19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau KIt's a bit late for him to start agonising over his choice of words to "minimise harm to all sides".
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.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI have no problem with that. But the Pope had already emphasised that the Emperor's comments would "astound" us nowadays.
What harm to the Roman Catholic community could arise from the
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 Crus
Don't you think that the Pope's Christian duty overrides his political duty?
Nemesio
And it should be realised that in this day and age, the comments about Islamic violence are very palpable realities. The comments might have stung, but are they true?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioI told you that I meant "avoiding" in the sense of avoiding to interpret them literally (as I had assumed the Doc was doing).
Do you see the problem here?
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]And yes, avoiding this 'text' is hemeneutics.
Originally posted by Conrau K
I avoid them....
In no way am I claiming that I am using hermeneutics.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBelieve it or not, but the pope is not the Church. He might be its representative (and even then, that choice of words might give the wrong impression), sure. What about the missions in Africa which promote education? Would Jesus endorse this?
At 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.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau KMaybe, maybe not. Jesus might teach about use of condoms to prevent AIDS. I don't think that's in the RC ciricullum.
Believe it or not, but the pope is not the Church. He might be its representative (and even then, that choice of words might give the wrong impression), sure. What about the missions in Africa which promote education? Would Jesus endorse this?
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau KEducating the Africans that condom use is morally wrong? I doubt Jesus would endorse that.
Believe it or not, but the pope is not the Church. He might be its representative (and even then, that choice of words might give the wrong impression), sure. What about the missions in Africa which promote education? Would Jesus endorse this?
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYou have got to be joking! If there is anything that has EVER been handed down it is that the Commandments are carved in stone (literally!) and not ment for any sort of interpretation. They are as literal as it gets.
I avoid them. I am not advocating others do. What I meant was that others should avoid taking the commandments too literally.
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.
How can you NOT take them too literally? Everything you have been saying here is just talking in circles. You tout about the "day and age" in which things were said, done, written, etc....
Perhaps the OT (and the NT for that matter) was written in a "day and age" when it was needed and now, no longer viable given the "day and age" in which we find ourselves now.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeNot the ten commandments. There are over 600 commandments in the Torah. I was referring to the one's that the Doc claims advocate massacres.
You have got to be joking! If there is anything that has EVER been handed down it is that the Commandments are carved in stone (literally!) and not ment for any sort of interpretation. They are as literal as it gets.
How can you NOT take them too literally? Everything you have been saying here is just talking in circles. You tout about the "day and ag s needed and now, no longer viable given the "day and age" in which we find ourselves now.
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KWhy should they be praised for something they ought to do?
It really amazes me when people don't give the Church credit for much of what they do for communities.
I don't call for praise every time I flush the toilet, and I don't appeal to that good duty every time I am criticised for a wrongdoing.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHave you noticed how strangley silent this thread is with respect to a certain someone who has, I believe, given up the faith to pursue the true killer of JFK?
Why should they be praised for something they ought to do?
I don't call for praise every time I flush the toilet, and I don't appeal to that good duty every time I am criticised for a wrongdoing.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYou didn't answer my question; I asked if you saw the problem.
I told you that I meant "avoiding" in the sense of avoiding to interpret them literally (as I had assumed the Doc was doing).
You used the word avoid with totally different meanings in reference to the same
idea (hermeneutics).
If you want people to follow your argument, then it's probably a good idea to use
normative uses for the words you use. In particular, I think you should review what
hermeneutics means.
To say 'I would avoid that particular reading' is distinct from 'I would avoid reading
that text' (neither of which you said). Furthermore, instead of the former, it would
be clearer to say 'A literal reading of that text is undesirable,' or 'While the Jews
likely understood that passage literally, because of the cultural hermeneutic of
interpreting fortune with righteousness with and misery with sinfulness, they applied
this viewpoint to natural events and attributed them to God.'
Or something like that.
Nemesio