19 Sep 06
1 edit
I see another problem.
Originally posted by Conrau K
It's very difficult to give an apology.
...
No, it's not so simple. The Pope must mimimize harm to all sides.
and
Originally posted by Conrau K
I have no problem with that.
I typed my apology in seven minutes and I know for a certainty that Pope Benedict is at least
twice as smart as I am and more familiar with politics.
That the emperor's comments would astound us obviously isn't an apology or even adequate
preparation. Remember, Pope Benedict referred to this emperor as erudite, which suggests
that he views the emperor in a positive light. In that context, 'astounding' can very easily mean
something positive. So, it hardly serves a as means by which one can determine that he viewed
the quotation as an example of past thinking discarded as disgusting by the Church.
I'll ask again: what harm could come of my apology in Pope Benedict's mouth? In my opinion, and
I should think in the eyes of any Christ-follower, it would only raise my respect for the Pontiff; it
would show that he understood that his words were hurtful and insensitive and that he was truly
sorry for the hurt he caused by his careless use of them.
I'll ask this again, too: why should it be hard for someone who leads a religious institution
founded on forgiveness to apologize? Does his political duties outweigh his religious duties?
Nemesio
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957Who cares what that rabid fundamentalist nutball who hasn't had an original thought in the
Have 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?
four years I've been reading his posts has to say about this?
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KThe Pope said no such thing as the Emperor's comments would astound us today. That's nonsense.
I have no problem with that. But the Pope had already emphasised that the Emperor's comments would "astound" us nowadays.
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?
Here's what he said: "he [the Emperor] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded,"
Do you know the difference between saying that the comments would astound us and the brusqueness of the comments would astound us?
19 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioYes, in the eyes of the Church hierarchy.
I'll ask this again, too: why should it be hard for someone who leads a religious institution
founded on forgiveness to apologize? Does his political duties outweigh his religious duties?
Look at what happened to the chief astronomer. His political duties outweighed his scientific duties in the eyes of the church hierarchy, and he got canned for not adhering to that standard.
By contrast, look at Cardinal Law. His political duties outweighed his duties as a leader of his people in the eyes of the church hierarchy. He did adhere to that - saving the image of the church while endangering his parishoners - and he is still a well-compensated employee in the organization.
Further, there is no analytical connection between what a person preaches and what a person does. The child molesting priests would obviously preach that molestation is wrong. But that preaching doesn't make it easier for them to not molest. Similarly, the pope preaches repentence, but that has no bearing on how easy it is for him to ask forgiveness.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderMy apologies.
The Pope said no such thing as the Emperor's comments would astound us today. That's nonsense.
Here's what he said: "he [the Emperor] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded,"
Do you know the difference between saying that the comments would astound us and the brusqueness of the comments would astound us?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioHe said that violence is contrary to God's nature and incompatible with reason and faith. That is what he drew from the Emperor's quotes. In an age where Islam is responsible for much violence, and where some sects promote "jihads", what is wrong with the Pope's comments? Are you suggesting they are wrong?
I see another problem.
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]It's very difficult to give an apology.
...
No, it's not so simple. The Pope must mimimize harm to all sides.
and
Originally posted by Conrau K
I have no problem with that.
I typed my apology in seven minutes and I know for a certainty that Pope Benedict ...[text shortened]... ness to apologize? Does his political duties outweigh his religious duties?
Nemesio[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesTrue, but when you focus on everything they do wrong you get a very biased image of the Church. You might see a lot of evil, but I can tell you now, the Church is responsible for a lot of good as well.
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 Nemesio(1) What's "ironic" about it? The Emperor was practically held hostage in his own capital city by the Ottoman Empire. He appeals to his Western Christian brothers for help. How on earth do you manage to equate that to jihad or violent conversion?
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 ...[text shortened]...
Don't you think that the Pope's Christian duty overrides his political duty?
Nemesio
(2) See (1)
(3) Ditto
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioContrition is elemental to Christianity.
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]
Surely you aren't serious on this one.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerContrition is not an element of salvation. Never has been, it never will be. The issue in salvation is repentance, i.e., changing one's mind about Christ: not feeling sorry for one's sin.
"Our Father, who art in Heaven ... [b]forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us ..."
Why would he not be serious?[/b]
The Lord's Prayer is designed for a specific group of people at a specific time and place.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRemember the thief on the cross?
Contrition is not an element of salvation. Never has been, it never will be. The issue in salvation is repentance, i.e., changing one's mind about Christ: not feeling sorry for one's sin.
The Lord's Prayer is designed for a specific group of people at a specific time and place.
You're serious, aren't you?