Did Catharism arise independently, or was it born from contact

yeah, you nailed it

>>1682220
no religion is created from zero

>>1682220
The theory that european dualist religions are related to the iranian / manichean basin have pretty much been debunked.

Read Ioan Petru Culianu's book on Dualistic Religions:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/798073.Les_Gnoses_Dualistes_D_occident

And Yury Stoianov's excellent The Other God:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/399539.The_Other_God

>>1682275
Turtles all the way down

>>1682310
A load of shit.

Even St. Augustine was originally a Manichee. His notion of Original Sin was made in response to Manichaeism's cosmological dualism.

Christianity of Late Antiquity was heavily influenced by both Neoplatonism and Zoroastrianism.

>>1682310
>And Yury Stoianov's excellent The Other God:
You imbecile. This book basically argues against the point you're making.

WTF is wrong with you? I'd slap you up the head. Here's a review of the book:

>"If you like reading about the Cathars, "The Other God" is even better. It shows the roots of Catharism, way back to Armenia and before. It tells the Cathar history. It discusses the Cathar beliefs. It's all very scholarly, with the main 294 pages backed up by 126 pages of footnotes and a select bibliography of 32 pages. Items that get alluded to in other books on the Cathars get discussed in depth here, such as the contribution of the Bogamils to Catharism. Not to mention the earlier contributions of Zoroaster, Mani, and Mithraism. Stoyanov is thoroughness incarnate."

>>1683085
>>1683093
There is no denying the Manichaeist influence in Catharism.

Don't listen to this idiot here: >>1682310

He even linked a book by Yury Stoianov called The Other God that argues for iranian / manichaean influence.

>>1683093
>Mithraism

Do we even know enough about Mithras worship to assert that it influenced anything?