Originally posted by meelash
The egyptians believed that their pharoahs were gods, and beetles were gods, and all kinds of other junk. Moses brought a message of monotheism. I can't claim to be an expert on Egyptian religious laws. But I can say two things: 1)Similarity does not prove sequential evolution 2) How can you tell that the message brought by Moses was not polluted, after his death, between that time and now and things were not picked up (either out of ignorance or for personal gain of rabbis, kings, etc.) from other faiths?[b]
Dude! "Junk"? And no, Beetles were not considered a god Think of the rank silliness of the idea. I can kill a beetle at will. Why would I think that a beetle is a god. Clue for you: all those "deified" animals are mere representations of concepts. the dung beetle for example represents the transformative nature of Amen (The hidden one).
While indeed nature shows us that similarity does not mean sequential evolution, history is a nice guide. The obvious
"fact" stated that the Hebrews" spent some 400 odd years in Egypt supports sequentialism. It's like someone claiming that even though America is the single largest superpower in the world, every country that has some trace of what could be taken as "american influence" is not actually American influence at all. Doesn't make sense does it.
As for polluted ideas. I'm all in agreement with that. I think the whole chain has been polluted. The problem lies in that folks don't want to admit that their particular system of belief may be polluted.
1)This is off-topic. The only reason I mention Adam is to get the point across that Prophets have been sent since the first human nation ever existed. 2) The "Adam story" (the Muslim version, obviously) is one of the beliefs of Muslims. I don't know why we would need proof of that?? And what's that have to do with this discussion?
True, off topic but. No Adam is not the first human. Judeo-Chirstian-Islamic belief makes such a claim. There is no proof of an Adam. Don't even get me started on the rank inconsistencies of "Adam" and "eve."
1)You are presupposing that being illiterate precludes having scripture. Ironic, given that the Muslim prophet was also illiterate. 2) This is also irrevelant as that was simply a theoretical example (based on something I heard a long time ago and cannot confirm)
Mohammed knew of the various scriptures that existed during his time. If you say that he could not read and write then so be it. Let's not confuse oral traditions with scripture which by its definition requires something in writing.
If you presuppose that it is false than, yes, it would be arrogant. But someone has to be the last one, right? So should the last one not tell anyone he is the last one out of humility? In fact, we believe that all the messengers that came before gave their nations tidings of 1) the messengers that would come directly after them and 2) the existence and coming of a final messenger including signs to recognize them. The final messenger informed us that he is the final messenger so that noone can be fooled by claimants to prophethood after him.
No sir. The last one has no clue he is the last one sine he (or she) has no clue what will happen after his or her departure from the material realm. The claim of "last prophet" is a nice stroke of genious to solidify one's base of belief. it is not humility at all. No different than those proclaiming the world is flat and that's all there is to it. No doubt they were convinced of the correctness of thier statement.. But of course when a religion needs to tie up all it's loose ends it needs to create a closed circle of thinking among it's adherents. Hence: God told me I was last. I told everyone else that God told me I was last. After my death they will repeat this message. It is blasphemous to question this message. etc.
Again, convenient maybe, but if it's true, why not? Firstly, we believe the Jews were supposed to be looking for their Messiah. Jesus the Son of Mary was that Messiah. The majority of them rejected him and therefore, obviously, are still looking for their Messiah. We are told that the majority of them will accept the Anti-Christ when he comes as their Messiah. Secondly, the Muslims are actually also waiting for the Messiah to return. That is, we believe Jesus the Son of Mary will return to defeat the Anti-Christ. The Pious (although misguided, we believe) Christians will join with the Muslims in his army. And lastly, we don't believe "Muhammed was your last chance," we believe he is now your only chance. Unlike the previous books/messages, God has assured that his message will be available, unadulterated, somewhere on earth for the dedicated seeker until the end approaches.
As you said: 'If'. There is no "actually" in the statement. That is the very issue.
Secondly it is no more contradictory for a Muslim to claim that a dead person, Mohammet, [b]is[\\b] the last chance than a Christian saying that Jesus [b]is[\\b] the last chance.
Also by your own admission. If Muslims are awaiting the return of Jesus and the whole "birth-death-ressurection-vengance" theme is a URL=http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2006/04/abrahamic-what.html]rewrite[/URL
] of the Ausarian drama, then why the "junk" comments like "beetles are gods"? Because judaism and be inheritance Christianity and Islam are invested in the discrediting of those "idolatous" religions that fed them in order to maintain themselves. Nooooo. those Idolators couldn't possibly have been the authors of our moral code! No!! Moses got it from a Bush!!
Not sure what you're getting at here. I assume from your previous posts that you do not believe the Bible is the authentic word of God given to Jesus. I do not believe that the Bible, in its present state, is the authentic word of God given to Jesus. So, whatever your point is, how would quoting that Bible help to prove it?
I do not ascribe the the belief that any particular scripture is the word of any god. All scripture is the result of the thinking of men and women (mostly men). Because of this I recognize that each system is limited and flawed (including my own). While each system is flawed one can take the writings and the history of those ideas and map out who informed or influenced who. Since I have not vested interest in any of the texts I don't need for them to fit into a neat paradigm.