-Removed-If you read the entire article you will see that the writer of the article states
that records show that the Patriarch did receive a watch like that as a gift.
But the patriarch never wore it. But even if he wore it every day I see nothing
wrong with it. I believe Jesus would agree with me since He rebuked his
disciples for wanting to sell the expensive bottle of perfume that a woman was
using to put on His feet. He thought she was doing a good thing for Him.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI think these complaining people are just envious and jealous.
I don't deny that the watch was photoshopped out (seriously, I don't know how you could think that.) Let me reiterate my points again (it is quite obvious you are not really following). Maybe numbering will appeal to the non-verbal part of your brain.
1. We do not know how the Patriarch is paid. There is absolutely no 'tithe'. Strictly speaking he is no most people actually, did not have much money to spare. I no longer identify as Catholic.
P.S. I bet divegeester would sell the watch, but I doubt that he would give all
the money to the poor. He is probably like Judas.
Originally posted by Conrau K"The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site, but not before Patriarch Kirill weighed in, insisting in an interview with a Russian journalist that he had never worn the watch, and that any photos showing him wearing it must have been doctored to put the watch on his wrist [my emphasis]."
But it needn't be a case of duplicity.
-Removed-I can only assume that there is some comprehension failure on your part. I have already acknowledged that the watch was doctored out and I had already pointed out that the Russian Orthodox Church does not tithe and laity probably do not contribute to the patriarch's stipend. But you are arguing as though I had written none of this. Basically I think you are a mean-spirited ignoramus and while coming to harsh character judgments, you have absolutely no interest in informing yourself.
Originally posted by Green PaladinPerhaps someone did doctor the orignal photo, but even it was not doctored.
"The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site, [b]but not before Patriarch Kirill weighed in, insisting in an interview with a Russian journalist that he had never worn the watch, and that any photos showing him wearing it must have been doctored to put the watch on his wrist [my emphasis]."[/b]
It should be nobodies business as to if he wore the watch or not. Get the
plank out of your own eye first so you can see clearly.
Originally posted by Green PaladinI don't see how this relates to anything I have said so far. I did read the article carefully but I do not see Patriarch Kiril''s error having any relevance.
"The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site, [b]but not before Patriarch Kirill weighed in, insisting in an interview with a Russian journalist that he had never worn the watch, and that any photos showing him wearing it must have been doctored to put the watch on his wrist [my emphasis]."[/b]
2 edits
-Removed-No; you are confused. It is your responsibility to find facts and I certainly had no intention of doing your job. I have so far only presented questions: Was the watch a gift? Was he aware of the value of the watch? Where does he derive his stipend from? I would also like to know, is the patriarch allowed to give away gifts freely? Normally, heads of state cannot and it would be pertinent to know whether the synod of Russian Orthodox bishops imposes similar strictures. If you are going to be in the business of judging, you must answer these questions.
As far as facts go, I will say that image-doctoring is a standard practice so that prominent people are not associated with brands.
Originally posted by Conrau KWhy don't you just acknowledge that the Patriarch flat out lied rather than the euphemistic 'error'?
I don't see how this relates to anything I have said so far. I did read the article carefully but I do not see Patriarch Kiril''s error having any relevance.
His "error" shows the character of the person we're dealing with here.
Originally posted by Conrau Klol. You never know when to give up. Perhaps you should read what GP posted again:
No; you are confused. It is your responsibility to find facts and I certainly had no intention of doing your job. I have so far only presented questions: Was the watch a gift? Was he aware of the value of the watch? Where does he derive his stipend from? I would also like to know, is the patriarch allowed to give away gifts freely? Normally, heads of ...[text shortened]... image-doctoring is a standard practice so that prominent people are not associated with brands.
""The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site, but not before Patriarch Kirill weighed in, insisting in an interview with a Russian journalist that he had never worn the watch, and that any photos showing him wearing it must have been doctored to put the watch on his wrist".
Read it and really think about it.