Christianity

The outline below contains the very answers to the very questions Muhammad did not want his followers to know, namely that Islam is a sanitized version of ancient polytheistic moon worship which he invented to exercise military control.
1 Does the Qur’an define the word "Allah"? No.
2 Was the name "Allah" revealed for the first time in the Qur’an? No
3 Does the Qur’an assume that its readers have already heard of "Allah"? Yes
4 Should we look into pre-Islamic Arabian history to see who "Allah" was before Muhammad? Yes.
5 According to Muslim tradition, was Muhammad born into a Christian family and tribe? No
6 Was he born into a Jewish family or tribe? No
7 What religion was his family and tribe? Pagans
8 What was the name of his pagan father? Abdullah (Abd + Allah)
Muhammad al-Mahdi: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
His name would be Muhammad and his family name would be Abul Qasim, his father's name would be 'Abdu'llah [rather than Hasan], and he would appear in Mecca.
9 Did Muhammad participate in the pagan ceremonies of Mecca? Yes
10 Did the Arabs in pre-Islamic times worship 360 gods? Yes
11 Did the pagans Arabs worship the sun, moon and the stars? Yes
12 Did the Arabs built temples to the Moon-god? Yes
13 Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? Yes
14 What were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.
15 Was the title "al-ilah" (the god) used of the Moon-god? Yes
16 Was the word "Allah" derived from "al-ilah?" Yes
17 Was the pagan "Allah" a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.
18 Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.
19 Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? Yes
20 Did they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.
21 At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.
22 Was the Kabah thus the "house of the Moon-god"? Yes.
23 Did the name "Allah" eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.
24 Did they call the Kabah the "house of Allah"? Yes
25 Did the pagans develop religious rites in connection with the worship of their gods? Yes.
26 Did the pagans practice the Pilgrimage, the Fast of Ramadan, running around the Kabah seven times, kissing the black stone, shaving the head, animal sacrifices, running up and down two hills, throwing stones at the devil, snorting water in and out the nose, praying several times a day toward Mecca, giving alms, Friday prayers, etc.? Yes.
27 Did Muhammad command his followers to participate in these pagan ceremonies while the pagans were still in control of Mecca? Yes (Yusuf Ali, fn. 214, pg. 78).
28 Did Islam go on to adopt these pagan religious rites? Yes. (Yusuf Ali: fn. 223 pg. 80).
29 Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called "the daughters of Allah"? Yes.
30 Did the Qur’an at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes. In Surah 53:19-20.
31 Have those verses been "abrogated" out of the present Qur’an? Yes.
32 What were they called? "The Satanic Verses." Yes.
33 Was the crescent moon an ancient pagan symbol of the Moon-god throughout the ancient world? Yes.
34 Was it the religious symbol of the Moon-god in Arabia? Yes
35 Were stars also used as pagan symbols of the daughers of Allah? Yes
36 Did the Jews or the Christians of Arabia use the crescent moon with several stars next to it as symbols of their faith? No
37 Did Islam adopt the pagan crescent moon and stars as it religious symbol? Yes.
38 As Islam developed over the centuries, did it adopt pagan names, pagan ceremonies, pagan temples and pagan symbols? Yes
39 Is it possible that most Muslims do not know the pagan sources of the symbols and rites of their own religion? Yes.
40 Are they shocked to find out the true sources of their ceremonies and stories? Yes
41 Can Islam be the religion of Abraham if it is derived from paganism? No
42 What then is Islam? A modern version of one of the ancient fertility cults.
43 Is the "Allah" of the Qur’an, the Christian God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No
44 Do the Jews say that the Muslim "Allah" is their God too? No
45 Then whose god is Allah? Paganism
MIKE

[added on april 30 2012] 1. Sura Ikhlaas . . . QUL HUWALLAHU AHAD ¤ALLAHUS SAMAD¤LAM YALID WALAM YULAD¤WALAM YAKULLAHU KUFUWAN AHAD¤ this is the definition of Allah.>MEANING> Say Allah is one. Allah needs none. Doesn't have a son neither is a son of anyone. No one is equal to Him. . .
What better definition do you need? I think there is no definition better than this:-)
2 first man in this earth is Adam and Allah has been used from the time of his lifetime:-)
3 why should it? People are the descedent of Adam!:-)
4 good idea. But It will be your partiality if you don't proceed enough to reach the history of Ibrahim
5 don't know whether such a tradition exist or not
6 7 8> so what bro:-)

[older post]We should not know what our Prophet did not want us to know. Then why do you use your intellect to lead other people to sin? Dont you lead us to sin by informing us of those facts?
And are there only 45 facts or more?

Dont be coward. Go and 'Publish' Your topic in islamic forum

Answers....to your FAQ's...
*****
1.QURAN IS from Allah. He doesn't want to put an encyclopedia in it. About him.
2.where was it revealed first?
3. It is normal
4.did you ever look into? What did you find?
5. So what
6. So what
7. Being born among pagan, Muhammad SAW proves to be the best, even than jesus. Jesus was born among jews. He just modified the religion into christianity. But muhammad saw converted the pagans into muslim. Jesus modified Muhammad saw converted. Invention is greater than modification. Your point thus proves that jesus is inferior to Muhammad pbuh.
8. Can you tell me the meaning of 'Abd'. Go and arabian dictionary along with arabian history.
9. You are completely false. I am sure the devil got into your mind when you think of it.
10. And muhammad pbuh came to purify the souls of the men, To teach them that they were wrong by doing so and to lead them into light.
11/12/13/14. You seem to be an expert in history but your discoveries are all irrelevant to your ultimate conclusion.
15. Were thor or jeus hera, not gods, before christianity entered europe.? People usually do so when there is no proper guidence.
16. I dont know. It may or may also not be. Didn't europians call thor god? And now, dont you call jehova god?
17. May be because the pagan arabian were ignorant of the real identity of allah.
18. Because people didn't had the knowledge of how to deal with god !(wait i will give more answer tomorrow)

Why do you think you can say we should not know what our prophet did not want us to know? This clearly shows how Muhammad keeps his disciples in the dark about what he was up to. These kinds of do not ask stratigies are at the core of mind control. Ever since the beginning of the first century church Satan has found it easy to provide another gospel to take the place of the original message. That original message was founded in the person and work of Jesus the Christ as foretold in the Old Testament through writings and prophecies. Doctrines that disagree with the writings of the New Testament have their genesis in divergent documents that do not agree in form to that original message as found in the New Testament. It is easy to see the difference between a genuine gospel and one that is man made. An example like the Gospel of Thomas is one that when compared to the cannon of accepted new testament manuscripts just does not show itself to be in agreement with that original message. Now what is interesting is that these new forms of doctrine have incorporated a form of truth that is within the vein of the original biblical message but have erred in forming theologies that deny the foundational truths of the original documents from which they have formulate their heresies. Some of the most successful heresies in history have at their core a single kernel of truth that entices people to follow. This kernel of truth is what catches people off guard. They incorporate Jesus into their doctrines and thereby achieve a certain acceptance or credence in their message. Because these heresies lift Jesus from the pages of the bible and present him as a good person or a notable prophet many people are then caught in a web of untruth from which they cannot extract themselves. It is sad to see that many people are lead astray. Jesus said that many would come in his name but beware lest you be drawn away into perdition. He also said that those who worship God should worship him in spirit and in truth. Jesus then said his word is truth. So we must understand the original message that was passed downed to us, as it will keep us from falling into every wind of doctrine that comes along. If we are to believe anything about Christ then it is necessary to believe that God had sent him to deliver us the message of salvation. What is important to note is that the Gospels portray a message that when compared to the rest of the accepted cannon of scripture shows no variance in theme. What Jesus taught or said about the kingdom of God is in total agreement with whatever was said in the rest of the New Testament. This is where it becomes easy to see heresy because this original message gets changed and is not in agreement with what Christ taught. So if you examine the Koran you will see kernels of truth concerning the message of the new testament but you will ultimately see that it really is not part of the real message as taught in the new testament by Christ and his apostles. It easy to see these antichrists. We have our new testament to warn us of them. In 1st John we are told that whoever denies that Jesus is come in the flesh is an antichrist. So armed with the word of truth we cannot be deceived. But deceivers like Joseph Smith and Sun Yung Moon and Muhammad who claim that Christ did not finish his mission so god had to choose someone else to do so have to deal with what the original documents are saying concerning this and when examined honestly will find themselves in violation of the original intent of the message of Jesus himself. You my friend are blinded by such mind control and refuse to see what is evident. How many more inaccuracies do I have to show you before you wake up and see things as they are. I will endeavor to give you clues so you can come to you senses but I am not sure you want to see.


You have not answered my question about Isaiah 42 and 53. Why would you accept chapter 42 and reject chapter 53? I know why and so does everyone else. It is because you have an agenda. That agenda is to destroy all the pertinent writings of the prophets concerning the Messiah, which points to Jesus. You claim to honor Jesus but it is only with your mouth and not with your heart that you do this. If you open your eyes to the rationale of this maneuver by Muhammad you will see him just as he was. He was just a man who decided to lift himself up among others to satisfy his own sinful desires and he did this by creating a false religion, which continues to lead people astray. I am not going to patronize you and allow you to stay in the dark about this so I will point out how you are blinded by this false doctrine. Lets look at another false claim in the Koran and see if you might not yet see the corruption in it.


Muslims will quote Quran 2:79 as a verse where the Koran says the canon of the Bible is corrupted, "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!" My question is: If this verse refers to the corruption of the Bible, then why did Muhammad command Christians to follow the Bible they possessed in 600 AD in Quran 2:89; 7:157? And is this the only verse in the Koran that says the Bible is corrupt? (see also Quran 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11)
Muslims will quote Jer 8:8 as proof that the Old Testament canon is corrupt, "How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie" Yet this verse is clearly speaking of the written scribal interpretations of the Bible as Jesus condemned in Mt 15:1-14. Here Jesus accused the Scribes of the same thing regarding washing of hands and Corban, "you invalidate the written word of God for the sake of your tradition." My question is: is this the only text in the Bible where you claim the canon
Was corrupted? If not quote the other texts.
Mike

(I have other tasks so i am late)
.....
do you need the answers to all of your questions?..
.... Or will you believe that islam is great and the quran is true?...
.......
The Quran is a copyrighted book(the god has the copyright). It cannot be copied by anyone . Bible is not.. I can produce another bible like that... Satan also can ... In that sense> the bible is the satanic verses..
................
..............
Do you need more proofs that the quran is from allah and not man made?...
.................
And lastly, answer me the following questions...
1 who is the man that introduced christianity? And what do you mean by baptism?
2 are the holy spirit and the jehova the same?
3 in what basis do you say jesus was the son of the god?
4 who incited david to count the fighting men of israel,as in the bible?(supply the verse numbers)
5 in that count how many were found?(supply vrs num.)
6 how many fighting men were found in judah?(sply v n)
7 god sent his prophet to threaten how many years of david?
To answer 4-7, study the bible carefully, donot hide anything, even if you can find contradictions in the bible....
.......
As for your first question, i say that islam exists there from the very days of adam. But after the great flood, the new generations had no knowledge of who and what is allah. But they knew that their ancestors worshipped him. So they also worshipped him but they did not know how to. So they worshipped him in a arbitrary and wrong way. But Muhammad came and purified them...he didn't adopted theirs>he only resurrected the correct way of worshipping. But you can't get it and say that he adopted the rules of pagan. And this is also the answer to why the quran assumes that the people had the knowledge of allah.
...And muhammad did not tell his disciples this fact because they already knew it. But the later preacher did not included this HISTORY with their religion. Thats why we dont know the fact. And we think as we are purified, it is no good for us to know what mistakes our ancestors did. So i told you that "We should not know it".
But i wonder:- why do you use your intellect to make false dogma out of truth, in order to make a great religion mean!"

All the christianity has been corrupted. It was not a rule to worship your TRINITY( where it should be unity) by making idols of them. Jesus is worshipped 100%like the hindu way of worshipping. If you have the idol of the jesus, can you tell (by examinig the idol) how many 'tiny black spots' jesus had in his body? You cannot
.......
The whole process of worshipping jesus is completely man made. Jesus did not tell anybody that if you forget me, make a idol of my like and worship that idol. But you do. It was not in early christianity to worship idols. But modern christianity has. So i can say christianity is corrupted.
And by seeing the fact that men have modified the whole christianity according to their own will, how can you deny the fact that the bible is not corrupted. And when jesus had the gospel, did he tell you that its another name is bible? The name is given my men ...its only the men that have 'nomenclatured' the gospel!... And in that sense it can be said that the content also has been changed. The modern bible is false. I can give you 101 contradictions in the bible. If it was revealed through the son of god, a book cannot have so many contradictions. But it has... So it can be said modern bible is not the same as the original bible. ..
The original bible was true, so the quran told you and us to follow that. But the modern one is false and modified against allahs will... So it is said that the bible is corrupted...(but alas! The original one is nowhere to be found)

Indeed, jesus was not able to complete his mission. Otherwise he would not have said in john : 'and i will give you another counsellor. To be with you for ever , even the spirit of truth.'

'Nevertheless i tell you the truth: it's your advantage that i go away; for if I dont go away, the counsellor will not come to you.'
......................
Who these points refer to? Is not it Muhammad pbuh? Verily, jesus refers to Muhammad pbuh.
............
If jesus was successful in his mission, why should he say that there would be another counsellor(with clear hints to Muhammad pbuh)?
.........
And did Muhammad pbuh refer to any other counsellor as jesus did?
No,instead he said and made it clear that there will be no Prophet after him, he was the last.
.............
From the given above, it is apparent that jesus was half successful, but Muhammad pbuh was Completely successful in fulfilling what Allah expected from him.
............
Really , Muhammad pbuh was great and it's true but...

O people of Scripture:' Why do you disbelieve the Ayat of Allah (the verses about Prophet Muhammad pbuh present in the torah and the gospel),while you (yourselves) bear witness to their truth?' (al koran 3:70)
.............
O people of Scripture:' Why do you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know it?' (al koran 3:71)

And why does jesus say in Mat>
10:34 do not have the thought that i have come to send peace on earth ; i came not to send peace but a sword.
~:35 for i have come to put a man against his father and the daughter against his mother and the daughter in law against his mother in law.
...?

Muhummed says the bible is god's holy word which you say is satanic! You are confused about things especially when it comes to the truth. Let me show you something about what Muhummed said concerning the Bible and how you are in very big trouble concerning what the Quran says concerning these issues:
THE QURAN AND ITS COMPOSITION AND TEACHING;
AND THE TESTIMONY IT BEARS TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.


The CORÂN 236
VIII.—BELIEF IN, AND EXAMINATION OF, THE SCRIPTURES INCUMBENT ON ALL MAHOMETANS.

Such being the case, the sincere and honest Mussulman is earnestly invited to examine the subject, and to satisfy himself, as he may easily do, that the Bible of the present day is the Bible of the days of Mahomet. He is called upon to revere and honour that sacred Book, even as his Master so uniformly and so unequivocally professed to honour it. He is called upon to believe in it as the inspired word of God, in order that he may obtain the "reward" (أجورهم ) promised to the faithful believers.
ministry, A.D. 610-632 were the identical Scriptures now in the hands of Jews and Christians. But, for the benefit of the honest and enquiring Mussulman, the following points may be briefly indicated for his further investigation.

There are now extant Manuscripts of an earlier date than the era above-mentioned, and open to the most scrupulous examination of any enquirer. There are Versions of the Old and New Testaments, translated before the period in question. The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was executed prior to the Christian era. There are still remains of the Octapla of Origen, drawn up four centuries before Mahomet, in which the various versions of the Old Testament were compared in parallel columns. Of the New Testament there are the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions, made long anterior to Mahomet, by a reference to which the Mussulman investigator will be able to satisfy himself that there have been no alterations in the original text since the time of his Prophet.

Lastly, there are quotations from the sacred Scriptures, and innumerable references to them, contained in the Jewish and Christian writers of ages far earlier than Mahomet. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Gregory, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and many others may be with this view readily consulted by any Mahometan, if he will only take the trouble to learn the Greek and Latin tongues. This species of coincident proof is the strongest that can be imagined.

TESTIMONY TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
237
It is no reply to this line of argument to say that in the manuscripts of the Scriptures there now exist various readings, discrepancies, and passages asserted by the Mahometans (as those regarding the divine Sonship and the death of Jesus) to be inconsistent with a true Revelation. By examining the ancient Manuscripts, the versions and quotations above referred to, they will find that various readings, supposed discrepancies, and passages affirming the death of Christ and confirming the doctrine of the Trinity, existed, just as they now exist, in the Scriptures current in the time of Mahomet and for centuries before,—in those very Scriptures, namely, of which Mahomet in the Corân so constantly and unconditionally asserts the truth. The true Mussulman has, therefore, no option but to accept, and believe in, those Scriptures just as they stand.

VIII.—BELIEF IN, AND EXAMINATION OF, THE SCRIPTURES INCUMBENT ON ALL MAHOMETANS.

Such being the case, the sincere and honest Mussulman is earnestly invited to examine the subject, and to satisfy himself, as he may easily do, that the Bible of the present day is the Bible of the days of Mahomet. He is called upon to revere and honour that sacred Book, even as his Master so uniformly and so unequivocally professed to honour it. He is called upon to believe in it as the inspired word of God, in order that he may obtain the "reward" (أجورهم ) promised to the faithful believers.
238 The CORÂN
He is cautioned against the neglect or disbelief of it, lest he incur the "ignominious punishment (عذاباً مهيناً) which God hath prepared for the unbelievers," for them "that believe in a part and reject a part" of God's word.—Art. CII. He is warned against refusing to acknowledge that "perspicuous Book," which is "a light to lighten mankind, a guide and a direction, an admonition to the pious,—to them that fear the Lord in secret and tremble at the hour of judgment";—that Revelation which is "complete as to whatever is excellent, and an explanation of every matter, and a mercy, that men may believe in the meeting of their Lord"; for if he does thus reject it, according to the verdict of his own Prophet, "verily he hath wandered into a wide and fatal error," قد ضل ضلالاً بعيداً . Above all let him beware of blaspheming (like some of the degenerate Mussulmans of the present day) that holy Book, and of thus sealing his doom as "a transgressing and flagitious Unbeliever."—Art. CXXIV.

What fearful audacity is displayed by some of the modern Mahometans (unworthy disciples in this respect of their Prophet!) who ignorantly and blasphemously speak against "the Book which God hath sent down, "the holy "Forcân," "the Word of God"!

As for ourselves, the People of the Book, it is only in conformity with the express inculcation of the Prophet of Islâm, that we observe, and hold by, both the Law and the Gospel (Art. CXXVII.); and that, in accordance with his challenge, we examine those

TESTIMONY TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 239
Scriptures to which he appealed before the people of Arabia as his witness, to see whether or no they bear testimony to his mission. And it is the sacred duty of every Mussulman, in order that he may guard against the possibility of fatal deception, to do the same.

Lastly; all honest Moslems are called on to believe, for they cannot consistently disbelieve, that these Scriptures are the inspired "Word of God" (كلام الله) "that they are a light to lighten Mankind," (نوراً وهدى للناس) "an illumination and admonition to the Pious" (ضياً وذكراً للمتقين); in fine, that they are calculated to lead those that follow their precepts into the way of peace, and make them wise unto salvation. Why, then, will they neglect so precious a source of spiritual benefit as (the Corân itself being judge) exists in the Old and New Testaments, and shut themselves out from their illumination? Let them search the Scriptures diligently, and they will find the whole tenor of those sacred Books to be "that God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself";— that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life"; "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."

Additional support from Koran of resurrection, inspriration of scriptures and uncorruption of scriptures:
THE CORÂN.
VIII.-SURA XXXIV., v. 31. The Resurrection as you yourself Denied!


سورة سبأ

وقال الذينَ كفروا لن نؤمنَ بهذا القرآن ولا بالذي بين يديه


And the unbelievers say;—We will not believe in this Corân, nor in that (which was revealed) before it.


"The revelation before it"; lit., that between its hands, —already existing, and preceding the Corân.

Baidhâwi explains: The unbelievers say "We will not believe in this Corân, nor in that which precedeth it of the Scriptures testifying to the Mission of Mahomet;" البعثولا بما تقدمه من ا لكتب الدالة على ;—And Jelalooddeen adds, as the Tourât and the Gospel; كالتوراة والإنجيل


Mahomet, in his reasoning with the citizens of Mecca, appealed to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, as well as to the Corân, in proof of the Resurrection which they denied. But they replied that they believed neither in the one nor in the other.

XXV.—SURA XL., vv. 72.[70-72] Speaking Falsely Against Scripture as you yourself stated!



سورة غافر

فَسَوْفَ يَعْلَمُونالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِالْكِتَابِ وَبِمَا أَرْسَلْنَا بِهِ رُسُلَنَا َ
يُسْحَبُونإِذِ الأغْلالُ فِي أَعْنَاقِهِمْ وَالسَّلاسِلُ َ
فِي الْحَمِيمِ ثُمَّ فِي النَّارِ يُسْجَرُونَ


They who reject the book, and that which We have sent our messengers with,—they shall know;
when the collars shall be on their necks, and the chains by which they shall be dragged into hell;
then they shall be burned in the fire


These awful punishments are threatened not only against the rejecters of the Corân, but against the rejecters of that which God sent His previous Messengers with, i.e. the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Both revelations are placed on the same footing; the danger of their rejection is the same.

When Mussulmans of the present day are tempted to speak despitefully of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and of their divine contents, let them weigh well such passages of the Corân as the above, lest they incur the peril of the punishment here indicated.

XXXIV.—SURA X., v. 93[94]. Scriptures Idenified as Free From Corruption As you yourself Denied!

سورة يونس

مِنالْكِتَابَ يَقْرَؤُونَ الَّذِينَ فَاسْأَلِ إِلَيْكَ أَنزَلْنَا مِّمَّا شَكٍّ كُنتَ فِي فَإِن الْمُمْتَرِينمِنَ تَكُونَنَّ فَلاَ رَّبِّكَ مِن الْحَقُّ جَاءكَ لَقَدْ قَبْلِكَ َ

If thou art in doubt regarding that which We have sent down unto thee, then ask those who read the book (revealed) before thee. Verily the truth hath come unto thee from thy Lord; be not therefore amongst those that doubt.
It is the Jewish and Christian Scriptures thus in current use throughout the civilized world in the time of Mahomet, which by being so appealed to, for the purpose of silencing the doubts of the Prophet, are stamped by the Corân not only as inspired, but as genuine, pure, and free from corruption.

MIKE

No your reply is not relevant. I told i can say i did not tell that i say .....
Ok your GSAS and our ESA are not the same. So i SAY that your bible was not what our Muhammad told us to believe in. Your Gsus was crucified our Esa was lifted up to the heaven. The unbelievers could not even scratch him.
................
Kristyan kristmas is also not related to us. Your kristmas was an adopted festival from the roman culture.
..................
Where are the answers to my questions?
...................
Why do you call us muhammadan? We are not muhammadan. We are muslim. Muhammadan is not the same as muslim
.....................
Our Koran is unchanged as it is the words of Allah. But if your Byebell is from god then why do you people have the courage to produce another byebell(in the same language) ?
..................
Why did you say islam cannot be the religion of abraham? Muhammad pbuh was a direct descedent of Abraham through his first born son ishmael. And being a descedent of such an honoured prophet Muhammad cannot produce a non-abrahamic religion.
................
Why dont u accept the truth that gsus in the byebell said '''the referrences to Muhammad pbuh'''. Or did i told lie? If i told lie, byebell is also false (as i gave direct quotation from the byebell)
....

And i was mistaken!? Ha ha ha...... 'The holy bible'.... Sorry sorry sorry.... I was mistaken ... It is the word of god. Oh! How ignorant i had been about the holy bible. So the bible even today is in its original form? Oh ! I did not think it..... I was wrong .... Now i confess> the bible is 100% correct. ....... Bless on you that you have been given such an holy script. ...... But! There is a 'but'! You may think oh my god what type of but is this?.... Do you? No ? Wah then you believe 100% in the holy bible? Ok then i assume ... Bible contains the words which your god told to you.... Oh my god

***QURAN VS BIBLE IN SLAVERY ARENA***
here are a collection of quotes in regards to the teaching of slavery in the bible compared to those in the Quran.
"if a man strikes male or female slave with a rod and if he dies at his hands, he shall be punished. If , however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance will be taken, for he is his property.(exodus 21:20_21)
"... Then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door and he shall be your servant forever. Also you shall do like wise to your maid servant.( deutronomy 15:17)
" as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you, they also may your possession. You may even bequeath them as a possession , you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another (leviticus 25:44-46)
even jesus in the bible was asked to visit a slave, in response, jesus did not free the slave and instead called the slave OWNER the most Faithful in israel.
"i tell you , not even in israel have i found such faith. " (luke7:9)
............
In islam,an enslaver is a unrighteous person but jesus in the bible calls them the most faithful!
..........
"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honour so that the name of god and our doctrine will not be spoken against."(1 timothy 6:1)
"urge bondslaves to be subjected to their own masters in everything to be well pleasing ,not argumentative.'(titus 2:9)
here is what some christians in history have said about slavery..>
" the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the holy scriptures both by precept and example"(rev r furman d d baptist of south california)
"there is not one verse in the bible inhibiting slavery but many regulating it. It is not then , we conclude, immoral.(rev alexander campbell)
"the extracts from the writ unequivocally assert the right of property in slaves "(rev e d simms professor randolph-macon collage)
" i draw my warrant from the scriptures of the old and new testaments to hold the slave in bondage"(rev thomas witherspoon presbyterian of alabama)
"in another area of human rights, many christian clergymen advocated slavery . Historian larry hise notes in his book 'pro slavery' that ministers "wrote almost half of all defences of slavery published in america. He lists 275men of the cloth who used the bible to prove that the white people were entitled to own black peoples as working animals.(james a haught , 'holy horrors')
there are lots more. But, now, i would like to close with a quote from mr douglass__
"i prayed (to jesus) for twenty years but recieved no answer until i prayed with my legs."(frederick douglass ,'escaped slave')

What the western history books try to hide is that the mass slave trade between africa to america was initially promoted by the church and throug out it's endurance, was maintained mainly by christians.
Muslims who follow the final testament (the holy qur'an ) looked negatively upon slavery as they have been taught to by muhammad pbuh and the holy qur'an.
The qur'an often promotes freeing slaves, the goal of a muslim is to be righteous, examples of righteousness deeds in the qur'an are to free slaves, feed orphans, and to be kind. The verses in the qur'an prompting the freedom of slaves are- 2:177 90:13 58:3 4:92etc
furthermore, the prophet (blessing of allah and peace be upon him)alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. Slaves freed by a'isha was 67, by abbas was 70, by abd allah bin umar was 1000,and abd al rahim purchased thirty thousand and set them free. Thus the problem of the slaves in arabia was thus solved in under fourty years.
In conclusion, when we compare christianity's history with centuries of massive slave trading, in comparison to islam's slave freeing, we clearly see the true message of humanly love is preached by islam. Of course, as in all groups, there are small individual cases who freed slave and there are also a small group of so-called muslims who kept slaves, but when we see the over all picture we see that christianity was the grand slave masters.

So is it what your holy bible teach you ? I have mentionned only on slavery. But if i mention about others, it would be a book as big as the bible.
Moreover i asked you some questions. But you escaped answering those questions. Because you know that you will have to shut up if you answer it yourself. Ok now i myself answer a question ...........
Who incited david to count the fighting men in israel?
Ans. a. God(2samuel 24:1)
b. Satan (1 chronicles 21:1)
..............
In this way, bible answer with contradictory words to the same question 101 times(there may be more, but as far as i know).
...................
Are these the characteristics of a book revealed by god(to his son )?

Do you NOW BELIEVE that the bible is not corrupted? What seems to be the problem that you have in finding fault with these documents? You were hell bound in saying that they were not holy but now suddenly you have somehow remembered that they are?? There really is something here I am not happy with. When you discuss this issue you seem to be playing some kind of game, which I encountered in the Muslim forum. You admit that the bible is holy but then you immediately begin this game of changing the subject and trying then to find textual problems with the bible that you just admitted was holy!! What in God's name are you up to? Its seems to me you up to no good when it comes to honoring God and his word. I just show you what Muhammad stated as seen in the Koran concerning the Holy Scriptures and how you must as a Muslim honor these documents and yet you go back to this game of dishonoring them by questioning their integrity. You are a deceiver and a liar when it comes to respecting truth and you want me to continue in your sinful actions. I WILL NOT UNTIL YOU REPENT OF THIS NONSENCE AND HONOR YOUR MAKER AND HIS HOLY WORDS. You need to stop your disbelief in his word and in his Christ as it is stated in the Old and New testaments. Jesus finished the work the father gave him to do and there is no other gospel beyond this truth! DO YOU HEAR ME? GOD STOPPED SPEAKING WITH JESUS AND NO MORE IS TO BE SAID!!!!!! DO YOU GET IT!!! THERE IS NO MORE ARGUING ABOUT TEXTUAL ERRORS AND ANY IFS>ANDS>OR BUTS CONCERNING THIS ISSUE. YOU ARE CORRUPTING THE TRUTH JUST LIKE THE PHARSEES AND SADDUCIES DID WHEN JESUS WAS AROUND AND LIKE THEM YOU ALWAYS DO RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT! DO YOU WANT TO GO TO HELL? YOU CERTIANLY WILL IF YOU DO NOT STOP THIS CRAZINESS!
I can help you find peace with God if you are willing but you must turn from this evil error and seek the truth!

Mike

If i say i dont believe the bible, i remember that our beloved prophet told us to believe in injeel. Sometimes I think the injeel is the very bible. So i admitted .
But the next moment, it comes to my mind that the bible has contradictory words and (some of ) its teachings are very dangerous for the human kind(as the teachings on slavery). So i think bible cannot be believed in. And from> 'injeel should be believed ' and 'bible cannot be believed in' , i come to the conclusion that your bible is not what we call injeel.
..............
And you did not denied that 'bible has clear referrences to muhammad pbuh' and 'bible has contradictory words'. Because you know that but do not dare to express. And if bible and jesus teaches us to be harsh with our own brothers and if bible and jesus are 'a part of god' , so it is apparent that your god is not to be worshipped by man kind as he sends words of terror through his son and his book. In that sense your god is the leader of satan.
..................
But you know all this (and try to escape answering my questions regarding jesus and bible) . Then how can you claim god is holy, jesus is great and was able to complete his messianic mission?
..............now consider if you can help me in finding peace with your 'god'(while the god himself is like a terrorist to us). ( keep into consideration what i have just said here and tell me if i am wrong).
...................
( i wonder why you try to escape answering my question and instead, ask me of lots of roundabout questions. Are my question valueless? Or wrong?)

It seems you did not pay enough attention to what i wrote. And you call 'those serious mistakes' some 'textual problems'. Why? Doesn't your god know how to express things in a holy and dignified manner (like that of the koran)? And now while i am exposing the truth about the real nature of your god and so- called jesus, you call my action 'sinful'(in order that i stop exposing the universal truth?) ? Isn't the process of your worshipping god, abiding by the corrupted and man made bible, making idols of the ' son of the god' sinful? (to support the fact that the bible is man made or (if divine) it's corrupted, i tell u that it's a book with 'so many textual problems' and such a book can nothing but be man made and/or corrupted).

Here it is again. Read if carefully and tell me how you can doubt the koran on this. You are either blind or unwilling to see what is written before you.



VIII.—BELIEF IN, AND EXAMINATION OF, THE SCRIPTURES INCUMBENT ON ALL MAHOMETANS.

Such being the case, the sincere and honest Mussulman is earnestly invited to examine the subject, and to satisfy himself, as he may easily do, that the Bible of the present day is the Bible of the days of Mahomet. He is called upon to revere and honour that sacred Book, even as his Master so uniformly and so unequivocally professed to honour it. He is called upon to believe in it as the inspired word of God, in order that he may obtain the "reward" (أجورهم ) promised to the faithful believers.


238 The CORÂN
He is cautioned against the neglect or disbelief of it, lest he incur the "ignominious punishment (عذاباً مهيناً) which God hath prepared for the unbelievers," for them "that believe in a part and reject a part" of God's word.—Art. CII. He is warned against refusing to acknowledge that "perspicuous Book," which is "a light to lighten mankind, a guide and a direction, an admonition to the pious,—to them that fear the Lord in secret and tremble at the hour of judgment";—that Revelation which is "complete as to whatever is excellent, and an explanation of every matter, and a mercy, that men may believe in the meeting of their Lord"; for if he does thus reject it, according to the verdict of his own Prophet, "verily he hath wandered into a wide and fatal error," قد ضل ضلالاً بعيداً . Above all let him beware of blaspheming (like some of the degenerate Mussulmans of the present day) that holy Book, and of thus sealing his doom as "a transgressing and flagitious Unbeliever."—Art. CXXIV.

What fearful audacity is displayed by some of the modern Mahometans (unworthy disciples in this respect of their Prophet!) who ignorantly and blasphemously speak against "the Book which God hath sent down, "the holy "Forcân," "the Word of God"!

As for ourselves, the People of the Book, it is only in conformity with the express inculcation of the Prophet of Islâm, that we observe, and hold by, both the Law and the Gospel (Art. CXXVII.); and that, in accordance with his challenge, we examine those

TESTIMONY TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 239
Scriptures to which he appealed before the people of Arabia as his witness, to see whether or no they bear testimony to his mission. And it is the sacred duty of every Mussulman, in order that he may guard against the possibility of fatal deception, to do the same.

Lastly; all honest Moslems are called on to believe, for they cannot consistently disbelieve, that these Scriptures are the inspired "Word of God" (كلام الله) "that they are a light to lighten Mankind," (نوراً وهدى للناس) "an illumination and admonition to the Pious" (ضياً وذكراً للمتقين); in fine, that they are calculated to lead those that follow their precepts into the way of peace, and make them wise unto salvation. Why, then, will they neglect so precious a source of spiritual benefit as (the Corân itself being judge) exists in the Old and New Testaments, and shut themselves out from their illumination? Let them search the Scriptures diligently, and they will find the whole tenor of those sacred Books to be "that God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself";— that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life"; "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."
Mike

'Either blind or unwilling to see what is written before you'< applies to you . You know all about the bible , you dont deny my logics , yet you claim yours is/are great. You neither answered my questions, nor said that i was wrong. But keep asking like a mad.
...............
So we should say every christian is invited to compare the bibles and the quran and see if there is any hint to muhammad in your book and also conclude , with zero religious inclination in mind, if jesus completed his mission and if present day bible is for men.
.........you know everything but hide them in order to maintain the false fame of christianity.
...........
Ok we'll discuss these later. Leave them aside. Now tell me the true and real history of the bible >how it was composed, how it came to mankind, who brought it, etc

Again why are you so blind? Your own koran tells you that you will burn in hell if you don't accept the bible both old and new as holy as you should as a Muslim. If Muhummad tells you that you should who am I that you should come to me? You have it right from the horse's mouth and you still resist the truth of it. You are mad!
Mke

I am not blind, it is you who is . The holiest koran did not tell us to believe the book which you call bible. (i have proved earlier that your bible is not exactly the same as our injeel.) We were told to believe in the injeel. If you believe in the koran now and take the wise koran as the basis of your arguments then why dont you call 'the book given to esa' the injeel? ...........
And what you call bible is a book of the collection of other many books. I asked the history of the 'bible' of you. Why dont you answer it? Because the answer to my question is hidden in the history , that the bible is man made. So there is no claiming that bible is divine(but respectable because some of its teaching are moral, again irrespectible also because some teachings are immoral). .
I know you are dumb enough to answer my question. So you , everytime, are trying to escape answering those.
Even so, i would like to ask you: on what basis do you make idols and images of gods and call them lord? Does your bible have anything regulating this 'idol and image making'?

Is not this what the koran says or not? Tell me so I can understand what you are saying. I am only quoting your so called holy book so that you can see what I am trying to tell you about the bible. Answer me is this a lie or not> As for ourselves, the People of the Book, it is only in conformity with the express inculcation of the Prophet of Islâm, that we observe, and hold by, both the Law and the Gospel (Art. CXXVII.); and that, in accordance with his challenge, we examine those

TESTIMONY TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 239
Scriptures to which he appealed before the people of Arabia as his witness, to see whether or no they bear testimony to his mission. And it is the sacred duty of every Mussulman, in order that he may guard against the possibility of fatal deception, to do the same.

Lastly; all honest Moslems are called on to believe, for they cannot consistently disbelieve, that these Scriptures are the inspired "Word of God" (كلام الله) "that they are a light to lighten Mankind," (نوراً وهدى للناس) "an illumination and admonition to the Pious" (ضياً وذكراً للمتقين); in fine, that they are calculated to lead those that follow their precepts into the way of peace, and make them wise unto salvation. Why, then, will they neglect so precious a source of spiritual benefit as (the Corân itself being judge) exists in the Old and New Testaments, and shut themselves out from their illumination? Let them search the Scriptures diligently, and they will find the whole tenor of those sacred Books to be "that God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself";— that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life"; "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."
Mike

Ok ok now friendly questions(i am not trying to escape answering your question i will resume at night): in our india now its breakfast time7:05!(gmt+5 :30).what is your time now(which country are you from? How different is your time to the gmt? Whats your e mail id?)

India, wow! I had no idea. I am an American. It is now nearly 10pm here so I guess you are beginning your day and I am about to go to bed. I am not trying to avoid your questions, as I am quite capable of dialog on the issues you have been trying to get me to answer. I am only trying to cut to the chase and find a starting point with the bible. If your prophet and the Koran state that the bible new and old is holy writings then we have a good starting point to begin to understand the truth. Now what you seem to be saying is that those manuscripts that we use today are different from those manuscripts that were in use at the time Muhammad was around. This however, is not true. The very manuscripts that Muhammad was referring to are in fact the same we have. Because this is a verifiable fact then we must understand that the holy writings that the prophet Muhammad was referring to is the bible we have today. There is no way around this so you must come to grips with it or you are not in line with what the Koran is saying. Do you agree or not. If you agree then I can dialog on any other questions you may have. Please be aware that I am not comfortable with giving out my e-mail.
Mike

Ok as now a days we have no religion:we are , in fact, not christian nor muslim nor hindu (how many are there who goes to church or mosques regularly?). We are scientific only! So , in order to find out the truth , and discuss in a friendly way, i give up my religionistic mind and i invite you too to do so! Will you? And feel secure! In order to discuss in a more convenient way , lets know each others email ids! And good night and sweet dreams if you get this message before going to sleep. I told i will resume my religionistic discussion at night only!)

Whatever has to be said can be said out in the open and so I will not give out my personal e-mail. You should know that that is a dangerous thing to do given the fact once it is published anyone can then access my mail and harangue me with spam or information I do not want submitted to me. I hope you understand. Also I do attend church regularly and so do many others of different faiths and I do not know why I should have to leave off my belief to discuss in a friendly way what you are interested in doing. I feel just as secure doing it the way we have been. Is this a problem for you? I still believe we can discuss things about manuscripts or history of bible in a open and secure way as we have been. I suppose we should just look at the facts although even this is not without its consequences when it comes to the community within which we reside. However, in the pursuit of truth one must be courageous enough to be ready to put one's integrity to the test when it comes to eternal matters and trust that God will protect us from those who would keep us from knowing the whole truth and nothing but the truth! Let me know.
Mike

No problem(just tell me what is your age) . Now directly to the discussion. And begin with new discussion process and question. I begin it
...................
Ok 1 in the bible how many times did jesus said himself to be 'the son of Man' than 'the son of god'?...
2 i dont get it why should muhammad pbuh tell us to obey the bible. As it is dangerous for man. Perhaps we the men have mis understood. Perhaps the bible is not the same as the injeel and may be we dont know it.
...............
3 what would you like to answer if i ask you : why are there so many contradictions in the bible?
To a same question, the bible says something at a place, and again something else in another place.
.......................
Answer comprehensively! And point to point .

If you have a religionistic mind you may have an inclination towards your religion. And discussion should be in the state of zero inclination. That's why. But its up to you! None but godand yourself has control over you!

You want to have a scientific discussion about God. You want the impossible.

you will not be happy until God shows up on youtube and declares himself real. Your whole world has become one of proof positive. You want to only be a person who KNOWS things. You have become intellect alone.

its called faith. That's it. That's all there is. Without faith, none of it works...
faith can't be given to you or imparted by a way of thinking or acting...no matter how moral a man you are, it matters not unless you have faith.
without faith, hope is just wishful thinking
without faith, love is just a chemical reaction
without faith, a man is just an evolved ape
without faith, a newborn is just another burden this planet must carry

I am so sad for you
Dawn

You say you don't get it why you should Muhammad tell you to obey the bible as it is dangerous for man. It is apparent that Muhummad believed the bible is holy so why should I believe you over him. He was god's prophet not You! Is not Muhammad god’s prophet according to Islam? Then you have no choice but to obey his commands, right! Or maybe you don't want to because you have another agenda. You have to come to grips with this issue. Either Muhammad is pointing out that the bible is God’s holy word and you refuse to believe or Muhammad is not God's prophet but made a mistake concerning the bible, right! Which is it? Is the Bible God's holy word or is it not? How do you think Allah feels about what you are saying concerning your statement. Why are you struggling with this? You know if you answer truthfully you will be free to see the error of your way. Just do it and be free.
Mike

Look closely my friend at what the koran says >
XXXIV.—SURA X., v. 93[94]. Scriptures Idenified as Free From Corruption As you yourself Denied!

سورة يونس

مِنالْكِتَابَ يَقْرَؤُونَ الَّذِينَ فَاسْأَلِ إِلَيْكَ أَنزَلْنَا مِّمَّا شَكٍّ كُنتَ فِي فَإِن الْمُمْتَرِينمِنَ تَكُونَنَّ فَلاَ رَّبِّكَ مِن الْحَقُّ جَاءكَ لَقَدْ قَبْلِكَ َ

If thou art in doubt regarding that which We have sent down unto thee, then ask those who read the book (revealed) before thee. Verily the truth hath come unto thee from thy Lord; be not therefore amongst those that doubt.
It is the Jewish and Christian Scriptures thus in current use throughout the civilized world in the time of Mahomet, which by being so appealed to, for the purpose of silencing the doubts of the Prophet, are stamped by the Corân not only as inspired, but as genuine, pure, and free from corruption.

You are taking the help from the quran and you are availing yourself of the fact that quran declares the injeel to be holy. So before that, how do you think that the bible is same as the injeel? The bible is simply a collection of other books but quran says Allah sent down the injeel to the mankind.

No love, no hope, no newborn , no man, nothing matters here. All that matters here is the bible. So with hope bible is divine without hope the bible is just a book. And for the greeks what you call the bible is nothing more than a book (gr bible=en book). So can it be said that the greeks have no faith at all?
And jesus was not a greek. He was hebrew. The 'bible' was first written in hebrew. Then how come its name is a greek word? It should have been a hebrew word! And what did the hebrew call 'the bible' ?

I take no help from the koran but to show you what you seem not to understand.

Muslim scholars generally dispute that Injil refers to either the entire New Testament or the four Gospels. Others believe the Injil was not a physical book, but simply a set of teachings. The word Injil is used in the Qur'an, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer specifically to the revelations made by God to Isa (Jesus).[citation needed]
However, this claim is refuted by Christian scholars since the Qur’an mentions the Gospel as “the Book” or “the Scriptures.” and there are no Qur’anic verses that say the Gospel is different from the canonical books of the Christians, but teaches that Muhammad referred to the Gospel as being present day (“between his hands”) (34:31, 35:31, 10:37, 12:111, 3:3,5:51), and as the words of God (5:68), which cannot be altered (6:115, 10:64, 18:27). [2]
"Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people."(Sura 5:58)
"So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters."(Sura 10:94)
Arabic Christians use an Arabic Bible that is the same Bible used by other Christians world wide, but sometimes refer to it as Injil.
Mike

Ok now i believe that the bible=the book=the injeel. Thanks for your points. And i also believe it that you , as christians , should be respected by us.
Again i have another notion which you may need to make it clear. And that's _ abraham>moses>isa>muhammad. So taurat>injeel>koran. And the injeel is more perfect than the taurat(as it is newer). And so,the quran is more perfect than the injeel. Whats your view on this point?
_____
obeying the quran, (we are asked to ask you about the injeel if we are in doubt about that,) i ask you why should the injeel have so many contradiction (earlier question raised again)?
And from the quotations of some people regarding slavery in bible that i gave earlier, it is apparent that the injeel has been another form of a mute terrorist. Why should such a divine book possess such a quality?
And why did isa at a point in the injeel say that he came not to send words of peace? But words of swords (by which) to put a man against his father, a daughter against her mother and a daughter in law against her mother in law?
I have noticed you escaped answering these questions earlier . Now you are to answer it

I do not see any contradictions in the bible. There may be textual variations but all remain within a specific theme. That theme is concerned with the Messianic Messenger being fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. Questions about slavery and or swords against family members cannot be used to show errors as these things exist in every culture within every family and are inherent to our humanity. One thing is certain about these types of questions that you raise and it is that you are viewing these biblical references through a 21st century lens and that my friend is not how to interpret these ancient texts. It is a post-modernist interpretation to say that slavery in the bible shows terrorism as if we understand it in the same manner in which it was instituted. It is rather a poor tactic to bring about doubts in these texts by this type of subversion. These documents are ancient and so cannot be understood without studying the origins of how cultures instituted these practices. You must see these texts in their SITZ EN LABEN. Then and only then will you be within the biblical scholarship when interpreting the bible.
Here is an example of how one can mistakenly interpret a text.
Christians quote. Thomas's statement in John 20:28 Thomas says "My Lord and My God" to Jesus when he saw him. Muslims argue back that Thomas said it out of surprise. However, Christians argue back that Jesus blessed the testimony of Thomas and therefore acknowledging that Thomas was right in calling him God.

To see just how utterly desperate this common Muslim response is note what the following texts say about using God’s name in such a manner:

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." Exodus 20:7

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." Deuteronomy 5:11

A God-fearing Jew would not use God’s name in a derogatory manner such as shouting "Oh my God!" out of surprise or fear. Muslims who use such a weak argument are simply committing a chronological fallacy since they are reading into history a modern linguistic feature which was not in use back then! We may use such expressions today when we are surprised or scared, but that doesn’t mean that Jews living back then did so.
Besides, if Thomas had used God’s name in such a manner we would expect Jesus to have rebuked him, much like he implicitly did for not believing that he had been raised. Think hard about this!!!

Mike

If we see the bible thru an old lens it is pure but if thru a modern lens it is errorful . Why?
And there are so many contradictions in the bible yet you say you cant see them? For just an example, see mat 14:5 and mark 6:17-20. Mat says herod wanted to kill jesus but mark says it's only his wife who wanted to kill him. (but both were unsuccessful). There are lots more.
As for the questions about the slavery, it is apparent and even a child would say that bible is immoral on that point. Bible is not a cultural book or a book on family. It's divine. A divine book is only to purify the contemporary misbeliefs of the race to which it was sent. But bible does not do this , instead, it backs slavery which has been the most dangerous oppression on men by men. Bible should have inhibited it, but it BACKS it.
This case also applies to jesus. He came to establish a holy kingdom. With such an aim, he should not have said like that. It shows that jesus came to establish a holy kingdom but in fact he has established a terror kingdom for 'non-yous' (but he has given power to you.) a divine man, a divine book can never have such an aspect.

Jesus did not always do what you should expect from him. Again to the issue of slavery. Jesus was invited to visit a slave(or a soldier who almost was like a slave) whose condition was bad. Seeing such a slave he should have rebuked the master for keeping such a poor slave under him and should have freed him but he praised the master and called him the most faith ful amongst the israelites. Is this what you expect from jesus?

Muslims will quote Quran 2:79 as a verse where the Koran says the canon of the Bible is corrupted, "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!" My question is: If this verse refers to the corruption of the Bible, then why did Muhammad command Christians to follow the Bible they possessed in 600 AD in Quran 2:89; 7:157? And is this the only verse in the Koran that says the Bible is corrupt? (see also Quran 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11)
It is the Jewish and Christian Scriptures thus in current use throughout the civilized world in the time of Mahomet, which by being so appealed to, for the purpose of silencing the doubts of the Prophet, are stamped by the Corân not only as inspired, but as genuine, pure, and free from corruption!!!!!!! Do you agree with the Koran as stated here???
If you do not then the following awaits you!
238 The CORÂN
He is cautioned against the neglect or disbelief of it, lest he incur the "ignominious punishment (عذاباً مهيناً) which God hath prepared for the unbelievers," for them "that believe in a part and reject a part" of God's word.—Art. CII. He is warned against refusing to acknowledge that "perspicuous Book," which is "a light to lighten mankind, a guide and a direction, an admonition to the pious,—to them that fear the Lord in secret and tremble at the hour of judgment";—that Revelation which is "complete as to whatever is excellent, and an explanation of every matter, and a mercy, that men may believe in the meeting of their Lord"; for if he does thus reject it, according to the verdict of his own Prophet, "verily he hath wandered into a wide and fatal error," قد ضل ضلالاً بعيداً . Above all let him beware of blaspheming (like some of the degenerate Mussulmans of the present day) that holy Book, and of thus sealing his doom as "a transgressing and flagitious Unbeliever."—Art. CXXIV.
Mike

Wow! You have replied it ! What a reply! Did you read the qur'an and try to understand the implicit meaning of the ayats before taking them as the basis of your argument? Go to quran.com and read them well.
However, i wanted in your reply to contain some logical points. What would you have replied if you were asked this question befor 1400ad when the quran was revealed?
.
.......(Give me your answer only and a satisfying answer only without the help of the quran. )

(first Reply it
again another q)
You said arabic christians use an arabic bible that is the same as the bible read worldwide.
Then the language should also be arabic(?). What is the word used for god in the arabic bible?

Growth of the Trinity Concept


(1143.1) 104:0.1 THE Trinity concept of revealed religion must not be confused with the triad beliefs of evolutionary religions. The ideas of triads arose from many suggestive relationships but chiefly because of the three joints of the fingers, because three legs were the fewest which could stabilize a stool, because three support points could keep up a tent; furthermore, primitive man, for a long time, could not count beyond three.

(1143.2) 104:0.2 Aside from certain natural couplets, such as past and present, day and night, hot and cold, and male and female, man generally tends to think in triads: yesterday, today, and tomorrow; sunrise, noon, and sunset; father, mother, and child. Three cheers are given the victor. The dead are buried on the third day, and the ghost is placated by three ablutions of water.

(1143.3) 104:0.3 As a consequence of these natural associations in human experience, the triad made its appearance in religion, and this long before the Paradise Trinity of Deities, or even any of their representatives, had been revealed to mankind. Later on, the Persians, Hindus, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, and Scandinavians all had triad gods, but these were still not true trinities. Triad deities all had a natural origin and have appeared at one time or another among most of the intelligent peoples of Urantia. Sometimes the concept of an evolutionary triad has become mixed with that of a revealed Trinity; in these instances it is often impossible to distinguish one from the other.


1. Urantian Trinity Concepts

(1143.4) 104:1.1 The first Urantian revelation leading to the comprehension of the Paradise Trinity was made by the staff of Prince Caligastia about one-half million years ago. This earliest Trinity concept was lost to the world in the unsettled times following the planetary rebellion.

(1143.5) 104:1.2 The second presentation of the Trinity was made by Adam and Eve in the first and second gardens. These teachings had not been wholly obliterated even in the times of Machiventa Melchizedek about thirty-five thousand years later, for the Trinity concept of the Sethites persisted in both Mesopotamia and Egypt but more especially in India, where it was long perpetuated in Agni, the Vedic three-headed fire god.

(1143.6) 104:1.3 The third presentation of the Trinity was made by Machiventa Melchizedek, and this doctrine was symbolized by the three concentric circles which the sage of Salem wore on his breast plate. But Machiventa found it very difficult to teach the Palestinian Bedouins about the Universal Father, the Eternal Son, and the Infinite Spirit. Most of his disciples thought that the Trinity consisted of the three Most Highs of Norlatiadek; a few conceived of the Trinity as the System Sovereign, the Constellation Father, and the local universe Creator Deity; still fewer even remotely grasped the idea of the Paradise association of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

(1144.1) 104:1.4 Through the activities of the Salem missionaries the Melchizedek teachings of the Trinity gradually spread throughout much of Eurasia and northern Africa. It is often difficult to distinguish between the triads and the trinities in the later Andite and the post-Melchizedek ages, when both concepts to a certain extent intermingled and coalesced.

(1144.2) 104:1.5 Among the Hindus the trinitarian concept took root as Being, Intelligence, and Joy. (A later Indian conception was Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu.) While the earlier Trinity portrayals were brought to India by the Sethite priests, the later ideas of the Trinity were imported by the Salem missionaries and were developed by the native intellects of India through a compounding of these doctrines with the evolutionary triad conceptions.

(1144.3) 104:1.6 The Buddhist faith developed two doctrines of a trinitarian nature: The earlier was Teacher, Law, and Brotherhood; that was the presentation made by Gautama Siddhartha. The later idea, developing among the northern branch of the followers of Buddha, embraced Supreme Lord, Holy Spirit, and Incarnate Savior.

(1144.4) 104:1.7 And these ideas of the Hindus and Buddhists were real trinitarian postulates, that is, the idea of a threefold manifestation of a monotheistic God. A true trinity conception is not just a grouping together of three separate gods.

(1144.5) 104:1.8 The Hebrews knew about the Trinity from the Kenite traditions of the days of Melchizedek, but their monotheistic zeal for the one God, Yahweh, so eclipsed all such teachings that by the time of Jesus’ appearance the Elohim doctrine had been practically eradicated from Jewish theology. The Hebrew mind could not reconcile the trinitarian concept with the monotheistic belief in the One Lord, the God of Israel.

(1144.6) 104:1.9 The followers of the Islamic faith likewise failed to grasp the idea of the Trinity. It is always difficult for an emerging monotheism to tolerate trinitarianism when confronted by polytheism. The trinity idea takes best hold of those religions which have a firm monotheistic tradition coupled with doctrinal elasticity. The great monotheists, the Hebrews and Mohammedans, found it difficult to distinguish between worshiping three gods, polytheism, and trinitarianism, the worship of one Deity existing in a triune manifestation of divinity and personality.

(1144.7) 104:1.10 Jesus taught his apostles the truth regarding the persons of the Paradise Trinity, but they thought he spoke figuratively and symbolically. Having been nurtured in Hebraic monotheism, they found it difficult to entertain any belief that seemed to conflict with their dominating concept of Yahweh. And the early Christians inherited the Hebraic prejudice against the Trinity concept.

(1144.8) 104:1.11 The first Trinity of Christianity was proclaimed at Antioch and consisted of God, his Word, and his Wisdom. Paul knew of the Paradise Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, but he seldom preached about it and made mention thereof in only a few of his letters to the newly forming churches. Even then, as did his fellow apostles, Paul confused Jesus, the Creator Son of the local universe, with the Second Person of Deity, the Eternal Son of Paradise.

(1144.9) 104:1.12 The Christian concept of the Trinity, which began to gain recognition near the close of the first century after Christ, was comprised of the Universal Father, the Creator Son of Nebadon, and the Divine Minister of Salvington — Mother Spirit of the local universe and creative consort of the Creator Son.

(1145.1) 104:1.13 Not since the times of Jesus has the factual identity of the Paradise Trinity been known on Urantia (except by a few individuals to whom it was especially revealed) until its presentation in these revelatory disclosures. But though the Christian concept of the Trinity erred in fact, it was practically true with respect to spiritual relationships. Only in its philosophic implications and cosmological consequences did this concept suffer embarrassment: It has been difficult for many who are cosmic minded to believe that the Second Person of Deity, the second member of an infinite Trinity, once dwelt on Urantia; and while in spirit this is true, in actuality it is not a fact. The Michael Creators fully embody the divinity of the Eternal Son, but they are not the absolute personality.


2. Trinity Unity and Deity Plurality

(1145.2) 104:2.1 Monotheism arose as a philosophic protest against the inconsistency of polytheism. It developed first through pantheon organizations with the departmentalization of supernatural activities, then through the henotheistic exaltation of one god above the many, and finally through the exclusion of all but the One God of final value.

(1145.3) 104:2.2 Trinitarianism grows out of the experiential protest against the impossibility of conceiving the oneness of a deanthropomorphized solitary Deity of unrelated universe significance. Given a sufficient time, philosophy tends to abstract the personal qualities from the Deity concept of pure monotheism, thus reducing this idea of an unrelated God to the status of a pantheistic Absolute. It has always been difficult to understand the personal nature of a God who has no personal relationships in equality with other and co-ordinate personal beings. Personality in Deity demands that such Deity exist in relation to other and equal personal Deity.

(1145.4) 104:2.3 Through the recognition of the Trinity concept the mind of man can hope to grasp something of the interrelationship of love and law in the time-space creations. Through spiritual faith man gains insight into the love of God but soon discovers that this spiritual faith has no influence on the ordained laws of the material universe. Irrespective of the firmness of man’s belief in God as his Paradise Father, expanding cosmic horizons demand that he also give recognition to the reality of Paradise Deity as universal law, that he recognize the Trinity sovereignty extending outward from Paradise and overshadowing even the evolving local universes of the Creator Sons and Creative Daughters of the three eternal persons whose deity union is the fact and reality and eternal indivisibility of the Paradise Trinity.

(1145.5) 104:2.4 And this selfsame Paradise Trinity is a real entity — not a personality but nonetheless a true and absolute reality; not a personality but nonetheless compatible with coexistent personalities — the personalities of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Trinity is a supersummative Deity reality eventuating out of the conjoining of the three Paradise Deities. The qualities, characteristics, and functions of the Trinity are not the simple sum of the attributes of the three Paradise Deities; Trinity functions are something unique, original, and not wholly predictable from an analysis of the attributes of Father, Son, and Spirit.

(1146.1) 104:2.5 For example: The Master, when on earth, admonished his followers that justice is never a personal act; it is always a group function. Neither do the Gods, as persons, administer justice. But they perform this very function as a collective whole, as the Paradise Trinity.

(1146.2) 104:2.6 The conceptual grasp of the Trinity association of Father, Son, and Spirit prepares the human mind for the further presentation of certain other threefold relationships. Theological reason may be fully satisfied by the concept of the Paradise Trinity, but philosophical and cosmological reason demand the recognition of the other triune associations of the First Source and Center, those triunities in which the Infinite functions in various non-Father capacities of universal manifestation — the relationships of the God of force, energy, power, causation, reaction, potentiality, actuality, gravity, tension, pattern, principle,

The Social Problems of Religion


(1086.1) 99:0.1 RELIGION achieves its highest social ministry when it has least connection with the secular institutions of society. In past ages, since social reforms were largely confined to the moral realms, religion did not have to adjust its attitude to extensive changes in economic and political systems. The chief problem of religion was the endeavor to replace evil with good within the existing social order of political and economic culture. Religion has thus indirectly tended to perpetuate the established order of society, to foster the maintenance of the existent type of civilization.

(1086.2) 99:0.2 But religion should not be directly concerned either with the creation of new social orders or with the preservation of old ones. True religion does oppose violence as a technique of social evolution, but it does not oppose the intelligent efforts of society to adapt its usages and adjust its institutions to new economic conditions and cultural requirements.

(1086.3) 99:0.3 Religion did approve the occasional social reforms of past centuries, but in the twentieth century it is of necessity called upon to face adjustment to extensive and continuing social reconstruction. Conditions of living alter so rapidly that institutional modifications must be greatly accelerated, and religion must accordingly quicken its adaptation to this new and ever-changing social order.


1. Religion and Social Reconstruction

(1086.4) 99:1.1 Mechanical inventions and the dissemination of knowledge are modifying civilization; certain economic adjustments and social changes are imperative if cultural disaster is to be avoided. This new and oncoming social order will not settle down complacently for a millennium. The human race must become reconciled to a procession of changes, adjustments, and readjustments. Mankind is on the march toward a new and unrevealed planetary destiny.

(1086.5) 99:1.2 Religion must become a forceful influence for moral stability and spiritual progression functioning dynamically in the midst of these ever-changing conditions and never-ending economic adjustments.

(1086.6) 99:1.3 Urantia society can never hope to settle down as in past ages. The social ship has steamed out of the sheltered bays of established tradition and has begun its cruise upon the high seas of evolutionary destiny; and the soul of man, as never before in the world’s history, needs carefully to scrutinize its charts of morality and painstakingly to observe the compass of religious guidance. The paramount mission of religion as a social influence is to stabilize the ideals of mankind during these dangerous times of transition from one phase of civilization to another, from one level of culture to another.

(1087.1) 99:1.4 Religion has no new duties to perform, but it is urgently called upon to function as a wise guide and experienced counselor in all of these new and rapidly changing human situations. Society is becoming more mechanical, more compact, more complex, and more critically interdependent. Religion must function to prevent these new and intimate interassociations from becoming mutually retrogressive or even destructive. Religion must act as the cosmic salt which prevents the ferments of progression from destroying the cultural savor of civilization. These new social relations and economic upheavals can result in lasting brotherhood only by the ministry of religion.

(1087.2) 99:1.5 A godless humanitarianism is, humanly speaking, a noble gesture, but true religion is the only power which can lastingly increase the responsiveness of one social group to the needs and sufferings of other groups. In the past, institutional religion could remain passive while the upper strata of society turned a deaf ear to the sufferings and oppression of the helpless lower strata, but in modern times these lower social orders are no longer so abjectly ignorant nor so politically helpless.

(1087.3) 99:1.6 Religion must not become organically involved in the secular work of social reconstruction and economic reorganization. But it must actively keep pace with all these advances in civilization by making clear-cut and vigorous restatements of its moral mandates and spiritual precepts, its progressive philosophy of human living and transcendent survival. The spirit of religion is eternal, but the form of its expression must be restated every time the dictionary of human language is revised.


2. Weakness of Institutional Religion

(1087.4) 99:2.1 Institutional religion cannot afford inspiration and provide leadership in this impending world-wide social reconstruction and economic reorganization because it has unfortunately become more or less of an organic part of the social order and the economic system which is destined to undergo reconstruction. Only the real religion of personal spiritual experience can function helpfully and creatively in the present crisis of civilization.

(1087.5) 99:2.2 Institutional religion is now caught in the stalemate of a vicious circle. It cannot reconstruct society without first reconstructing itself; and being so much an integral part of the established order, it cannot reconstruct itself until society has been radically reconstructed.

(1087.6) 99:2.3 Religionists must function in society, in industry, and in politics as individuals, not as groups, parties, or institutions. A religious group which presumes to function as such, apart from religious activities, immediately becomes a political party, an economic organization, or a social institution. Religious collectivism must confine its efforts to the furtherance of religious causes.

(1087.7) 99:2.4 Religionists are of no more value in the tasks of social reconstruction than nonreligionists except in so far as their religion has conferred upon them enhanced cosmic foresight and endowed them with that superior social wisdom which is born of the sincere desire to love God supremely and to love every man as a brother in the heavenly kingdom. An ideal social order is that in which every man loves his neighbor as he loves himself.

(1087.8) 99:2.5 The institutionalized church may have appeared to serve society in the past by glorifying the established political and economic orders, but it must speedily cease such action if it is to survive. Its only proper attitude consists in the teaching of nonviolence, the doctrine of peaceful evolution in the place of violent revolution — peace on earth and good will among all men.

(1088.1) 99:2.6 Modern religion finds it difficult to adjust its attitude toward the rapidly shifting social changes only because it has permitted itself to become so thoroughly traditionalized, dogmatized, and institutionalized. The religion of living experience finds no difficulty in keeping ahead of all these social developments and economic upheavals, amid which it ever functions as a moral stabilizer, social guide, and spiritual pilot. True religion carries over from one age to another the worth-while culture and that wisdom which is born of the experience of knowing God and striving to be like him.

3. Religion and the Religionist

(1088.2) 99:3.1 Early Christianity was entirely free from all civil entanglements, social commitments, and economic alliances. Only did later institutionalized Christianity become an organic part of the political and social structure of Occidental civilization.

(1088.3) 99:3.2 The kingdom of heaven is neither a social nor economic order; it is an exclusively spiritual brotherhood of God-knowing individuals. True, such a brotherhood is in itself a new and amazing social phenomenon attended by astounding political and economic repercussions.

(1088.4) 99:3.3 The religionist is not unsympathetic with social suffering, not unmindful of civil injustice, not insulated from economic thinking, neither insensible to political tyranny. Religion influences social reconstruction directly because it spiritualizes and idealizes the individual citizen. Indirectly, cultural civilization is influenced by the attitude of these individual religionists as they become active and influential members of various social, moral, economic, and political groups.

(1088.5) 99:3.4 The attainment of a high cultural civilization demands, first, the ideal type of citizen and, then, ideal and adequate social mechanisms wherewith such a citizenry may control the economic and political institutions of such an advanced human society.

(1088.6) 99:3.5 The church, because of overmuch false sentiment, has long ministered to the underprivileged and the unfortunate, and this has all been well, but this same sentiment has led to the unwise perpetuation of racially degenerate stocks which have tremendously retarded the progress of civilization.

(1088.7) 99:3.6 Many individual social reconstructionists, while vehemently repudiating institutionalized religion, are, after all, zealously religious in the propagation of their social reforms. And so it is that religious motivation, personal and more or less unrecognized, is playing a great part in the present-day program of social reconstruction.

(1088.8) 99:3.7 The great weakness of all this unrecognized and unconscious type of religious activity is that it is unable to profit from open religious criticism and thereby attain to profitable levels of self-correction. It is a fact that religion does not grow unless it is disciplined by constructive criticism, amplified by philosophy, purified by science, and nourished by loyal fellowship.

(1088.9) 99:3.8 There is always the great danger that religion will become distorted and perverted into the pursuit of false goals, as when in times of war each contending nation prostitutes its religion into military propaganda. Loveless zeal is always harmful to religion, while persecution diverts the activities of religion into the achievement of some sociologic or theologic drive.

(1089.1) 99:3.9 Religion can be kept free from unholy secular alliances only by:

(1089.2) 99:3.10 1. A critically corrective philosophy.
(1089.3) 99:3.11 2. Freedom from all social, economic, and political alliances.
(1089.4) 99:3.12 3. Creative, comforting, and love-expanding fellowships.
(1089.5) 99:3.13 4. Progressive enhancement of spiritual insight and the appreciation of cosmic values.
(1089.6) 99:3.14 5. Prevention of fanaticism by the compensations of the scientific mental attitude.

(1089.7) 99:3.15 Religionists, as a group, must never concern themselves with anything but religion, albeit any one such religionist, as an individual citizen, may become the outstanding leader of some social, economic, or political reconstruction movement.

(1089.7) 99:3.16 It is the business of religion to create, sustain, and inspire such a cosmic loyalty in the individual citizen as will direct him to the achievement of success in the advancement of all these difficult but desirable social services.


4. Transition Difficulties

(1089.9) 99:4.1 Genuine religion renders the religionist socially fragrant and creates insights into human fellowship. But the formalization of religious groups many times destroys the very values for the promotion of which the group was organized. Human friendship and divine religion are mutually helpful and significantly illuminating if the growth in each is equalized and harmonized. Religion puts new meaning into all group associations — families, schools, and clubs. It imparts new values to play and exalts all true humor.

(1089.10) 99:4.2 Social leadership is transformed by spiritual insight; religion prevents all collective movements from losing sight of their true objectives. Together with children, religion is the great unifier of family life, provided it is a living and growing faith. Family life cannot be had without children; it can be lived without religion, but such a handicap enormously multiplies the difficulties of this intimate human association. During the early decades of the twentieth century, family life, next to personal religious experience, suffers most from the decadence consequent upon the transition from old religious loyalties to the emerging new meanings and values.

(1089.11) 99:4.3 True religion is a meaningful way of living dynamically face to face with the commonplace realities of everyday life. But if religion is to stimulate individual development of character and augment integration of personality, it must not be standardized. If it is to stimulate evaluation of experience and serve as a value-lure, it must not be stereotyped. If religion is to promote supreme loyalties, it must not be formalized.

(1089.12) 99:4.4 No matter what upheavals may attend the social and economic growth of civilization, religion is genuine and worth while if it fosters in the individual an experience in which the sovereignty of truth, beauty, and goodness prevails, for such is the true spiritual concept of supreme reality. And through love and worship this becomes meaningful as fellowship with man and sonship with God.

(1090.1) 99:4.5 After all, it is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average man unless it becomes emotionally activated. But the activation of religion is superemotional, unifying the entire human experience on transcendent levels through contact with, and release of, spiritual energies in the mortal life.

(1090.2) 99:4.6 During the psychologically unsettled times of the twentieth century, amid the economic upheavals, the moral crosscurrents, and the sociologic rip tides of the cyclonic transitions of a scientific era, thousands upon thousands of men and women have become humanly dislocated; they are anxious, restless, fearful, uncertain, and unsettled; as never before in the world’s history they need the consolation and stabilization of sound religion. In the face of unprecedented scientific achievement and mechanical development there is spiritual stagnation and philosophic chaos.

(1090.3) 99:4.7 There is no danger in religion’s becoming more and more of a private matter — a personal experience — provided it does not lose its motivation for unselfish and loving social service. Religion has suffered from many secondary influences: sudden mixing of cultures, intermingling of creeds, diminution of ecclesiastical authority, changing of family life, together with urbanization and mechanization.

(1090.4) 99:4.8 Man’s greatest spiritual jeopardy consists in partial progress, the predicament of unfinished growth: forsaking the evolutionary religions of fear without immediately grasping the revelatory religion of love. Modern science, particularly psychology, has weakened only those religions which are so largely dependent upon fear, superstition, and emotion.

(1090.5) 99:4.9 Transition is always accompanied by confusion, and there will be little tranquillity in the religious world until the great struggle between the three contending philosophies of religion is ended:

(1090.6) 99:4.10 1. The spiritistic belief (in a providential Deity) of many religions.
(1090.7) 99:4.11 2. The humanistic and idealistic belief of many philosophies.
(1090.8) 99:4.12 3. The mechanistic and naturalistic conceptions of many sciences.

(1090.9) 99:4.13 And these three partial approaches to the reality of the cosmos must eventually become harmonized by the revelatory presentation of religion, philosophy, and cosmology which portrays the triune existence of spirit, mind, and energy proceeding from the Trinity of Paradise and attaining time-space unification within the Deity of the Supreme.

Sin, Sacrifice, and Atonement


(974.1) 89:0.1 PRIMITIVE man regarded himself as being in debt to the spirits, as standing in need of redemption. As the savages looked at it, in justice the spirits might have visited much more bad luck upon them. As time passed, this concept developed into the doctrine of sin and salvation. The soul was looked upon as coming into the world under forfeit — original sin. The soul must be ransomed; a scapegoat must be provided. The head-hunter, in addition to practicing the cult of skull worship, was able to provide a substitute for his own life, a scapeman.

(974.2) 89:0.2 The savage was early possessed with the notion that spirits derive supreme satisfaction from the sight of human misery, suffering, and humiliation. At first, man was only concerned with sins of commission, but later he became exercised over sins of omission. And the whole subsequent sacrificial system grew up around these two ideas. This new ritual had to do with the observance of the propitiation ceremonies of sacrifice. Primitive man believed that something special must be done to win the favor of the gods; only advanced civilization recognizes a consistently even-tempered and benevolent God. Propitiation was insurance against immediate ill luck rather than investment in future bliss. And the rituals of avoidance, exorcism, coercion, and propitiation all merge into one another.


1. The Taboo

(974.3) 89:1.1 Observance of a taboo was man’s effort to dodge ill luck, to keep from offending the spirit ghosts by the avoidance of something. The taboos were at first nonreligious, but they early acquired ghost or spirit sanction, and when thus reinforced, they became lawmakers and institution builders. The taboo is the source of ceremonial standards and the ancestor of primitive self-control. It was the earliest form of societal regulation and for a long time the only one; it is still a basic unit of the social regulative structure.

(974.4) 89:1.2 The respect which these prohibitions commanded in the mind of the savage exactly equaled his fear of the powers who were supposed to enforce them. Taboos first arose because of chance experience with ill luck; later they were proposed by chiefs and shamans — fetish men who were thought to be directed by a spirit ghost, even by a god. The fear of spirit retribution is so great in the mind of a primitive that he sometimes dies of fright when he has violated a taboo, and this dramatic episode enormously strengthens the hold of the taboo on the minds of the survivors.

(974.5) 89:1.3 Among the earliest prohibitions were restrictions on the appropriation of women and other property. As religion began to play a larger part in the evolution of the taboo, the article resting under ban was regarded as unclean, subsequently as unholy. The records of the Hebrews are full of the mention of things clean and unclean, holy and unholy, but their beliefs along these lines were far less cumbersome and extensive than were those of many other peoples.

(975.1) 89:1.4 The seven commandments of Dalamatia and Eden, as well as the ten injunctions of the Hebrews, were definite taboos, all expressed in the same negative form as were the most ancient prohibitions. But these newer codes were truly emancipating in that they took the place of thousands of pre-existent taboos. And more than this, these later commandments definitely promised something in return for obedience.

(975.2) 89:1.5 The early food taboos originated in fetishism and totemism. The swine was sacred to the Phoenicians, the cow to the Hindus. The Egyptian taboo on pork has been perpetuated by the Hebraic and Islamic faiths. A variant of the food taboo was the belief that a pregnant woman could think so much about a certain food that the child, when born, would be the echo of that food. Such viands would be taboo to the child.

(975.3) 89:1.6 Methods of eating soon became taboo, and so originated ancient and modern table etiquette. Caste systems and social levels are vestigial remnants of olden prohibitions. The taboos were highly effective in organizing society, but they were terribly burdensome; the negative-ban system not only maintained useful and constructive regulations but also obsolete, outworn, and useless taboos.

(975.4) 89:1.7 There would, however, be no civilized society to sit in criticism upon primitive man except for these far-flung and multifarious taboos, and the taboo would never have endured but for the upholding sanctions of primitive religion. Many of the essential factors in man’s evolution have been highly expensive, have cost vast treasure in effort, sacrifice, and self-denial, but these achievements of self-control were the real rungs on which man climbed civilization’s ascending ladder.


2. The Concept of Sin

(975.5) 89:2.1 The fear of chance and the dread of bad luck literally drove man into the invention of primitive religion as supposed insurance against these calamities. From magic and ghosts, religion evolved through spirits and fetishes to taboos. Every primitive tribe had its tree of forbidden fruit, literally the apple but figuratively consisting of a thousand branches hanging heavy with all sorts of taboos. And the forbidden tree always said, “Thou shalt not.”

(975.6) 89:2.2 As the savage mind evolved to that point where it envisaged both good and bad spirits, and when the taboo received the solemn sanction of evolving religion, the stage was all set for the appearance of the new conception of sin. The idea of sin was universally established in the world before revealed religion ever made its entry. It was only by the concept of sin that natural death became logical to the primitive mind. Sin was the transgression of taboo, and death was the penalty of sin.

(975.7) 89:2.3 Sin was ritual, not rational; an act, not a thought. And this entire concept of sin was fostered by the lingering traditions of Dilmun and the days of a little paradise on earth. The tradition of Adam and the Garden of Eden also lent substance to the dream of a onetime “golden age” of the dawn of the races. And all this confirmed the ideas later expressed in the belief that man had his origin in a special creation, that he started his career in perfection, and that transgression of the taboos — sin — brought him down to his later sorry plight.

(976.1) 89:2.4 The habitual violation of a taboo became a vice; primitive law made vice a crime; religion made it a sin. Among the early tribes the violation of a taboo was a combined crime and sin. Community calamity was always regarded as punishment for tribal sin. To those who believed that prosperity and righteousness went together, the apparent prosperity of the wicked occasioned so much worry that it was necessary to invent hells for the punishment of taboo violators; the numbers of these places of future punishment have varied from one to five.

(976.2) 89:2.5 The idea of confession and forgiveness early appeared in primitive religion. Men would ask forgiveness at a public meeting for sins they intended to commit the following week. Confession was merely a rite of remission, also a public notification of defilement, a ritual of crying “unclean, unclean!” Then followed all the ritualistic schemes of purification. All ancient peoples practiced these meaningless ceremonies. Many apparently hygienic customs of the early tribes were largely ceremonial.

3. Renunciation and Humiliation

(976.3) 89:3.1 Renunciation came as the next step in religious evolution; fasting was a common practice. Soon it became the custom to forgo many forms of physical pleasure, especially of a sexual nature. The ritual of the fast was deeply rooted in many ancient religions and has been handed down to practically all modern theologic systems of thought. *

(976.4) 89:3.2 Just about the time barbarian man was recovering from the wasteful practice of burning and burying property with the dead, just as the economic structure of the races was beginning to take shape, this new religious doctrine of renunciation appeared, and tens of thousands of earnest souls began to court poverty. Property was regarded as a spiritual handicap. These notions of the spiritual dangers of material possession were widespreadly entertained in the times of Philo and Paul, and they have markedly influenced European philosophy ever since.

(976.5) 89:3.3 Poverty was just a part of the ritual of the mortification of the flesh which, unfortunately, became incorporated into the writings and teachings of many religions, notably Christianity. Penance is the negative form of this ofttimes foolish ritual of renunciation. But all this taught the savage self-control, and that was a worth-while advancement in social evolution. Self-denial and self-control were two of the greatest social gains from early evolutionary religion. Self-control gave man a new philosophy of life; it taught him the art of augmenting life’s fraction by lowering the denominator of personal demands instead of always attempting to increase the numerator of selfish gratification.

(976.6) 89:3.4 These olden ideas of self-discipline embraced flogging and all sorts of physical torture. The priests of the mother cult were especially active in teaching the virtue of physical suffering, setting the example by submitting themselves to castration. The Hebrews, Hindus, and Buddhists were earnest devotees of this doctrine of physical humiliation.

(976.7) 89:3.5 All through the olden times men sought in these ways for extra credits on the self-denial ledgers of their gods. It was once customary, when under some emotional stress, to make vows of self-denial and self-torture. In time these vows assumed the form of contracts with the gods and, in that sense, represented true evolutionary progress in that the gods were supposed to do something definite in return for this self-torture and mortification of the flesh. Vows were both negative and positive. Pledges of this harmful and extreme nature are best observed today among certain groups in India.

(977.1) 89:3.6 It was only natural that the cult of renunciation and humiliation should have paid attention to sexual gratification. The continence cult originated as a ritual among soldiers prior to engaging in battle; in later days it became the practice of “saints.” This cult tolerated marriage only as an evil lesser than fornication. Many of the world’s great religions have been adversely influenced by this ancient cult, but none more markedly than Christianity. The Apostle Paul was a devotee of this cult, and his personal views are reflected in the teachings which he fastened onto Christian theology: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” “I would that all men were even as I myself.” “I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to abide even as I.” Paul well knew that such teachings were not a part of Jesus’ gospel, and his acknowledgment of this is illustrated by his statement, “I speak this by permission and not by commandment.” But this cult led Paul to look down upon women. And the pity of it all is that his personal opinions have long influenced the teachings of a great world religion. If the advice of the tentmaker-teacher were to be literally and universally obeyed, then would the human race come to a sudden and inglorious end. Furthermore, the involvement of a religion with the ancient continence cult leads directly to a war against marriage and the home, society’s veritable foundation and the basic institution of human progress. And it is not to be wondered at that all such beliefs fostered the formation of celibate priesthoods in the many religions of various peoples.

(977.2) 89:3.7 Someday man should learn how to enjoy liberty without license, nourishment without gluttony, and pleasure without debauchery. Self-control is a better human policy of behavior regulation than is extreme self-denial. Nor did Jesus ever teach these unreasonable views to his followers.


4. Origins of Sacrifice

(977.3) 89:4.1 Sacrifice as a part of religious devotions, like many other worshipful rituals, did not have a simple and single origin. The tendency to bow down before power and to prostrate oneself in worshipful adoration in the presence of mystery is foreshadowed in the fawning of the dog before its master. It is but one step from the impulse of worship to the act of sacrifice. Primitive man gauged the value of his sacrifice by the pain which he suffered. When the idea of sacrifice first attached itself to religious ceremonial, no offering was contemplated which was not productive of pain. The first sacrifices were such acts as plucking hair, cutting the flesh, mutilations, knocking out teeth, and cutting off fingers. As civilization advanced, these crude concepts of sacrifice were elevated to the level of the rituals of self-abnegation, asceticism, fasting, deprivation, and the later Christian doctrine of sanctification through sorrow, suffering, and the mortification of the flesh.

(977.4) 89:4.2 Early in the evolution of religion there existed two conceptions of the sacrifice: the idea of the gift sacrifice, which connoted the attitude of thanksgiving, and the debt sacrifice, which embraced the idea of redemption. Later there developed the notion of substitution.

(977.5) 89:4.3 Man still later conceived that his sacrifice of whatever nature might function as a message bearer to the gods; it might be as a sweet savor in the nostrils of deity. This brought incense and other aesthetic features of sacrificial rituals which developed into sacrificial feasting, in time becoming increasingly elaborate and ornate.

(978.1) 89:4.4 As religion evolved, the sacrificial rites of conciliation and propitiation replaced the older methods of avoidance, placation, and exorcism.

(978.2) 89:4.5 The earliest idea of the sacrifice was that of a neutrality assessment levied by ancestral spirits; only later did the idea of atonement develop. As man got away from the notion of the evolutionary origin of the race, as the traditions of the days of the Planetary Prince and the sojourn of Adam filtered down through time, the concept of sin and of original sin became widespread, so that sacrifice for accidental and personal sin evolved into the doctrine of sacrifice for the atonement of racial sin. The atonement of the sacrifice was a blanket insurance device which covered even the resentment and jealousy of an unknown god.

(978.3) 89:4.6 Surrounded by so many sensitive spirits and grasping gods, primitive man was face to face with such a host of creditor deities that it required all the priests, ritual, and sacrifices throughout an entire lifetime to get him out of spiritual debt. The doctrine of original sin, or racial guilt, started every person out in serious debt to the spirit powers.

(978.4) 89:4.7 Gifts and bribes are given to men; but when tendered to the gods, they are described as being dedicated, made sacred, or are called sacrifices. Renunciation was the negative form of propitiation; sacrifice became the positive form. The act of propitiation included praise, glorification, flattery, and even entertainment. And it is the remnants of these positive practices of the olden propitiation cult that constitute the modern forms of divine worship. Present-day forms of worship are simply the ritualization of these ancient sacrificial techniques of positive propitiation.

(978.5) 89:4.8 Animal sacrifice meant much more to primitive man than it could ever mean to modern races. These barbarians regarded the animals as their actual and near kin. As time passed, man became shrewd in his sacrificing, ceasing to offer up his work animals. At first he sacrificed the best of everything, including his domesticated animals.

(978.6) 89:4.9 It was no empty boast that a certain Egyptian ruler made when he stated that he had sacrificed: 113,433 slaves, 493,386 head of cattle, 88 boats, 2,756 golden images, 331,702 jars of honey and oil, 228,380 jars of wine, 680,714 geese, 6,744,428 loaves of bread, and 5,740,352 sacks of corn. And in order to do this he must needs have sorely taxed his toiling subjects. *

(978.7) 89:4.10 Sheer necessity eventually drove these semisavages to eat the material part of their sacrifices, the gods having enjoyed the soul thereof. And this custom found justification under the pretense of the ancient sacred meal, a communion service according to modern usage.

5. Sacrifices and Cannibalism

(978.8) 89:5.1 Modern ideas of early cannibalism are entirely wrong; it was a part of the mores of early society. While cannibalism is traditionally horrible to modern civilization, it was a part of the social and religious structure of primitive society. Group interests dictated the practice of cannibalism. It grew up through the urge of necessity and persisted because of the slavery of superstition and ignorance. It was a social, economic, religious, and military custom.

(979.1) 89:5.2 Early man was a cannibal; he enjoyed human flesh, and therefore he offered it as a food gift to the spirits and his primitive gods. Since ghost spirits were merely modified men, and since food was man’s greatest need, then food must likewise be a spirit’s greatest need.

(979.2) 89:5.3 Cannibalism was once well-nigh universal among the evolving races. The Sangiks were all cannibalistic, but originally the Andonites were not, nor were the Nodites and Adamites; neither were the Andites until after they had become grossly admixed with the evolutionary races.

(979.3) 89:5.4 The taste for human flesh grows. Having been started through hunger, friendship, revenge, or religious ritual, the eating of human flesh goes on to habitual cannibalism. Man-eating has arisen through food scarcity, though this has seldom been the underlying reason. The Eskimos and early Andonites, however, seldom were cannibalistic except in times of famine. The red men, especially in Central America, were cannibals. It was once a general practice for primitive mothers to kill and eat their own children in order to renew the strength lost in childbearing, and in Queensland the first child is still frequently thus killed and devoured. In recent times cannibalism has been deliberately resorted to by many African tribes as a war measure, a sort of frightfulness with which to terrorize their neighbors.

(979.4) 89:5.5 Some cannibalism resulted from the degeneration of once superior stocks, but it was mostly prevalent among the evolutionary races. Man-eating came on at a time when men experienced intense and bitter emotions regarding their enemies. Eating human flesh became part of a solemn ceremony of revenge; it was believed that an enemy’s ghost could, in this way, be destroyed or fused with that of the eater. It was once a widespread belief that wizards attained their powers by eating human flesh.

(979.5) 89:5.6 Certain groups of man-eaters would consume only members of their own tribes, a pseudospiritual inbreeding which was supposed to accentuate tribal solidarity. But they also ate enemies for revenge with the idea of appropriating their strength. It was considered an honor to the soul of a friend or fellow tribesman if his body were eaten, while it was no more than just punishment to an enemy thus to devour him. The savage mind made no pretensions to being consistent.

(979.6) 89:5.7 Among some tribes aged parents would seek to be eaten by their children; among others it was customary to refrain from eating near relations; their bodies were sold or exchanged for those of strangers. There was considerable commerce in women and children who had been fattened for slaughter. When disease or war failed to control population, the surplus was unceremoniously eaten.

(979.7) 89:5.8 Cannibalism has been gradually disappearing because of the following influences:

(979.8) 89:5.9 1. It sometimes became a communal ceremony, the assumption of collective responsibility for inflicting the death penalty upon a fellow tribesman. The blood guilt ceases to be a crime when participated in by all, by society. The last of cannibalism in Asia was this eating of executed criminals.

(979.9) 89:5.10 2. It very early became a religious ritual, but the growth of ghost fear did not always operate to reduce man-eating.

(979.10) 89:5.11 3. Eventually it progressed to the point where only certain parts or organs of the body were eaten, those parts supposed to contain the soul or portions of the spirit. Blood drinking became common, and it was customary to mix the “edible” parts of the body with medicines.

(980.1) 89:5.12 4. It became limited to men; women were forbidden to eat human flesh.

(980.2) 89:5.13 5. It was next limited to the chiefs, priests, and shamans.

(980.3) 89:5.14 6. Then it became taboo among the higher tribes. The taboo on man-eating originated in Dalamatia and slowly spread over the world. The Nodites encouraged cremation as a means of combating cannibalism since it was once a common practice to dig up buried bodies and eat them.

(980.4) 89:5.15 7. Human sacrifice sounded the death knell of cannibalism. Human flesh having become the food of superior men, the chiefs, it was eventually reserved for the still more superior spirits; and thus the offering of human sacrifices effectively put a stop to cannibalism, except among the lowest tribes. When human sacrifice was fully established, man-eating became taboo; human flesh was food only for the gods; man could eat only a small ceremonial bit, a sacrament.

(980.5) 89:5.16 Finally animal substitutes came into general use for sacrificial purposes, and even among the more backward tribes dog-eating greatly reduced man-eating. The dog was the first domesticated animal and was held in high esteem both as such and as food.


6. Evolution of Human Sacrifice

(980.6) 89:6.1 Human sacrifice was an indirect result of cannibalism as well as its cure. Providing spirit escorts to the spirit world also led to the lessening of man-eating as it was never the custom to eat these death sacrifices. No race has been entirely free from the practice of human sacrifice in some form and at some time, even though the Andonites, Nodites, and Adamites were the least addicted to cannibalism.

(980.7) 89:6.2 Human sacrifice has been virtually universal; it persisted in the religious customs of the Chinese, Hindus, Egyptians, Hebrews, Mesopotamians, Greeks, Romans, and many other peoples, even on to recent times among the backward African and Australian tribes. The later American Indians had a civilization emerging from cannibalism and, therefore, steeped in human sacrifice, especially in Central and South America. The Chaldeans were among the first to abandon the sacrificing of humans for ordinary occasions, substituting therefor animals. About two thousand years ago a tenderhearted Japanese emperor introduced clay images to take the place of human sacrifices, but it was less than a thousand years ago that these sacrifices died out in northern Europe. Among certain backward tribes, human sacrifice is still carried on by volunteers, a sort of religious or ritual suicide. A shaman once ordered the sacrifice of a much respected old man of a certain tribe. The people revolted; they refused to obey. Whereupon the old man had his own son dispatch him; the ancients really believed in this custom.

(980.8) 89:6.3 There is no more tragic and pathetic experience on record, illustrative of the heart-tearing contentions between ancient and time-honored religious customs and the contrary demands of advancing civilization, than the Hebrew narrative of Jephthah and his only daughter. As was common custom, this well-meaning man had made a foolish vow, had bargained with the “god of battles,” agreeing to pay a certain price for victory over his enemies. And this price was to make a sacrifice of that which first came out of his house to meet him when he returned to his home. Jephthah thought that one of his trusty slaves would thus be on hand to greet him, but it turned out that his daughter and only child came out to welcome him home. And so, even at that late date and among a supposedly civilized people, this beautiful maiden, after two months to mourn her fate, was actually offered as a human sacrifice by her father, and with the approval of his fellow tribesmen. And all this was done in the face of Moses’ stringent rulings against the offering of human sacrifice. But men and women are addicted to making foolish and needless vows, and the men of old held all such pledges to be highly sacred.

(981.1) 89:6.4 In olden times, when a new building of any importance was started, it was customary to slay a human being as a “foundation sacrifice.” This provided a ghost spirit to watch over and protect the structure. When the Chinese made ready to cast a bell, custom decreed the sacrifice of at least one maiden for the purpose of improving the tone of the bell; the girl chosen was thrown alive into the molten metal.

(981.2) 89:6.5 It was long the practice of many groups to build slaves alive into important walls. In later times the northern European tribes substituted the walling in of the shadow of a passerby for this custom of entombing living persons in the walls of new buildings. The Chinese buried in a wall those workmen who died while constructing it.

(981.3) 89:6.6 A petty king in Palestine, in building the walls of Jericho, “laid the foundation thereof in Abiram, his first-born, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son, Segub.” At that late date, not only did this father put two of his sons alive in the foundation holes of the city’s gates, but his action is also recorded as being “according to the word of the Lord.” Moses had forbidden these foundation sacrifices, but the Israelites reverted to them soon after his death. The twentieth-century ceremony of depositing trinkets and keepsakes in the cornerstone of a new building is reminiscent of the primitive foundation sacrifices.

(981.4) 89:6.7 It was long the custom of many peoples to dedicate the first fruits to the spirits. And these observances, now more or less symbolic, are all survivals of the early ceremonies involving human sacrifice. The idea of offering the first-born as a sacrifice was widespread among the ancients, especially among the Phoenicians, who were the last to give it up. It used to be said upon sacrificing, “life for life.” Now you say at death, “dust to dust.”

(981.5) 89:6.8 The spectacle of Abraham constrained to sacrifice his son Isaac, while shocking to civilized susceptibilities, was not a new or strange idea to the men of those days. It was long a prevalent practice for fathers, at times of great emotional stress, to sacrifice their first-born sons. Many peoples have a tradition analogous to this story, for there once existed a world-wide and profound belief that it was necessary to offer a human sacrifice when anything extraordinary or unusual happened.

7. Modifications of Human Sacrifice

(981.6) 89:7.1 Moses attempted to end human sacrifices by inaugurating the ransom as a substitute. He established a systematic schedule which enabled his people to escape the worst results of their rash and foolish vows. Lands, properties, and children could be redeemed according to the established fees, which were payable to the priests. Those groups which ceased to sacrifice their first-born soon possessed great advantages over less advanced neighbors who continued these atrocious acts. Many such backward tribes were not only greatly weakened by this loss of sons, but even the succession of leadership was often broken.

(982.1) 89:7.2 An outgrowth of the passing child sacrifice was the custom of smearing blood on the house doorposts for the protection of the first-born. This was often done in connection with one of the sacred feasts of the year, and this ceremony once obtained over most of the world from Mexico to Egypt.

(982.2) 89:7.3 Even after most groups had ceased the ritual killing of children, it was the custom to put an infant away by itself, off in the wilderness or in a little boat on the water. If the child survived, it was thought that the gods had intervened to preserve him, as in the traditions of Sargon, Moses, Cyrus, and Romulus. Then came the practice of dedicating the first-born sons as sacred or sacrificial, allowing them to grow up and then exiling them in lieu of death; this was the origin of colonization. The Romans adhered to this custom in their scheme of colonization.

(982.3) 89:7.4 Many of the peculiar associations of sex laxity with primitive worship had their origin in connection with human sacrifice. In olden times, if a woman met head-hunters, she could redeem her life by sexual surrender. Later, a maiden consecrated to the gods as a sacrifice might elect to redeem her life by dedicating her body for life to the sacred sex service of the temple; in this way she could earn her redemption money. The ancients regarded it as highly elevating to have sex relations with a woman thus engaged in ransoming her life. It was a religious ceremony to consort with these sacred maidens, and in addition, this whole ritual afforded an acceptable excuse for commonplace sexual gratification. This was a subtle species of self-deception which both the maidens and their consorts delighted to practice upon themselves. The mores always drag behind in the evolutionary advance of civilization, thus providing sanction for the earlier and more savagelike sex practices of the evolving races.

(982.4) 89:7.5 Temple harlotry eventually spread throughout southern Europe and Asia. The money earned by the temple prostitutes was held sacred among all peoples — a high gift to present to the gods. The highest types of women thronged the temple sex marts and devoted their earnings to all kinds of sacred services and works of public good. Many of the better classes of women collected their dowries by temporary sex service in the temples, and most men preferred to have such women for wives.


8. Redemption and Covenants

(982.5) 89:8.1 Sacrificial redemption and temple prostitution were in reality modifications of human sacrifice. Next came the mock sacrifice of daughters. This ceremony consisted in bloodletting, with dedication to lifelong virginity, and was a moral reaction to the older temple harlotry. In more recent times virgins dedicated themselves to the service of tending the sacred temple fires. *

(982.6) 89:8.2 Men eventually conceived the idea that the offering of some part of the body could take the place of the older and complete human sacrifice. Physical mutilation was also considered to be an acceptable substitute. Hair, nails, blood, and even fingers and toes were sacrificed. The later and well-nigh universal ancient rite of circumcision was an outgrowth of the cult of partial sacrifice; it was purely sacrificial, no thought of hygiene being attached thereto. Men were circumcised; women had their ears pierced.

(983.1) 89:8.3 Subsequently it became the custom to bind fingers together instead of cutting them off. Shaving the head and cutting the hair were likewise forms of religious devotion. The making of eunuchs was at first a modification of the idea of human sacrifice. Nose and lip piercing is still practiced in Africa, and tattooing is an artistic evolution of the earlier crude scarring of the body.

(983.2) 89:8.4 The custom of sacrifice eventually became associated, as a result of advancing teachings, with the idea of the covenant. At last, the gods were conceived of as entering into real agreements with man; and this was a major step in the stabilization of religion. Law, a covenant, takes the place of luck, fear, and superstition.

(983.3) 89:8.5 Man could never even dream of entering into a contract with Deity until his concept of God had advanced to the level whereon the universe controllers were envisioned as dependable. And man’s early idea of God was so anthropomorphic that he was unable to conceive of a dependable Deity until he himself became relatively dependable, moral, and ethical.

(983.4) 89:8.6 But the idea of making a covenant with the gods did finally arrive. Evolutionary man eventually acquired such moral dignity that he dared to bargain with his gods. And so the business of offering sacrifices gradually developed into the game of man’s philosophic bargaining with God. And all this represented a new device for insuring against bad luck or, rather, an enhanced technique for the more definite purchase of prosperity. Do not entertain the mistaken idea that these early sacrifices were a free gift to the gods, a spontaneous offering of gratitude or thanksgiving; they were not expressions of true worship.

(983.5) 89:8.7 Primitive forms of prayer were nothing more nor less than bargaining with the spirits, an argument with the gods. It was a kind of bartering in which pleading and persuasion were substituted for something more tangible and costly. The developing commerce of the races had inculcated the spirit of trade and had developed the shrewdness of barter; and now these traits began to appear in man’s worship methods. And as some men were better traders than others, so some were regarded as better prayers than others. The prayer of a just man was held in high esteem. A just man was one who had paid all accounts to the spirits, had fully discharged every ritual obligation to the gods.

(983.6) 89:8.8 Early prayer was hardly worship; it was a bargaining petition for health, wealth, and life. And in many respects prayers have not much changed with the passing of the ages. They are still read out of books, recited formally, and written out for emplacement on wheels and for hanging on trees, where the blowing of the winds will save man the trouble of expending his own breath.