HOME | DD
dazinbane — Burning Joan
#arc #burning #heresy #heretic #joan #maid #medieval #orleans #saint #stake #d #jeannde
Published: 2019-08-10 12:09:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 26184; Favourites: 151; Downloads: 271
Redirect to original
Description
A pitiful and horrible event from history, the execution of St Joan of Arc, burned at the stake in Rouen, in 1431.Related content
Comments: 14
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
She was a relapsed heretic.
She refused to acknowledge the Catholic Church hearing she was before. She wanted to deal directly with the Catholic Church in Rome. Hmmm, rather arrogant. She claimed saints were in touch with her. Hmmm, deluded, or schizophrenic.
Basically, she went against the Church, which, at that time, was a rather stupid thing to do. She KNEW what the ultimate penalty would be. She still maintained her position. Today, she would have been sent for psychiatric help. She thought her 'voices' would come to her aid - something seriously wrong in the head with her.
Ultimately, her being burned alive at the stake, the penalty for heresy at the time, was the logical outcome.
Oh, and as for 'Those bad English', I do recall that Bishop Cauchon was French...
👍: 2 ⏩: 2
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Bit harsh. You do know she was subsequently exonerated and ultimately canonised?
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
She was exonerated by the FRENCH. OF COURSE, they would make her out to be a goodie!
And how the Catholic Church could canonise her is beyond comprehension. But then, for the Catholic Church to tell its God who is and who isn't saintly is beyond crazy - yet people fall for that kind of merde...
She was a cross-dressing female warrior who thought she was above the structure of the Catholic Church as it existed at the time. And she heard 'voices in her head' and said they were saints. Do me a favour!
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
The nullification trial was convened under Pope Callixtus III, who was Spanish.
Who else can canonise anyone by the church? God has to show his hand in these matters anyway, as miracles have to be reported and investigated, in connection with prayers evoking a particular holy person before they can be officially recognised.
Some saints and martyrs were apparently called upon to defy social norms and established authorities, at times. They are understood to be exceptional. That said, to my knowledge Joan upheld the church's authority and orthodox doctrine. Her original conviction for heresy was spurious, irregular, and obviously politically motivated. I don't know of any other cases where mere cross-dressing was deemed sufficient for an execution for heresy, and if Joan only reverted to wearing male clothing as a precaution against being raped by her captors then that hardly seems particularly sinful. It seems Joan sincerely believed that she heard saintly voices, and acted upon their instruction. A lot of religious figures claimed to commune with God, saints or angels, and receive commandments from them, and I'm not sure why Joan's claim is to be deemed more doubtful or delusional than anyone else's.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
"The nullification trial was convened under Pope Callixtus III, who was Spanish. " At the instigation of the French...?
Religion, of any shade, is something that relies 100% on the blind faith of its followers. It also trades on the fear of the unknown, of everlasting damnation if their principles are not followed. It also relies on the unquestioning loyalty of its followersto trot out the standard, glib, answers to any who challenge them. Perhaps you are one of those who believe everything in the Bible is the word of God?
"God has to show his hand in these matters anyway" You need to PROVE that there is a God first of all, and also that this God actually speaks to ordinary human beings. It is not a sufficient premise to state that God has spoken to someone. Many religious nutters have done the same thing, i.e., David Koresh of the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, and that Jones guy who persuaded about 900 of his followers to take poison. They both had God talking to them, according to them, and idiot followers believed them. Utterly crazy! This is the kind of slavish, believe everything, thing religion does to people, who appear to be seeking some kind of answer to their life.
"miracles have to be reported and investigated, in connection with prayers evoking a particular holy person before they can be officially recognised." So who decides when a 'miracle' has taken place? And prayers evoking a particular holy person before they can be officially recognised! Are you shitting me? This is totally ludicrous when examined in detail. Who decides who or what is a holy person. Let me answer that for you - the Catholic Church. The same Catholic Church that aided German war criminals at the end of World War 2 with the Vatican as a safe house in the Odessa line of escape to latin America. The same Catholic Church that has protected the clergy child abusers for decades in modern times, and almost certainly protected them for centuries before. This is th organisation that claims to be 'holy'! Do me a fuckin' favour, eh. Don't insult my intelligence.
"It seems Joan sincerely believed that she heard saintly voices". In other words, she was a total liar (to defend her actions) or a total basket case. Delusional. To actually identify particular saints in the 'voices in her head' is staggering! In modern times that girl would have undergone serious psychiatric examination to examine whether she was of sound mind (doubtful), a liar (probable), or seriously mentally unstable to the poiint of hearing voices in her head (most likely). Now, if the likes of you, and millions of others, think saints were talking to her in her head, then you have bought in to something seriously deranged. Remember, saints a man-made entity. Basically, human beings telling your God who is, and who isn't, a saint. So an ordinary person, elevated to some kind of status by other persons, can speak to another human after death. Do you REALLY believe that? If you do, JEEZ!!!
"A lot of religious figures claimed to commune with God, saints or angels, and receive commandments from them". For religious figures, read 'Bullshitters', pure and simple. By the way, who created angels? Humans did, that's who. Ever a heirarchy of them! It's all fantasy-land stuff by an organisation that sprung out of many organisations because it was the most organised of them all, and is so doing, fabricated a belief system based on fantasy with no foundation in fact whatsoever that tied its followers to them. Such was the piety of this organisation that it murdered hundreds of thousands of its followers, and others, at one time.
Joan of Arc was just one deluded girl-warrior who thought she was smarter than the system that prevailed at the time ( a somewhat stupid thing to do), and as a consequence came a cropper. And perhaps, just perhaps (to answer your point) cross-dressing was normal in her time, eh? Don't think so.
If you're happy with your religion, good for you, but to try and convince me and others that she was a 'saint', and that other saints were talking to her in her head is ridiculous. Please, take a reality check!!! She had a serious psychiatric disorder and delusions of grandeur. Even the French King got tired of her, as all she wanted to do was to fight more and more battles, after he was pursuing diplomatic channels. In other words, her own self-aggrandisement took precedence over her understanding (or even attempt to understand) the greater political will/vision of the time. Joan of Arc was out for Joan of Arc. Period.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
If you don't believe in the validity of any revealed religion then the concept a legitimate heresy conviction is redundant, and it's pointless discussing that. Same goes for the concept of sainthood.
Someone who believes in everything has more chance of being at least partially right than someone who believes in nothing. The answer to the questions: 'what created the universe?' and: 'what is the source of logic, morality, truth, beauty and love?' can hardly be 'nothing'. It has to be 'something', and something with the capacity to do all that may as well be called 'God'. Correct me if my logic is at at fault.
The National Socialists imprisoned and/or killed thousands of members of the Catholic clergy, in Germany and especially in Poland (where apparently 3000 clerics, including bishops, priests, monks and nuns were murdered). International Socialists (i.e. Communists) have an even more atrocious record when it comes to killing innocent people, and between them the secular totalitarian ideologues arguably surpassed all the atrocities committed in previous centuries in the name of religion.
As for the Vatican child-abuse scandals they are horriffic betrayals of Christian values. They are egregious violations of the divine and natural law. Crimes against individuals are crimes, among other things, because the lives and integrity of individual humans are assumed to be of value to their ultimate Creator, and the innocence of children is of particular value and sanctity. Plenty of atheists have a decent sense of justice and a natural desire to protect the innocent, but they may not have thought much about the source of that morality. Meanwhile anyone who commits such sinful crimes must either not really believe in god and divine justice, or they must hate god and perhaps wish to hurt him by degrading and corrupting his creatures. Saying that 'the devil made me do it' would not really a moral-cop out, because those who yield to wicked temptation are just as culpable. Would be nice, meanwhile, if the people who claim to care about the kids abused by corrupt priest showed equal concern for the babies murdered every day in abortion clinics/tophets. It seems morally inconsistent to say that sodomising kids while wearing a black cassock is bad, but murdering them in the womb while wearing a white coat is fine and dandy. At what point in the life-cycle does a human being's right to be protected from intentional harm kick in? One could also spend as much time criticising other organisations for covering up child abuse scandals, including the (mostly Labour) authorities in the UK which permitted 'Asian grooming gangs' to operate with near impunity for decades due to political correctness.
We can't know the truth, when it comes to those who hear, or claim to hear, divine messages. I am agnostic on that matter. Some people, I'm told, can detect things on the light spectrum that most people cannot see. For whatever reason most people have eyes that evolved to shut out certain frequencies of light (i.e. infra red and ultra violet). Perhaps some people have minds that are similarly receptive to broader frequencies of input. Just because we can't see or hear something, under normal conditions, it doesn't mean it's not there. Anyway Joan of Arc seems to have believed her extraordinary claims. She achieved what she said she would, against all probability, and she seemed to fulfill a prophecy in the process. 'By their fruits you will know them...' You're probably right that she would have been sectioned or medicated today. I'm not a Catholic and I'm not a French partisan. It's not necessary to be in order to be intrigued by Joan of Arc, to admire her accomplishments and her courage, and to repine her early and gruesome death after a legal travesty.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
Your second paragraph is a case of 'If enough mud is thrown, some of it will stick'. Partially right? Not a logical premise in a discussion.
Last paragraph. Actually, she didn't achieve all she said she would. She lost battles prior to her capture by the Burgundians in 1429. She just wanted to go on fighting, against the French king's wishes. And prophecy? There you go into the realms of fantasy again.
We will perhaps agree to disagree on a number of points and leave it at that...
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
A great liberator should never have such a terrible end.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0