Should the Catholic Church Acknowledge the Destruction of Classical Pagan Culture?

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

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.

Sure, I have conceded the Abrahamic religions champion blood lust, but religion is such an emotive subject. When one group feels their cultural freedoms are under attack the response is often a violent one. I'm pretty sure many Christians would denounce the violence of the past as something carried out by "looneys" as well you know, and we have Muslims in the UK today saying the men of ISIS are not "true Muslims" (whatever that means).
I suspect it is a human thing as much as a religious or political thing. Mammals are often seen to be territorial, when their territory is threatened the "natural" response is to defend it with violence if necessary. The Abrahamic religions can inflame that because their holy book is full of stories of tribal warfare, where the deity gives over the enemies of his "people". It condones violence.

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.

Oh yes, it has to be a truly alternative lifestyle!

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

Christianity still destroys cultures today through the horrible practice of missionary work.

The only apology in their vocabulary is the one involving apologetics.

How is it a horrible practice? Modern missionary work is voluntary. It offers new forms of religious experience to cultures that otherwise wouldn't have them.

Plus, it's almost never a replacement of the indigenous culture, but a new culture that's formed (due to syncretism).

 

[RedDragon94]

In short, yes. At length, the Church forgot the commandment "do not murder". The Church should confess its sins and also admit that it is only a God given institution headed by mere humans.

 

[SomeRandom]

Sure, I have conceded the Abrahamic religions champion blood lust, but religion is such an emotive subject. When one group feels their cultural freedoms are under attack the response is often a violent one. I'm pretty sure many Christians would denounce the violence of the past as something carried out by "looneys" as well you know, and we have Muslims in the UK today saying the men of ISIS are not "true Muslims" (whatever that means).
I suspect it is a human thing as much as a religious or political thing. Mammals are often seen to be territorial, when their territory is threatened the "natural" response is to defend it with violence if necessary. The Abrahamic religions can inflame that because their holy book is full of stories of tribal warfare, where the deity gives over the enemies of his "people". It condones violence.

Well I have not read the Bible so cannot comment one way or another. But yeah, I agree. Humans are humans.

Oh yes, it has to be a truly alternative lifestyle!

I'll say. Yeesh!! Although you certainly can't accuse them of hypocrisy. They have their values and they stick to them. Thankfully those values are very very very non violent and passive. But holy hell are they strict.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Well I have not read the Bible so cannot comment one way or another

I think that may be to your credit, trust me you are not missing out on much!

I'll say. Yeesh!! Although you certainly can't accuse them of hypocrisy. They have their values and they stick to them. Thankfully those values are very very very non violent and passive. But holy hell are they strict.

Which is why I admire Jains, such dedication to peacefulness and "harmlessness", I hear similar claims from other religions that reek of hypocrisy. The peacefulness usually only extends to those within the religious group, thereafter the light of love begins to wane! I do wonder how it would work in practice if Jainism became a "major" religion in the world; I don't think it could. How many people can bubble wrap themselves to remain harmless?
Still, I admire their endeavour.

 

[Sanzbir]

Lest we forget.

So, just a thought, are you going to apologize for the lions?? Or the arson of Rome and subsequent frame job??

Oh, and I think you need to apologize to the Jews as well, for taking their temple and turning it into a temple to Zeus without their permission.

You are a Hellenic pagan after all. If you want the Catholics to apologize for the slights against your religion, are you prepared to offer the same in kind??

I am fortunate enough to belong to a religion relatively young enough to have not committed many atrocities yet. I think with this mentality I'd have to apologize to the Shia for those guys that tried to assassinate the Persian Shah?? But that's relatively it.

Or, a radical idea, sins are not genetic, and thus there is no need for apologies from the people descended from their terrible ancestors.

The alternative is that you should have opened this OP apologizing to the Christians and Jews for your faith's ancient crimes against them, not merely demanding they apologize for their ancient crimes against you. Either everyone is culpable for their faith's ancient crimes, or no one is!! And if it is everyone, then those of us with newer religions are less culpable all around.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, just a thought, are you going to apologize for the lions?? Or the arson of Rome and subsequent frame job??

Oh, and I think you need to apologize to the Jews as well, for taking their temple and turning it into a temple to Zeus without their permission.

You are a Hellenic pagan after all. If you want the Catholics to apologize for the slights against your religion, are you prepared to offer the same in kind??

Not quite the same thing, since he didn't ask for all Catholics to apologize, just the Catholic Church itself for acts that the Catholic Church itself committed or authorized.

 

[Sanzbir]

Not quite the same thing, since he didn't ask for all Catholics to apologize, just the Catholic Church itself for acts that the Catholic Church itself committed or authorized.

Did it?? Most of these events was pre-Great Schism, so there wasn't really a "Catholic Church" as we know it today (though Catholics themselves might contest this).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did it?? Most of these events was pre-Great Schism, so there wasn't really a "Catholic Church" as we know it today (though Catholics themselves might contest this).

I don't see how the Great Schism is relevant. There was a Bishop of Rome before and after; the modern Catholic Church claims the legacy and authority of that office, and by extension, the acts committed in the name of that office or the portion of the Church under the office's authority.

 

[Sanzbir]

I don't see how the Great Schism is relevant. There was a Bishop of Rome before and after; the modern Catholic Church claims the legacy and authority of that office, and by extension, the acts committed in the name of that office or the portion of the Church under the office's authority.

As much as the Catholics would deny this fact, they are not the same church before the church split as they are after it. Just because they claim the legacy of the early Christian churches, does that make them culpable for the actions of those early Christians??

And would that mean that the few organized, reconstructivist, Hellenic neo-pagan organizations out there, who claim the legacy of their ancient faiths, are culpable for the actions of their ancient faithful as well?? So would you say Nova Roma should issue an apology for the burning of Rome and the subsequent frame job??

And are the East Orthodox on the hook too?? They also claim the authority of the early Christian church. As do a bunch of other sects that no one ever seems to remember. Do all of those need to apologize??

Basically is there some standard of "legitimacy" that you require for apology in a claim to be representing an older religious legacy, or would you say every religious organization that does so, from the christian Roman Catholic Church to the pagan Nova Roma must issue apologies on behalf of the religions they claim to be their legacies??

Also, if we do as you say, and limit it only to religious organizations, then every act of vandalism, including acts OP mentions, that occurred specifically before, say, Nicene, do not need to be apologized for, correct?? Because those things happened before it became an organized religion.

 

[metis]

As much as the Catholics would deny this fact, they are not the same church before the church split as they are after it. Just because they claim the legacy of the early Christian churches, does that make them culpable for the actions of those early Christians??

You might consider reading this: Catholic Church - Wikipedia [scroll down to 7.1, "Apostolic era and papacy"]

Just a "heads-up", since getting into this takes us away from the OP.

 

[Sanzbir]

You might consider reading this: Catholic Church - Wikipedia [scroll down to 7.1, "Apostolic era and papacy"]

Just a "heads-up", since getting into this takes us away from the OP.

And the other early Christian churches and their descendants have their own claims to legitimacy. Are they invalid??

 

[metis]

And the other early Christian churches and their descendants have their own claims to legitimacy. Are they invalid??

Let me just mention that the "mark" of the early church was the issue of "apostolic succession" [see Apostolic succession - Wikipedia ], and the churches that can claim as such are the CC, the OC, the Anglicans, and a couple of Scandinavian Lutheran churches.

Since I'm of none of those churches, nor even a Christian, I really don't get into the "valid" nor "invalid" issues.

 

[Sanzbir]

Let me just mention that the "mark" of the early church was the issue of "apostolic succession" [see Apostolic succession - Wikipedia ], and the churches that can claim as such are the CC, the OC, the Anglicans, and a couple of Scandinavian Lutheran churches.

Since I'm of none of those churches, nor even a Christian, I really don't get into the "valid" nor "invalid" issues.

And the Nestorians, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox all claim apostolic establishment and legitimacy therefrom.

 

[metis]

And the Nestorians, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox all claim apostolic establishment and legitimacy therefrom.

My use of "OC" stood for the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Sanzbir]

My use of "OC" stood for the Orthodox Churches.

Ah... I thought you meant the Old Catholics.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think that may be to your credit, trust me you are not missing out on much!

I dunno. It is a large crux of the Western Literary Canon. Given that I actually like to read book thingys, that might be to my detriment.

Which is why I admire Jains, such dedication to peacefulness and "harmlessness", I hear similar claims from other religions that reek of hypocrisy. The peacefulness usually only extends to those within the religious group, thereafter the light of love begins to wane! I do wonder how it would work in practice if Jainism became a "major" religion in the world; I don't think it could. How many people can bubble wrap themselves to remain harmless?
Still, I admire their endeavour.

Well, it can actually hurt themselves. Example being so dedicated to a fast, might be unhealthy in a few select circumstances.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I dunno. It is a large crux of the Western Literary Canon. Given that I actually like to read book thingys, that might be to my detriment.

Sure, I wasn't being entirely serious, if you want to understand Western cultural development the bible should be on your reading list. Just a warning though, it is hard work at times; rambling, repetitive, scarcely coherent in places. Good luck if you want to try it, not sure how much time you would want to spend on the endeavour, but I'd certainly recommend one with a commentary to help interpret the meaning of certain verses, certain passages. I'd recommend the NIV Study Bible which certainly interprets it from a Christian point of view, without trying to convert you into one particular denomination/cult.

 

[metis]

I'd recommend the NIV Study Bible which certainly interprets it from a Christian point of view, without trying to convert you into one particular denomination/cult.

But that's really a problem since any serious translation should do it's best to do so in an objective manner. The NIV is really not a good Bible to use for study, and I even have one, btw.

One of the best, and it traditionally was the most heavily used translation is the RSV, which can be found on-line here: Bible: Revised Standard Version An excellent study commentary is Jerome's Biblical Commentary, which is a Catholic one but actually quite objective.

In regards to the Tanakh, the best that I've seen and used is the JPS Study Bible, which is brutally honest enough to show inconsistencies between the scriptures and also what the archaeology is telling us.

And then there's the Biblical Archaeology Review, a magazine that is top-shelf.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

But that's really a problem since any serious translation should do it's best to do so in an objective manner. The NIV is really not a good Bible to use for study, and I even have one, btw.
.

I admit to not having read the commentaries you mention, so I cannot compare and contrast myself. However, I found the NIV to be reasonably sober and objective, admitting where authorship is doubtful or where retrospective editing might have gone on (the oldest manuscripts do not contain this verse) etc. I guess my main concern is that somebody new to the bible is not exposed to a one eyed interpretation, so thanks for those suggestions if you have found them to be more "objective" than the NIV.