I think you're reading a little too literally into the "Hubal the moon god" contention of certain evangelicals about Islam. No serious evangelical scholars, including Pat Robertson when pressed on the point, will claim that Muslims worship a pagan Arabian moon god. It is rhetorical bombast meant to underscore the serious belief of evangelicals that Islam, whatever its claims of origin, have several elements that are not just incompatible or heretical, but literally inimical and antithetical to worship of the god which Jews and Christians worship in separate, but compatible manners. (i.e. you will not find serious Jewish scholars who claim that Christians as a whole are not worshipping the same god, or vice versa. Each tends to consider the other to be worshipping the same God, but imperfectly or incorrectly. Not so with Islam, which Christians and Jews find no continuity with.)
The "moon god" dig refers to the historical fact that, whatever Muhammed's claims on the Kaaba, prior to his arrival, Christians and Jews alike considered the Kaaba shrine to be a pagan temple, thus prayers and devotion to this shrine (two of the five pillars of Islam) violates the first and most serious commandment for both Christians and Jews, against worship of a false idol or pagan god. More serious Christian and Jewish theologians and philosphers also consider the primary requirement of Islam, "submission to God", or Islam, to be the exact opposite of the Judeo and Christian commands to "love" god "with all your heart and soul," hence a form of idolotry.

Actually, the underlying theme is that "Moon God" == Satan. It isn't that they claim Jehovah and Allah are different sides of the same coin, they are saying that they are on different sides and therefore the enemy.

Of course, the Aztecs undeniably worshiped the Sun God, so take what you will from the division. Moon religions are generally more nefarious that sun religions, but geez, Aztecs, man.

Actually, the argument is quite specious from even a historical point of view. Both religions are descendant from Zoroastrianism - a dualistic religion - without the vagaries of warring dieties. Of course, neither could take the warrior out of their perception of God.

Pax,

MLO

To the Christian the God of the Bible is the God of the universe. All others are false and lead their worshippers into Hell. Allah is not the God of the Bible, he is therefor false and an agent of Hell.

This stance directly contradicts the Book of Jonah, in which God sends Jonah to preach against sin at the cities of Ninevah and Asshur after some bitching and moaning by Jonah. Jonah preaches, the citizens of Ninevah and Asshur repent, and God forgives them. The message here is clear, God is not only God of Israel, but God of Assyria as well. And by extension God of all the world. Access to the rest of the Book of Jonah (what we have now is a fragment of a much longer work) would be most instructive.

Christian and Jewish doctrine on this subject is exclusive. You cannot worship God unless you be a Christian or a Jew. In contrast with Bahai or Hindu doctrine, where all worship God no matter what name they call Him (or Her)

As to Zoraostrianism. Judaism was influenced by Zoraostrianism, borrowing tropes and bits of doctrine. Much as it borrowed tropes and doctrine from Babylonian religion earlier. Going back even earlier the proto-hebrews followed a tribal god of herds and the desert. A nomad's god. The god of temples and legalisms came later. He and his entourage of servants and bureaucrats and prosecuting attorneys.

Y'all are thinking far too deeply. Pat Robertson said what he said because he and all the rest of the hard-core fundamentalist Christian community simply won't accept any construct that declares God and Allah to be one and the same. Allah is the false god of those dirty brown people, while YHWH is the god of all right-thinking white people.

Was Pat Robertson ever in the Klan??

Oh connoisseurs of god, are there different flavors of god? Allah seems really bitter, but maybe Mo' was a loser. Christ seems a little more easy going but a loser in the end. Yahweh a little distant. Buddha god only knows. The Aztecs? Nice scam if you can get it.

I would expect the Moon God argument is so enticing because:

a)It is based on archaeological evidence which can be proved/disproved via scientific investigation, no just theological debate;

b)If proven true, it would underscore the argument that the whole religion is a sham/scam version of the earlier monotheisms for the purpose of consodilating power and authority, much as the pagan god-kings claimed authority as deity or monarchs claimed authority as representative of deity.

The argument that Judaism borrows ideas from Zoroastrianism or pagan religions can be turned around the other way: Judaism's precursor is the earliest religion, and other religions borrowed from it, corrupting the ideas in the process.

This would fit with:

a) The Old Testament narrative claim that worship of YHWH dates back all the way back from Moses to Noah the beginning of humankind, but various idolatries sprung up repeatedly over the course of history;

b) The level of exaggeration and mythification of pagan accounts as compared to Biblical accounts, which supports the notion that the Biblical account is the original or based directly on the original account. When myths are propagated, they become more complex and more embellished.

For example, comparing the Great Deluge accounts that are present in virtually every society: The Biblical account has Noah build an ark with specific measurements, a long and low design which is realistic and stable for a large ship. The flood comes, and he survives. After the flood, he makes an offering to God. But after that, he gets drunk and is seen naked, shaming himself - again, a relistic detail that does not fit in with a heroic myth.

The Sumerian account of the flood has the protagonist build a cubical boat, which while mathematically elegant, is highly unpractical in application. It would have turned over endlessly in the seas like an ice cube. After the flood, he makes offerings to the gods and is given immortality and becomes the first king of the Sumerian line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_%28mythology%29

There is also the realistic possibility that two separate cultures developed similar ideas independently, such as the different dragons or origin myths of each culture. This is a counter-argument to the notion that the existence of flood myths in all cultures must mean that a great flood must have happened in the pre-historical past.

(Which makes for a win-win situation: Either the great flood did happen as Noah's story claims it did, or Judaism did not necessarily borrow from other religions.)

It's really simple. If Allah is not the same God as Yaweh, then Allah did not send any of the prophets before Mohammed. Therefore Muslims can no longer call themselves legitimate descendants of the Abrahamic religious tradition.

As to the definitional issue, you are approaching it the wrong way. According to the Bible, we are not calling God, Yaweh, but rather God identifies Himself as Yaweh.

Strange that Robertson et al are bringing this up. It's about as compelling to argue that YHWH was originally a Canaanite storm god, or a bunch of gods, or whatever. Which is fine and all, except that the people who are devoting serious energy to these questions often have tremendous influence over what other people do.

I think the Moses naked thing is more than an unheroic detail. "Uncovering someone's nakedness" is supposedly Biblical euphemism-speak for sexually molesting someone. The resulting banishment of Ham works as a just-so story of why there are darkies and why it's okay to mistreat them.

Hold ur hats there, kiddies. First off, let's not get too cerebral about this. You get cerebral, you wander off into left field, admiring the pretty flowers and soon you start misses all those pop-flies coming your way. Keep your eye on the ball.

If I, a Christian, believe that God sent his only son to die on the cross and so that salvation only comes from Christ, and someone else denies what is a fundamental fact of my world (athiests vs God, Islam vs. Christ's divinity, or even Jews against Christ), then their belief directly challenges mine. And there is no middleground, no wiggle room; Christ is Lord or Allah is supreme.

You either have to abandon your belief in your God and 'reason' about the absolutely unknowable, or if you keep them--and I would not want to see Christian preachers becoming athiest or converting to Islam--you have to contest the other set of beliefs.

Robertson contests Islam's fundamental tenets just as Protestants contest(ed) Catholicism's fundamental tenets. It is an important discussion, it needs to happen, and though I do not think that Robertson is the best mind to handle that discussion, no one else is performing it.

We all have something to gain by having Muslims examine their faith, but it seems that the athiests, far from the most educated commentators, appear to be the most clueless. They are simply critics, do not understand the mind of believers nor their fundamental texts and so make pointless speculation as above. Let the boys fight.

And Moses/Mithra teaching marked the movement of the polar axis from Taurus to Capricorn. That is why Mithra killed the Bull and why Moses was disappointed that the Israelites had worshiped the Golden Calf in his absence. The Jews still sound the goat horn at sundown on Rosh hashana, in memory of when the new age demanded a new G-d.

The birth of Jesus marked the movement of the polar axis from Capricorn to Pices. The little fish logos on cars do have a meaning. A new age demands a new G-d.

In 150 years the axis will move from Pices to Aquarius. The Fifth Dimension would be so proud!

It would be easy for anyone to poke fun at Robertson... he is apparently clueless as to the effect of his speaking on the general populace.

Or does he care. I only care when he crosses over into political rhetoric which is clearly not his forte.

Tom {3:04} had it right. All other Gods are Satan's diversions. Here's the point: Jesus is to Christians the messenger of a new covenant between God and man. Jesus taught 2 major themes:

1. That He was the representative of God's love.

2. That the believer no longer had to ritualize his religious practice {follow 'LAW'} for Salvation, but rather adhere to the justice of that Law, hold it inviolate - however imperfectly- but Salvation was through Faith in Him.

The revelational aspects of the New Testament teach that God's Chosen will come to him but also that apostacy will prevail in the end times.

Now let's get to logic. Islam teaches that Jesus was not the Son of God or manifestation of God on Earth but was simply a major prophet.

Both facets cannot be true at the same time; Jesus was either the Son of God or he wasnt. If he wasnt, he was a liar and therefore a false prophet.

I dont think I need to explain it anymore than that.

Sorry, it WASNT Tom, it was Phelps who I refer to.

Heh. Now I do like this blog, but you switched my point to a non-debatable set of asshat conjectures. Before you changed my post, I said that Robertson is debating questions of his faith and that if he believes in God, holds literally true to the tenets of his faith, such as the Nicene creed--and I believe he is a protestant, so I do not know what he actually believes as far as the divinity of Jesus--then he cannot make concessions on that point.

If you believe in evolution, you cannot accept that God, oh, just said, "There you go, guys, this is an eye." That would be asinine. So Robertson, being unable to debate whether he believes that Christ is divine, the fundamental tenet of his life--I mean, the guy is a preacher for Christ's sake; might as well ask a biologist if he believes in evolution--he has to square his religion with a fundamentally different antagonist faith, at least as he sees it.

That is interfaith dialogue as true as must be had; I believe this and therefore you must be wrong. It is a fundamental theological point. To gloss over it is to dismiss theology, which when you discuss a theological debate, is also asinine. Pettyfog made much of the same point, as did others. Not trying to be snarky, but an atheist--and I am Roman Catholic, ie a nonpractising athiest--starts from the fundamental position that they are both wrong, therefore missing the point.