Allah = Hubal = Baal?

Baal is sometimes thought of as being a big god, other times, the name is thought of as a title for a god, a godly title. So based on that, one cannot say that Baal and Allah are the same entity, because Baal simply means 'the god' and allah simple means 'the god', just like christians will talk about 'the lord'.

I mean, this is like saying that, since jesus is the saviour, and ishtar is the saviour, then jesus is really a woman.

Also notice that the god of the Old Testament has a name, YHWH. This name is often also associated with a female supereme goddess consort. Would a similarity between the name YHWH and some other sumerian gods mean that the God of the old testament is not the supreme god? Especially if the names actually translate to 'the lord'???

Hmmm once again, what the actual words may mean in some language is not relevant to the discussion.
The conspiracy is about wether or not the god "Baal" that the OT speaks of, is connected or maybe even the same as todays Allah.

1. According to the Bible, the Ishmaelites were not worshiping Yahweh God.

Quite clear. This doesn't mean it's Baal, it just means it's a different God than YHWH.

2. Their alliance with nations that worshiped Baal suggests that they were also worshiping the false god Baal.

Not sure about this one, I realize religion was very important in this time, but I am sure a possible alliance depended on more factors than just a common god.

3. Both Muslim and non-Muslim sources state that Hubal was recognized as the chief presiding deity of the Kabah.

This is interesting because later on the chief presiding deity of the Kabah is suddenly Allah. How did this transition occur?

4. Muhammad’s grandfather worshiped Hubal, and even prayed to Allah while facing Hubal’s idol.

Several sources claim that more members of Muhammads family were praising Hubal before it became Allah.

5. The Muslim sources claim that Hubal was brought to Mecca from Syria due to the influence of the Moabites and/or the Amalekites. These nations worshiped Baal which demonstrates that Hubal is actually the Arabic form of Hebrew Ha Baal or the Baal.

It seems to me it is clear that Hubal and Baal are the same, and that Muhammeds family were worshipping Hubal.
It also seems clear that where people first praised Hubal, they later on praised Allah, allthough it is not clear to me how this transition happened.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Baal is sometimes thought of as being a big god, other times, the name is thought of as a title for a god, a godly title. So based on that, one cannot say that Baal and Allah are the same entity, because Baal simply means 'the god' and allah simple means 'the god', just like christians will talk about 'the lord'.

I mean, this is like saying that, since jesus is the saviour, and ishtar is the saviour, then jesus is really a woman.

Also notice that the god of the Old Testament has a name, YHWH. This name is often also associated with a female supereme goddess consort. Would a similarity between the name YHWH and some other sumerian gods mean that the God of the old testament is not the supreme god? Especially if the names actually translate to 'the lord'???

I really can't see any truth in this, it all seems like meaningless blather...

1. Baal was certainly a pagan god worshipped in Old Testament times by Arabs. It has nothing to do with YHVH, the Hebrew God, in fact the Bible specifically says God becomes extremely upset with the worship of Baal.

2. YHVH is a tetragrammaton of the original Hebrew usually translated into English as "The LORD," but is truly the proper name of God descending probably from a Hebrew phrase basically meaning "I AM"

3. Please provide some real scripture backing up a claim of a feminine "goddess consort" to the one true God, YHVH...

[edit on 5/9/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by JakkoThe OT explicitly denies the Muslim assertion that the pre-Islamic Ishmaelites knew(1) and worshiped the true God and that their only problem was that they associated other gods(2) with him.

Let us analyze this. The Ishmaelites decended from the first born of Abraham by his slave; Hagar, where God at the time of Ishmael’s conception was known to Abraham, where Abe after Ishmael was at least 24 years old, was promised another heir. There are two ways then to approach your assertion;

1) That Abraham for 24 years did not give one hoot to educate his only heir in the nature of God, which means that for 24 years Abe was either devoid of God himself or lax in his faith. The mostly likely however is no:

2) Where the descendents of Ishmael have correctly identified the religion of Abraham as that of polytheism which you fail to discern.

A valiant attempt to discredit Islam while covering for Abraham, however, Not valiant enough.

The data conclusively shows that as the centuries unfolded the Ishmaelites forsook the God of their ancestors Abraham and Jacob, ...

It cannot be both. They either did not know, or they forsook the God of Abraham. If they knew, where is the evidence to support their discounting the one-god?




[edit on 5/9/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

[edit on 5/9/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by Jakko
Hmmm once again, what the actual words may mean in some language is not relevant to the discussion.

Since it was presented as evidence supporting Hubal being allah, yes, it is relevant.

The conspiracy is about wether or not the god "Baal" that the OT speaks of, is connected or maybe even the same as todays Allah.

Its not. Pretty simple. The arabs didn't worship any god named Baal. They were pagans, who had lots of other gods. Then, one of them supposedly received a divine message, just like an urukian a few thousands years ago supossedly received a divine message. He converted all the other arabs into Allahists, replacing their pantheon of gods with a completely new god in a monotheistic religion. He did not say, as with Akhenaton in egypt, that there was one Super god who's the one worth worshipping. He said, these other gods never existed, there's only ever been, and will ever be, one Supreme God, The Lord.

1. According to the Bible, the Ishmaelites were not worshiping Yahweh God.

I'm not saying it doesn't say that, but where does it say that, for reference? Also, whats it matter? We know already that the arabs didn't worship god before Mo, they were pagans. They claim that in the past their worshipped the lord, and then over time became lax in their monotheism and forgot it mostly, and the lord spoke to Mo to set everyone straight. Interestingly, the hebrew bible tells a very similar story. Even after leaving uruk, the hebrews constantly 'fell' back into paganism, makikng golden calfs at the mountian, or the ammonites with their worship of Molech-Baal, etc etc. The truth of the matter is probably that both groups, at some point, concentrated on monotheism, and then interpreted their own history to be as if they had allways worhsiped only 'the lord', which some of the weaker members falling into 'polytheism'.

2. Their alliance with nations that worshiped Baal suggests that they were also worshiping the false god Baal.

The arabs were nomads and tribesmen, they didn't maintain real allegiances. Thats extremely weak evidence for them worshipping the same god.

Both Muslim and non-Muslim sources state that Hubal was recognized as the chief presiding deity of the Kabah.

This is interesting because later on the chief presiding deity of the Kabah is suddenly Allah. How did this transition occur?

Its somethign called 'early islamic history'. Mo brought the good news of this new supreme sole god. The arabs said 'this super rock from the heavens then, it must've been sent by allah'

Several sources claim that more members of Muhammads family were praising Hubal before it became Allah.

If hubal was the big god of the paganistic arabs, then why shouldn't they, paganistic arabs, be worshipping him? Then Mo comes along with his monotheism.

The Muslim sources claim that Hubal was brought to Mecca from Syria due to the influence of the Moabites and/or the Amalekites. These nations worshiped Baal which demonstrates that Hubal is actually the Arabic form of Hebrew Ha Baal or the Baal.

Sounds plausible enough. But, then again, remever that Baal isn't an actual person, out there, in the world. The way the syrians worship Baal, and the israelites worship Baal, is probably different from the way the meccan arabs worshiped baal. Just like the way the Romans thought of Mars was different from the way the Greeks thought of Ares, of Jupiter and Zeus.
And, again, it'd be folly ot ignore the fact that Baal probably is more of a title, indicating 'the god', rather than a personal name of the god (not unlike Zeus is 'strangely similar' to the greek word concerning divinity, and not unlike Jupiter 'just happens' to be like the sanksrit words that mean sky father 'Dyaeus Pater').

It seems to me it is clear that Hubal and Baal are the same

Lets agree that hubal is a type of baal.

, and that Muhammeds family were worshipping Hubal.

Ok.

It also seems clear that where people first praised Hubal, they later on praised Allah, allthough it is not clear to me how this transition happened.

I don't understand what the dilema is. At one point abram was worshiping Anu and Enki and Lagash, as was his family. Then they were all worshiping YHWH. Same thing. Divine Revelation leads to a new religion, which replaces the old, even tho some traditions are kept up. The hebrews kept their flood myth, creation myth, and all their myths, and certainly most of their rituas and traditions when they made the move. The pagans in europe kept almost all of their traditions when they changed over. Heck, they didn't even 'really' replace the gods. Atop the temple to the God of Medecine you'd know find a Shrine to the Patron Saint of Healing. They make easter the holiday on which their new god rises from the dead, but keep the paganistic fertility symbols of the eggs and rabbits, heck even santa claus is an old pre-christian tradition, not to mention the various other folk tales, variably beleived, about elves and fairies and dragons. Formerly they were gods. Does that mean that Italians still worhsip Jupiter? They pray to the Skyfather don't they? If you go to a church in scandanavia and see a cross, would you say its a symbol of the hammer of Thor?

Heck, the jesus story is nearly identical to other dead-dying-resurecting god myths throughout the ancient world. Does that mean that jesus is actually one of these gods?
I mean, if Allah is Hubal because of that really weak evidence, then jesus surely is really isis. Allah doesn't seem to have any of the characteristics of Hubal, whereas jesus directly does.

djohnsto77
with the Koran Muslims have a full new text rewriting all earlier text and mixing their own beliefs into it.

But the christians had to rewrite it all also. They didn't photocopy the penteteuch. And they didn't include the talmud or any of the other writtings, and, apparently, don't have any 'discussion tradition' like that of the talmud or islamic hadiths. Similarly then, that would make christianity the 'odd man out'. Also, isn't the implication that christiantiy 'lifted' its holy book much more upsetting as to its authenticity than the korans' entirely divinely inspired retelling of it? I mean, if anything, woudln't one expect the god to retell the story, since, afterall, the god is starting a 'new' religion? I mean, why start a new one if it wasn't for something missing, or gone wrong, in the old one?

1. Baal was certainly a pagan god worshipped in Old Testament times by Arabs. It has nothing to do with YHVH, the Hebrew God, in fact the Bible specifically says God becomes extremely upset with the worship of Baal.

Are you questioning that the arabs didn't worship the God of the Old Testament before Mo came along, or that the god Mo evangelized for was Hubal, and it somehow became 'Allah'?
We do not know that the arabs worshipped the syrian/phoenecian god Baal. The paganistic arabs had a god named Hubal. The arabs are a semetic people speaking a semitic language. Its not surprising that they have a big god with 'baal' worked into his name. Thats not the same as worshiping The God Baal that the bible talks about.
I agree, its extremely unlikely that the arabs were worshiping jehovah, and then over teh generations that worship became corrupted, as their holy book reports.. Then again, I also think its extraordinarily unlikely that the hebrews were allwaysworshipping jehovah and that sometimes some groups corrupted the practice, as their holy book reports.

Please provide some real scripture backing up a claim of a feminine "goddess consort" to the one true God, YHVH...

My understanding of hte arguement, which is not complete, is that the second creation story in the bible has textual and linguistic evidence of having once been an older myth in which a pair of gods, a male and female, created the world, as opposed to the first creation story, in which the Elohim with God at the front make the world. Not saying I agree with the argument, but if we're going to say that Mo was evangelising for Hubal, and that islam is the worhsip of Hubal on such flimsy evidence (actually, no evidence has been presented), they we are forced to similarly accept these things about the bible.

YHVH is a tetragrammaton of the original Hebrew usually translated into English as "The LORD,

Yes, the vowels drop out. I beleive that this word is why the term Jehovah is often used as a name for god.

If you weren't a mod, Nygdan, I'd give you my vote for WATS.

In essence, Nygdan's summary is pretty much what most of the scholars say (aside from the ones who are somewhat... avid about Islam and those who see it as a huge threat.) That's what matches up with the written records, as well.

I don't see quite what the problem is. Many Christians cite the "god reveals himself to everyone" and mention the Christian urban legend of the minister who goes off into the wilds of (various places) to preach the gospel and people come up to him and say "oh... we know about your god. We just didn't know his name. We worship him, too."

It's apparently okay for Primitive Tribes (tm) but not for civilized countries...?

Look, first of all if you are not a christian and you don't believe in angels, demons and whatnot I understand this entire discussion is very irrelevant, because in this case it is just about names.
But if you do believe in the possibility of Baal somehow being related to or inspired by a demon (yeah sounds crazy I know), the discussion becomes much more interesting and fits better in this section of the site.

Now look at this link:
www.absoluteastronomy.com...

And especially this part:

Hubal the moon god had three daughters, or rather he had a daughter-goddess in three manifestations: Quick Facts about: al-Lat
Quick Summary not found for this subjectal-Lat (the feminine form of "God", i.e. "the Goddess"), Quick Facts about: Uzza
Quick Summary not found for this subjectUzza,who was the youngest of the three, and Quick Facts about: Manat
The basic unit of money in AzerbaijanManat the crone goddess, who carried the shears of fate like Atropos among the Greeks. The three Quick Facts about: crane-like
Quick Summary not found for this subjectcrane-like daughters are mentioned as the daughters of Allah in the so-called "Quick Facts about: Satanic verses
Quick Summary not found for this subjectSatanic verses" story reported by Tabari, a belief condemned elsewhere in the Qur'an, but Hubal's name does not appear.

Is this another clue that points in the direction of Allah being related to Hubal in a more than superfacial way?

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Jakko]

What's in a name?

It's pretty laughable to see some "Christians" in this thread with a self-righteous, smug attitude because they think that they have proven Allah to be a "pagan" god.
Go to the back of the class hypocrites. The Christian god is just as pagan if not more so. And to cap it all he's even referred to by his pagan name of "El" in the Bible!!!!

And here's a little page that claims that the Christian god is Baal (and as convincingly as any other posted here I may add).
www.revelations.org.za...

So we can now retitle this thread "Christian God = El = Baal.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
From what I've read the word "Allah" did come from the word "Baal" but that certainly doesn't mean Muslims are worshipping Baal now. My grandmother was an Arab Christian and would sometimes say "Allah" meaning God.

That's right! While I was in Egypt, the Coptic (arab speaking) Christians referred to God as Allah as well. It simply means (as I've kept saying) "The God".

Originally posted by IComeWithASword
You people make me laugh. Which is the real god which is the fake.

I can see where you are coming from. It is rather silly. If you believe in One God, who you love with all your heart and soul and mind (1st commandment), you should be OK. If there is a country (just an example) where through some quirk of fate the word for "God" is "Baal", does that mean they are automatically worshipping demons?

Originally posted by paperclip
According the Huston Smith’s book The World’s Religions (p. 222), it states: "Allah is formed by joining the definite article al meaning ‘the’ with Ilah (God). Literally, Allah means ‘The God.’ … When the masculine plural ending im is dropped from the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, the two words sound much alike." Eloah (Hebrew feminine) is similar to Ilah (God). Both Elohim and Allah are titles and not names."

There is also "Allahuma/Allahum" while referring to God. Lets not forget the famous "Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani". Eli=Allah? Sound pretty similar.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I guess Islam is kind of the odd religion out among the three monotheistic religions purportedly worshipping the same God as it doesn't share any scripture with the others as I understand it. Whereas Christianity adopted all Jewish scripture and cannonized it as the true 'Word of God,' then appending the Christian part to the end of it, with the Koran Muslims have a full new text rewriting all earlier text and mixing their own beliefs into it. This makes it easy to question the authenticity of Muslim scripture of having any basis in the one true God.

Actually Muslims are told they must not forget God's earlier revealations either. However, they are also told that the older revealations were much distorted. So, when something in an older revealation matches with the Quran, it is accepted. If it contradicts the Quran, it is rejected. If it doesn't one way or the other compared to the Quran, it is debatable. Kind of a one-sided, but that is the way it is.

BTW, etymologically (or at least phonetically), Hubal doesn't match Baal or Allah. Hub-al stresses the "huB" part, while "Baal" is just continuous, doesn't stress anything. And ""Al-lah" Stresses the "Al" part, with just a short "lah". Not that it is necessarily proof either way, just for information.
Besides, the verses I quoted from the Quran very clearly states that Muslims should not (and do not) worship Baal, and they should not (and do not) worship the sun or the moon (Hubal).

Originally posted by Jakko
Both Muslim and non-Muslim sources state that Hubal was recognized as the chief presiding deity of the Kabah.
This is interesting because later on the chief presiding deity of the Kabah is suddenly Allah. How did this transition occur?

But Muslim and non-muslim sources state no such thing. Hubal was recognized as an IMPORTANT deity of the Pre-Islamic Arab pantheon, but was certainly not the chief deity. Allah was always the "Chief" deity. There are even ancient arab documents (much before Muhammad) that start out something like "Bismikalah" (In the name of God). It was when Muhammad changed it to "Bismillah ir-rahman ur-rahim" (In the name of God, the most gracious, most merciful), that the pagan Arabs got angry. Not because Ir-Rahman or Ur-Rahim are some new gods that the Arabs didn't know, but because (1)they are qualities that were not attributed to Allah (according to them) and (2) because it went against their tradition. Ir-Rahman and Ur-Rahim couldn't have been some other deity, because (as the link you posted states), the Arabs said that they did not know this Ir-Rahman/Ur-Rahim. There are 99 known names (or qualities) attributed to Allah, Ir-Rahman and Ur-Rahim are just two.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Let us analyze this. The Ishmaelites decended from the first born of Abraham by his slave; Hagar, where God at the time of Ishmael’s conception was known to Abraham, where Abe after Ishmael was at least 24 years old, was promised another heir.

Actually a more accurate age for Ishmael would be 14 when Isaac was born, but even that is enough. Check out the thread I posted before. It has some interesting information about the whole Ishmael-Hagar thing. Here is a small quote:

Originally posted by babloyi
Then there is the matter of age. According to Genesis 16:16, Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born. Then in Genesis 21:5, Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. So Ishmael would be 14 at the birth of Isaac. According to Genesis 21:8-14, Isaac had just been weaned when Hagar and Ishmael were sent away. Bible scholars say that a child should be weaned at the age of 3. That would make Ishmael 17 when he was sent away with Hagar. Now what follows seems very unlikely for a teenager at 17. According to Genesis 21:14, Ishmael is set on Hagars shoulders. Whaaaat? Why does a 17 year old need to be carried. Then in Genesis 21:15, when the water is gone, Hagar puts Ishmael under a bush. Again...a 17 year old? She then walks away because she "cannot watch the boy die". Huh? A 17 year old boy should be taking care of his mother, not the other way around. Why didn't Ishmael follow his mother? Then Ishmael starts crying. Very odd behaviour for a 17 year old. Then Hagar and Ishmael are saved, and Hagar is commanded to "lift the boy up". How is an old woman carrying a 17 year old? I thought that according to the Bible, at the age of 12, a male is considered an adult, not a boy.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 10-5-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 10-5-2005 by babloyi]

www.apologeticsindex.org...

Perhaps this link can clarify the lack of truth in this thread.

and perhaps this link

www.apologeticsindex.org...

Originally posted by Jakko


Several sources claim that more members of Muhammads family were praising Hubal before it became Allah.

Jakko, Hubal didn't BECOME Allah. Hubal is one deity out of many worshiped before Mohammad smashed ALL statues and idols in Mecca.
Hubal and all other gods of pagan arabs were SUBSTITUTED with worship of just one God, at that God is, as stated hundreds of times throughout Qur'an, the God of Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, THE God, the ONE God conected to them all.
The false worship that existed in Arabia was SUBSTITUTED with the right worship.
Mohammad forced them to stop worshiping false gods start worshipping the god of hebrews.

Qur'an and the Old Testament tell the exact same stories that have no connection with pagan gods of saudi arabia. Qur'an describes the whole jewish exodus story, Moses, ten comandments, the whole Noah story, the flood, it even uses the SAME names, and THE GOD (Allah) who is responsible for all that, is the same God who sent Qur'an to people.

You keep using Allah as a name of God. That is wrong. Allah is simply an arabic word for "god". It is a simple matter of taking a dictionary and translating a word from your language to an equal word in foreign language.
I don't know how else to explain it.

Originally posted by Bush43
www.apologeticsindex.org...

Perhaps this link can clarify the lack of truth in this thread.

The link only goes to further show the hypocrisy and confusion that pervades Christianity with regards to it's god.

For example when looking at the contents:

"God — The Koran asserts that the god of Islam is the God of Christians and Jews (Sura 29:46). Nothing could be farther from the truth.7

The god of Islam, Allah, is most definitely not the God of the Bible. Allah is presented in the Koran as an autocratic ruler who is aloof and arbitrary (Sura 5:40). Allah is unknowable whereas the God of the Bible is knowable."

Well that ain't true. The god of the Bible is originally the Jewish god. He's totally unknowable and in fact he revels in it - even boasting to Moses "I am what I am" (basically saying "mind your own business") when asked who he is!!! In fact there are hundreds of places in the Bible where this god sets himself apart as an unknowable, aloof figure.
Sure, Jesus' god might be a bit more personal, but to take him as a different god than that of Islam or Judaism, we have to discount the whole of the Old Testament. As "Christians" claim the the god is the same in both Testaments, it therefore stands to reason that the god of Jesus also has the unknowable qualities that the passage above uses as "evidence" of a different god. The argument therefore shoots itself in the foot by way of logic.
So which is it to be "Christians"? You can't have the above argument that your god is different without turning your back on the Old Testament.

Originally posted by Leveller
The god of the Bible is originally the Jewish god.

Madam/Sir, ----"God" of the hebrew bible is the GOD of Abraham and "Israel" not just "Juda" a single tribe. If you are going to blast christians then please be factual in your attack.

[Note to self.........send instant message Michael and Gabriel about this guy.]

Originally posted by Bush43
www.apologeticsindex.org...
Perhaps this link can clarify the lack of truth in this thread.

Nope, as Leveller said, that link has it's own distinct lack of truth.
The link states:

However, Islamic tradition teaches that only Muslims will be admitted to Paradise. Though they are considered "People of the Book" - a reference to Jewish and Christian scriptures - Jews and Christians are excluded.

While in the Quran you can see:

5:69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Plus it says that says that Muslim's claim- without irrefutable proof- that the Bible is distorted. Here's some news: It isn't only Muslims who claim that. I don't think many diehard Christians will ever accept any proof to be "irrefutable". You want 1 proof that the Bible has been distorted? Get your Bible. I do this on the web, I don't have my own copy. I use a site that I am pretty sure millions refer to for the Bible. Open any book of the Bible. The book is divided into little "chapters" with a title above each. Who decided the titles? They certainly weren't there in the older versions. How do you know that the author is not distorting the message with a title, giving you a pre-concieved image of what is in that chapter?

Originally posted by Bush43

Originally posted by Leveller
The god of the Bible is originally the Jewish god.

Madam/Sir, ----"God" of the hebrew bible is the GOD of Abraham and "Israel" not just "Juda" a single tribe. If you are going to blast christians then please be factual in your attack.

[Note to self.........send instant message Michael and Gabriel about this guy.]

Abraham was originally a follower of the Canaanite high God El. It's entirely open to question whether Abraham converted to the new god or not. Certainly, it would seem that the Hebrew god did not exist in the form that we know in the Bible until it was claimed that Moses came down from the mountain. The god wasn't finalised until Exodus - well after Abraham's time.

But that's by the by. In my statement above I refer to the finished Biblical product in relation to Christianity, and the Old Testament god can certainly be claimed to be the original Jewish god in the context of the argument laid down.

So there you go. I've been factual. It's not my fault if you can't understand written English.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by Bush43
www.apologeticsindex.org...

Perhaps this link can clarify the lack of truth in this thread.

The link only goes to further show the hypocrisy and confusion that pervades Christianity with regards to it's god.

Actually, it's one of the funniest pieces I've read all morning, reminding me very much of the "he does... she does" jokes. You remember those jokes going around in the mailbox saying "when he does this, he's forceful. When a woman does it, she's being a nasty creep" sort of thing? Allah is a nasty warmongering deity for instructing his followers to kill non-Muslims, but Yahweh is a perfectly reasonable one even though he instructs his followers to level Babylon and destroy Sumeria (Isaiah 13), hardens Pharoah's heart a number of times so that Yahweh can go smite down more Egyptians (Exodus), commands the Israelites to wipe out the Amekelites (Exodus), does away with 250 bystanders (Numbers 13) and when people complain of this act then Yahweh kills another 15,000 or so.

...etc..

Amusing document, but I think it disproves what was originally intended -- at least it does if you go back and read the Bible.

...unless, of course, you find Yahweh's actions excusable simply because he's the deity you worship.

Originally posted by Byrd

...unless, of course, you find Yahweh's actions excusable simply because he's the deity you worship.

Not just the deity that the people promoting the argument here worship!!! But now they're even trying to prove that this deity is exactly the same one as that which Abraham worshipped and therefore the same one that all Jews, Christians and Muslims worship!!!!
Not content with actually posting illogical websites they then go on to shooting their own arguments down in flames!!!!

If this goes on, there may be a time when those of us who apologise for the insanity of some aspects of religion aren't gonna be needed because those who promote the lies and hypocrysies are gonna be owning up to them as soon as they utter them. Or do you reckon that would be too much to hope for?

Quite the blasphemous person aren't you leveller. If you need Truth, read the Bible. I wouldn't base my conclusions on what others interpret from it...

[edit on 10-5-2005 by BadMojo]

Originally posted by BadMojo
Quite the blasphemous person aren't you leveller. If you need Truth, read the Bible. I wouldn't base my conclusions on what others interpret from it...

Quite the judge aren't you Mojo? Which is worse?

As for the Bible? Been there, read it.
And I certainly didn't base my opinions on what others interpret from it. Otherwise I'd be like you.

Who's judging? I merely read your posts.