There is more than one way to heaven.

[theVOID]

Ok, so give us a demonstration. Which is more Valid, YHWH or Allah?

"Allah cannot be the God of the Bible is evident in the Quran and in other Muslim religious writings. Islam is simply a Seventh Century pagan Arabian religion that adopted an existing tribal moon god as the one true god and was forced on the Arab people by a self-proclaimed prophet. Its spread has not relied on the force of its arguments or proof of its truth. Rather, its expansion depended on military force and subjugation. The Jihad sanctifies murder and warlike violence. Muhammad himself led 27 Jihads.

Jesus Christ preached a gospel of peace and reconciliation and rejected the use of armed force.

Muhammad and Allah have nothing to do with Christianity or the one true God of the Bible."

Ultimately Allah is vastly inferior logically.

The God of the OT (YHWH) was a moon god. The original name was "Sin" or Nanna Sin. Mt. Sinai, where god hangs out at times, was named after him. He was a murdering bastard commanding Jews to take the lands of the Caananites and to slaughter them...sound like anything we know?

Could you quote your references please.

I will say that the Quran states { And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun, nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allâh Who created them, if you (really) worship Him }; [41:37] so I wouldn't say they're moon worshippers. I would also like to point out that I believe allah derives from al+ illah ("the God"). word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabic chronicles suggest a pre-Islamic recognition of Allah as a supreme God, with the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as his "daughters." The Prophet Muhammad, declaring Allah the God of Abraham, demanded a return to a strict monotheism. Islam supplements Allah as the name of God with the 99 most beautiful names (asma Allah al-husna), understood as nondescriptive mnemonic guides to the Divine attributes. (Source)

I am in no way a scholar on this subject but this guy seems to have good references http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...entity.htm

Today they are no longer moon worshippers, of course. Their god or gods were derived from a moon god. YHWH is another name for Yareah, the Canaanite moon god. The moon god was the only major god not mentioned in the Bible, the reason being he was YHWH. The Jews' calendar was lunar based, which should give you a clue to as the nature of their god. The god of Abraham from Ur and Haran would have been a moon god as that was the chief diety in both those cities. (Plug warning!) I detail this in my latest book, "On Earth as it is in Heaven." I demonstrate that Bible stories are nothing more than cosmic myths similar to other ancient cosmic myths. The Hebrews took gods and made them into patriarchs, just as the Catholic church took gods and made them into saints. The difference is that the church realized what they did and "un-made" the saints. Bible believers just aren't as smart.

I think most people understand the "Church" has done a lot of things to indoctrinate people by assimilating their beliefs into their own. I don't dispute the a lot of the Bible stories are more parrable or creative imagery for good reading then fact. I think our understanding of what God is grows with time as does the understanding of our universe. The best way to tell a good story is to "salt and pepper" the truth my dad used to say. I'll give a simpler example since I am no scholar. I tell my son a story (At the time the people were much more detailed in their oral traditions than I am now) about a bear that attacked me on a camping trip. I even have the ripped tent to prove it. He tells his son, which tells his son, ad infinitum. 2000 years later the tents been trashed and the bear is now a giant purple bunny. Does that not mean the bear that attacked me never existed? Tangible evidence crumbles to dust given enough time and knowledge is lost. That leaves nothing but belief, so what better to rely on (rhetorical)? And that's just an opinion that bible believers aren't smart.. come on no need for personal attacks (especially after that commercial plug).

The two claims are entirely different, for example bears are known to be real, so are campers, tents, camping trips and bears attacking people on camping trips - they are a part of the natural world and are testable - you could get attacked by a bear on a camping trip yourself if you so fancied, but even after all this nobody could say for certain that one specific bear attack took place - but considering the nature of the story and the fact that is is entirely grounded in observable reality, you could reasonably believe that the story is true.

Christianity is different, because virgin births and resurrection from the dead violate observable reality, we have no documented cases of these things ever happening nor does anything in our body of knowledge exist to suggest that they could happen at all, so while you could reasonably believe the historical existence of Jesus on the basis the fact that Men exist, some are called Jesus and many lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, claiming that not only did he live, but he was capable of things that have never been observed or even suggested by inference to be possible based on the same kind of evidence used to conclude a bear attack likely happened is simply absurd.