Oliver's "context" is not shared by all Christians

Submitted by zzazzeefrazzee (United States), Mar 20, 2008 at 13:02

Did you even bother to look at the sources I cited? Probably not.

"Hypsistos is NOT A NAME for ANY GOD - is is a 'title' at best."

Did I claim that Hypsistos in and of itself was a name for God? No I did not. I referred very specifically to pre-Christian usage of Theos Hypsistos. So there's another example of a straw man fallacy from Oliver!

"I posit that 'Allah' was the NAME of a pre-Islamic pagan god. Mohammad either stole the NAME or the 'whole god' and applied it to his monotheistic god-concept."

You mean in the same manner to what Abraham or Moses may have done? See my previous reply to you with info from Britannica, which only scratches at the surface of ancient Hebraic religious practices, and the origins of YHWH, and the history of the usage.

"Theos is NOT A NAME for ANY GOD - it is a generic word that directs our attention towards the deity - when used out-of-context it tells us nothing - nothing at all."

So, by that argument, if the context is the overriding factor, then the use of "Allah" is used in the context of Christianity, by Arabic speaking Christians when the read the Arabic bible, should be perfectly acceptable. After all, the word "Allah" is a perfectly acceptable translation for "theos".

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".