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

[trotsky]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/debra-macleod/pagan-culture_b_7058758.html

To solidify Christianity as the sole religion of the Empire, early Christian leaders legalized brutal policies that persecuted pagans. This gave Christians the legal green light to commit atrocious acts of vandalism that destroyed centuries of Classical art, history and culture.

Christian vandals smashed the heads and limbs off statues of beloved gods and goddesses that had been venerated for generations. They knocked the noses off the faces, and carved crosses into the foreheads, of deities, heroes and emperors. They burned ancient texts, obliterating centuries of knowledge, literature and heritage.

These acts of vandalism robbed our Western civilization of a beautiful and important part of our own art history and culture. We'll never know what monuments or statuary were smashed to dust, or what masterpieces of literature or learning were turned to smoke.

...

To usurp the importance of the Vestals, the Catholic church eventually created its own version of priestesses -- nuns. Like the Vestals who were married to Rome, the nuns would be married to their god. Like the Vestals were celibate, the nuns would be celibate. Yet where the Vestals had power and privilege, the nuns would live in poverty and subservience.

Interesting read.

[Cleita]

1. They do admit it and are proud of it. I went to Catholic school

and had to study Church History and they were very proud of it. Also what they couldn't destroy they just brought into the Church, like you mention the Vestal Virgins but also Christmas and Easter traditions and other festivals that had once been Pagan were Christianized.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Interesting indeed.

Kicking so I can find it again. ( I have a feeling I'll rec) it later.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. They can start by apologizing for destroying pagan civilizations period.

Destruction of cultural artifacts is a smaller matter than murdering actual people.

[struggle4progress]

4. There's something to be said in favor of intellectual integrity and careful historical work

According to the article in the OP: Christian vandals smashed the heads and limbs off statues of beloved gods and goddesses that had been venerated for generations -- with a link in the sentence to the following photo of the Louvre's famous Nike of Samothrake sculpture



Putative dating of this lovely carving has ranged from 300 BCE to 180 BCE, and one cannot go much past the latter date, since Samothrace seems the last stand of King Perseus of Macedon against the Romans in the Third Macedonian War, after his defeat at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BCE. References to ancient texts can be found here

The island was known in classical times as a cult center and its Sanctuary of the Great Gods.

The statue was discovered in 1884, in a number of pieces, and the current display contains much reconstruction: the original delivery to the Louvre was missing an arm and a breast, for example; the head has never been recovered; one hand was found in 1950; another hand is known, which might belong to the statue

Livy says Perseus "was afraid that Euander, by escaping punishment, might bring down the wrath of the Samothracians upon himself under the belief that he had connived at his escape. He therefore gave orders for Euander to be put to death. After the reckless perpetration of this murder he suddenly reflected that he had beyond any doubt brought upon himself the blood-guiltiness which had previously rested on Euander. Eumenes had been wounded by Euander in Delphi, and now he himself had put Euander to death in Samothrace. Thus he alone was responsible for the profanation of the two holiest temples in the world by human blood. He averted this terrible charge by bribing Theondas and inducing him to announce to the people that Euander had taken his own life."

This at least suggests that somewhere around the time the Romans were hoping to capture Perseus on Samothrace, there was some sort of bloody scuffle in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods

... In 84 B.C. the sanctuary was plundered by pirates ... The cults continued to function, but after an earthquake in A.D. 200 the sanctuary began to decline. Cult activity was halted in the late 4th century A.D. and the final destruction occurred with an earthquake in the 6th century ...

So there might be many plausible explanations about how the Nike of Samothrake was destroyed

[central scrutinizer]

5. almost all of the Mayan libraries were destroyed

What a loss - they were very advanced and had place value number system even before the Hindus and Arabs

[edhopper]

6. And what about the missionaries

in Meso-America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_de_Landa

After hearing of Roman Catholic Maya who continued to practice idol worship, he ordered an Inquisition in Mani ending with a ceremony called auto de fé. During the ceremony on July 12, 1562, a disputed number of Maya codices (according to Landa, 27 books) and approximately 5,000 Maya cult images were burned. The actions of Landa passed into the Black Legend of the Spanish in the Americas.

Only three pre-Columbian books of Maya hieroglyphics (also known as a codex) and, perhaps, fragments of a fourth are known to have survived. Collectively, these works are known as the Maya codices.

[Cartoonist]

7. Oh please,

This was just a land grab and had nothing to do with religion, according to someone who knows it all.

[rug]

9. You're right. The Iberian monarchs funded armed fleets to bring back rare woods for rosaries.

[edhopper]

14. And that is why

they burned all the Mayan Books?

[rug]

15. No, they were burned to complete the conquest.

Do you actually think that was religious ritual?

[edhopper]

19. sorry

Forgot religion is never, ever a motivation. Silly me.

[okasha]

21. Knows a hell of a lot more than you, Toons,

because my family suffered through and just barely survived it.

Since your position is that the Native American holocaust was motivated by the whites' Christianity, perhaps you can explain why Christian Native Americans were among the first forced off their lands and force-marched west to Oklahoma, with 30%-40% mortality along the way.

Go on. Give it a go. Wikipedia is at your fingertips.

[trotsky]

28. LMFAO

Because different Christians have never had any disagreements or treated each other badly.

You are TOO funny, okasha. Thanks much for the laugh!

[rug]

38. There are rallies this week observing the centenary of the Armenian genocide.

Why don't you check one out if you run out of things to laugh about. Or is it only Native American genocide you laugh your ass off over?

[okasha]

46. I see that Toons has gone into hiding.

So I'll point out on his behalf that his assertion was that Native Americans were killed or driven off ancestral lands because they weren't Christian.

His surrogate was apparently laughing so hard he missed that little detail.

[rug]

47. It won't be the last time.

Repulsive.

[Cartoonist]

48. Jeez, can't I work for a living?

I never said what you imply, certainly not as the ONLY reason. My contention is that Christians committed genocide with the blessing of the Pope and the intrinsic hatred of others religion fosters. So what if some native Americans converted to Christianity, they were still considered redskins. Your constant apologizing for Christianity is loathsome. At least admit that crimes were committed by Christians. It may be the first step to your recovery.

[okasha]

49. You seemed to be able to post in other threads.

As I pointed out to you before, most of the whites who carried out the North American Native genocide were Protestants of North European extraction who couldn't have cared less about the Pope and had no need for his permission.

You actually come closer to the truth in this post than you have before. Native Americans "were still considered redskins"-- great choice of words there, wasichu--and therefore racially inferior. That perception made it allowable to rob and/or massacre the indigenous populations of North America. Ultimately, it resulted in genocide for the purpose of appropriating resources, most notably land.

Your pretense that you know more about Native American history than Native Americans do approaches outright racism. You want "loathesome," it's all yours.

[Cartoonist]

50. You can keep it

Another apologia by the wise okasha. They were protestants, so the Pope is off the hook. Sorry, but Christianity is the same to me whether it's RCC or southern Baptist. And how convenient of you to ignore the genocide of central and south American natives who were indeed obliterated by the Pope's underlings. I guess you are the racist for holding your people above others.

[beam me up scottie]

51. You actually know more about this issue than my s/o who is part Native American.

He's multi-racial and is still learning about the atrocities committed against (and by) his ancestors.

[Cartoonist]

52. I've learned a lot in this thread.

The OP lays it out plain and simple, yet the apologists turn up and deny, deflect, and discredit.

[beam me up scottie]

53. I did too.

Seems the article touched a few nerves.

Oh well.

[skepticscott]

56. And did you notice Okasha's little dodge

in switching from "Native American" to "North American Native American"? An obvious attempt to try to sweep the Spanish genocide and cultural obliteration (including religion) of South American Native Americans. Not that the Spanish didn't do extensive damage in North America, based in no small part on their attempt to Christianize indigenous peoples, usually by force.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. South America got absolutely steamrolled by Christians.

And the ideological pummeling continues to this day.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/07/17/the-politics-of-abortion-in-latin-america/

[okasha]

61. Pay attention, Toons.

Oklahoma is not in Central or South America, nor did the nations forcibly relocated there live in Central or South America. I was speaking only of what happened to the Southeastern Woodland peoples, something that until a generation ago was a living memory in my family.

Your dragging the Central and South American atrocities into this exchange was merely a clumsy attempt at deflection. Your assertion that the indigenous peoples in those regions were "indeed obliterated" is pure hyperbolic ignorance. They're very much alive, some intermarried with European stock and others of unmixed or nearly unmixed ancestry, a small number of whom, like most Huichol, live fully traditional lives. Mexico elected its first Native President, Benito Juarez, 150 years ago. The US is behind.

Again, your assumption that you can learn more about Native Americans from Wikipedia than we know about ourselves.is patronizing, arrogant white privilege at its vilest.

[skepticscott]

62. Your assumption that whites can only know about Native Americans from Wikipedia

is just broad-brushing racist garbage, okasha. Everyone knows that's how YOU would characterize it if someone claimed that Native Americans could only know about whites from Wikipedia, so point that finger at yourself. Or how you would bloviate at the notion that oral history passed down within a culture is accurate and unbiased.

And no, including the very relevant cultural and racial atrocities committed by Christians in South America is not remotely a deflection. Rather, it's an inconvenience for apologists like you who need to defend religion at any cost even when it means glossing over the evil committed against native Americans and lesbians in the name of religion. The discussion was never limited to North America, until you tried to slip in that limitation in post 49. Why you did it is obvious to everyone, even your little support group.

[Cartoonist]

63. Intermarried?

Are you kidding me? The men were slaughtered and the women raped.

Patronizing? Stuff it! Quit playing the victim while apologizing for the forces that practically eliminated your people. I will be ignoring you from now on, as I have said my piece.

[okasha]

64. Mestozo/a men and women have been getting married

for several hundred years, sometimes to each other, sometimes to the little that remains of pure Spanish ancestry, sometimes to full blood Natives.

At least try to deal with reality. If you weren't so busy trying to defend your untenable assertions, you would have noticed that I was referring to post-conquest society. You claimed that Native populations had been "obliterated,". That is true nowhere but in your fantasies.

[Cartoonist]

65. You got me for one last word

Even Hiroshima had survivors. The human race is hard to obliterate.

More internet knowledge that doesn't fit your experience, so it must not be true:
Government-sanctioned mass murder, enslavement and dispossession of Native Americans peaked after the 1948 Gold Rush. By 1860, historians estimate that 80 percent of the California Indian population perished.

Okay, not obliterated. You got me.

[okasha]

66. I do think the Gold Rush occurred in 1848, not 1948.

Otherwise, I just refer you again to the paragraph concerning the astonishing degree to which you attempt to set yourself up as an Internet PH.D. on matters of which you are woefully ignorant.

[skepticscott]

55. The broad brush assumption by you

that no white can possibly know more about Native American history than ANY Native American is not only blatantly racist, OKASHA, but intellectually bankrupt as well. Is it impossible for any white to know more about the history of slavery than any African American? Is it impossible for any non-American to know more American History than any American Fox News devotee? Is that your claim? If so, step up and own it!

[rug]

57. Ah, the voice of dispassionate reason and cool logic has weighed in.

Bracing.

[skepticscott]

59. Unopposed by facts, reason, argument

or anything but snark, insults and baiting. As usual

[rug]

60. No Caps, Exclamations or smileys there.

There was the surly insult but other than that I'm disappointed.

[LiberalAndProud]

106. And those few who remained were converted.

It is my opinion that the European church perpetrated a great injustice on our native peoples. One culture swallows another; survivors worship the god of the captors. That seems to be a part of our human condition. The thought hurts my heart.

[okasha]

107. The old ways were kept in secret.

It's not unusual, even today, for Native Americans to practice both Christianity and Traditional religion at the same time.

[rug]

8. The biggest harm was done when it adopted the imperial pagan culture.

What part of the Roman Empire do you want to see preserved? Conquest? Slavery? Gods that embody human traits? Romanism that supplants indigenous cultures? As a classicist she should know there's more to Roman culture than Ovid and temples to Venus.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Are you taking about the Romans or the RCC?

Hard to tell with that list of atrocities.

[beam me up scottie]

13. !

[rug]

17. So, bmus, what part of the Roman Empire do you want to resurrect?

Take your time. Finish rolling around the floor first. You can tell me when you get up.

[phil89]

31. But you

Openly believe in and follow a book of atrocity and genocide and you have no moral standing to criticize roman culture good or bad. Such hypocrisy

[rug]

34. You know, phil, yor parroting the phrase "a book of atrocity and genocide" hardly makes it so.

That "book of atrocities" contains the following:

Matthew 5

1 When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him.
2 He began to teach them, saying:

The Beatitudes

3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.

6 Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.

7 Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.

8 Blessed are the clean of heart for they will see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

10 Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.

12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven,Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Now there are certain sewers of the internet, which you likely know, which will strew smilies over you whenever you use that phrase, but don't be flattered. They are rewarding ignorance. Generally, but not ubiquitously, stupid swagger gets called out on DU.

If you wish to honestly discuss scriptures of various faiths, try critical thinking next time, not sloganeering.

Now as to your comment on "moral standing", you'd best get a stool before repeating it.

[Fumesucker]

45. Eh, the only way the meek are going to get anything at all is inherit it

And someone will be along shortly to bully them out of it anyway.

[struggle4progress]

104. ... Praei/j ... means “mild”, “gentle”, “kind”, “forgiving”. It can also suggest passive resistance

–- anything along those lines. A similar (older) form is praoj. English translations in the past had consistently translated praei/j as "meek", but today the word is often paralleled with "weak", and this is not the intended meaning in the original language ... Meekness is not something that is found naturally in men of this time. What is found naturally is fighting, conquering and revenge. Meekness is an ethical attitude that must be learned, cultivated and appreciated as a virtus – a manly act, but of a superior man, and more easily practiced if this meek man has the good fortune to live in a secure environment, which can only be had at this time through consistent military might ... http://www.sarahgildea.com/Work/meek.html

Samuel Johnson's dictionary, for example, defines "meekness" as "gentleness, quietness, mildness" -- which perhaps gives some insight into the changed meaning of "meek" over time in English

[Cartoonist]

67. That's quite a bowl of cherries you picked.

We read the rest.

[rug]

68. If you use the plural "we", kindly read the roster so everyone knows who you speak for.

[Cartoonist]

69. Everyone but the cherry pickers.

You know, the ones who read about the support of slavery and the condemnation of gays. Maybe you should read the rest of the Book.

[rug]

70. I see. The iimaginary cheering horde in your thoughts.

Maybe you should consider the strength of your opinions if you have to surround them with a protective cohort.

[Cartoonist]

71. What it is.

Can I help it if there are other people who read the whole book and found it atrocious in its wide sweeping hate? That you found a few phrases that sound good doesn't change the cacophony that still resonates in the halls of the Vatican today. Maybe you need another sabbatical to actually digest the uglier parts of the Bible instead of just clinging to a few passages like a piece of flotsam on the high seas.

[rug]

72. As a matter of fact I have read all of its 73 books.

And the conclusion I've reached is that your (singular) conclusion is itself the result of cherry picking of the like that would awe the state of Michigan. I will not comment on what personal experiences outside of the book you may have had that have accelerated that opinion.

[Leontius]

73. Gross ignorance can be excused and corrected

But willful ignorance is inexcusable and the practice of it is condemnable and tragic because it lowers the stature of any man.

[Cartoonist]

75. So what do you do

When you read things like this:

Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Do you close your eyes and pretend you didn't actually read what you saw? Do you make up some lie that pretends the words had a different meaning back then?

I'll tell you what I do when I read that shit. I turn up my nose at the evil stench that permeates the Bible in that quote and many others. I realize that the church I grew up in is a big lie. That the Bible is NOT the word of God or even the inspiration of God, but instead a book written by despicable old men.

And you're wrong about me being a cherry picker. I'm a shit picker, and the Bible is a shit mine. So spare me the alleged words of Jesus. Especially those penned by Paul and his ilk.

1 Corinthians 6 -11 ESV

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I realize this is just a translation, and that there is some dispute over certain terms, but the general hate and intolerance is there for all to see. Except for the morally blind who point to the Bible as something to revere.

On edit I see that the number for Corinthians yields a smilie

[rug]

77. First, I keep reading.

Not just those verses, or the other selected verses listed at the local atheist dollar meme website, but the whole book.

Then I learn.

I learn what the Book of Leviticus is, when and for whom it was intended, and then I read some more.

I learn that slavery was rampant in the area at that time and at that place. Then I read some more.

In between I look out the window and notice nobody is owning slaves or selling slaves on the way to synagogue or church. Then I read some more.

I will read the other verses that condemn slavery, that exhort compassion and tolerance, and extol the dignity of human beings.

In short, I read it all.

At a certain point I realize what this verse is about and why it was written as it was written when it was written.

I suppose I could have spared myself the effort and rushed to my keyboard and announce the Bible commands believers to buy, sell and own slaves, but that would be stupid cherry-picking.

And no, Cartoonist, you do not have to persuade me that you're "a shit picker". That is already evident.

[Cartoonist]

80. Who to believe?

rug: In between I look out the window and notice nobody is owning slaves or selling slaves on the way to synagogue or church.

Pope Frank: “Millions of people today – children, women and men of all ages – are deprived of freedom and are forced to live in conditions akin to slavery,”

I see them on the corner selling strawberries. But it's ok because they are from a neighboring country, just like Leviticus says.

You and your Bible make my shit picking easy.

[rug]

81. Interesting you cited the Pope's condemnation of slavery.

He must not have read Leviticus.

Shit picking is usually easy, if you like that sort of thing.

[Cartoonist]

82. I'm still waiting for Pope Frank to denounce Leviticus

Of course I'm not holding my breath.

[struggle4progress]

105. Leviticus 19:18

... You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself, for I am the Lord ...

[okasha]

74. Reigning monarch?

Editor?

Tapeworm?

to Mark Twain.

[rug]

16. Work on your syntax.

[Goblinmonger]

25. ....

[rug]

35. And your rhetoric.

[okasha]

20. How about crucifixion?

There's a fine bit of classical culture.

[Goblinmonger]

30. .......

[struggle4progress]

44. Burning people alive seems to have been a popular past-time in many cultures

over the millennia, including ancient Rome

[okasha]

22. She's not a classicist.

According to the brief bio that accompanies this same article on the Witches and Pagans blog, she holds a B.A. and B LL. .By profession, she's a family counselor.

There is a large measure of truth in this article. The Byzantine Christian Iconoclasts did destroy or deface an unknown number of Classical images. But they were equal-opportunity bastards; they also destroyed or defaced an unknown number of early Christian images.

On the other hand, it's disingenuous at best to ignore the profound destruction wrought on Western European (i. e., Roman) culture by invading tribes from what are now northeastern Europe and the Russian steppes. Perhaps an apology is likewise due from the Vandals, Goths and Huns.

[rug]

36. Thanks. I thoght "Relationship Author-Expert & Classicist" was an odd combo.

[Leontius]

39. I've never heard the Iconoclasts mentioned in the destruction of Classical art before.

While I don't doubt the peripheral destruction mobs can cause, I've always considered their aim to purify the Church and prevent idolatry in the Church to restore God's favor on Byzantium. Can you recommend any sources.

[Fumesucker]

24. Gods that embody human traits?

Jealousy and anger for instance?

The Christian God seems very human to me, jealous, angry, unpredictable, greedy, obsessed with the sex lives of others and so on..

[rug]

37. You are more likely describing a god made in the image of man.

[Fumesucker]

40. Which is what the Christian God is, yes...

[rug]

41. Afraid not. Humans have yet to accept, let alone consistently practice, love your neighbor.

[Fumesucker]

42. I'm reminded of the parable of the Good Samaritan

Which was essentially about who is your neighbor...

Turns out it is the person who shows compassion and mercy, not just any old Tom, priest or Levite..

[rug]

43. Exactly. You don't have to look far to see nothing will change ntil we realize we are all neighbors.

One of the several things that rankles me at Mass is that there is always a prayer for the members of the military at the Offertory but nary a mention of those they're killing in our name.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. Wait, and your God has consistently practiced this? Where is this written?

In addition, you surely aren't arguing that Yahweh and/or Jesus were/are the first and only deities/prophets/etc. to teach about reciprocity, are you?

[rug]

111. Pay attention.

The commandment to love your neighbor is from God to humanity.

Frankly, whenever I see stupid posts like this I violate that commandment.

[Humanist_Activist]

114. Where is your evidence for this? I strongly doubt that Yahweh/Jesus were the only...

deities/holy people who preached this, being neither first nor last.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Indeed, it seems the rule, as formalized, is quite universal, and not from your god.

[rug]

116. You're still not paying attention.

You wrote:

Wait, and your God has consistently practiced this?

The point you miss is that God is not bound by commandments so that statement is nonsense.

If you wish to make a point that the Golden Rule is universal, that's a different point which raises some interesting questions of its own.

I'll save you the time. Your point will be that this is proof that it's of human origin whereas the opposing point is that it suggests a universal God.

50 posts later the issue will not be resolved - by evidence.

[Humanist_Activist]

118. So its, do as I say, not as I do? Why is this god worthy of worship again? n/t

[rug]

121. If you're still on the same topic, God does not need a commandment to love.

That is its very essence.

[Humanist_Activist]

125. How is god an emotion? That makes no sense. n/t

[rug]

127. You can say "life" but that is als limited.

[Humanist_Activist]

109. "Gods that embody human traits?" Like Yahweh?

I just think it weird that you brought this up, uhm have you read the Bible? There's a god and/or gods that displays many different human traits.

[rug]

112. There is nothing human about Yahweh.

Perhaps you're confusing it with the scriveners.

[Humanist_Activist]

115. Well, for one, he's very emotional, for example, jealously, which makes no sense...

in monotheism, as articulated in the First Commandment. He also displays anger often, and even some love, he's described in ways that lead you to believe he is anthropomorphic, after all, we are supposedly modeled after him, so he looks human. His actions, as portrayed in the Bible, seems to be that of a petty, vindictive human of the era he's in, not a transcendent, timeless god.

[rug]

117. The accounts you refer to are human renderings of an ineffable entity.

Unless, of course, you believe they are literally describing God.

[Humanist_Activist]

119. I'm assuming you are Christian, so what other source do you use?

If the Bible is an unreliable narrator, so to speak, then what is it good for?

[rug]

120. More specifically, Catholic.

Paragraphs 74 through 100 of the Catechism address that question.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

The sola scriptura argument is 500 years old.

[Humanist_Activist]

122. Again, that "Sacred Scripture" isn't so reliable, so having it intertwined with revelation...

seems to a recipe for error. That makes Tradition just as unreliable as the Gospels.

The Sola Scriptura argument isn't new, I know that, but I'm still puzzled by this knowledge of the nature of god, again, I have to ask, where, independent of Sacred Scripture, does this knowledge come from? How are we to test its accuracy?

[rug]

123. If you take it as literal narration, it's highly unreliable.

In essence, its nature is, "I am Who am." Sheer existence. Sheer awareness.

You can't test it, can't even design a proper experiment to test it.

[Humanist_Activist]

124. What does "Sheer awareness" or "Sheer existence" even mean?

Not to mention "I am who am" is nonsensical.

Also, how are you supposed to read scripture? How is it to be interpreted? How are you supposed to know that your interpretation is accurate?

[rug]

126. Consciousness, self-awareness.

I personally find it hard to read Scripture, any scripture including the Bhagavad Gita, at face value. I rely on scholarly commentaries.

[phil89]

128. So you need to be

Told what to think? Interesting

[rug]

129. You may believe education is being "told what to think".

Educated people don't.

[Humanist_Activist]

130. I feel as if we are simply talking past each other, and going around in circles...

honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about, you bring unrelated things into the topic at hand, it doesn't make any sense.

Since you rely on scholars so much, I'll ask again, how do those scholars gain knowledge about the nature of god from Scripture? How do we know its accurate or factual? How do we test for that?

[rug]

132. It would be foolish to read Beowulf without scholarly commentary.

Since scriptures are idiosyncratic, inaccessible works, the scholarship helps the reader know more precisely what the writers are saying. So, I say scholars are of great service in establishing what the statements are and what the message conveyed is. Neither they nor the words establish fact or all. You can take it or leave it. And I'll say it again, you cannot test it. If you are looking for a scientific abstract with replicable results, save yourself the trouble and put the book down.

[Humanist_Activist]

133. That's not the issue, if we treated the Bible like Beowulf, I wouldn't have an issue...

but no serious scholar argues that Grendel actually existed, or Beowulf himself, its a legendary epic, and the scholarly work and commentary surrounding it centers on the origins of the story, the author(or possibly authors), whether its an oral story passed down, the historical and religious context, etc.

All those activities can yield a great deal of information, there is much to learn there, particularly about the culture/cultures that produced such an epic, yet no one is arguing that any part of these stories actually happened or that the characters actually existed.

Not so with the Bible, while many Biblical scholars do, more or less, treat the Bible as they would Homer's Epics, or the tales of Gilgamesh, there are many others who claim that at least some parts of the Bible are true without verification. An obvious example would be Exodus, which, as written, never happened, and indeed there's not only a lack of evidence, but actually contrary evidence that anything in it took place. There's a "controversy" surrounding the issue, but the sides are rather basically science(archaeology/history) versus faith.

Not to mention, and this is key, no one claims that Beowulf was inspired by the divine. That's why my question still hasn't been answered yet. How do you use Scripture to figure out the true nature of god when that Scripture is so blatantly unreliable? Not to mention that the deity of the Bible is the stuff of nightmares, a monster.

[rug]

134. No, the is a big part of the issue.

You have to know what the message is before you accept or mock it.

[Humanist_Activist]

135. What message? What are you talking about?

What is there to accept?

[rug]

136. Do you think the Bible has a message?

I'm not asking if you accept it or mock it, simply whether or not you think it contains a message.

[Humanist_Activist]

137. Not a consistent message, no, the Bible is a collection of related stories, legends, myths...

ritual practices, etc. of several different tribes of Canaanites who were to be known as Israelites. Written between approximately 600 B.C. to about 120 A.D. or so, including the New Testament and the various Apocrypha and non-canon stories. If there is a larger narrative of the Bible, it would be a basic chronicling of the Israelites' religious beliefs from polytheism, through henotheism to monotheism. This narrative relates to the war god Yahweh, and how he is to be exalted above all other gods, to be worshiped alone by his chosen people.

That's the old testament. The new testament revolves around the figure of Jesus the Christ, the messiah of Yahweh, who is to savior of the world. The Gospels, depending on the time period we believe they were written in, are classic examples of myth and legend making, in the earliest, chronologically, the miracles are scarce, the elaborations on the stories hardly there. In the later ones, the stories are fleshed out, taking on forms more closely related to novels rather than histories, biographies, or journals, the miracles are numerous and extravagant, the resurrection story is more elaborate. Of course, being from independent authors with no access to source material, inconsistencies arise.

But this is a just a brief description of both the new and old testaments. If there is a message, its to worship Yahweh, and no other gods. Technically, even that isn't consistent(worship of Asherah was sanctioned for a time, being consort to Yahweh), but its the closest thing to consistency you are going to get.

Am I saying there is nothing factual in the Bible, no of course not, many of the places, people, and events may actually be portrayed with some accuracy, but that is no more impressive than the fact that Troy actually existed. These are people writing narratives, and you write what you know, usually the places around you, both near and far.

I will say there are themes in the Bible that are disturbing, for example, the moral of the story of Abraham and Isaac is rather appalling, Exodus chronicles that Yahweh has little problem with killing innocents to get what he wants, Jesus introduced us to eternal hellfire, Genesis has original sin. All of these are horrible ideas and beliefs. Then you have the poetry of Psalms, quite a bit of which can be beautiful, and other ideas, such as forgiveness, charity, etc. that are quite good. Hence the lack of consistency.

ON EDIT: There is one thing to make clear, the various books of the Bible are probably best taken separately, rather than part of a larger narrative, the original authors did NOT compose a Bible, they composed books within the Bible. It was, itself, cobbled together later by committee.

[Leontius]

138. You're getting closer to understanding but still a way to go.

[rug]

139. That's where the scholarship comes in.

It examines the disparate sources and determines if the message is coherent and consistent.

I daresay the content of your post itself is the result of scholarship and not an original revelation.

[Humanist_Activist]

140. Most of the scholarship I've seen, and yes much of it I sourced(from memory) in my post...

has more to do with trying to figure out who wrote the various parts of the Bible, and for what purpose, and in what context. There were Deuteronomists, Yahwists, Elohists, monotheists, henotheists and polytheists who all contributed to the bible, creating religious and political tracts to support their side and disparage others. These were then further edited to remove previous, inconvenient references, with verses added or subtracted accordingly. Its a fascinating look at how a particular cultural group hashed out differences in what many consider a seminal work over a period of centuries.

But, as far as I know, there's no serious attempt at even trying to form a cohesive narrative out of the Bible itself. That would be impossible to do, simply because the books, poems, prayers and rituals were never meant to be put into a single volume.

[rug]

141. It is a daunting task.

From what I've seen, Christian scholars have one to great lengths to see in the Old Testament precursors, or "types" for Christ and read the Old Testament as a prologue for the New Testament, climaxing in the Resurrection. That's the conventional narrative in any event.

But I haven't read any of the new Jewish scholarship on the Torah, and very little of the old. That narrative necessarily must be different. What little I know of that concerns the recurring messages of Yahweh's sovereignty, goodness, and covenant.

Neither narrative need be correct but there emerges, at least, a narrative. Or two.

[Humanist_Activist]

142. You are basically justifying confirmation bias, is anyone concerned about what actually...

is in the text? Or under what circumstances it was actually written in?

Where is truth in all this? It sounds like it was thrown out the window. Why should anyone take such "scholarship" seriously? Its opinion pretending to be fact, nothing more.

[Lordquinton]

10. for this reason, among others, the RCC

And Islam shares this too, they shouldn't have a say in how religion is taught at schools. None of those religions"just became extinct" they were murdered, and we know who did it. Hearing a Christian say that because no one practices those religions, therefore they shouldn't be held in the same classification is sickening.

[Leontius]

11. I'm not sure which is most laughable the article itself

or the way some just lap it up like milk from a bowl.

[rug]

18. I'd say the latter.

The article at least required thought, not simple reflex.

[okasha]

23. Definitely the latter.

It's operant conditioning by now.

[Leontius]

32. I can't help but still be amazed how gullible and willfully ignorant these people are.

Their desire to grab onto anything that allows them to continue the charade that they are informed about history in general and religion in particular is unbelievable. In order to engage in debate two elements are necessary facts and honesty. Facts are able to be researched if you're not to lazy to do the work. Honesty for a select few I think is an impossible thing to achieve, they have an agenda and it is on display daily. The failure of Christians throughout its existence is documented well enough. Lies and exaggerations aren't needed to condemn those failures.

[trotsky]

27. Thank you for your post, Leontius.

For displaying the attitude shown by your theological predecessors, and showing us how true Christians can justify their behavior.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. And for showing us there's a one-sentence hit-and-run reply for any topic.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Deja Vu

Christian vandals smashed the heads and limbs off statues of beloved gods and goddesses that had been venerated for generations. They knocked the noses off the faces, and carved crosses into the foreheads, of deities, heroes and emperors. They burned ancient texts, obliterating centuries of knowledge, literature and heritage.

Sounds like what ISIS is doing to religious pieces that don't conform to their religion.

[mwrguy]

29. They'd do it again the first chance they got

[xfundy]

54. I can't see a difference between them

and the idiots of islam who've been blowing up statues and sculptures from tens of thousands of years ago, as if they were a threat. What's being F'd is artifacts of ancestors, andI don't care who/what they "worshipped" in those old days. To destroy a part of human history is nuts.

[kwassa]

76. The OP author is a top-selling relationship author! And couples mediator!

No apparent background in history.

Debra Macleod, B.A., LL.B., is a top-selling relationship author, expert resource for major media and couples mediator. Visit her private practice at DebraMacleod.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/debra-macleod/

[trotsky]

83. Any facts in the article you'd like to dispute, kwassa?

Yeah, didn't think so. No wonder you'd rather launch personal attacks.

[kwassa]

87. Do you always argue with yourself?

You built that straw man and knocked it down beautifully.

The OP neglected to mention that the persecution of the pagans came not on order from the church, but from Constantine and subsequent Roman emperors, until the later involvement by church bishops.

Creating a very false impression, but fulfilling her agenda.

The persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire began late during the reign of Constantine the Great, when he ordered the pillaging and the tearing down of some temples.[1][2][3] The first anti-Pagan laws by the Christian state started with Constantine's son Constantius II,[4][5] who was an unwavering opponent of paganism; he ordered the closing of all pagan temples, forbade Pagan sacrifices under pain of death,[2] and removed the traditional Altar of Victory from the Senate.[6] Under his reign ordinary Christians started vandalizing many of the ancient Pagan temples, tombs and monuments.[7][8][9][10]

From 361 till 375, Paganism was relatively tolerated, until three Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I, under Bishop of Milan Saint Ambrose's influence, reinstituted and escalated the persecution.[11][12] Under pressure from the zealous Ambrose, Theodosius issued the infamous 391 "Theodosian decrees," a declaration of war on paganism,[12][13] the Altar of Victory was removed again by Gratian, the Vestal Virgins were disbanded, and access to Pagan temples was prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire

[trotsky]

88. Please, kwassa, there is no need to engage in such nasty behavior.

You dispute here seems to hang on an assertion that Constantine's orders had nothing to do with the Christian church, which is patently false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to the gods for the spiritual health of their subjects, and after Constantine they had a duty to help the Church define orthodoxy and maintain orthodoxy. The Church generally regarded the definition of doctrine as the responsibility of the bishops; the emperor's role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity. The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship (orthodoxy) and doctrines and dogma consisted of was for the Church to determine.

Constantine had become a worshiper of the one true god, but he found that there were many opinions on that worship and indeed on the god. In 316, Constantine was asked to adjudicate in a North African dispute between the Donatist sect (who began by refusing obedience to any bishops who had yielded in any way to persecution, later regarding all bishops but their own sect as so contaminated). More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified). The Council of Nicaea is the first major attempt by the Emperor to persuade Christians to define orthodoxy, and to impose it on the wide variety of early Christianity.

Constantine WAS the church, in a very real way.

Any other facts you'd like to try and dispute? But please keep things civil, or I will not respond.

[kwassa]

89. You're projecting again. You really need to stop.

You dispute here seems to hang on an assertion that Constantine's orders had nothing to do with the Christian church, which is patently false.

Nope. I made no such argument.

This is like your last straw man, arguing against something I never said.

[trotsky]

91. Alright, if you say so.

You claimed it was an order from Constantine and had nothing to do with the Christian church.

I say it would be awfully difficult to attempt to draw a line between the two at the time.

You have offered nothing to dispute that, but instead just hurled more bitterness. So unless you care to continue to try and make your case with something resembling facts, I believe we are done here.

[kwassa]

98. Never said that either.

Once again, you attempt to put an argument in my mouth that I never made. This is getting to be a pattern with you.

The oppression of the pagans took place at the direction of the Christian Roman emperors. I'm sure that they were influenced to one degree or another by the Christian clergy around them, and Christian church leadership was definitely involved at a later date. Earlier pagan Roman emperors oppressed Christians, too, something that didn't seem to make it into the article. This oppression was a governmental decision, not a church decision as Macleod portrays it.

Her OP didn't mention the role the emperors played, but the information I quoted is from a Wiki article that she referenced in her article, but chose to ignore in favor of her own personal narrative. I call that dishonest.

Speaking of cherry-picking, she does an outstanding job. And clearly, she is no historian and I have no idea why Huffington would host such an unqualified commentator.

[trotsky]

100. Influenced? LOL

Again, I challenge you to even TRY to draw a line between where the church ended and the emperor began. You have viciously attacked the writer of this piece but have been wholly unable to prove a single thing she said wrong.

[Leontius]

103. She couldn't be bothered with research on the subject. Vestals married to Rome, really.

A couple must have been waiting.

[John1956PA]

78. In 1585, Tommaso Laureti completed his "Triumph of Christianity" fresco.

That fresco is the centerpiece of the images on the ceiling of the Raphael Room of the Papal Palace. The fresco suggests that Constantine ordered the destruction of pagan statures. However, in reality, Constantine was tolerant of them. The destruction of the pagan statues was accomplished by Christians operating pursuant to their own agenda.

[beam me up scottie]

79. WORLD PAGAN LEADERS ADDRESS THE POPE

Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

From the op:

We'll never know how our society might have developed, especially in terms of scientific and social advancement, had one androcentric religion not held exclusive control of so many and for so long. The ancient world was brutal, but it had its forward thinkers and rays of light.

But back to the beginning: Should the Catholic church acknowledge the harms it did so long ago to Greco-Roman pagan culture? Of course, I don't believe it will. Anti-pagan propaganda and a denial/whitewashing of history is still too prevalent for that to happen. Others have asked for this apology -- pagans and Christians alike -- to no meaningful avail.

Yet to me, there's something to be said for acknowledging past harms. From the internment of Japanese Canadians during WWII to the mistreatment of First Nations children forced to endure the residential school system, an acknowledgement is as much about spreading knowledge and preventing future injustice as it is about mending fences.

For as the ancient Roman statesman Seneca the Younger tells us, errare humanum est, sed in errare perseverare diabolicum. To err is human, but to persist in error is diabolical.

Some background about that apology from ReligiousTolerance.org:

WORLD PAGAN LEADERS ADDRESS THE POPE

A group of Neopagans from around the world sent a message to Pope John Paul II on 2000-JAN-1, requesting that he include Pagans in his proposed apology.


Pope acknowledges sins of the Church:

In October 1998, in preparation for the Millennium, Pope John Paul II, the spiritual leader of about one billion Christian Roman Catholics, indicated that he and the Vatican are reviewing past Church sins and preparing a global apology statement:

On 1998-NOV-06, JTA mentioned in an article that Pope John Paul II has indicated that the Vatican may ask forgiveness for the Inquisition as part of a policy of self-searching as the Christian millennium approaches.

The text of the letter to Pope John Paul II

Pagans in Action: Council for Truth
1373 Dunbarton Road
Montgomery, AL 36117

Samhain (October 31), 1999

His Holiness, Pope John Paul II
Vatican City

Your Holiness:

The signatories to this letter have become aware that your advisors in the Vatican are working on a formal Apology to the Protestant Christians, Jews and Muslims for the persecution these groups suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church during the centuries of the Inquisition. It is our understanding that you will formally present this Apology at the opening of the Holy Year 2000 Grand Jubilee, following a penitential procession from the Basilica of Santa Sabina to Rome's Circus Maximus, where you will call for forgiveness for the historic failings of the Church. This is a brave and laudable effort, heralding the beginning of a great healing between the Catholic Church and the groups that have, historically, been persecuted in its name.

We note however, that early news releases concerning this event have not indicated that those accused of being Witches, and those indigenous (i.e. "Pagan&quot peoples who were forcibly converted by the Church will be included in your apology. This letter is a formal request for that omission to be rectified. As leaders of the contemporary Pagan/Wiccan community, we sincerely hope that Your Holiness will lead the way to mutual respect for all religions and spiritual paths by including all those who suffered from the tragedy of the Inquisition.

Modern Pagans, including many identified as Witches and Druids, comprise a global spiritual movement that draws its inspiration and traditions from indigenous pre-Christian religions. In the name of our spiritual ancestors who suffered persecution during the Inquisition, we respectfully request inclusion of Pagans and Witches in your Apology Address.

Sincerely Yours,

(1,639 Signatories)

Papal response:

We have been unable to locate any direct response by the Pope to this request. However, he did issue a statement of apology in 2000-MAR. According to Reuters, it "outlined a framework for seeking forgiveness for past errors without necessarily admitting responsibility for them." 1 It contained no specific references to past events. Since Catholic theology teaches that the church itself is spotless and free of error and sin, the church itself was absolved of any blame. He assigned responsibility for past evils on individual members of the Church.

[trotsky]

84. Fascinating how modern-day Christians react with hate and spittle to this history. n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

85. People often hate the ones they hurt.

It makes for easy post hoc justifications.

[skepticscott]

86. And they defend the ones

who have hurt them. Stockholm Syndrome is rampant on this board.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Denial, deflection and disruption.

Predictable, no?

[Leontius]

92. But you do it so well almost, dare I say an artform.

[beam me up scottie]

93. And right on cue.

It's like ringing a dinner bell...

[Leontius]

94. If you guys don't want to be called on whinny petty little bullshit

don't post whiny petty little bullshit.

[beam me up scottie]

95. The destruction of pagan culture is whinny(sic) petty little bullshit?

Ding ding ding!

Denial, deflection AND disruption, all in one post.





Why does discussion of this issue make you so angry?

[Leontius]

96. Yes you did all three in one post.

Well done. Call the others you will need help. By the way the op is about "classical pagan culture". Study up.

[beam me up scottie]

97. More deflection.

Why does it make you so angry?

[Leontius]

99. Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't anger me

it amuses me.

[trotsky]

102. I for one am glad Leontius is here to remind us what True Christian behavior is all about. n/t

[rug]

113. I'm glad he's here to point out hypocritical behavior.

[HockeyMom]

101. The (Pagan) History of Christmas

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

Exactly.

[struggle4progress]

108. That account contains some curious garblings. It is, of course, quite likely

that the date for celebration Christmas had been chosen (perhaps in the fourth century CE) as the date of the equinox, which would have originally been 25 December under the Julian calendrical reform

On the other hand, the claim that the Roman Saturnalia involved human sacrifice in the early years of the Christian era is almost certainly untrue:

By the Late Republic the Romans came to be as horrified by the practice of human sacrifice as any modern might be. The practice of human sacrifice was prohibited by senatorial decree in 97 BCE under the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus. The Romans afterward proscribed the practice by the different peoples they conquered, regarding the practice as barbaric and distinguishing their own civilization from those outside the empire.

The first instance of this is with Licinius Crassus in Further Spain where he was governor (96-93 BCE).The Romans accused the Carthaginians of sacrificing infants, a question still being debated by historians (1). The Romans made similar accusations in later times against the Druids, Jews and Christians, and unpopular emperors like Egalabalus. Horace’s portrayal of Medea and especially of Canidia employed scenes of human sacrifice as a way of denigrating the use of magic and witchcraft. Likewise Pliny the Elder, on discussing the origins of magic among the Persians, uses the practice of human sacrifice to distinguish it as un-Roman (Natural History XXX.1-2, 12-15) ...

We know of three instances, recorded by Livy and Plutarch, where a ritual human sacrifice was performed at Rome. Two pairs of Gauls and Greeks, a man and a woman each, were buried alive in the Forum Boarium. The instances recorded took place in the years 228, 216 and 113 BCE. In each case these sacrifices were made in response to instructions taken from the Sibylline Books. The sacrifices seem to have been made to the Manes and Dii Inferi. Plutarch (Roman Questions 83) noted the Roman attitude that disapproved of other peoples making human sacrifice to the gods, and wondered, "Did they (the Romans) think it impious to sacrifice human beings to the gods, but necessary to sacrifice them to the Manes? We hear of Vestal Virgins being buried alive too, usually on the excuse that they had broken their vows of chastity.. In the year 483 BCE Vestal Oppia was so buried as unchaste, but Livy (2.42) makes clear that this was really a sacrifice made to appease the gods when bad omens appeared. The same seems to be the case in the execution of Vestal Cornelia by Domitian (Pliny the Younger, Epistle 4.11). The burials of the Gauls and Greeks in 216 and 113 followed shortly after the burials of Vestal Virgins. It is thought that these burials were connected in a common ceremony of propitiation to the Manes ...

A very interesting case of human sacrifice occurred in the Regal period that involved the sanctifying of the pomerium. When Servius expanded the city walls, a sacrifice was made of four individuals, buried beneath the old pomerium wall that encircled the Palatine Hill. Those bodies were only recently discovered after Carandini discovered the old Palatine pomerium wall. The four tombs included the usual ritual elements, dating to about 650 BCE. Tomb 1 was an adult male; age 30-40, with his head inclined and arms at his side. Along with him were buried two amphorae, a collana (necklace), one plate and two fibulae. Tomb 2 was a child laid in a sleeping position, along with one small amphora and two fibula. Tomb 3 was a young adult male aged 16-18, laid out like the older male. He was buried with one amphora; a large cup, two little cups, two plates, two pieces of bronze and one ring, all placed on the left side of the tomb. Tomb 4 was a female laid out in a fetal position, and oriented in a different direction from all the others. She was buried along with one amphora. These sacrifices were made because the old wall was being violated in the process of extending the pomerium with the new Servian Wall ...

http://home.scarlet.be/mauk.haemers/collegium_religionis/human_sacrifice.htm

Roman sources say the Romans stopped Celtic human sacrifice practices, and there is actually some archaeological evidence of such practices.

It is extremely unlikely the Christians imported Saturnalian customs anywhere, since one of the early martyrdom stories is that of the Christian soldier, Dasius of Durostorum, reportedly executed in the time of Diocletian for refusing to serve as King of Saturnalia

[struggle4progress]

131. The notion that there was one definite "Classical Pagan Culture" is somewhat odd

The paganism of the Roman empire was a mish-mash, reflecting the wide variety of peoples Rome had conquered and enslaved: it included the strange magical views of some people, the rationalism of the Hellenistic philosophers, and a variety of other ingredients

We should expect the processes, by which such diverse views involved disappeared or evolved into other ideas, to be multiple and complicated, involving features including: propaganda associated with military conflicts, the natural human desire to retain ideas that seemed helpful and productive, self-serving opportunism, the use of surrogate issues in political struggles, demagoguery from every side, and other elements common to social change throughout history

The Greek golden age ended long before the Christians appeared. The culture of Rome was a culture of war, conquest, and spoil -- we don't find (for example) great mathematicians like Archimedes in the Roman tradition -- and that produced resentments across the western world. Rome also had serious recurrent internal problems: there were four different emperors in 68/69 CE, five in 168 CE, and something like six from the beginning to the end of 238 CE. This meant there were regular periods of chaos across the empire