This quote in particular had me shaking my head:
The pope and Vatican proved to be Zionists and that they are far from Christianity, which does not differ from Islam. Both religions call for forgiveness, love and brotherhood.
This stunning statement was delivered courtesy of Shiite cleric Sheik Abdul-Kareem al-Ghazi. Now, the normal ranting about how Muhammed had been slandered and how such insolence will not be tolerated did not surprise me. The first surprise comes from the first line of the quote. That is, the cleric declared that the Pope and the Vatican are far from Christianity. Now, as a good Baptist, I might even shout, "Here! Here!" to such a statement. However, I am a Christian, and it would seem to me that I may have a little space to criticize other Christians if I think we are moving beyond the rim of orthodoxy. But are Muslims now dictating to the Vatican what it means to be a "Christian"? How absurd is that? And then to even attempt to maintain the slanderous accusation that Islam does not differ from Christianity? I can't believe that angry mobs of Christians haven't already stormed some Muslim embassy somewhere and set it on fire <----insert sarcasm here.
Then, I read this. I was in for my second shock in two days. It firmly entrenched my suspicion that I am living in the weirdest day in the history of the world. Here I quote the Pope's representative:
the pope "sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful....
Actually, I was in the midst of quoting the most absurd statement found in the article, and it disappeared from the story. Wow. Shock number 3, I suppose. The quote said something to the effect that the Vatican esteemed Muslims because they worship the one glorious God. The latter part of the statement was left out. Maybe the reporter got that part wrong, I certainly hope so. Muslims do not worship the one glorious God, and the Emperor that the Pope quoted was right that the teachings of Muhammed are "evil and inhumane" and he ought not to apologize for that. He should clarify what exactly is evil and inhumane about Islam, not apologize and pretend like the problems don't exist. The last thought that I want to leave with you is this: Perhaps the Muslims are dictating to Christians what a the Christian faith ought to be, and the real terror that the West has, besides being blown up by sensitive Muslims, is that they will offend someone. What say you?
Posts
5 comments:
I say that the RC is in the midst of another great flux. They are now aligning themselves with a compromised position whereby they can accept the followers of Islam as worshippers of the same god, which infact they are; that being Satan.
It should come as no surprise to born again believers that the great mother church is attempting to incorporate one more heresy into its already full bag of mixtures.
To those considering acceptance of the ECT documents and philosophy, I say wakeup and understand the roots of this evil religion.
Violence in the name of God - We do see more of this type of thing from radical Muslims than from radical Christians...is it the radical part or the Muslim part...I think it is a little of column "a" and a little of column "b"...
Many believe, and not just "hillbillies", that the Muslim faith, rightly practiced, leads to this very sort of thing.
I say following anything other than the God of the Bible leads to the chaos we see in the world. As a religion falls further away from the true God, His common, restraining grace begins to be removed, and we see mankind as they really are.
The Muslims, so called Christians, and anyone else involved in this sort of activity points us to the wrath of God being revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Your dead on. It troubles me that the remarks have been tempered by the Vatican, for it shows the lack of foundation upon which those statements were made. Was he trying to dissimenate truth, or make a political statement? I vote for the latter, for why else would their be a verbal reprieve?
Secondly, you are dead on about the west and their fear of offense. Why is it? IMH butcorrect O, naturalism with its own theory of metaphysical reality in tow asserts to the culture that morals reside in subjection to humanity, and do not transcend it, and we are left with morals being that which are acceptable as long as they don't infringe on my neighbor's beliefs. Therefore, tolerance (in the perverted western sense) now elevated to being the chief moral principle is called into question when offense is taken, which in turn calls into question the moral identity of the source. Isn't it funny how all that is suppose to liberate really creates more bondage?
JimTell us how you really feel about Rome!
Even So I wish Jesus would come back.
Colin The Muslims obviously aren't operating on this theory of tolerance.
What is most ironic about this entire situation is that after the Pope made his speech quoting the words of a 14th century Byzantine Emperor — "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" - some Muslim followers felt it appropriate to burn several catholic churches and kill a nun in retaliation. Further, it seems some iraqi Muslims have threatened the Vatican.
It would seem a more appropriate and reasonable response would have been a verbal challenge to the Pope rather than destruction, threats and death.
How has the mainstream media missed this?
Post a Comment