Does Allah = Moon God?

And yet, when He had the oppurtunity to use a sword, He chose not to.Don't confuse Jesus' words with His actions. He said that divisions would happen because of Him - He did not tell us to make the divisions. On the contrary, Jesus taught unconditional love for thy neighbour. The love of a Samaritan for a Jew is true Christian love - a Pharisee's hatred of sin is nothing but hate.Jesus sat down with publicans and sinners. The "love that tolerates sin" is the perfect Christian example.ABE: Apologies, AdminPhat. Slow typist.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-05-06 09:44 AM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Are you saying Jesus contradicted himself?Jesus never brought a sword against anyone nor suggested his own disciples should. The sword of which he speaks is either the Sword of the Spirit which causes antagonism between the believers and unbelievers, or the sword His enemies will wield against His people. That is correct. Or at least partly correct. Much watered down. The sword implies violence or one sort or another. That is what is happening to Buz and others who defend the faith of Jesus Christ. Pharisees don't hate sin. They bend over backwards to get around it. You miss the meaning of the conflict between them and Jesus.Jesus preached against sin in the Sermon on the Mount, showing that it is so serious that one should even cut off a body part to avoid it.It is sin that Jesus died to pay for, but those who don't own that they are sinners in need of such a drastic remedy will not have their sins paid for. And among them may be many who think they understand and follow Jesus. Not in the sense of condoning it or treating it as slight, which is what I meant. Tolerating it in the other sense we all must do, as we are all sinners. Jesus' first recorded word was "REPENT." Jesus said the publican who confessed his sin with contrition went away justified while the Pharisee who did nothing but brag about his righteousness was not justified. The thief who confessed his deserving his punishment and knew that Jesus was the savior was the one who was saved, not the thief who denied both. Jesus told many he set free to "go and sin no more." Then He died for the sins of humanity. If you don't appreciate the offense of sin against God you don't understand anything.Loving your neighbor means taking care of all his needs and that includes telling him that his sins have earned him eternal torment but that there is a remedy . . .This message has been edited by Faith, 05-06-2006 12:35 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-06-2006 12:49 PM

Sin is not against God. It is against our fellow man.But that has little to do with the topic.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not according to David the psalmist, who repented to God for his sin with Bathsheba, which included having her husband murdered:Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest.

Repetition of a falasy does not transform the falacy into truth, my friend. Who's listening is a two way street. I've factually falsified your claims in this regard to no avail. So stop falsely alleging that buz doesn't care to listen. Buz has listened, evaluated and falsified your claims on numerous occasions.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Too off topic for a response here, but you're alleging total baloney!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

ok hosea. sorry. i was trying to find it and i couldn't.i'm not saying buz isn't a true believer. i have no beef with buz outside of his intolerance. but that is not a determinant of believerhood. i think it's misguided. i'm saying you're calling me not a true believer and i think you're out of line.the prophets say a lot of things. like you should kill your children if they disobey you and that it's okay for governments to kill people.this is a debate board. and i'm defending the truth as i see it as well. your truth is no more truthy than mine. both are unverifiable. at least mine is consistent with reality.

no, no. it's a full moon.
or an eclipsed moon.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-06-2006 01:48 PM

Hi Quetzal. Of course I don't share your view of the Judeo-Christian/myth thing, but I like this: Islam basically ripped off Judeo=Christian.......in the first place.WOW! Thanks!! Now I've got support! Quetzal, secularist, agrees to what I've been trying to say all the while, but he says it ever so nicely in a nutshell, so to speak! Yes, what Mohammed did was to pick and choose certain aspects of the Biblical record, fabricating those aspects into his paganism with his Mecca based pagan moon god so as to hopefully eliminate/rip off the Biblical record and establish his own dogma to turn the world from Biblical based Christianity into Quranic based Islamism as per Mohammed and to promote himself, Mohamed as the true prophet/messiah, replacing the Biblical messiah, Jesus. Here I have to disagree, voheminently. All we have, essentially from my dear counterparts is apologetics for Islam. That's all we at EvC have ever gotten from those who seem to have this vendetta against Biblical fundamentals. They will appologize for anything that opposes the Biblical record. That seems to be the drive of secularist dogma everywhere these days. Exactly!! At least someone besides Biblical fundies here has some understanding of the threat this new theocratic totalitarian imperialism poses to the free nations of the world.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I've learned a few interesting things here.Exuse me if my English sounds a bit simple, it's not my native language.1- Robert Morey's book, which I have, can't be trusted.2- In the Kabaa there's no statue and this about that the Quoran is racist and blacks can't go to heaven too.
3- The crescent moon and star wasn't adopted untill 800 years later.
4- Allah is simply Arabic for God.
5- Islam is derived from Judeo-Christianity.
6- It's YHWH not Jehovah or Jahweh.
All very good.But as a Christian I realize we live in a spiritual world.
From the Bible itself are derived catholism, mormonism and the watchtower org.(allthough prob. from FreeMasonry) the moonsect etc.
And giving it enough time there will arise more..That's what I believe is Islam;a sideproduct, (forgive me muslims) and about the fact that the crescent moon and star was adopted , symbols of an much earlier god, proves that it is a spiritual thing.
Catholism has done similar things. It wasn't untill the twentied century that Rome stated Maria was ascented to heaven. A copy of what happened in the far past with the mothergodess Semiramis.You see,it's a evolution in a religion.My faith has only one symbol, from the beginning: the cross. originally a Roman symbol , but by His sacrifice has a very different meaning now.Peter

...And regardless of when it was adopted, just where and what inpired it's emergence as the prime symble of Islam? From what, other than the history of the Muslim god, Allah? Unless you're a carpet chewing fundie you're no serious Muslim. You're on the fringe. Only the serious devouts do the prayers advocated by the clerics. In some Islamic nations, it is imposed to some extent, as is my understanding. Correct me if mistaken. As I understand the prophecies, i.e. Rev 13, it will eventually be imposed on all nations via the speaking image/two way TV, et al!! History has been the main source of my argument as per the OP. You seem to be either ignoring that history and the archeology presented in that or you have yet to read it and wealth of info in the link supplied there.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

You're welcome. Of course, don't crow too loudly - a non-believer like me would say the same thing about Christianity, etc. They just ripped off a different set of myths... Actually, you went a bit far here. Islam is not based on or derived from paganism any more than the Judeo-Christian religion is. A very good case can be made for Islam being derived from the latter, but not the former. There simply aren't any aspects of Islam that relate directly or indirectly to paganism. In fact, from a symbol standpoint, I can think of half-a-dozen or more Islamic dynasties that eschewed even flags because they felt that it crossed the "no graven image" line. Christmas and Easter, on the other hand... Well, I'm not sure I would go quite as far as that. I'll concur that the Islamists are a threat to the West, but I'd argue that this movement is more a socio-politico-religious movement rather than stemming directly from the tenets of Islam itself. Not, I hasten to add, that it's all that easy to separate social and political from religious under Islam. Of course, I think the more rabid Christian groups also pose a threat to the West...Anyway, that'll be my wrap up for my participation in this thread. Toodles.

1. It was just a message to a long time web-bud to not get downhearted when the crowd are against him.
2. I don't know what you're going on about in most of your post. There seems to be many topics in there.
3. I basically agree with Faith's post to you, as I find that to ring true, in life in general.
4. If you believe those things, fair enough, I have no beef with you or anyone else here in EvC town.

I have Morey's book as well as other books on this. Morey is at least 90% accurate. My counterparts like to focus on the 10% in question. It's also the only proper name of the Muslim god and it is not the Arabic for the Biblical god, Jehovah/Yahweh. Better go back and reread, my friend. I've shown empirically otherwise. Better reread again. YHWH = Hebrew. Jehovah = Modern English of YHWHThis message has been edited by AdminBuzsaw, 05-06-2006 02:41 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Time to put this one to bed. Any interested parties feel free to propose a second edition.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com