Sunday, September 17, 2006

Don't state it unless you are going to stand by it


A statement from the Vatican has failed to quell criticism of Pope Benedict XVI from Muslim leaders, after a speech touching on the concept of holy war. Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things... Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul. The emperor's words were, he said: "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." Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul". "The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech. "Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today." 

In my view, if a religious teacher critiques another religious philosophy or leader, the religious teacher must make it as certain as possible that the comments are accurate. However, once the comments are made the religious teacher must not back down and apologize for them because of pressure from the group that is being criticized. 

If Pope Benedict XVI agreed with what Emperor Manuel II Paleologos said about Muhammed, he could have remained silent on the issue, but once he made the comments, for the sake of credibility as a Christian leader he cannot appear to back down and apologize because of pressure from people within Islam, whose founder he was criticizing. If the Pope did not agree with the comments of Paleologos, then he should have realized that in quoting the Emperor he would cause confusion in regard to his personal view. I am not by any means an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, but if the Pope is going to criticize Islam, he must stick to what he says for the sake of integrity. If the Pope actually made an incorrect comment he should apologize, but should not apologize because of political pressure.


Pope Benedict XVI has not apologised enough for making comments offensive to Muslims, Islamic leaders in the UK say. In a statement, the Vatican said the Pope was "very sorry" for using a quote saying the Prophet Muhammad brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. 

The apology he has made seems to amount to him giving in to political pressure, and we need Christian leadership stronger than this example.

Monday, September 11, 2006

"Miami Christ"?, hmm not according to the Bible

Miami Beach: trekearth

Thanks to Chucky, for finding out about the "Miami Christ" on another blog. Catholic apologetics.org quotes verses which state that for the Second Advent, Christ shall return in the clouds, Mark 13:26-27, with his angels Matthew 16:27, and shall do so with obvious signs, Matthew 24:27. Clearly this does not allow for the "Miami Christ" to be the one.

He has not demonstrated himself to be the Biblical Christ, with a Biblical return. As well with the Second Advent, Christ shall gather believers as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18. This of course has not occurred either! Perhaps Jan Hammer should write a "Miami Christ" theme song.

The website of cult expert Rick Ross describes some of José Luis De Jesús Miranda's theology. I will discuss some of the things mentioned briefly. The site notes that sin is viewed as being abolished, when Jesus died on the cross.

Interesting from 1 John 2:2 in the NASB, John states that Jesus was the propitiation (atonement for the wrath of God) for our sins, not for ours only, but the whole world. Earlier in the same book John states in 1:8 that we deceive ourselves if we say we have no sin, and in 1:9 he writes that if we confess our sins God will forgive and cleanse us from unrighteousness. Biblically, Christ has atoned for sin, yet sin still remains presently.

Here José Luis De Jesús Miranda, who states he does not read the Bible according to the site, is clearly theologically wrong. Paul mentions also from the NASB in 1 Corinthians 15:43, that the old body was sown in dishonour and weakness, and the new resurrected body shall be raised in glory and power. In verses 15:55-58 Paul makes it clear that sin had been defeated through Christ. Sin has been atoned for by Christ on the cross, and will be completely eliminated in followers at the resurrection.

Concerning José Luis De Jesús Miranda's claim that the Devil does not exist, this is also not in accordance with the Biblical theology. Satan is shown to be thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation, Chapter 20. From the NASB, in 20:10, the Devil is thrown into the lake of fire, and this takes place after the resurrection of believers and the thousand year millennium according to a chronological understanding of Revelation, Chapter 20. It seems clear that Satan will exist after the resurrection of Christians, and since the resurrection and the millennium have not occurred, Satan and his demons still work in our realm.

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap090500.htm

http://www.rickross.com/reference/creciendo/creciendo3.html