sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:
  j5 v$ W4 p! R& Z2 {. r2 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?
  z6 b' u7 M) g. [6 z% j6 n2.        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?. q* D( A; `/ [, z1 V! K
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:
& g" b7 y  ~+ Y, L! `$ L1 M. M
) v% Q1 u$ Y- f0 H4 u( K; v2.        Science advance, and so...

: v- d) {$ x6 g- g) Q: G5 b2 `

7 G( o, U0 i9 s3 d2 z* ^! NYour 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.$ e6 Y( W& X9 a
' y3 @4 H' e# E& F
[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]