(July 9, 2012 at 4:04 pm)Rayaan Wrote: From which verse is that exactly?

It's probably there, but again, the "we" does not mean that it is referring to God only. There are several verses that say "we" created this and that "we" have preserved the Quran and similar things, but all of those verses are in reference to God along with the angels plus the unseen creatures, hence the plural "we."

It's off to hear a theist defend the use of "we" the way you are, saying "we" refers to the conglomerate of celestial beings and not solely God.
I hear the "we" is simply a grammatical error dealing with the adaptation, elucidation, and often times transliteraltion of the holy text, or that "we" was simply used as a plural to reflect the importance of the subject in question.
I have no real criticism to offer, just sharing my insight.

It is not a grammatical error, but rather a style of speech. For example, the landlord of a house can say something like "We demand X and Y" or that "We have created this and that," but it would be absurd to think that the landlord by saying "we" is only referring to himself. He is referring to other people along with himself and hence the use of "we." This is the same style of speech used in some verses of the Quran.

The following article provides a good answer to why there is "we" in the Quran:

http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/AllahWE.htm

Quote:Question. We already know Allah our lord is One. As in Surah al-Ikhlas 112:1-4. But why does Allah the Lord use the word “We” to refer to Himself in many verse or ayat in the Qur’an? For example He says in Surah al-Anbiya’ 21:107 “And We did not send you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the world.” The word “we” is plural, more than one. Why does Allah use “We” instead of “I” to refer to Himself? (Izani Mahayudin bin Abd Aziz, Malaysia)

Answer. The Qur’an says very clearly that there is only One God, Allah. “There is no god but Allah” is the basic principle of Islam. There is no ambiguity about this fact in the Qur’an and there are hundreds of ayat or verses of the Qur’an that make this point very clear. Belief in more than one God is Shirk (polytheism) and a major sin according to the Qur’an.

Whenever in the Qur’an Allah is mentioned in the third person there are always singular pronouns used, such as He, him (Huwa or Hu). Whenever Allah is spoken to in the second person there are also singular pronouns, such as Thou, Thine and Thee (Anta, Ka). However only in the first person some times the pronouns I, My or Mine (Ana, Iyaya, ya) are used and sometimes We, Us and Our (Nahnu, Na) are used.

This is a style of speech. Sometime the speaker says I and sometime says we. We also use that in our conversations. In the Qur’an you will see that often the first person singular such as I or My is used, when Allah speaks about His love, care and closeness and forgiveness for His servants. In a similar way the first person plural is often used when Allah speaks about His power, majesty, glory, great deeds or when He speaks about His anger and wrath for the sinners and criminals. (This is, of course, the general use. Sometime the reverse is also the case, depending on the context of the Surah.)

Quote:Christian writers in their desperate desire to prove their doctrine of Trinity have sometime interpreted some Biblical passages where first person plural is used to suggest that this means the “Divine Trinity”. For example in the Bible it is mentioned, “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image¦” (Genesis 1:26). Christian writers contend that this means that there is plurality in God (We seek Allah’s forgiveness for mentioning this blasphemy.) Sometime Christian missionaries also go to simple Muslims and try to confuse them by taking some verses from the Qur’an and tell them that the Qur’an also supports such doctrines. I tried to explain this point in some detail, because I have often heard this type of questions from some Christians.

(July 10, 2012 at 4:07 am)Rayaan Wrote: It is not a grammatical error, but rather a style of speech. For example, the landlord of a house can say something like "We demand X and Y" or that "We have created this and that," but it would be absurd to think that the landlord by saying "we" is only referring to himself. He is referring to other people along with himself and hence the use of "we." This is the same style of speech used in some verses of the Quran.

I don't care to debate you on the contents of your holy tome. I only meant to provide some insight is all. However, nothing I said contradicts what you have said- at least. not that I am aware of.
I am not concerned at all about the specifics of one holy text or another. I refuse to play into a game where my life would be wasted in an attempt to fully understand all religions to determine their truth. I would prefer the truth to reach me on its own, as truth oftentimes does.
What I wonder is, is there a shred of argumentation that isn't a dusty sleeve of past contention? Is there anything new that religion has going for it in the way of syllogistic proofs?

(July 9, 2012 at 4:04 pm)Rayaan Wrote: From which verse is that exactly?

It's probably there, but again, the "we" does not mean that it is referring to God only. There are several verses that say "we" created this and that "we" have preserved the Quran and similar things, but all of those verses are in reference to God along with the angels plus the unseen creatures, hence the plural "we."

It's in Suratal Anbiya when it takes about Ibrahim, Isaac, and Yaqoub being Imams/leaders whom guide by God's Command.

"us did they serve" can be a translation.

Anyways, I don't know why you don't see it as plural majesty. That it's just to emphasize on God's Grandeur.

(July 7, 2012 at 11:09 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If there was a question in the first place... *goes looking for one* : *finds none*

You're on ignore because you choose to insult rather than address points Raphael. If you wanted a conversation you singly went about it the wrong way. Now off you trot and play with your playmates.

Hey Ace - I notice you kudosed this twat! What's that about then??

Proof that frodo is even lying when he claims he puts you on ignore.

---

Quote: Belief in more than one God is Shirk (polytheism) and a major sin according to the Qur’an.

You seem to endorse this view, Raya. Am I mistaken in this?

Hey there buddy! :-) Sorry, I decided to give the laptop a rest last night and was reading the forums on my phone. Responding would have been almost impossible.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: No connection doesn't necessarily mean that there are going to be "car crashes"/logical contradictions.

Secondly, <snip> our metaphysical beliefs are partly dependent on our observations, at least.

I don't get point 1

Point 2. Sure our thinking has to find some footing, and all we have for that are things drawn from our own experiences. That is never to say though, that metaphysics and materialism/ empiricism collide. Just one may be used to describe the other, because with metaphysics, that's all we can have, besides our logic.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: What I need to persue is why you don't have that car crash. But justification from you is up to you.

Sure, I'll explain it right now.

To put it simply, I don't feel that I have these car crashes of logic in my personal beliefs because my sensory perceptions + my knowledge of the physical world are not necessarily contradictory with my metaphysical thoughts. So, in other words, what I know and what I perceive in the world around me does not negate my faith nor my metaphysical views. I don't see why it should unless if you can explain to me why.

Well let me try to explain why then... IMO supporters of ID to attribute complexity in nature to a deity, stating that this couldn't be natural processes alone. Now I think you're on track with me here, but just to check... I think nature alone explains nature, and the metaphysical question never encroaches upon the scientific mechanisms that we can discover. This is no god of the gaps. This is NOMA. I have heard Muslims quote the Quran like it's made scientific statements which are empirically sound which therefore support Islam over the Christian Bible which makes no such statements. I think you're in some middle ground here, with a foot in both camps. Which you cannot have, to be logically correct on metaphysics.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't need to reitterate my points for disagreement with Islam as a whole, as I don't think it's helpful.

Well, it might be a little helpful for the other members reading this thread because they are probably curious to know exactly why you disagree with Islam. But no pressure.

Ok fine.

You mention that Allah can destroy. From what I've studied of Islam, Allah has the ability to do evil. It isn't worded exactly like that, but that's the general point. This contradicts the logical steps back to a creator god who is necessarily a positive force. A force capable of both good and bad cannot be the originator. It must originate from one or the other. A negative force destroys itself. Only a positive force can create. ....goes the line of reasoning.

I would therefore classify Allah as a lesser god. One necessarily beneath the Christian God in the logical food chain of metaphysical origins. (due to his bipolar nature, as described by Islam).

That's my main contention. I have other contentions but I couldn't provide you with fair evidence to counter, not being a scholar or the subject. I do find some of the main criticisms of Christianity amusing in their naivety. I have addressed them point for point before. If only I was a search ninja like yourself I'd dig them up for you ;-). No matter though. I think the main point is big enough to be enough here.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It leads back to the Christian description of God. It's how and why Christianity came about - to describe meaning and purpose, as it is the reason for most religious endeavour. I believe that the Christian model answers that perfectly, where other endeavours do not.

But I could say the same thing about Islam (i.e that it came about to describe our meaning and purpose).

Yes. See that I said "most religious endeavour". That would include Islam ;-)

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: So, you should have more than just "meaning and purpose" as an argument for Christianity because the same argument can be made for any other religion.

Meaning and purpose as the raison detre of all religious endeavour I said. Nothing about justification for only christianity.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: And you should also be able to explain to me why you think that the Christian model of God is only model that answers everything perfectly which you still haven't done yet.

See my answer above. Also, this is way to big a question, and one I'm not qualified to answer. I could try and put it all together for you, but it would fail scrutiny because I am no expert. See any studies on the summa theologica by Thomas of Aquinas. I'm sure someone like Ryft could be far more exacting for you if you require sources.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Straight away (I think) you and I would dismiss those endeavours that have god as a destructive force. So it goes on and we find what makes sense for us.

Well, I believe that God is both a creative force and a destructive force. Maybe not so according to your belief, though.

Yes. That I find pivotal, and as referenced above.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm not sure I'm with your definition of metaphysical. Do you take it to mean a kind of macro physics? that's the impression that I get. Forgive me if that is incorrect.

To me, anything metaphysical is something that refers to the nature of reality. And it may or may not include physics, but that's not necessary.

Nature of reality how?

To me, religious endeavour encompasses the why questions, as opposed to the how questions, that is definitely doesn't answer. Would you agree?

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Well that's a particular problem that Muslims have with Xtianity isn't it.

Yeah, certainly one of the problems.

And do you agree that those are legitimate problems?

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: I didn't say that God shouldn't be 3 things at once, but my question was, what do you base that on and/or how did you "logically" deduce that as the only possible answer?

And why does it have to be that specific number "three" and not any other number?

The summation is based upon the understanding of many texts in which the actions of God can be subdivided into 3 distinct attributes. This is so clear as to make it possible to name 3 distinct persons.

(I'm incredulous at the seemingly common misconception that Muslims have that the xtian Godhead comprises the father, the son and the mother. this apparently came about from travellers that Mohammed met who passed on this faulty understanding on to him.)

The Spirit is the creator, that moved upon the waters and that moves amongst us as a living force. The son is the redeemer, the father the loving giver. I think Islamic scholars have helped in defining these attributes. I'm pretty sure they identified the spirit as a female person, from the exact texts and their approach to interpreting the language.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Islam encompasses the book of Genesis IIRC. Where God says "we created this": clearly plural.

1. Maybe it does encompass the book of Genesis because, as Muslims, we believe in something known as 'progressive revelation' by which God revealed the Old Testament to the Jews, then the New Testament to the Christians, and lastly, the "Final Testament" (the Quran) to the Muslims, but the message is still for everyone. In that sense, according to Islamic belief, there is a divine continuity in religious belief between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Yeah I know the Sikhs believe the same thing. Kinda destroys the whole meaning of Christianity. Which is why he needed to be demoted to prophet. You can't then also accept the NT as in the Xtian bible?

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: 3. In the Quran, when God says something like "We created so and so," the "we" refers to God along with his angels, but God himself is never mentioned as a plural.

I'm pretty sure that there's a clear distinction that angels and God are completely separate entities. "We" comes at the beginning of all creation stories before and the creation of angels (God didn't create his persona, they were originally existent). (Wasn't the angel that dictated the text to Mohammed supposed to be the arch angel Gabriel?)

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Now is God not plural, and Genesis wrong? Or is God one and many at the same time, as Christians assert?

I believe that God is only One. It is only Christians who assert that God is one and many at the same time.

Right so that pretty much establishes that the Quran has to be saying that Genesis is incorrect.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I tried several times

Well then maybe you have some reading comprehension issues if you still didn't understand any of that. And the summary is only a few paragraphs.

Ok wise guy

Not so much reading comprehension. I think you may have stumbled upon a gold mine here. I read it and I find my eyelids getting very heavy. It's an instant cure for insomnia!!

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Joking aside, I have no problem with the comparison. No objection to it.

I thought you would notice some "car crashes" there, but okay.

What? With The Matrix? Blasphemy! Stone him!!!

The Matrix is one huge car crash, yes. But then we aren't considering the real world there, just metaphors for it. It doesn't compute if you add in the real world, which is why serious religious endeavour, even yours () trumps it.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't see any unique ideas about faith and religion there, unless you could kindly point some out for me.

Then I will point out some of them by quoting just the summary from there, which is only 6 paragraphs, and I will even highlight some of the key points:

*fr0d0 falls asleep*

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Well, the whole post was mostly on how and why I think that the universe is some kind of an elaborate computer and how this seems to match with some of the Islamic beliefs. I explained that the stars, galaxies, planets, Earth, life, human beings, animals, plants, and everything in the universe are part of a massive computation and that these things are also able to store and process information. In that sense, the universe behaves like a giant computer, and I think that it really is a computer, so this is not just a metaphor. And that being said, I'm not saying that such a view of reality is necessarily true. It's just a metaphysical theory that makes sense to me.

*fr0d0 hacks away at his eyelids with a machete*

Man you should put a warning on that stuff! People could be like, flying an aeroplane or something and fall asleep at the controls!!

So the universe is a running computer program, and everything in it has access to a big hard drive on which it stores and makes decisions using.

Would that be correct?

Did you make a point there? I couldn't find it, sorry.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Then, I started talking about my idea of how a master program which is running the cosmological computer might be a program that is "conscious" and "alive." It sounds pretty crazy, in my opinion, but I think it's still possible for a program to be conscious and have a mind of its own after reading the articles that I posted. So, the point is that the program can be thought of as an intelligent being that is controlling the entire universe. Of course, I don't know whether or not this is the correct understanding of God. I just think that all the complex and organized physical systems that exist in this planet are a result of some kind of a higher intelligence, not a result of blind and accidental causes. Most of the universe is probably cold, empty, and lifeless, but even then I still find it beautiful.

*sanity break*

So God is the O/S. Hey man I could way precis this story better than you

Wait... you linked complex systems with deity. Now if, like you and I, you believe in a creator. Are we leaving this act of creation out of our grasp or are we claiming something empirically testable? (I'm just trying to eek out if we have a difference of opinion on this)

You see I think that creation eminates physically from a singularity. Pre-existing that existence is God adding the potentiality. God then takes up his position as pilot and manages it.

(Boy, you and I are KOOKS! *waves at you, atheist *)

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: This master program, or God, has chosen certain people in the past as his communication channels [or prophets] to transmit his messages instead of speaking to everyone. This is like a sender-signal-channel-receiver model of God's word and this is something that correlates with the computational theory of the universe. Also, as you may already know, there are many similarities between the scriptures of the monotheistic religions, but there are also many differences between them. I think that the differences exist because the older ones were updated and/or modified by the later ones. I believe that the Quran is His last set of revelations and that the previous scriptures were over-written by the last one. And I think that this is something that is similar to the concept of data erasure through an overwriting process in a computer. The only difference is that this was happening the real world (which itself is another computer).

Now that was quality necrophilia inducing medicine right there. Bottle it NOW!

I have also said on these forums that I think it's a progression. I, of course, think the end point so far is Christianity. Because Islam, steps back to what is essentially Judaism: God without the means to connect to him (Jesus).
We have the sum of all endeavour: God separate and man with no means to achieve life fully. And then xtianity where Jesus makes the bridge. Islam hasn't bettered that. It's removed it.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: The rules and guidelines contained in the Quran are like the rules in a "game." The book tells us that there will be winners and there will be losers. And there's going to be only one chance to play. Winners go to Heaven and losers go to Hell. The game might be taking place in a simulated reality in which we are the players.

So is this a hope of something in the future or is it attainable now? See I think only what's attainable now is relevant to anybody.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: I also talked about a possible mechanism for resurrection. According to the Quran, we believe that a trumpet will blow and it will cause everyone to be resurrected. In this post, I hypothesized that the trumpet might be black hole because black holes are also known to create sound waves. Also, black holes may be extremely powerful quantum computers that exist in space, as explained in the links that I posted, and by performing a computation, I read that it is possible for them to recreate a human or an object that fell into the singularity. I think that this could be a similar physical process that allows resurrection. And resurrection might be a type of reversible computation that reconstructs our bodies.

I'm reading this a paragraph at a time and it still seems to go on for ever! Do you have Muslim super powers dude?!?

At this point I believe you started to hallucinate! Now here you're definitely trying to shoehorn the physical into the metaphysical. Car Crashes happening!!!

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Essentially, my point is

Oh wow it must be near the end peeps!

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: that all these things are related to each other and I think that's why they further support the idea of the universe being a computer (or a type of simulation perhaps), and following from there, I think that the fact that these connections exist even though the people during those times didn't think of the universe as a giant computer (or maybe they believed that but only at a subconscious level if so) makes it more likely that these religious beliefs are a disclosure of the computer-like nature of the universe rather than being just a coincidence (although that is still possible).

*removes pins from eyes*

Well yeah I kinda see your point. Would be better minus the scientific explanations but . S'all good I think.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: That's what I think exactly. God is not an existant being in that sense. He is what we refer to him as,

Not necessarily, and I think that no one can truly understand the exact nature of God.

I think we come from the same song book there. I guess there may be some interesting variances too.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Given a creator god, god is everything. From a vaccuum to the most solid of objects, it's all god. God is not separate.

God is everything? So are you some kind of a pantheist Christian or what?

You don't see how god being creator must also be in everything? How if everything came from him everything has him in it? (I'm not saying that is all of God.)

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Frankly, I think that you seriously contradicted yourself when you say that "God is everything" and that "God is not separate." It makes you sound like you're a pantheist. Why is it contradictory? Because all this time you were asserting that Jesus himself is God and a man at the same time and that God is a person (and you've said this in other threads as well) - but now you're saying that God is everything - even from a vacuum to the most solid of objects. If that's what you really believe, then it seems like you are mixing God (metaphysical) with all the material/empirical stuff as well, aren't you?

At some point, if you believe, as I do, that god = creator, then you have to make a link with material and non material. There has to be some function of god that crosses the gap. What's logical, is that god cannot be proven empirically. This is not the same as conflating the physical world with the metaphysical. We still keep the two strictly separate. That's a weakness in your theological thinking, and not a weakness in the case for God, if I may humbly suggest.

(July 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 8:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Now I assume that you will have no problem with that. I have a feeling that we both think the same thing on this.

See my comments above. I do have a problem with that.

Yeah I'm surprised. Interesting though.

Quote:From what I've studied of Islam, Allah has the ability to do evil. It isn't worded exactly like that, but that's the general point. This contradicts the logical steps back to a creator god who is necessarily a positive force. A force capable of both good and bad cannot be the originator. It must originate from one or the other. A negative force destroys itself. Only a positive force can create. ....goes the line of reasoning.

Evil like flooding the world and killing children, burning the to death, ordering every man, woman and child of whole cities to be destroyed, Yeah, that is "impossible for a creator gawd that is a positive force". Which rules out YOUR gawd, too.

(July 10, 2012 at 5:28 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: Evil like flooding the world and killing children, burning the to death, ordering every man, woman and child of whole cities to be destroyed, Yeah, that is "impossible for a creator gawd that is a positive force". Which rules out YOUR gawd, too.

Yes, but you have to remember that every single morally repugnant action taken by Yahweh was simply allegorical ... goes the line of reasoning.

Killing =/= evil. Murder = evil. What we know about God is that he is a just God. Justice would not be justice without punishment.

(July 10, 2012 at 5:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well let me try to explain why then... IMO supporters of ID to attribute complexity in nature to a deity, stating that this couldn't be natural processes alone. Now I think you're on track with me here, but just to check... I think nature alone explains nature, and the metaphysical question never encroaches upon the scientific mechanisms that we can discover. This is no god of the gaps. This is NOMA. I have heard Muslims quote the Quran like it's made scientific statements which are empirically sound which therefore support Islam over the Christian Bible which makes no such statements. I think you're in some middle ground here, with a foot in both camps. Which you cannot have, to be logically correct on metaphysics.

Well, yeah, I think that I'm somewhere in the middle ground. I also understand what your opinion is on this. You like to keep the physical world and the metaphysical strictly separate, while I tend to merge them together since I do not think that they are incompatible nor contradictory. You probably disagree with such a view and I can understand your position and I respect that as well, nonetheless. You don't see any connections between the two. I don't know why, but maybe the reason is because my brain finds more connections than yours. Oh well.

I will condense this post to the more important parts in your post and leave out the rest for now because those points are mostly talking about the physical/metaphysical issue that we were discussing and we've gone over that a couple of times already. And that way it would be easier for us to continue the discussion. You presented your point of view on this matter and I presented mine. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly, though.

I will keep your other comments in the back of my mind and I may use them for reference in our future discussions. Thank you for your post.

But, for now, I will respond to the following.

(July 10, 2012 at 5:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You mention that Allah can destroy. From what I've studied of Islam, Allah has the ability to do evil. It isn't worded exactly like that, but that's the general point. This contradicts the logical steps back to a creator god who is necessarily a positive force. A force capable of both good and bad cannot be the originator. It must originate from one or the other. A negative force destroys itself. Only a positive force can create. ....goes the line of reasoning.

I will break up my rebuttal to that into six parts below:

1. Firstly, in what sense are you using the word "evil'? Are you talking about evil in the moral sense or evil as in things like natural disasters/diseases/calamities?

2. Of course I believe that Allah can destroy, but that doesn't mean that Allah himself is evil. The Christian god also destroys, but does that necessarily make Him evil?

3. In this post (sorry, you got search ninja'd again), you admitted that God indirectly created evil. So, whether directly or indirectly, He did create evil - Satan and Hell, for example.

4. The following are verses from the Bible that support that God is the source of both good and evil and that he also destroys according to his will:

Bible Wrote:

---

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Genesis 6:17
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Genesis 7:23
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

---

5. Coming back to Islam, I would like to know exactly what parts of your so remarkable study of Islam led you to conclude that Allah does evil while your God only does good. This is not to say that I think that the Christian God is evil either because I consider Him to be the same God as Allah minus all the Trinity stuff that were probably added later on by certain authors (as supported by Bart Ehrman's extensive research of the Bible). Furthermore, I believe that all the Abrahamic religions trace back to the same origin and the same God.

6. In relation to the above, I'm also curious to know what is it exactly about Allah and/or which of His attributes that you find contradictory. I have provided a link below to Allah's 99 attributes as mentioned in the Quran and then you look at them tell me which of them you find to be inconsistent and/or contradictory.

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/99names.htm

(July 10, 2012 at 5:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I would therefore classify Allah as a lesser god. One necessarily beneath the Christian God in the logical food chain of metaphysical origins. (due to his bipolar nature, as described by Islam).

Allah does have bipolar attributes, but those are not his his primary nature or his primary attribute. His 99 attributes are secondary attributes. But we cannot comprehend his primary attribute as the Quran says, "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things" (6:103).

Secondly, someone having bipolar qualities does not have to mean that those qualities contradict each other. For example, sometimes I can get angry and/or punish someone depending on the situation, and at other times, I can also be loving and merciful. However, these bipolar qualities that I and everyone else possess within ourselves does not mean that they are contradictory nor does it mean that we are inherently evil. This is how I think of Allah's attributes as well.

Speaking of bipolar, you believe that God is one and many at the same time as said in your post above and, obviously, you don't see anything wrong with that one, eh?