Allah is NOT Some Pagan Moon God, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 2-9-2007 @ 07:31 PM by Byrd
Originally posted by semperfortis
The proof has been established...

Archaeology Expert

Just a simple matter of reading the factual evidence. Anything else is pure speculation and subject to the speculators personal biases..


Actually, I had a look at the original sources, the tablet of Ur-Nammu. As you can see in the Wikipedia jpg, the ORIGINAL (1915) translation said it was "some sort of moon god."
en.wikipedia.org...:Khashkhamer_seal_moon_worship.jpg

...but scroll on down. It's now known that this isn't the worship of a moon god
The scene depicts Hashhamer being led by a lamma, before the seated king, and another lamma follows. The king is probably bestowing the governorship on Hashhamer. The accompanying inscription translates:

"Ur-Nammu, the mighty hero, king of Ur; Ḫašḫamer, patesi (high priest) of Iškun-Sin, his servant."


And the moon god isn't named "allah"... his name is Sin:
www.ancientworlds.net...

en.wikipedia.org...(Sumerian_deity)


reply posted on 2-9-2007 @ 08:01 PM by grover
reply to post by Sun Matrix



It is not Allah that is trying to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, its some Arabs, and not even all of them. They just cloak it in religion, just like right wing Jews cloak their illegal settlements in religious terms.

No difference.


reply posted on 2-9-2007 @ 09:02 PM by Sun Matrix
Originally posted by grover
reply to
post by Sun Matrix



It is not Allah that is trying to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, its some Arabs, and not even all of them. They just cloak it in religion, just like right wing Jews cloak their illegal settlements in religious terms.

No difference.


Illegal settlements? What are you referring to? I am unaware of any illegal settlements.



reply posted on 2-9-2007 @ 10:43 PM by Icarus Rising
Just today, I was thinking to myself that there might be just two entities out there in contention; Ba'al (or The Lord of the Flies, Molech, Chemosh, Ashteroth, Lucifer, Satan, whatever) the imposter, and the One True God, Creator of the Universe.

Ba'al, in all its manifestations, is characterized by projected thought from the individual I (id or ego) in an attempt to selfishly control or manifest outcomes. Ever wonder what "Lord of the Flies" means? Spend a little time trying to use your thoughts to tell a fly what to do and you might figure it out.

The One True God, the Creator of the Universe, is characterized by an inexplicable, supernatural power that transcends thought itself (for who has known the mind of God, and who is His counselor?). The Great I AM. Compared to the Great I AM, Ba'al is a cheap parlor trick.

Satan seeks to exalt himself above the throne of the One True God. The selfish I seeking to replace the Great I AM as the focus of our worship and adoration. Christ was sent, as part and parcel of the Great I AM, to show us, once and for all, the difference, and to offer us a choice.

He will have mercy, and not sacrifice.

The choice, in its simplest form, is either bondage to sin and death under the letter of the law, or eternal life in the spirit of the law. Throughout all religions and belief systems this choice is being made. In any given religion there are those who follow, whether they know it or not, Ba'al and its derivatives, and those who follow the Great I AM. Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares from Christ in the NT?

Romans 8 really summed all these thoughts up for me today.


Starting with Romans 7:19

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Romans 8


I highly recommend the reading of the rest of Romans 8 in this light. We have all been given the opportunity to be co-hiers with Christ to the Kingdom of Heaven.


reply posted on 3-9-2007 @ 12:07 PM by semperfortis
The emotional responses that have occurred in this thread, are not surprising, but they are also not fruitful in the examination of word origins...

The Archaeological evidence surrounding the word Allah, is irrefutable and exact...and have been shown in detail on previous posts...

The word God, can indeed be traced back to Pagan times, even farther perhaps..

god Look up god at Dictionary.com
O.E. god "supreme being, deity," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Gmc., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. O.E. god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been P.Gmc. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Gmc. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.

"I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire]

First record of Godawful "terrible" is from 1878; God speed as a parting is from c.1470. God-fearing is attested from 1835. God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Emotional and unscientific responses such as these...

just like right wing Jews cloak their illegal settlements in religious terms.


BULL HOOEY.


now keep your fanatical religions away from politics


That old promised land crap got old a long time ago and only fanatics and fools still buy into it


Add nothing to the intelligence of the conversation, in fact they show a marked lack of that intellect in any discussion...

Contemplating the origins of the word Allah, or God if you prefer, in no way detracts from any of your personal beliefs...

Think of it this way...

You may call the God that you believe in "Shooter Joe" if you so desire. The name that you invoke does not diminish your belief unless you choose to allow it too.

The historical basis behind words are traceable and of course, man-made.

With this knowledge, how does one define God?

Does it really matter what we call him?

Of course not, but to deny the origins of the word or the origin of our religion is to wallow in the same ignorance that causes the emotional outbursts listed above..

Semper


reply posted on 3-9-2007 @ 02:17 PM by Malichai
reply to post by Sun Matrix



Wiki

wahiduddin.net...

www.bibleanswerstand.org...

The English word God does not come from the Christian Bible.

English speaking Christians use the word God and other Euros too, and Arabic speaking Christians use the word Allah.

Who are they worshiping? Is it the same entity or not?

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Malichai]


reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 01:16 PM by Icarus Rising
reply to post by madnessinmysoul



Honestly, I think you have that backwards. Joseph of the technicolor dreamcoat, son of Jacob (also known as Israel), was sold into slavery to the Egyptians by his older brothers. I'm sure you know the story. He ended up taking over and starting the reign of the Hiskos, the Semitic Kings of Egypt. This took place starting with the Second Intermediate Period and lasted through the Sixteenth Dynasty (1785-1580 BCE). It may have been during this period that monotheism gained strength in Egypt.

"Now there arose up a new king, which knew not Joseph." (Exodus 1:8) The New Kingdom came along in 1580 BCE and ended the reign of the Semitic Kings, beginning with the Eighteenth Dynasty. Moses came along during The Nineteenth Dynasty. Whether the Israelites were forced to leave or forced the Egyptians to let them go may be open to question for you. That's fine, for you.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags
We Have Been Lied To
  Posted 17 days ago with 37 member flags
The Mormon Church is a Cult
  Posted 9 days ago with 23 member flags
Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world
  Posted 19 days ago with 19 member flags
Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.
  Posted 14 days ago with 16 member flags
Is The Bible Real?
  Posted 17 days ago with 9 member flags
The talk too controversial for TED to post...
  Posted 9 days ago with 9 member flags
The game, laid bare (illuminati)
  Posted 4 days ago with 9 member flags