Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, professor of Islamic and Middle East Studies at Columbia University and one of the world’s foremost scholars on Islam, wrote that the name, “Allah” and its feminine form “Allat,” were well known in pre-Islamic Arabia and were found in inscriptions uncovered in North Africa. According to Jeffrey, Allah, “is a proper name applicable only to their peculiar god.” He adds, “Allah is a pre-Islamic name corresponding to the Babylonian god known as Bel.”
“Bel simply means ‘lord’ and this is a title of reverence to the moon-god Sin” Isaiah gives us a powerful picture of what Bel will do at the end of the age:
“I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:23-46:1)
This verse is later echoed in the New Testament:
“every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess...that Jesus Christ is Lord.” (Philemon 2:8-10)
A few verses later, Isaiah also tells of one being in particular who is among them:
“Bel bows down, Nebo stoops; Their idols were on the beasts and on the cattle.” (Isaiah 46:1)
This is none other than the image of the crescent-moon which the beasts wore on their necks: “Their idols were on the beasts and on the cattle”, the very symbol that Gideon removed – the crescent moon (Judges 8:21).
While Shinarian-minded scientists like Richard Dawkins predicts that we will all bow to evolutionary science, the Biblical God predicts that every man, even Bel will bow down before God.
But with ample evidence we can show that the issue here is not proving or disproving that God, does, or does not, exist. The issue, simply put, is that all nations that introduced certain gods and others that eliminated the Biblical God and others that promoted no any-god altogether have always been tyrannies.
In our book For God or For Tyranny, we present a fascinating study and the results are shocking on how throughout history every non-Christian system was absolutely tyrannical.
The so-called scientific atheist will always counter with sophistry: “All gods are tyranny" and he will always bring in Inquisition or a Crusade as if resistance to tyranny is in itself tyrannical.
If these were truly sincere, all right, then let us open the dialogue for everyone to examine the most popular gods.
But where can we assemble for such a dialogue?
This question alone reveals that before we examine if God exists, that this process alone will reveal that lucifer too exists.
Where shall we assemble proves the case beyond doubt. Should we assemble in church to debate these atheists if God exists?
These will object that this would be the narrow Christian view where Christians will insist that their God Yahweh is the only true God. These would fear to even enter the church lest the demons agitate their possessed souls that hate the sight of the Crucifix.
The Mosque? Muslims already insist that Allah is the only God. In fact the Muslim creed says, “There is no god but Allah.”
So where do we discuss God? In Schools?
Since schools and universities claim to be 'for dialogue' and even 'for debate and research' you would think that this is probably the best place to dialogue over God.
Yet fact is, that schools are the least of places that allow dialogues about God. We would have a better chance discussing God in a pub over a glass of scotch than in a school. In fact, more schools today are allowing more programs to promote His non-existence. Everything the anti-God do proves that there is a devil.
You might counter that: “God is not scientific and school subjects are. God is a philosophical issue that should remain away from schools”.
Then why do they teach philosophy in schools? Philosophy is not scientific; it’s simply an attempt to explain our existence, knowledge, truth, law, justice and the moral values that influenced the world. Why should we then study Socrates and not Jesus?
While we cannot scientifically prove the devil exists, we can surely prove that his stench smoke does.
Spiritism is even part of the philosophy being taught in universities. Not only do Christians object to this as unscientific since it is stemming from Hinduism and its belief in reincarnation; philosophers are making it a science.
Spiritism is Pseudoscience, which is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology and lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method. Spiritist philosophical inquiry is concerned with the study of moral aspects in the context of an eternal life in spiritual evolution through reincarnation, a process its adherents hold to as revealed by Spirits.
Sympathetic research on Spiritism by scientists can be found in the works of Sir William Crookes, Ernesto Bozzano, The Society for Psychical Research, William James, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine winner Charles Richet, Professor Ian Stevenson’s group at University of Virginia, and Professor G. Schwartz at University of Arizona. The main characteristic of Spiritism is its emphasis on the study and investigation of the Spiritist Doctrine in its triple aspects, ‘scientific’, philosophical and moral.
In the 19th century, Spiritualism spawned an important offshoot, the synthetic religion Theosophy, which has had a heavy influence on 20th century pseudoscience and pseudo scientists, from Edgar Cayce to Charles Berlitz, from George Adamski to Erich Von Daniken. Even more important, Spiritualism, as it faded in the early 20th century, gave birth to all the familiar folderol about “psychics,” and “psychic phenomena,” including extrasensory perception, telepathy, psycho kinesis, psychic detectives, and psychic “supermen.”
If spiritual matters that stem from ancient Hinduism are all suddenly declared ‘scientific’ by anti-Bible philosophers.
Why then exclude ancient writers like Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel, Moses, Abraham and others in Scripture?
These wrote fascinating predictions into the future. Why should we study Psychology 101 but not have Futurology 101?
A critical question needs to be asked. Why are they blocking only this narrow avenue – the Bible – while opening the floodgates of every spiritual avenue that is contrary to the Bible?
Wouldn’t this undermine the Constitution and critical thinking? Wouldn't this show that there are 'principalities' and 'powers in high places' just as the Bible warned?
Other reprobates will argue that since we are multi-cultural that “if we start studying about God, we will have a war in schools”.
We rarely had wars discussing God in schools. These wars have nothing to do with the different gods people worship, but simply the issue of teaching the Biblical God – all the other religions or any derivatives thereof are welcome as evidenced in all of our schools and universities.
Who then started this war over God? The American Constitution declares that:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The authors of the Constitution believed in God the Creator. Why then do we see the struggle on all levels brewing between pro-God conservatives and anti-God-liberal-progressives? We have a struggle regarding everything from prayer in school, abortion on demand, transgender bathrooms, God, guns, the Ten Commandments in courts and an array of issues in all facets of life from government to education and media.
All this reveals that lucifer does exist and even controls governments that hate God.
We will always have struggles within. No matter what, we will always have wars. We have a war on drugs, a war on homelessness, war on pollution, war on racism and even a war on God.
We also have a war of labels that we see daily in the media. We tend to lump individuals into atheists, progressives, liberals, anarchists, socialists, communists, libertarians, conservatives, neo-conservatives, liberal Christians, Christian Fundamentalists, Christian Zionists, Catholics, and the list goes on and on.
Even if I argue that life is either being for God or for Tyranny I would be labeled as "divisive". If you feel this way then you are also labeling.
Everyone applies labels. No matter what camp or side I attend – everyone applies labels – and if labeling is a sin, we are indeed all sinners.
You might say, “What if I support no side at all? I can be neutral.”
Life is designed that no matter what your choice is, you are either sheep or shepherd, liberal or conservative – you will be led and you will deal with the consequences. Active or inactive, you will end up participating. You follow tax laws, traffic laws, and regulations. You will end up following whichever regulation set by whichever administration be it liberal or conservative, pro-God or not.
And just in case you are anti-war, let me remind you, there is always a war. If it were not a world war, it would be a cold war. If it is not a cold war, it might be a political war, a social war, or even a racial war. No matter what label you choose for yourself, you will always suffer being a casualty of one of these wars.
The war of labels also includes name calling in which we fling sticky-labels of xenophobia, bigotry, racism and an array of inflammatory accusations against anyone who attempts to critique a specific religion, despite the critique of religion being allowed by our Constitution. I am to open debate over religion; everyone should be entitled to critique religion – any religion.
Everyone has a duty to examine issues of a philosophical, political, ideological and spiritual nature. If we examine the sources from the greatest thinkers, philosophers and ideologists that influenced mankind throughout the centuries to expose in some detail their works that influenced humanity; their faith in God or godlessness, views on the world; to unite it or not, God; remove Him or not, religion; the consequences of religion or irreligiousness, religions; are they all equal?
Sophists will always argue that “there are no absolutes” and we counter such fools with "are you absolutely sure?"
Christianity is supreme for God etched man's destiny and warned us to beware of all Shinarinas who plug their lips into any spiritual socket to breath the smoke, right out of lucifer's nostrils.
We must never forget Izmir (Smyrna) and that evil crescent. Our fathers fought it and so must we, instructing our sons and our daughters from young age to never forget its pincer sting and how it came after the seed of the Woman. I did not need the school to teach my children, we had our dining table:
CHRISTIANS ARE BEING KILLED AND RAPED EVERY SINGLE DAY, PLEASE CLICK HERE TO MAKE A DONATION TO OUR RESCUE TEAM THAT WILL SAVE THE LIVES OF CHRISTIANS FROM PERSECUTION
SOURCES
Allah, His Heritage In Paganism, Bergson, Snorri G., Goddesses and Wicca Worship, 'Neo-paganism at its most deceptive form, Islam and Goddess Worship Chpt. IV, pg. 15, 1998-2000
Allah, His Heritage In Paganism, Langdon, Stephen H, The Mythology of All Races, Vol V, Archeological Institute of America, Boston, 1931, pg. 5-19
Narrated by ibn Abbas also by Tirmidhi: "The messenger of Allah concerning the stone said: 'Allah will bring it forth on the day of resurrection, and it will have two eyes with which it will see and a tongue with which it will speak, and it will testify in favor of those who touched it sincerity."
The Myth of Europa and Minos," by P. B. S. Andrews. Greece & Rome, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Apr., 1969), pp. 60-66
Euphorion, fr. (FHG III 72); Etymologicum Magnum 771, 56; cf. Etymologicum Gudianum, Sturz 537, 26 Gyges and Homer, by Livio C. Stecchin
The Hatstings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol I, pp. 326
Arthur Jeffrey, ed., Islam: Muhammad and His religion (1958), pp. 85.