So have I, but I am not following.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should the Catholic Church Acknowledge the Destruction of Classical Pagan Culture?
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
Since the RCC misinterprets the Scripture relating to the conversation between Jesus and Peter ''And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.'' (Matthew 16:18) and builds an entire organization based on that ''She'' thinks the first pope therefore was Peter, there's no way ''She'' will apologize. Because that would mean having to back pedal as to what caused them to build a Papacy to begin with, and where most of their ''faith'' stems from, historically.
Tangled webs religions weave, eh?
Tangled webs religions weave, eh?
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Yes, fair enough, but Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists have killed other people for (pretty much) not believing what they believe (killing them for having the wrong beliefs). Christianity and Islam take killing the infidel to an entirely different level I concede, they are champions of killing and oppressing in the name of their god. Christians with no sense of history forget how they made ISIS look like almost reasonable in the past, and some might say America continues the legacy of killing in the name of Jesus; you wont find many American Christians protesting that killing Muslims in Syria or Afghanistan is morally wrong or sinful. They are happy to subsume that into the "battle against Satan", the Muslims have been "deceived", so they kind of deserve to die right? Just a little collateral damage in the "spiritual warfare". The deity has their back of course as they toddle off to the Sunday service, with all those 1st World comforts at hand. He always has his favourites, just the way the deity rolls...
I appreciate your point, Christianity and Islam knock other religions into a cocked hat when it comes to an arrogant assertion that they have a monopoly on truth, and as far as I'm concerned they lack the thoughtfulness and inclusiveness of the Eastern religions. It is a cultural thing I think, people go with what they grew up with, and most don't seem to have the ability to see beyond their cultural bubble, or if they do they lack the courage or intellectual honesty to say so (perhaps more difficult in some Islamic countries where declaring your atheism may well get you killed in the name of Allah). It is why I'm happy to oppose all religion where people believe it to be anything more than a lifestyle hobby. It is only when people decide there is nothing more important than their superstitions that problems arise. From that perspective, yes my primary enemies are Islam and Christianity. The rest are just playing at it.
That is a misperception, very nearly defamation, it seems to me.
You could argue that the Greeks got their revenge bigtime.
The gospels tell you to leave your belongings, take to the roads, meet and talk with people, and take your chances with your next meal. This is part of Cynic philosophy, pure and simple.
The Christian idea of the soul and judgment and heaven and hell is from Plato (not least the Myth of Er).
In the 13th century, early in the Renaissance, Aquinas, Abelard, Bacon, Occam and others put a neo-Platonic stamp on Christian doctrine that's never gone away.
For example, consider the importance to Western thought of displacing the idea of proving God by the authority of the bible (it's hard to convey the enormous authority that books had in the Dark Ages and to the early medieval mind) and replacing it with the idea of trying demonstrate God's existence from reason and to some extent nature ─ a perception legitimated by Aquinas.
Christian Europe took up Latin as the language not only of theology but of intellectual discourse. Greek philosophy, rediscovered, has been taught ever since. The stories of the Greek and Roman gods were taught to Christian schoolboys for centuries, became a major theme in European art, launched a million rhetorical devices, is the cultural origin of the Statue of Liberty,
Look at the rise of democracy in the 17th (eg the Quakers) and 18th (eg Payne) centuries, the American and French revolutions, the enormous political waves throughout Europe up to 1848 and beyond.
The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the conscious perception of enquiry as a reasoned process, leading to scientific method, these are all the fruits of Classical learning in Europe.
The Ancient Greeks are all around us right now. And we have to acknowledge the contribution of the Church to that, even if the Church would rather forget it.
Last edited:
If you're not interested in the history of ideas, then you won't be interested in their origins, spread or influence.
If you find it irrelevant that much the greatest part of Europe was linked by a common religion, language and intercourse of ideas up to the Reformation and then after it to the Enlightenment, then you won't care.
If you've never wondered how court houses come to have statues of a blindfolded lady holding a sword and scales, then it's of no concern.
Fair enough. Nothing obligatory here.
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
This is an interesting post. Plenty of food for thought here!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I agree, and fortunately it has made some amends along that line.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's not at all likely to be a misinterpretation as understanding it must be put into the context of going from one language to another (in this case, Aramaic to Koine Greek).
The early church patriarchs really didn't emphasize that point but some other points instead dealing with the issue of what we call "apostolic succession".
Gotta go for now.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
That was a good article. I agree with his conclusion and think it would be great if all the churches implemented it.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Them thar Christierns, thar the worst, I tells ya! They ain't worth spittin' on!
Nobody said that. It was just remembering part of the past that most people don't think about but I think about a lot and it breaks my heart, as a Philhellene.
Since when is the Catholic Church "ecumenical"? I don't get that from any of this.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
The Church has changed and we don't have a Pope who condemns or persecutes other faiths. John Paul 2 apologized for the Churches atrocities against other faiths, and in my lifetime I have seen the Church respectful of other faiths and forming an alliance with them. I have not seen anything from the Vatican in my lifetime that condemns non Catholics. I have only seen peaceful, friendly dialogue.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Ala thread premise, not history. Two different things. The premise is not a historical discussion that leaves much objectivity. If people who do feel that c. Church should apologize for their pagan religions destruction, then they can comment about that.
For most people this is an abstract concept
If you want to give the RCC a good kicking, goodness knows there's a great deal to kick.
My point is that the RCC itself was the instrument by which Greek and Roman culture and learning so thoroughly permeated European culture, hence the cultures of the Americas and elsewhere. And is still a living influence.
So it's wholly possible to argue they tried to destroy classical culture, but it took them over instead. The authentic last laugh.
Which would complicate the wording of any apology the RCC ought to make.
And all have been denounced as looneys by not only their peers but other Dharmics in general. I mean it is literally against the Dharmic tenants and ahimsa to try to convert someone else let alone harm that person for believing differently. Unfortunately there is also an inherent passive approach in the culture so measures against such acts (on both sides) can seem a bit limp.
Course worth noting is the current religious tensions caused by not only the colonial hangover but similar looneys in the Abrahamic faiths. It's a tit for tat scenario most of the time and neither side is right in doing such acts. And such violent acts are more often than not politically motivated rather than religious, on both sides. A leader they don't like, a protest against X etc.
It's a mess. Politics and religion spoil everything.
Honestly the only reason Jains remain unstained in all of that is because the extremists in that religion deliberately remove themselves from society to the point where I doubt they could name their own president/prime minister. Though I do have utmost respect for their dedication to their principles.
Last edited: