إقتباس:
|
المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة contra mundum
No, you do not need to comment, but to clarify and justify and do what a respected person would do before he throws stones and cannot back up the data.
For alleged meetings, alleged quotes and alleged outcomes of alleged meetings or quotes and positions have to be proven, or they are useless.
when it comes to a discussion.
I do not think that one should clarify that you are not a reliable source
|
Fair enough, I never do expect anyone to take my word as proof.
But I am prepared and able to present to anyone who is interested letters sent by the Ministry of Immigration of the country where I live sent to refugee and asylum applicants stating that they don't consider there to be any danger on their safety in Egypt even though they were muslims who converted to Christianity.
Clearly I have not taped the conversation of His Holiness although I beleive what I claim it reasonably consistent with his policy but I do think the letters mentioned above should substantiate my claims.
إقتباس:
|
المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة contra mundum
, taking into account your hostility against the Pope.
|
What hostility? I was not aware that critisism is considered hostility, I want to make it clear that I am not attacking His Holiness, in contract I wish him a long and fruitful life. I simply disagree with some of his policies and I would like to see a change in direction.
You call that hostility?!
إقتباس:
|
المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة contra mundum
When you are banished for faith, when you are a great teacher, when you have gained the respect of millions of your people, like Pope Shenouda's history testifies, then you have credibility.
|
No one is denying the great things that Pope Shenouda has done, but I guess he has built up the expectation of people like me and I always expect great things from him.
At the same time I do disagree with some of his actions, that does not mean he has done no good, no one can take away his achievments! I don't have to be a yes-man to be a good person in the eyes of the church, do I?
إقتباس:
|
المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة contra mundum
Courage does not have to be associated with being stupid.
|
What does that mean?
إقتباس:
|
المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة contra mundum
This one is loaded....
1- Don't you just like it when somebody says he won't use verbal abuse, yet all his words are abuse and unsubstantiated attacks....
|
what attacks? I was hoping we can keep the discussion subjective and not get distracted with personal accusations? what did I accuse you of?
إقتباس:
|
المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة contra mundum
2- I understand that you are sensitive concerning the label heretic, and frankly, I do not give a rat's leg for how you feel..... For heresy is heresy and has to be exposed if we are talking about Faith......
|
This is just silly, you don't start labelling people and then call them sensitvie if they dislike it. No one is asking your charity to care how anyone feels but it is good manners to respect the people you are directing your words to. I am warning you one last time to avoid provocative language, you are not the only one who can be smart at insulting others. Beleive me this is a talent most Egyptians have...unfortunately.
Now what is the heresy that you are talking about here exactly? it seems to me that you are unsure what heresy means.
إقتباس:
|
المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة contra mundum
..... should it be political discussion, then we will refrain from Faith issues....but is this forum political or faith based...? For if it is political, why the "dialogue" section ? If political, why attack the Pope ? It is an identity problem for the forum that needs to be defined first....
|
That is actually a great point, unfortunately the answer is equally complex. It has been a problem for the Copts for a long time that we lack political leadership. The Church seems to be filling that role more and more and this is much more obvious in Pope Shouda's reign if compared to Pope Kyrollos VI for instance.
Now this is a topic on its own but I guess the end result is that we have a no separation between religious and political leadership, having chosen that path the church must now step up to the role with all its duties and responsibilities including criticism otherwise it must step aside from it altogether.