being a hypocrite (yes, I'm rising to the bate, fool that I am).

Stephen and you have presented no scholarly evidence that priests hunted cats in the Middle Ages. All you have is some unreferenced scraps from the internet which, as you should have learnt by now, tells us nothing.

I have no doubt that the deaths of cats in the Middle Ages due to folk beliefs are greatly exaggerated....

Instead, Stephen's story sounds remarkably similar to something we know happened later and is reported by Darnton (who mentions events back to the sixteenth century and NOT just one event in the eighteenth).

No doubt because, as Darnton carefully documents, these beliefs and ideas go back long before the event in question.

My contention - Darnton is saying what really happened and what he describes has been added to 'priest' and 'middle ages' to produce the myth as repeated by your sources. This is, as you also know, how myths are often constructed. You sceptics give Christians enough lessons about this so your should be able to recognise the tell tail signs of the process.

Problem being, that pesky Papal Bull defining the satanic nature of cats. Problem being, that pesky charge against Jacques Demolay that accused him of worshipping the devil in the form of a great cat. Why that particular animal, unless the Church had connected it to evil? Why were cats burnt inside an effigy of the Pope at Elizabeth I's coronation?

Actually, I have no doubt cats were hunted in the Middle Ages even though there are no records.

Actually, cats were widely eaten in the Middle Ages, and recipe books from the 14th century exist with cat recipes. Apparently they were considered just the thing to take the edge off being besieged.

However, I want to see real evidence before I accept that priests were involved or such behavior was a regular church sanctioned activity(the bull you have in mind simply mentions cats in a long list of popular superstitions which are clearly picked up from folklore).

&gt;shrug&lt; No doubt the Pope did pick up the ideas from popular lore. The point is, though, that the Church gave its imprimatur to cate-hating, just as Stephen claimed.

In summary we have a fact: cats were hunted by superstitious non-clerics in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. We have a contention: cats were hunted by priests and their lackies in the the Middle Ages. A reasonable person, knowing as much about the formation of mythology as you and I, can easily see how one could lead to the other and until direct evidence for the later is produced, the reasonable person will contend it is myth.

Bede, so far you have not produced even a shred of evidence to lead anyone to conclude that the widely reported persecutions of cats in the Middle Ages were a myth. All you've done is put up an article that covers the folk beliefs of Frenchman about cats, and pretended that it addresses Stephen's points. It does not. I may only have the Columbia encyclopedia, but that is all I need so far.

And that, Michael, is that.

And that Bede, is nothing.

Incidently, I note Nomad has been welcomed and accepted by the academics on crosstalk while your effort was panned for being inappropriate. As academia is what interests me, rather than ranting with you lot here, I think I'll take some more Nomad lessons.

&lt;yawn&gt; Nomad has to behave on Crosstalk. Here, he didn't. He still hasn't lost his patronizing tone, however.

So, Bede, are you ever going to put up something about cats and the Middle Ages? Or just more unfounded claims that "it's all myth?"

BTW, Bede, here is the webpage of a scholar who has written a work on cats:

<a href="http://www.uark.edu/depts/histinfo/history/engels/engels.html" target="_blank">Thumbnail here</a>

<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/arts/books/stories/s424268.htm" target="_blank">Here is an interview with Engels</a> that talks about cat-killing in the Middle Ages...

• DE: A very unfortunate episode. This religion was very powerful, especially amongst women and it persisted to the Middle Ages. When institution of the Inquisition was set up in the 12th and 13th centuries, they began to crack down on the women and also the sacred animal, especially the black cat, which was the sacred colour actually. Starting around 1230 they organised a terrible massacre of the animal that would continue to about 1700.

So, having seen that you have supplied no source that addresses this issue, and having supplied a scholar who is a specialist writing a book on cat history who confirms it, it is now over to you.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Michael,

Engels clearly has no idea what he is talking about. The Inquisition did not have much to do with witch trials and didn't even eixist in the twelth century, cat massacres continued well past 1700 and he even suggests these cat massacres contributed to the black death.

But it does show that I was being a fool asking for scholarly sources as scholars are just as prone to myth making as everyone else. Your experience on Crosstalk means you would probably agree.

Finally, if Stephen makes a claim he must document it. I do not have to prove something is a myth if no evidence other than hearsay is given for it.

As sources will not be forthcoming of priests and their lackies hunting down cats, this is argument has come to close. You have conclusively proved the existence of a myth and that, for you, will be enough.

And this time it really is adieu.

Bede

Vorkosigan

I can see from your response that you didn't bother to read the interview, either, where he qualified his comments about the Plague when he realized he'd exaggerated.

Let me know when you have a scholarly source on the issue, which I assume will be never, since none exists that could refute well-known events like the Papal Bull or the accusations against Demolay, or the folklore that Darnton collected. What does J. Burton Russell's Witchcraft in the Middle Ages say?

Stephen's comments, supported in the main by both the encyclopedias and by this scholar, will have to stand until you come up with some counterargument. Every source I have been able to track down -- scholarly, informal (like Barbara Holland's book), personal websites, museum sites, every one -- all repeat this story in varying form. I'll need some serious refutation of Stephen's claim, please.

Just as an aside, in addition to being kept as pets, ratters, and food sources, cats were also frequently killed for their skins. Piers Plowman relates the tale of a pedlar who killed cats for their skins, and a couple of 13th century sources tell similar tales (Bartholomew the Englishman, for example). Cats were interred in the foundations of buildings for good luck (as Darnton relates)...lots of interesting facts about cats.

BTW, I found a great book on the Inquisition and Spain that I know you will love. The Witches Advocate, about a bunch of nutty basque dreamers who are about to executed by the thousand by the Spanish Inquisition, but a few brave/foohardy Xtians risk all to keep the death toll to a minimum of a half a dozen.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

Very amusing... Yeah, okay, my spelling is pretty bad sometimes. It's worrying when it becomes another word entirely though... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Tercel

Well no one had better try that on my cat!

Diversion caused successfully.
Of course morality flows from Christianity. Not all morality flows soley from Christianity, nor have all Christians everywhere always been moral, of course. But nevertheless, Christianity has morals pretty high on the list of it's teachings (ie "love thy neighbour" is second only to "love God"), and has done quite a few good things for the world in it's time.

Tercel

I haven't read that many of your posts. Why do you even think that I think you use propaganda???

The evidence I was talking about was not the Gospels at all. This whole thing is completely irrelevant to anything I've been saying.

Well its having completely no relevance to anything is something I am finding somewhat mysterious. And of course I don't accept everything in the Bible at face value: I'm a liberal - I specifically don't accept anything the Bible says at face value.

Anyway, if you want my opinion on a random Biblical passage, I'm always happy to give it: Though I don't see why you'd want it.

Me again: Yeah, I think I did catch that bit. How does my statement: "they are admitting that they are descended from those who killed the prophets." not adequately note this point?

That's good for him. I can certainly see how the writer of Matthew might be thought to be implying this. Heck, it's even possible Jesus thought this.
So what?
Why should I believe unthinkingly every single word in the Bible?

This is completely irrelevant to anything. You clearly do not understand anything I have said in this thread. Forget it.