Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I read that there is no correlation between the two religions, and that Islam actually has nothing at all to do with either Judaism or Christianity. How true is this, when many Muslim's have made claims that they are in fact connected? I also read that the word Allah does not directly translate to mean God in English, but that it was literally the name of the Muslim Moon God.

Any opinions, facts, etc?

No opinions (yet), no facts to offer, but i look forward to any that are presented. I'd always assumed all these religions were interconnected.

They're both, along with Judaism, Abrahamic religions.

I mean, the Muslims actually do revere Jesus as the Messiah.

Originally posted by Stoic
I also read that the word Allah does not directly translate to mean God in English, but that it was literally the name of the Muslim Moon God.
Yes. There's historical evidence that Allah was originally the name of a Pagan moon god, just like Yahweh was originally the name of a Pagan storm god.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
I mean, the Muslims actually do revere Jesus as the Messiah.
No. They revere him as a prophet.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
They're both, along with Judaism, Abrahamic religions.

I mean, the Muslims actually do revere Jesus as the Messiah. Wrong. He's nothing more than a messenger to them. He's not divine in their eyes and they refuse to believe He died on the cross.

They actually do revere him as messiah, but they'll be quick to point out that "messiah" is Hebrew for anointed.... which they believe all prophets are anointed.

As for a connection? None. The Quran is a book of stone age tribe tales, stolen stories from other religions and stories from the apocrypha. Arabs aren't related to Abraham through his son. That's a myth.

Actually, they've recently found a book with identicle stories and commandments, almost word for word...... and it was written before Muhammad was born.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes. There's historical evidence that Allah was originally the name of a Pagan moon god, just like Yahweh was originally the name of a Pagan storm god.


No. They revere him as a prophet.
I know you brought up the storm God thing as an attempt to discredit the bible, but its not what you think, fren.

The Hebrews were, biblically and historically polytheists for thousands of years before becoming monothiestic. The bible itself calls yhvh a storm God. He was a storm God before Abraham converted and was a storm God after.

If you want to get technical, all the Middle Eastern stories (Bible, Quran) are basically ripoffs of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was probably a ripoff of something else.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If you want to get technical, all the Middle Eastern stories (Bible, Quran) are basically ripoffs of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was probably a ripoff of something else. how so

Originally posted by psmith81992
how so
Many of the same stories appear in both, most notably that of the Great Flood.

Only one story, the flood story. You can look at it two ways: They stole the story and just changed the name.
Or
2. Its a second eye witness account that the flood really happened.

Why couldn't they have come up with it separately? Local floods still occur worldwide and it doesn't take too much imagination to extrapolate a flood to a global event.

There are a lot of now-defunct religions that existed concurrently with both Christianity and Islam in their earlier days. Many shared a lot of the same motifs, similar stories or story elements, etc. At a certain point, it becomes very hard to say who borrowed from whom, or where the origin of certain stories came from. People love pointing out, for example, the pagan roots of a lot of the symbolism surrounding Christmas. Other examples abound. And that's just from contemporaries of these religions, and doesn't begin to touch on mythological predecessors like the one(s) OV mentioned. Some, like flood stories, exist in many cultures. Whether written separately or borrowed hardly matters. But there are other examples. A brief stroll through, say, some Joseph Campbell or comparative religion books will produce several more. So it's not only logical to assume that there are some shared elements between all of them, but imo illogical to assume that there are none.

I'm obviously less versed in Islam - such is the curse of my culture - but from what I understand, and as a couple others have mentioned, Jesus does play a role in their history and he's given some status as a prophet.

Originally posted by Astner
Why couldn't they have come up with it separately? Local floods still occur worldwide and it doesn't take too much imagination to extrapolate a flood to a global event.
They could have. That's the common thought of Christians. They make the argument that Gilgamesh proves that there was a flood and an ark, etc.

Also, another difference is Christians are told to pray for infidels...... Islam....well....says cut their head off.

There's a lot of pedophilia in it, too.

Originally posted by long pig
They could have. That's the common thought of Christians.
I thought Christians believed that the global flood actually took place.

Originally posted by Astner
I thought Christians believed that the global flood actually took place.

Not the majority of them. Just a vocal subset of evangelicals. For many Christians - though I won't guess at a percentage - much of the Old Testament is metaphoric. So the story of Noah is a parable about obedience to God and his laws, not about a literal flood.

Originally posted by Digi
Not the majority of them. Just a vocal subset of evangelicals. For many Christians - though I won't guess at a percentage - much of the Old Testament is metaphoric. So the story of Noah is a parable about obedience to God and his laws, not about a literal flood.
Mostly all Protestants believe it took place as written. Catholics might not.

Originally posted by Astner
I thought Christians believed that the global flood actually took place.
They do. They believe the Gilgamesh story is another acount of the biblical flood. They believe the people knew of the flood and described it the best they could. It eventually became the Gilgamesh story.

They believe the biblical flood happened exactly how the bi le says and the Gilgamesh story was just another account of the same event, just tweaked.

Originally posted by Astner
Why couldn't they have come up with it separately? Local floods still occur worldwide and it doesn't take too much imagination to extrapolate a flood to a global event.

Last year there was a book about the relationship between the Bible and the Epic of Gilamesh tale of the flood. Apparently the hebrews were aquainted with the tale and adapted it during an specific timeframe.

That doesn't rule out the possibilities of other flood histories happening spontaneously, but there was a lot of exchange between close communities back in the day, so probably in most cases preexisting water folk tales became a flood stories after meeting with the idea of the universal flood.

Originally posted by long pig
Arabs aren't related to Abraham through his son. That's a myth.

Who are Esau's descendants according to Judaism?

Originally posted by long pig
Actually, they've recently found a book with identicle stories and commandments, almost word for word...... and it was written before Muhammad was born.

Do you have a link for that?

Originally posted by Astner
I thought Christians believed that the global flood actually took place.


They (we) do and it most certainly did. It's not just a "story" regardless of how much atheists try to convince people that's all it is.

Originally posted by Digi
Not the majority of them. Just a vocal subset of evangelicals. For many Christians - though I won't guess at a percentage - much of the Old Testament is metaphoric. So the story of Noah is a parable about obedience to God and his laws, not about a literal flood.



LMAO. Bullshit. I seriously question any person's claim that they are actually "Christian" if they believe the Great Flood didn't actually happen. I've never met a Christian who thought the flood didn't happen EVER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. I think you're trolling and just trying to piss off those of us who regard the Bible as the infallible inspired Word of God.




Flood happened. Eden happened. Moses parting the Red Sea happened. Just like everything else did that is regarded as history in the Bible. I don't give a damn what atheists like u say.

Not a literal flood, my ass. There are metaphors in the Bible (mostly in prophecy) but the Great Flood is most certainly not one of them. Any "Christian" who believes that it didn't actually happen has been deceived by Satan or his agents. I'm beginning to think the latter is what some of these people are who claim they're atheists. Satan is a liar. Maybe all these "atheists" are too when they say they don't believe in God or the devil. I imagine it makes it easier for them to do Satan's work and convince people his lies are true if people think they have no motive for deceiving them.

Digi is also one of those who claim that Satanists don't actually believe in Satan.




More lies by Satan's followers. "Oh, we worship a giant statue of Satan and call ourselves "Satanists" but we swear we don't actually believe in him!".



Riiiiiight. Perhaps your deceitful lies work on other people but they'll never work on me. I promise u that.

Originally posted by Star428
Not a literal flood, my ass. There are metaphors in the Bible (mostly in prophecy) but the Great Flood is most certainly not one of them.

How do you account for the physical impossibilities of a World Wide flood? Unless you believe there is some historicity to the flood itself but that it has been embelished and put into religious context?

Originally posted by Bentley
How do you account for the physical impossibilities of a World Wide flood? Unless you believe there is some historicity to the flood itself but that it has been embelished and put into religious context?



LOL. Nothing is "impossible" for the One who actually created the universe. He's the One who actually made the laws of science in the first place so it's not hard to imagine He could break them whenever He likes. He's not bound to them in the same way we or the laws of nature are. Also, not sure a worlwide flood is "impossible" anyway even without God doing it.

Originally posted by Star428
Wrong. He's nothing more than a messenger to them. He's not divine in their eyes and they refuse to believe He died on the cross. itt star doesn't know what the word "messiah" means in the context of abrahamic religion

and he is supposedly a christian... how interesting

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.


And it wasn't a worldwide flood. It was a physical phenomenon that happened in the Middle East.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.


And it wasn't a worldwide flood. It was a physical phenomenon that happened in the Middle East.

Isn't Esau Jacob's brother? And the grandson of Abraham, and son of Isaac?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.


And it wasn't a worldwide flood. It was a physical phenomenon that happened in the Middle East.


and yet:



Genesis 6:11: The earth was also corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

6:12: And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. Nothing mentioned about it only being Israelis or even people from the whole Middle East only who were corrupting the earth.


6:13: And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence thru them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


and finally, most importantly,

Genesis 6:17: And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under Heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.


It most certainly was not restricted to the Middle East. There are also many clues that scientists have discovered too that suggest a worldwide flood occured though many of them disagree about when it actually happened. Perhaps smaller floods happened often back then in the Middle East region but the Great Flood described in Genesis was a worldwide phenomenon. God wanted to cleanse the entire earth and start over. Not just the Middle East region.

Originally posted by Bentley
Who are Esau's descendants according to Judaism?



Do you have a link for that?
The Arabs don't claim esau, they claim Hagar's illegitimate son. Esaus people ended up a mess of inbreeding and were deported to Babylon where they were enslaved. Arabs were already around before esau. Don't quote me, its been a while, but I THINK esaus people were called edom.

Google older version of the Quran found in Birmingham. (Not alabama lol).

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Nothing is "impossible" for the One who actually created the universe. He's the One who actually made the laws of science in the first place so it's not hard to imagine He could break them whenever He likes. He's not bound to them in the same way we or the laws of nature are. Also, not sure a worlwide flood is "impossible" anyway even without God doing it.

So it was a miracle. I was legitimely asking about how you'd circumvent the lack of natural implications of it, read mass extinctions etc., just to complement the notion of christians that don't take the flood literaly.

You said that you didn't know any non-literalist readers of such scripture, then I think I should introduce you to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which doesn't claim the factual veracity of the scriptures, but their truth. By their definition you can be a christian without taking the Flood literaly, since it doesn't partain to the core beliefs of christianhood.

Originally posted by Bentley
So it was a miracle. I was legitimely asking about how you'd circumvent the lack of natural implications of it, read mass extinctions etc., just to complement the notion of christians that don't take the flood literaly.

You said that you didn't know any non-literalist readers of such scripture, then I think I should introduce you to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which doesn't claim the factual veracity of the scriptures, but their truth. By their definition you can be a christian without taking the Flood literaly, since it doesn't partain to the core beliefs of christianhood.



Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that Catholics' beliefs differ from mine. Especially considering that their "leader" is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Guess they've been deceived too. Perhaps they are Christians but considering the Pope was calling for a one-world government, he is not even though he tries to acts like one.


There's a verse somewhere in the bible that says "Behold, even Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." I really think the Pope is an agent of the devil. Perhaps even the anti-Christ himself.

Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that Catholics' beliefs differ from mine. Especially considering that their "leader" is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Guess they've been deceived too. Perhaps they are Christians but considering the Pope was calling for a one-world government, he is not even though he tries to acts like one.


There's a verse somewhere in the bible that says "Behold, even Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." I really think the Pope is an agent of the devil. Perhaps even the anti-Christ himself.

Well, my purpose was to inform you of the existence of such christians. Technically the Catholic Church doesn't impose any disbelief in the Universal Flood either.

They are a welcoming Church!

Originally posted by long pig
The Arabs don't claim esau, they claim Hagar's illegitimate son. Esaus people ended up a mess of inbreeding and were deported to Babylon where they were enslaved. Arabs were already around before esau. Don't quote me, its been a while, but I THINK esaus people were called edom.

Google older version of the Quran found in Birmingham. (Not alabama lol).

True that! Got the names mixed up. I really need to do some rereading (it should go without saying).

Will check on the article later

Yes, I'm sure most of them are genuinely good people. My issue isn't with them but instead their "leader".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Isn't Esau Jacob's brother? And the grandson of Abraham, and son of Isaac?

GRRR I didn't read "descendants" I read "family".

Originally posted by Star428
Yes, I'm sure most of them are genuinely good people. My issue isn't with them but instead their "leader".
I certainly don't consider catholics Christian. They are practicing polytheists.

Also, digi is correct in his assertion that satanists don't believe in "Satan", at least not the biblical Satan. A lot of what they do is just to piss off Christians. Most are athiests, but some are what you'd consider wiccans.

The statue isn't Satan, BTW.

I dated a wiccan chick once.....they are freaks in bed.

Originally posted by long pig
I certainly don't consider catholics Christian. They are practicing polytheists.

Technically the Catholic Church doesn't force you to venerate saints either

Originally posted by long pig
Also, digi is correct in his assertion that satanists don't believe in "Satan", at least not the biblical Satan. A lot of what they do is just to piss off Christians. Most are athiests, but some are what you'd consider wiccans.

The statue isn't Satan, BTW.

I dated a wiccan chick once.....they are freaks in bed.




You do realize that just because someone claims they don't believe in Satan doesn't mean that they're actually telling the truth, right? Sorry, I"m not buying it and I never will. I have no reason to believe they are telling the truth when they call themselves Satanists. Satan is the prince of all lies, afterall.

Originally posted by Bentley
Technically the Catholic Church doesn't force you to venerate saints either
That's why I said "practicing polytheists" instead of "dogmatic polytheists". So, booyah!

:P

Seems I hit a nerve with Star. It takes quite a bit to cause a triple post like that.

Anyway, I'm not remotely a Satanist, and don't have any reason to convince you of anything concerning it. So when I say most Satanists don't literally believe in Satan, it's because I did a Google search and every single thing that came up confirmed that, including unambiguous quotes from the so-called Satanic Bible and several key texts in Satanic lore. It's easy to confirm yourself if you'd like to look into it.

Also, if Star has really never met anyone who doesn't believe in a literal flood, he's in a very insulated bubble. Anyway, on the flood, here's a tidbit I found:
A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."

That's from a Wiki article on Biblical literalism.

I hesitated to put percentages to my earlier claim that many - perhaps a majority - of Christians don't interpret much of the Old Testament literally, because I haven't researched it. But this seems to support my claim.

So if I'm a secret Satanist trying to deceive the 3-4 of you here on KMC with my lies, the conspiracy runs pretty deep. Wikipedia and Gallup are clearly in on it, and the devil has a horrible sense of prioritization. I've been petitioning for him to give me an assignment with more than about a dozen 20-something males, but he seems pretty intent on corrupting this super-important corner of the internet.

LMAO. Post all the so-called "evidence" you like. I won't read it because any source to any link you post is gonna be biased.

Gallup polls aren't religiously motivated. I'm just reporting what I found. If the evidence had supported your claim, I still would have posted it.

You're welcome to do your own research though. I'd be interested to see it.

Pretty sure digi is a full blown satanist, I wouldn't believe a word he says.

Originally posted by long pig
Pretty sure digi is a full blown satanist, I wouldn't believe a word he says.

Lol. I'm not sure you realize the degree to which Star believes stuff like that. With you and I it's a fun little joke. But I can't mockingly respond in the affirmative to this like I'd want to, because there's a decent chance he'd take it seriously and I'd be here for the next 3 pages.

Worshipping Satan is no joke, fren.