sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:
9 n2 s/ m* y3 O0 g1.        Your letter portraits a Pope with negative attitude towards changes. Is that fair to the Pope of that time? What did he really do? $ K6 u. }' {9 I$ q' V6 f: v
2.        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?
) K; I' B9 ~' I8 y5 \2 b. f3.        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:6 E7 h, f- i, Y+ k% D4 B8 r2 z
) I2 V7 |/ F/ {* d1 n
2.        Science advance, and so...

7 V% C6 F& e6 C# O2 Z. o

' X# L2 o4 _3 \4 z6 X2 w* {- KYour 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 #3.0 J* R& H0 f- ^# `* z" b$ @3 c

8 A5 J1 s! \& [% G+ G) t[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]