19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau KPerhaps I am misunderstanding you, but if you are suggesting that
And yes, avoiding this 'text' is hemeneutics. Do you wonder why Christians and Jews now discountenance violence?
ignoring a problematic passage of Scripture constitutes hermeneutics,
you have a shameful understanding of the term.
If you aren't suggesting this, then perhaps you could explain.
Nemesio
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KNow you're getting to the heart of the matter.
The Pope represents one-billion Catholics from varying cultures, opinions and wealth. There needs to be a certain level of diplomacy.
Nemesio's premise that the pope is Christ's vicar on earth is false. Holding the papacy is incompatible with being Christlike or Christ's vicar.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThis is a disgusting viewpoint. Contrition is elemental to Christianity.
It's very difficult to give an apology. The Pope represents one-billion Catholics from varying cultures, opinions and wealth. There needs to be a certain level of diplomacy.
Certainly, you don't debate that. Apologies for actions which hurt,
regardless of intent, are a profound aspect of contrition.
Of all the Roman Catholics, the Pope ought to be paving the way
to righteous action. Jesus never said being a good Christian would be
easy. By not apologizing, what message does he send the faithful who
look up to him? The apologies are hard and need not be done?
Nemesio
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioNo I am not suggesting this - at all. When reading scripture it is important to consider the socio-cultural background in which it was written. We know that most of the OT wa composed during the Babylonian Exile somewhere in Mesopotamia (~600BCE?). Now I am no scholar of the OT, which is why I avoid these texts. But it is easy to sympathise that such beliefs about massacring stems from their socio-cultural circumstances at the time.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but if you are suggesting that
ignoring a problematic passage of Scripture constitutes hermeneutics,
you have a shameful understanding of the term.
If you aren't suggesting this, then perhaps you could explain.
Nemesio
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioOught to? Under whose standards of what the pope ought to do? Those of Jesus, or those of the Church as an organization? Therein lies the conflict, becasue they are incompatible.
Of [b]all the Roman Catholics, the Pope ought to be paving the way
to righteous action. [/b]
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau K
No I am not suggesting this - at all.
...
Now I am no scholar of the OT, which is why I avoid these texts.
Can you appreciate why a person reading this might have difficulty
taking you seriously? On the one hand, one shouldn't avoid the texts,
on the other hand you avoid them.
And, either way, avoiding a text doesn't constitute hermeneutics.
The only way to appreciate the hermeneutic of a text is to immerse
yourself in it and the secondary sources which give it context.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioNo, it's not so simple. The Pope must mimimize harm to all sides. Thus what usually happens is that the papacy will be slow to respond to events. It might be years until an apology is given. The reason is that rash apologies might be based on unreliable information or on over-zealous emotions.
This is a disgusting viewpoint. Contrition is elemental to Christianity.
Certainly, you don't debate that. Apologies for actions which hurt,
regardless of intent, are a profound aspect of contrition.
Of [b]all the Roman Catholics, the Pope ought to be paving the way
to righteous action. Jesus never said being a good Christian would be ...[text shortened]... send the faithful who
look up to him? The apologies are hard and need not be done?
Nemesio[/b]
Could you provide an example of where you believe that contrition should have been given but was not.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou think they are practically incompatible or they are logically
Ought to? Under whose standards of what the pope ought to do? Those of Jesus, or those of the Church as an organization? Therein lies the conflict, because they are incompatible.
incompatible?
Nemesio
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioI avoid them. I am not advocating others do. What I meant was that others should avoid taking the commandments too literally.
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]No I am not suggesting this - at all.
...
Now I am no scholar of the OT, which is why I avoid these texts.
Can you appreciate why a person reading this might have difficulty
taking you seriously? On the one hand, one shouldn't avoid the texts,
on the other hand you avoid them.
And, either way, a ...[text shortened]... ext is to immerse
yourself in it and the secondary sources which give it context.
Nemesio[/b]
In no way am I claiming that I am using hermeneutics. But if I were to, I would look at the socio-historical basckground first.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat harm to the Roman Catholic community could arise from the
No, it's not so simple. The Pope must mimimize harm to all sides. Thus what usually happens is that the papacy will be slow to respond to events. It might be years until an apology is given. The reason is that rash apologies might be based on unreliable information or on over-zealous emotions.
Could you provide an example of where you believe that contrition should have been given but was not.
following apology:
I, Pope Benedict, sincerely apologize for the harm I caused in
carelessly mentioning an emperor who opined that Islam has only
brought evil and inhumanity. In referring to that passage, I only
sought to illustrate
1) How the emperor could ironically support the Crusades -- imposing
religion by compulsion -- yet chastise the Moslems for the same;
2) How the emperor who is in other places eloquent and logical can be
so blind to his own hypocrisy; and
3) How the emperor is able to see the speck in his enemy's eye all the
while ignoring the log in his own.
I did not communicate these points adequately, and for that, I am
deeply sorry. It was never my intention to endorse these comments;
indeed I find them abhorrent. I only selected this passage to illustrate
how far we have come in interfaith dialogue, 600 years ago we could
only see ourselves as enemies, and now we can sit and have this dialogue. (The end.)
What do you think? You think this could cause harm to 'his side?'
Don't you think that the Pope's Christian duty overrides his political duty?
Nemesio
19 Sep 06
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioAt least practically. According to the most recent issue of Time Magazine, the Pope went on tour to Bavaria and as part of the fanfare, the Vatican sold bottles of "holy water" as souvenirs. Is this something Jesus would do, or would have his vicar do? I really doubt it, but it is clearly something the Vatican thinks is compatible with the role of the Pope.
You think they are practically incompatible or they are logically
incompatible?
Nemesio