Does Allah = Moon God?

It was just your reference to the name "Sin" that threw things off for me. You are claiming Sin was the head god but I didn't find that where I looked, what I found was that it was just one of a number of names for the moon god. But it's academic at this point.I agree with you that there isn't a huge deal of importance to the fact that Islam derived from the moon god, since Allah has come to stand for the one creator God, but it certainly is part of the historical picture of Islam along with many others that show it to have man-made origins. Beyond that, the topic is controversial just because so many people adamantly insist that it isn't true. If you are going to concede it, we can call the subject done.

I made one offhand remark to somebody, and you want me to provide evidence for it? Get a grip.

Hey, if you want to quote yourself at the links just giving another bunch of unsupported assertions and accusations and name calling, that's up to you.

So basically you were applying an inaccurate label to peopel who disagree with you as a rhetorical trick. And since you can't justify it you're evading the issue.Y

You just love to accuse me of underhandedness don't you? Just one accusation and snide insinuation after another. You're such fun.

Since you are evading the issue, and since the label was obviously inaccurate it seems that you are being a little underhand.On the other hand don't forget that you falsely accused me of "deceit" and "bullying" earlier in this thread. In a bullying emotional rant. So I'm not really inclined to let you get away with your nasty rhetorical tricks.

In that post I DEMONSTRATED your deceit. Your quotes were nothing but a rant. I guess you like turning it around against me, nice trick there, but it would be better if you just admitted your post was pure demagoguery and no substance.Edit to add reference to your post: Message 16 and mine: Message 20This message has been edited by Faith, 04-30-2006 05:02 PM

Sin was the chief god, that's why they called him 'the god'. I gave you a link which explains this:

quote:

---

According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods.

---

Islam didn't derive from the moon god. Islam was derived from the Judeo-Christian God. As ever, it always a good idea to include some pagan symbology and references since it helps get the pagans on board when you go converting.It's like Moses saying that God said "I am that I am", a phrase used by the pagan Egyptians - Nuk pu nuk. Christianity too, spread in part due to its pagan symbology. I'm sure you'll agree that Roman Catholic Church is brimming with paganism. Lots of pagan symbology gets thrown in - including the date of the birth of Christ. It's just one of those things.Your own link discusses the phenomenon:

quote:

---

In summary, it has been truthfully and logically proven with all possible available circumstantial evidences/rational that, Islam was not a new religion but it is a reformed paganism. I believe thatall these monotheistic religions have more or less similar origins.

---

And the same can be said of Judaism and Christianity. Naturally you wouldn't agree, but there you go. I'm not sure if you'll call it a concession now that you have read it, but if you agree with what I have said, then we are indeed done.

In the Bible it was God Himself who called Himself that, not Moses making it up. Moses SAID it was God who gave it. I'm sure the Egyptians didn't quote God. "I Am that I Am" is the name for the self-existent beginningless and endless God. Is that how the Egyptians used it?

You didn't demonstrate any deceit at all. You did not demonstrate that oen thing I said was false or intentionally misleading. That is a fact.But since you have deecided to repeat your viciosu and baseless attack I must ask for an apology.

Islam contradicts the Judeo-Christian God completely. True that Mohammed had some knowledge of the Bible but he twisted it all around to say the opposite of what the Bible says. Funny idea of "derivation."

I apologize for saying you were deceitful since apparently it was merely an inability to judge what makes proper evidence.ABE: You expect ME to "demonstrate" that what you said was "false and misleading?" Wow, how about if I start screaming about how PaulK says these "shockingly" false things and how "stunned" I am about it and how he's always "misrepresenting" things without referencing anything PaulK ever said or providing one iota of evidence for any of this, and then expect YOU to demonstrate that what I'm saying is wrong. You may not have intended it, but this is the effect of what you are saying.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-30-2006 05:19 PM

Obivosuly it seems that you simply don/'t understand the point I was making. It is certainly relevant to Morer's credibility to point out that Morer is accused of misrepresentation by a number of other Christians on this issue and others. And if there are questions about Morer's credibility it is certainly not wise to take his unsupported word for anything. Just which part of this do you have a problem understanding ?Secondly even if the quotes were not "proper evidence" theyy are still not deceitful.

quote:

---

You expect ME to "demonstrate" that what you said was "false and misleading?"

---

No I expect you to tell the truth. You claimed that you HAD made such a demonstration At least you know that you did noi.

quote:

---

Wow, how about if I start screaming about how PaulK says these "shockingly" false things and how "stunned" I am about it and how he's always "misrepresenting" things

---

That's not so far from what you actually did,

quote:

---

You may not have intended it, but this is the effect of what you are saying.

---

No it isn't. Firstly because Idid not write the accusations - they came from Christian sources. And secondly because I did not claim that they "demonstrated" that Morer was dishonest..

All you did was quote this person accusing Morer without proof of any sort. I have no reason to believe the person is even a Christian. That's just character assassination.

I think when a new religion comes along and takes the creation story, the prophets, the messiah, his mother, the one god, the same first man, the same sin in the garden, pretty much everything and then says 'they got a lot of the important stuff wrong, let's try it again', I'd call that a derivation. It shares so much, but it still differs on many key aspects. We aren't here to debate the derivation the only thing that is important:Allah shares more clearly derived properties from the Judeo-Christian God than it does to a moon god. You'd have to be crazy to think otherwise.

quote:

---

[2.135] And they say: Be Jews or Christians, you will be on the right course. Say: Nay! (we follow) the religion of Ibrahim, the Hanif, and he was not one of the polytheists.

---