Did the Pope issue an apology

[Raynd]

Théodred:

It’s not a religion.

Actually it could loosely fit the definition of religion. Don’t be afraid to look up the word “religion” in your dictionary sometime…my dictionary published in the 70’s uses the phrase “philosophy for life” as part of it’s definition… Of course that would be open to interpretation…but you will also notice that he put religion in quotes…showing that he indeed did get the sarcasm…Sorry you didn’t.

BTW, Raynd… the last time I checked I wasn’t a tiger… and you’re wishing me to be one isn’t going to change the fact. (Is it ok to use Randianisms with a Randian?) I’m not angry either. Truth doesn’t always sound kind when you are on the wrong side of it.

As much as I want to slam you on this one (just for the fun of it)…it behooves me to refrain from dogging you…as it would just simply be too easy…and I like a challenge…, but let’s just say that your apparent inability to grasp a simple metaphor…and then to go on to use this inability as a springboard for a jab at objectivity?..well - let’s just say it makes you “less than worthy”…I would also contend that you have no idea what “truth” actually is.

 

[Theodred]

Raynd:

Actually it could loosely fit the definition of religion. Don’t be afraid to look up the word “religion” in your dictionary sometime…my dictionary published in the 70’s uses the phrase “philosophy for life” as part of it’s definition… Of course that would be open to interpretation…but you will also notice that he put religion in quotes…showing that he indeed did get the sarcasm…Sorry you didn’t.

As much as I want to slam you on this one (just for the fun of it)…it behooves me to refrain from dogging you…as it would just simply be too easy…and I like a challenge…, but let’s just say that your apparent inability to grasp a simple metaphor…and then to go on to use this inability as a springboard for a jab at objectivity?..well - let’s just say it makes you “less than worthy”…I would also contend that you have no idea what “truth” actually is.

Not dogging me? Please! What do you call that whole post. That entire post was nothing more than a flame stating it was not a flame.

That’s ok, though. I started it.

Calling Objectivism a religion is like calling Kantianism a religion. Really, a Randian should be able to objectively tell the difference, right? That’s what you pride yourself on.

(Oh, wait… I suppose if life’s mysteries can be figured out by a two bit science fiction writer, then any two bit philosophy could be a religion.)

 

[Raynd]

1…citing “Randian” as my religion was what I thought an obvious sarcasm…a bit of joke that anyone with a sharp sense of humor would have picked up on…

1. What I pride myself on? How could you possibly know what I “pride myself on”.
2. Striving to be objective in my pursuits towards knowledge and truth HARDLY means that I cannot find interest in the supernatural ideas and tenents.
3. One could easily strive for objectivity…and not be in total agreement with Ayn…her ideas on Altruism and selfishness I find a bit kooky…but then again she was just putting ideas on paper. Big deal?

Are you the type of Catholic that will dismiss people and ideas solely on the purpose of whether or not they were a moral person in your opinion? I believe there are passages in the bible regarding this…also

Just to continue to play the game…you probably dismiss any religion or church that isn’t catholic as a sham…so no - randian can not be a religion for you obviously…but my dictionary states "a specific system of belief or worship ETC. built around a god OR a code of ethics, a philosphy of life, ETC…ETC…
SO…by this particular Websters dictionary I could indeed define it as a religion…
Théodred:

Not dogging me? Please! What do you call that whole post. That entire post was nothing more than a flame stating it was not a flame.

That’s ok, though. I started it.

Calling Objectivism a religion is like calling Kantianism a religion. Really, a Randian should be able to objectively tell the difference, right? That’s what you pride yourself on.

(Oh, wait… I suppose if life’s mysteries can be figured out by a two bit science fiction writer, then any two bit philosophy could be a religion.)

 

[nan]

I didn’t read people’s comments as being flustered or threatening “banishment” - at least not until the topic originator made the suggestion. I would like this discussion to be informative but it seems the tone set by Raynd precludes that. Too bad though…

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you all,

Does anyone think that history is objective? I mean isn’t there always some sense of bias from the author.

I think we can only be “objective” about what we experience ourselves not what others tell us about.

Just my 2 cents…

Peace.

 

[Theodred]

Raynd:

1…citing “Randian” as my religion was what I thought an obvious sarcasm…a bit of joke that anyone with a sharp sense of humor would have picked up on…

Sorry that you can’t handle my sarcasm.

Raynd:

1. What I pride myself on? How could you possibly know what I “pride myself on”.

My comments are based soley on the fact that you identify yourself as a Randian.

Raynd:

1. Striving to be objective in my pursuits towards knowledge and truth HARDLY means that I cannot find interest in the supernatural ideas and tenents.

Glad to hear it.

Raynd:

1. One could easily strive for objectivity…and not be in total agreement with Ayn…her ideas on Altruism and selfishness I find a bit kooky…but then again she was just putting ideas on paper. Big deal?

We agree.

Raynd:

Are you the type of Catholic that will dismiss people and ideas solely on the purpose of whether or not they were a moral person in your opinion?

I never commented about anyone’s behavior.

Raynd:

Just to continue to play the game…you probably dismiss any religion or church that isn’t catholic as a sham

No… I dismiss and reject atheism.

Raynd:

…so no - randian can not be a religion for you obviously…but my dictionary states "a specific system of belief or worship ETC. built around a god OR a code of ethics, a philosphy of life,

Ok, you’re right. Hey everyone, my religion is Thomism! :bounce:

nan,

Actually it was I who sat the negative tone because for some reason Raynd didn’t answer the question. If he or she didn’t want a sarcastic answer then he or she should have answered the question in the first place.

Its funny how by being sarcastic toward’s another’s beliefs can make the other so quick to make personal attacks. It kind of cuts to the quick, doesn’t it? Sort of like asking pointed, sarcastic and biased questions designed, not to illicit honest debate, but to attack another’s beliefs.

 

[Raynd]

Look this is what I posted…

“Did the Pope issue an apology
for the Church’s crimes against humanity? If not, should it?”

This “depending on how you judge murder, and intolerance” is an undeniable fact…did other religions engage in this ABSOLUTELY…did I pass judgment NO I DIDN’T… Part of this stemmed from a discussion with a friend/catholic at work who seemed to think that the Pope issued and apology…I wasn’t so sure- This website is called “catholic answers” is it not?

This is what you posted:

Randian: Someone who holds to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, the putz who created a philosophy called Objectivism… **thus ruining a perfectly good word.
**
Edit: all Randians I know are militantly atheistic, and usually aren’t very interested in fair and unbiased assesments of religion, especially the Catholic Church.

**

**
Théodred:

Sorry that you can’t handle my sarcasm.

My comments are based soley on the fact that you identify yourself as a Randian.

Glad to hear it.

We agree.

I never commented about anyone’s behavior.

No… I dismiss and reject atheism.

Ok, you’re right. Hey everyone, my religion is Thomism! :bounce:

nan,

Actually it was I who sat the negative tone because for some reason Raynd didn’t answer the question. If he or she didn’t want a sarcastic answer then he or she should have answered the question in the first place.

Its funny how by being sarcastic toward’s another’s beliefs can make the other so quick to make personal attacks. It kind of cuts to the quick, doesn’t it? Sort of like asking pointed, sarcastic and biased questions designed, not to illicit honest debate, but to attack another’s beliefs.

 

[Raynd]

Look I could go on, and on…bust your arguments left and right with ease…If you want to be overly sensitive and read so deeply into things …then that’s your bag - don’t put it on me… I’ve been mildly guilty of it…but your bag is much bigger…just read the posts.

At the risk of being an arse…I will contend that you seriously have the “persecution complex” that many religious folk have…Don’t be afraid of the hard questions my little tiger…have a little faith in your faith! hahahaa

Raynd:

Look this is what I posted…

“Did the Pope issue an apology
for the Church’s crimes against humanity? If not, should it?”

This “depending on how you judge murder, and intolerance” is an undeniable fact…did other religions engage in this ABSOLUTELY…did I pass judgment NO I DIDN’T… Part of this stemmed from a discussion with a friend/catholic at work who seemed to think that the Pope issued and apology…I wasn’t so sure- This website is called “catholic answers” is it not?

This is what you posted:

Randian: Someone who holds to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, the putz who created a philosophy called Objectivism… thus ruining a perfectly good word.

Edit: all Randians I know are militantly atheistic, and usually aren’t very interested in fair and unbiased assesments of religion, especially the Catholic Church.

 

[Theodred]

uh-hu :ehh: whatever

 

[JimO]

Raynd:

Look this is what I posted…

“Did the Pope issue an apology
for the Church’s crimes against humanity? If not, should it?”

This “depending on how you judge murder, and intolerance” is an undeniable fact…did other religions engage in this ABSOLUTELY…did I pass judgment NO I DIDN’T… Part of this stemmed from a discussion with a friend/catholic at work who seemed to think that the Pope issued and apology…I wasn’t so sure- This website is called “catholic answers” is it not?

I’ve followed this thread without commenting because it went off on a tangent. Regarding your original question. Yes, the Pope has apologized on behalf of the “Church’s sins” of the past against peoples and individuals. I can’t say whether the phrase “crimes against humanity” was used, but there was not attempt to avoid the full fault of the matters.

The distinction here is what the Pope is apologizing for, which is comprised of sins committed by Church officials acting in their role within the Church rather than apologizing for some error officially taught by the Church under its teaching authority.

This is an important distinction because if one thinks that the Church’s teaching authority was compromised, then they will conclude the the institution left by Christ is flawed and His promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail against it” has not been fulfilled.

However, until the Second Coming the Church will always be comprised of sinners. Every Pope has been a sinner, every priest, every bishop, every cardinal, every nun, every saint. All of us are sinners. Thus, individuals will commit sin, including those in positions of authority within the Church.

Our pastor is fond of saying, “Don’t judge the faith by the poor practice of it by some.” Yes, people have been murdered by Catholics in the name of Christ. Yes, Popes have committed personal sin and brought scandal on the Church. Yes, pedophile priests have caused untold suffering, but this is not the faith and it is not the teaching of Christ. This is the result of sin in the world. What is astounding is not all the suffering caused by those who claim to be followers of Christ, it is that the Catholic faith has survived all the sinners over 2,000 years. This is the evidence that “the gates of hell” have not prevailed.

Blessings

 

[Raynd]

That my friends…is a good answer!
Thank you!

JimO:

I’ve followed this thread without commenting because it went off on a tangent. Regarding your original question. Yes, the Pope has apologized on behalf of the “Church’s sins” of the past against peoples and individuals. I can’t say whether the phrase “crimes against humanity” was used, but there was not attempt to avoid the full fault of the matters.

The distinction here is what the Pope is apologizing for, which is comprised of sins committed by Church officials acting in their role within the Church rather than apologizing for some error officially taught by the Church under its teaching authority.

This is an important distinction because if one thinks that the Church’s teaching authority was compromised, then they will conclude the the institution left by Christ is flawed and His promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail against it” has not been fulfilled.

However, until the Second Coming the Church will always be comprised of sinners. Every Pope has been a sinner, every priest, every bishop, every cardinal, every nun, every saint. All of us are sinners. Thus, individuals will commit sin, including those in positions of authority within the Church.

Our pastor is fond of saying, “Don’t judge the faith by the poor practice of it by some.” Yes, people have been murdered by Catholics in the name of Christ. Yes, Popes have committed personal sin and brought scandal on the Church. Yes, pedophile priests have caused untold suffering, but this is not the faith and it is not the teaching of Christ. This is the result of sin in the world. What is astounding is not all the suffering caused by those who claim to be followers of Christ, it is that the Catholic faith has survived all the sinners over 2,000 years. This is the evidence that “the gates of hell” have not prevailed.

Blessings

 

[walter.gonzalez]

I just want to again express my pride and admiration for John Paul II. He asked for forgiveness and it was the perfect Christian action.

 

[Exporter]

Raynd said he looked into Catholocism but it had too much blood on its hands to consider becoming a Catholic. To me, that is absolutely the wrong way to eveluate a religion.

Consider:
Was Jesus Devine?
Who was it that started the Catholic Church?
Who promised to always be with the Church?

These are few questions to ask. To substitute a “man made” philosophy for a Religion is fruitless to me.

 

[Exporter]

To substitute a “man made” philosphy for a Religion is fruitless.

Who started the Catholic Church?
Was Jesus Christ Devine?

These are more pertinante questions.

 

[thirsty4uolord]

****LISTEN TO THE LORD ABOUT HUMILITY

HELLO AND GOD BLESS ALL

Lets take it easy here and remember to be humble and modest if we are to quote scripture.There is only one answer and one solution to all questions and problems John 3-16.His Salvation we must seek ,and cling to his word ,be tolerant of others and convincing with actions ,walking with the light of our Lord not Big Shot Isim .
Instead of trying to convince others we know all answers lets tell them how wonderfull we feel worshiping him.All things are theirs and ours to receive thru him.

PEACE BE WITH YOU ALL
:love:

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Raynd,

Did you see those book recommendations? Those are good for/against type books. I think it’s important to understand the Christian mindset when coming to issues like that. This may not be the thread to tread down that path, but it’s important. Like, if just on your own, you are like, “Well, yeah, I agree with Christianity, so I’ll be Christian.”

I’d venture so far to say, that just left to our own sin and being alienated from God’s grace, nobody in their “natural” mind (that is, a God-denying mind rather than a God fearing mind), would agree with much of Christianity. Now, one may agree with some things of it, because it’s objectively appealing and agreeable, but we’re not made right before God by objective assent to a few facts. Rather by faith “Your faith has made you whole.” Matthew 9:22

So, if you don’t like the Inquisition or whatever, that’s fine. That’s not an article of the Christian faith. But it’s cool you have an interest in things like that.

 

[Raynd]

Hey thanx!..Actually the first book I am going to read is TRIUMPH…by Crocker. Right now I am reading DOUBT…by Jennifer Hecht…it’s not a catholic specific book…it just a history of all the great doubters of the ages (including Jesus)…but I would recommend it to any religious person for scholarly pursuits at least…plus it puts a nice human touch on non-theism, and the complete reasonableness (sp) of not coming to a same conclusion that others have.
Reformed Rob:

Raynd,

Did you see those book recommendations? Those are good for/against type books. I think it’s important to understand the Christian mindset when coming to issues like that. This may not be the thread to tread down that path, but it’s important. Like, if just on your own, you are like, “Well, yeah, I agree with Christianity, so I’ll be Christian.”

I’d venture so far to say, that just left to our own sin and being alienated from God’s grace, nobody in their “natural” mind (that is, a God-denying mind rather than a God fearing mind), would agree with much of Christianity. Now, one may agree with some things of it, because it’s objectively appealing and agreeable, but we’re not made right before God by objective assent to a few facts. Rather by faith “Your faith has made you whole.” Matthew 9:22

So, if you don’t like the Inquisition or whatever, that’s fine. That’s not an article of the Christian faith. But it’s cool you have an interest in things like that.

 

[thirsty4uolord]

****Hello Raynd
May God Bless you

I have a task for you. You somewhat seem to be quite intelectual,
so I would with your acceptance challenge you to read a John Wesley Sermon Titled GODS LOVE FOR FALLEN MAN.If you think Ann is a bright star, Iam sure you will find this particular work Divine and trully a challenge for your mind, but most importantly your soul .
Please do not create any excuse or pre judgement , or tell me you are unable to locate this text you are bright and I know you can find it .God has a plan for you , close your eyes and look thru your heart and you will see. Please accept my challenge for it is inspired only by my love for the Lord and not to insult you