Posted on 09/01/2013 7:03:45 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
Actually I’m big on bowing (Renaissance re-enactor) but not big on worshipping a created being.
None of us is in favor of worshipping a created being. There is only one God. We all know that.
I do not know why is there a big deal being made about all of this. The royal couple from Jordan are not radical Islamofacists.
Could it be that Pope Francis is teaching by example the need for women in general to be treated with respect?
Considering how women in Islam are often not treated in a respectful manner by the male half of that religion, could the Pope be simply sending a message in that manner?
Maybe simply pleading in this way with the King and Queen of Jordan to make sure the Christians who do live in that country are protected.
“No it isn’t. This Pope is demeaning his office. He is taking the dignity out of it. The less he acts with dignity, the less others will treat him and the Office of the Pope with dignity. This will not bode well in the future when heads of State have no respect for this Pope or the Vatican when he himself treats his position in such a cavelier manner.”
Eh. I find humility refreshing. Christ, as God, did not exert his authority at every turn. How much less should every proclaimed follower of Christ act like royalty?
Unless you are under the delusion that the pope is royalty...?
Lets hope he continues to strip away the worldliness as a leader of a Christian church.
How prescient of you to know he was indeed bowing to their religion. Of course there's absolutely no reason in your mind to believe that maybe he was just showing respect to a lady who is the wife of a head of state..........
You remind me of that guy at the local market whose job is to pick fly shit out of the pepper bins.......
I agree. Rather than turn spelling-Nazi, you made a very elegant pun.
I would have no problem being corrected that way. It’s all in the attitude.
Makes sense to me, Biggirl!
‘sacrilegious against God or sacred things; profane.’ that’s the definition. Since the pope has decided to bow to another he is showing deference to that individual (like O did with the king of saudi arabia). There is no reason to do this. He is bowing to a sovereign. The pope is supposed to be God’s representative here on earth....God bows to no one.
If you want to say he was being polite. I say nonsense. Just as presidents shouldn’t bow to other sovereigns neither should the pope
‘sacrilegious against God or sacred things; profane.’
Interesting that you do not cite ANY New Testament evidence of bowing to a sovereign.
Your argument does not hold water. If you want to live in ‘that’ kind of society I am sure the Japanese would welcome you
That's your best shot--- an argument from silence?
There's no NT evidence of saluting an officer, rising for a judge, putting flowers on a grave, wearing a wedding ring, having a pot-luck supper or even kissing a wife. The argument from silence doesn't work.
St. John says, if everything the Lord Jesus said and did--- let alone everything His faithful saints said and did --- were recorded, the earth itself would not be sufficient to hold all the books.
Common sense, my friend: Biblical culture was a bowing culture. They had many of the same or similar forms of courtesy and honor as did other traditional societies around the world.
"Your argument does not hold water."
Are you going to attempt to adduce any evidence for that, or just float it out there with no foundation, for me to accept by faith alone?
"If you want to live in ‘that’ kind of society I am sure the Japanese would welcome you"
It would be good to live in an America which retained and respected its own traditions of courtesy and honor. But ---I don't know you, I could be quite wrong --- perhaps you are young and can't remember when our presently flip, callous, slovenly-casual, vulgar, trashed-out society had its own firm norms of dignity and decorum.
George Washington bowed to the first House and Senate when he assumed his duties as President; he also thought it was un-statesmanlike to shake hands with visitors and dignitaries, and he bowed to them as well.
Lincoln, too, preferred bowing on occasions of state, and bowed to the audience in the Ford Theatre on the very evening when he was assassinated.
Yeah, I looked it up.
Oh you are so correct you do not know me. I remember a time when people were courteous and civil. But in those times I also remember there was a lot of hatred and injustice and truly awful behavior.
Every time has its own unique challenges.
Honoring some one’s position does NOT require that one bow to them....that is known as low towing. Read some Kipling to find the referrence and implication.
Lincoln and Washington were never considered to be the vicar of Christ....as the roman church claims of the pope.
I sure wish you had posted those pictures 75 replies ago!
I thought this was kinda nice: #73
Indeed I agree with this and it’s in keeping with how I’m one of those wascally Crazy Evangelicals.
Any move that the pope of the Roman Catholic worship community makes to say “hey, please do not treat me as a figurehead” is very, very Christian. Jesus said it in Jewish terms when He said don’t go by the name of Rabbi (a title of renown for greatness purportedly earned by amassed knowledge).
I keep wondering if this is the pope which will abolish the papacy! In some kind of stunning ecumenical move! If a certain Roman Catholic prophecy comes to pass which alleges to number the popes and, remarkably, has the number of the last one exactly corresponding to Francis. (It was going to be the pope who followed Benedict.)
Every sincere Christian should be in a sense “a” vicar of Christ. After all they may never meet a pope but still may meet you as a Christian and that puts YOU on the spot to do what you can for the Lord.
Clearly the Roman Catholic pope has the ceremonial top spot in that capacity (being vicar of Christ) within the Roman Catholic worship community. Popes who take this visibility seriously and lay their lives before the Lord do better than those who make it seem to be about themselves by fading away from the calls of the post. I do not know if Benedict was physically ailing but he made a wiser choice, I perceive, than John Paul did. John Paul wanted to bear up through suffering to the end for his Lord, not a bad aspiration, but Christ also wanted this part of His church to have better than suffering succotash at the top spot. He wanted it to have a vigorous, vocal leader. Which is why, I perceive, Benedict passed the baton to Francis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.