Posted on 10/23/2001 8:39:39 AM PDT by spycatcher
Pre-Islamic Arabia's religion was one of superstition. Belief in jinns (genies), curse casting, magic stones, totems was the norm - and it was against this background that Allah arose. Although the Quran is claimed to be a heavenly writing with no earthly source, evidence of these very sorts of cultural influence is found in such places as Suras 55, 72, 113 and 114.
Animism, the belief that spirits inhabit rocks, trees and other elements was also very commonplace. Some of these stones were venerated and used as a focal point for the worship of a particular tribal god. No surprise, Muhammad's family had just such a stone for their own tribe - a black stone, in fact, that they kept at the Kabah (where the tribal idols were set up). The pagan rites of bowing toward Mecca, making a pilgrimage to the Kabah, running around it seven times, kissing it, then running to the river to throw stones at the devil all found there way into Islamic practice.
The final piece of the puzzle was in found in the religion of the Sabeans, an astral religion that worshipped the moon god and planned their religious rites around the lunar calendar. One such rite was fasting from crescent moon to crescent moon, a practice which would also be adopted by Muhammad.
If these things were not present before Muhammad received them from Allah (who himself is the moon god of Muhammad's tribe), why did Muhammad not have to explain what those words meant in the Quran? How would people have known who Allah was? ( or: what a jinn was? what the Kabah was? what the word Islam meant? etc.). Even the word "Islam" which many believe to mean "submission" was not an original word. In Arabic it was a secular term that denoted the strength and bravery of a desert warrior (a definition that accurately reflects the war-like tribes that founded Islam with bloodshed).
The Moon God
"Allah" is from the compound Arabic word "al-ilah" or in english "the god". Allah was known before Muhammad's time without a doubt. His name has been found in pre-islamic writings and other archeological finds. At the Kabah in Mecca over 350 gods were worshipped, but it was built especially for the chief deity - the moon god. Allah was the personal title of the moon god. Allah was married to the sun goddess. They produced three daughters, whose worship Muhammad would later make the mistake of condoning. The crescent moon symbol of Arabia came from this god.
Muhammad's family revered this particular god, and it is this idol that Muhammad declared to be the only true god. So, Allah - far from being the revealed God of the Bible as Muhammad would have us believe - is nothing more than an amplified pagan idol. Muhammad did not re-make the pagan god, he simply removed the lower deities from the rites of worship. That is why he never had to explain who Allah was. By definition, an idol converted in the 7th century into a new god cannot be the sama God revealed thousands of years earlier to Biblical prophets!
We all lived in the first age. We did things there that either made God love us or hate us. God did run Esau through this age so maybe Esau was saved.
Irrational.
Very rational. If a person does something against you, you hate that person.
Why didn't God judge him then?
Because he gave everyone a chance in this age or the millenium. Perhaps Esau has been saved.
Ah yes... the ole "they were monsters" excuse.
They were.
(only it doesn't fit with the Bible's description of events at all)
The bible speaks of the nefilim.
(Backs slowly toward door)
Yeah, I have a lot of regrets. I've always enjoyed debating politics and this kind of stuff. Before I learned what the bible really said I would debate Christians, about like OWK does here. Luckily for me it wasn't public though, it was just with a few friends at parties. Of course I took the agnostic/atheist side so I was dead wrong on a lot of things. Once I learned that the bible is written with more genius than I had thought and that it was true, I tried to make up for it with them.
The debate I cannot get around is the consistency of the bible pointing to an event "and" then restating it in more detail against the eighth day creation. Knowing one way or the other may not be the end all be all when it comes to salvation in Jesus Christ, but it sure would be helpful in identifying the major players and their roles.
Yeah, Genesis is very interesting on a lot of levels. It speaks of the waters being here and the waters being there, two creations of light, the mist vs the rain. It may point to a much more complex structure of the earth than what science has claimed.
Also, why wouldn't Jewish Rabbis & scholars acknowledge this interpretation of Genisis. Don't they understand even better the language and customs of that day?
I think we have the advantage of scientific observation. As we understand more and more of the physical universe, we have a need to look deeper into Genesis to see what it really says. The old Rabbis read Genesis, and being that they didn't even understand things like basic science, saw the world as being so mysterious that to believe that the earth was only a few thousand years old made no difference to them. As we understand more and more, it causes us to look further and further into the Word to see what's going on.
Looks like I misunderstood your question. Good question, I don't know why the Rabbis who understand Hebrew wouldn't interpret a sixth day creation with Adam created on the eighth day. Maybe for the same reason most American preachers don't, because they don't look hard enough. Since we outnumber them exponentially, maybe the odds are that someone here would figure it out first. After all, there is very few Christians that look into it closely. Most still believe the apple story.
If that were always true, then Christianity would not be nearly so popular as it is. I submit that it is sometimes true, especially in cases where choice is not permitted or is punished. This is the main reason that Islam has not gained many converts. But the spread of Christianity shows that your principle is not always true.
Uhhh... don't look now... but Islam is growing much faster than Christianity.
That's actually peripheral to your point. If Islam were growing through conversions (of which I am skeptical), that further undermines your contention that people's religion is always determined by their origins.
The spread of Buddhism and Confuscianism also belies your point as well.
My point was that you'd be overwhelmingly likely to have your faith defined by geography. (which is undenuably true to all but the most willfully blind)
Not in any way did I suggest that it was a certainty.
Nice to drop in and see you are still fighting the good fight.
...on and on.
I've heard and seen reports out of China that more fundamental Christians are in China than in the U.S.A.
Yes, it seems to you, but do you know everything? Does it seem to God as it does to you? Must God be available when He knows if His availability will be in vain? Must God reach out to someone whom God knows will not accept His gift?
A man born in Egypt a thousand years ago, or a man born in India five thousand years ago, or a man born in America five years ago will, on average, have very different views of life based on their culture, language and climate. Regardless, I believe these men can turn to God and receive His grace. They will not be using the same words or worshiping in the same traditions, but I believe God is far, far greater than those limited words and traditions.
So you don't believe in moral absolutes? God has no moral absolutes?
Ironically, your words here make the case that men must turn to accept God. If all beliefs are equal, then man should not have to turn.
By definition God is unlimited, infinite, immortal, omniscient and omnipresent.
By who's definition? Where do you base your beliefs? What book, teaching, etc.? Who are you or who do you spiritually identify with?
There can only be one such Being. If one argues that his god is superior to all other gods, then he is arguing that his god has limitations and therefore is not the ultimate God. That is, in my opinion, a form of unintended idolatry. That, or he is assuming that men from different times and places than his own are not seeking almighty God, but rather some lower god. This is an arrogant assumption. The other possibility is that God is not fair or merciful, and does not make Himself available to all.
So you don't put limitations on your god? You don't give your moral absolutes to your god? You have just deemed your god above all others. You have just put your definition of fairness and mercy above all others. You have just limited your god to a god who must make himself available to all. Very convenient to have god in your back pocket like that.
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.