sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:
3 b4 i" r5 u! B% t7 R, ~5 @! }. b) k1.        Your letter portraits a Pope with negative attitude towards changes. Is that fair to the Pope of that time? What did he really do?
' E# v6 Q3 _, y2.        Science advance, and social injustice are facts. But are they really related to church? Or people just blamed everything to church like HK people blame everything to HK gov’t?; M2 d0 |* w" v7 ^2 e7 M
3.        Could he modify the church belief to fit in the changing world- like Mr. Tang of China in the ’80?

sk

Originally posted by 155220 at 2006-11-19 08:24 AM:
2 u& U- R9 f+ |  x0 q5 y( a& s
% c) {8 n9 l: `$ y) p3 A: F$ v5 Y2.        Science advance, and so...

$ c+ D* ~0 I9 {6 r2 C4 w4 s
! H, |# D5 ~+ WYour reasoning is ok. I just think "To execute one as a warning to a hundred" is a very negative reaction and there are other ways that Pope can view the situation. That's why I suggested point #1, and #3 in post #3.! d3 |) N5 a' \$ t2 u9 M

, `4 Y* D8 d  y: S& [" y; Q; {. w[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]