Philotic Web

From a theoretical point of view, the point of view of the adversaries (not necesarily enemies) of a certain "thing" (not necesarily a religion or an ideology) is usually more convenient to learn than the point of view of the adherents.

I'd always prefer listening to a conservative than a liberal when it's about what liberalism is and how it works. Whenever i want an oppinion on a movie, i go to rotten tomatoes and check first what the people who hated it say.

OK, I get all that. did nobody watch that movie that I posted? I think he does a pretty good job of explaining things.

You keep saying that to interpret literally is to make God a liar. I think that to interpret it any way other than literally makes Him an even worse liar.

ill post later

Also, Luet, I like the Camus quote and I was wondering what work it's from???

Thanks. I couldn't find what work it's from, if it is from a specific work. I found it on a list of his quotes.

Ok, i'm back.

God forbids us to deceive; it is one of the Ten commandments. To deceive is to say one thing, but mean another (without distinguishing the two). Therefore, God would be lying to us if we try to think that God meant something other than what he says in Genesis.

God forbids us to murder; it is one of the Ten commandments. To murder is to kill one thing, but let live another (distinguishing the two). Therefore, God would be lying to us if we try to think that God killed someone(s) other than whom he says in Genesis.

Or maybe since the Ten Commandments are after Genesis, God could deceive until he commanded us otherwise.

"...But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

"But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes."

Not that I'm any kind of position to judge, but you get the idea.

Therefore, God would be lying to us if we try to think that God meant something other than what he says in Genesis.

If the story of the Good Samaritan never historically happened, was Jesus' use of it a lie?

There is also my earlier post. If it's too much effort to look at how the days match up:

no.1 is light and dark; no.4 is sun, moon, and stars
no.2 is water and sky; no.5 is fish and birds, and
no.3 is water and dry land; no.6 is plants and animals.

This is undeniably poetic. Even if God created the world according to the literal understanding of Genesis, you cannot deny that there is a distinctly poetic pattern to it.

Not only poetic, but also created in the order of necessity.

Day 6: Animals were vegetarian needing plants as food but also water
Day 6: Plants need Warmth, Air and Moisture but perhaps not all 3 immediately

Day 5: Birds (put simply) cant fly without the sky (day 2) to fly in, and when it comes time to nest and procreate, they have the tress that were created on Day 3.
Day 5: Fish swim in bodies of water, created on Day 3

Day 4: Sun, Moon and Stars are created prior to animals and Trees in order to have the seasons (and tidal movements) in place before they arrive.

Day 3: Water and Dry land are created to form habitats and land masses for Animals and vegetation (and later, people)

Day 2: The separation of 'water from water' would seem to be the creation of an atmosphere, which we can agree, is very necessary. The sky is formed. (it should be noted that until after the flood, it would seem that clouds were not the original method of precipitation, but rather a mist rising from the ground, although whether that is simply 'dew' I can't be sure)

Day 1: The creation of Light and Dark to then be able to mark a day in time.

...Of course, I also believe that the seventh day, being the day God 'rested from his work so that itself could produce', God (by inaction) created a standard for us to have a 7 day week and a day off from work and to remember to rest in Him, or in his work, if you will.

That is why when I think of these first lines of the Bible, I see purpose, I see the expression of creativity and I look at the natural things in the world and see design without prototypes, without trial and error.

I see that I don't NEED to understand the science of it (although that pursuit CAN lead to God), because I understand that I am provided for.

Upthrust. Rocks that were once under water are now above water because of tectonic activity. It's pretty simple, really.

...I now have cartoon images in my head of Everest shouting over to Vesuvius saying "Go on, on me head son!" and then saying "Ooh, Halibut, smashing, I'll save that for later."

I know that's not what people mean, but I found it funny.

Day 2: The separation of 'water from water' would seem to be the creation of an atmosphere, which we can agree, is very necessary. The sky is formed. (it should be noted that until after the flood, it would seem that clouds were not the original method of precipitation, but rather a mist rising from the ground, although whether that is simply 'dew' I can't be sure)

This is where an understanding of Ancient Culture is important. The terms used in Day Two of Creation are in reference to the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) understanding of a literal 'beam' that covered the earth. Outside of the earth was understood as being the Waters of Chaos. The firmament/Expanse was understood as being placed there to create a boundary from the organized creation from the waters of Chaos.

Rain was believed to come from openings in the firmament, which are described in the scriptures as the 'windows of heaven'. Water 'from the deep' was also water from the Chaotic waters that rose up from beneath the surface of the earth. In the flood narrative, Chaos was literally allowed to reclaim the creation, from below, and from above.

One's understanding of Job, the Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul's writings in his letters, etc .will increase when you can visualize what they visualized, and expressed according to their language.

Therefore, God would be lying to us if we try to think that God meant something other than what he says in Genesis.

If the story of the Good Samaritan never historically happened, was Jesus' use of it a lie?

absolutely not because He tells us it is a parable. on the other hand, He does not tell us that Genesis is an abstract poem.

For that matter, what would be the bloody point of Genesis if all it was was a pretty little poem and not true at all?

Therefore, God would be lying to us if we try to think that God meant something other than what he says in Genesis.

If the story of the Good Samaritan never historically happened, was Jesus' use of it a lie?

absolutely not because He tells us it is a parable.

Please cite where Jesus points out that the account of the Good Samaritan is a parable.

on the other hand, He does not tell us that Genesis is an abstract poem.

For that matter, what would be the bloody point of Genesis if all it was was a pretty little poem and not true at all?

Who said it's just 'abstract' and 'not true at all'? I for one think there is some very important instruction to be taken from the creation account concerning the nature of our relationship to God, as well as the specific keys it has to understanding the Temple.

I think it's far more profound with this understanding than looking at it as merely a long way of saying "God made everything."

The Hebrew Scriptures are quite complex (in the good way). Goodness, the Book of Isaiah was written intentionally in such a way that it can be read several different ways - words were chosen that specifically sounded like other words that would give a second, duel image/message (something completely lost in translation).

There's so much beauty and symbolism that is lost when a single way of reading scripture is insisted upon. In many cases, the subtext is the most important message.

Matthew 13:10-14, "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive."

on the other hand, He does not tell us that Genesis is an abstract poem.

For that matter, what would be the bloody point of Genesis if all it was was a pretty little poem and not true at all?

Who said it's just 'abstract' and 'not true at all'? I for one think there is some very important instruction to be taken from the creation account concerning the nature of our relationship to God, as well as the specific keys it has to understanding the Temple.

... um, all of you? The Bible says the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days. You say that this is just poetry and not true at all; that God meant something completely different than what he said.

I would argue that there is a lot of truth to be found in poetry. In fact, sometimes truth is more apparent and concisely given in poetry than in straight up prose. Also, there is a fair bit of poetry in the Bible, such as the Psalms and the Song of Songs.

Also, and I may be wrong on this, but I seem to recall that Isaiah, or portions of it, is poetry.

... um, all of you? The Bible says the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days. You say that this is just poetry and not true at all; that God meant something completely different than what he said.

First: The Bible is a compilation, and doesn't say anything. The writer of Genesis as we have it, however, chooses to begin the book dealing with Israel's Origins in this manner. It doesn't feature God giving an account of those things, or present itself as a revelation. It is included at the beginning of an anonymously compiled History segment ranging from Genesis - 2 Kings. (In fact, there are two separate Creation accounts - Genesis 1 and 2 were initially separate documents, that record differing versions of the creation. A Problem if we're looking for either to be literal accounts of how the physical earth got here).

Second, as has been said, I never said I believe it was just poetry, or that it was abstract. As has been said, a huge portion of the Hebrew Scriptures uses poetic structure and symbolic imagery to teach powerfully. Psalms is almost completely symbolic imagery. Job is filled with it, as are the books of the Prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc). Very rarely do they stop and say, "Okay, pay attention: I'm about to get symbolic. You don't need to take this next part literally." - to understand biblical prophecy and literature, you need to recognize a few things:
a) what genre of literature is this document? Is it a Nationalistic History? Poetry? Lament? Testimonial Narrative? Apocalypse?, etc, etc.
b) what does the document and writer say about themselves, if anything? Do we know the background of the author? (Ezekiel is a priest, for example, so it is not unreasonable to look for Temple imagery in his apocalyptic visions?)
c) For what purpose was the document created? What was its intent?
d) Was the document re-edited? If so, who re-edited it, when, and for what purpose?

Most importantly: How would those who lived at the time the document was created understood it? (This we can determine by comparing with other documents of similar genres from the same time period and general geographical area).

The biggest mistake made in scriptural interpretation is applying 20th/21st century mindsets and eyes and logic to the minds of writers separated by thousands of years, and thousands of miles.

The only scripture one could reasonably apply modern english-language thinking in interpretation to is scripture written in more modern times in english. And I'm not familiar with a significant number of other traditions that accept such things.

Listen, as I hope El and JL can attest to, I have no problems at all with differing opinions or points of view. They can also attest to you that I've had core understandings and points of view change in my own life. I like that. I don't view that as a weakness. I like that I can learn, and adapt based on new knowledge.

What I do tend to have problems with is arrogant ignorance. IE, the claim that because someone disagrees with you, they must have no idea what they're talking about, and must not have read your argument, or else they would have Seen The Light - even when it has been shown that the person has done all those things, and has thoughtfully responded, in detail, to those concerns.

I guess it all comes down to: I take it literally, you don't.

I would love to know how you all believe in Evolution, given that NO valid fossil links exist when there should be millions upon millions of them.

I would love to know how you all believe in Evolution, given that NO valid fossil links exist when there should be millions upon millions of them.

*sigh*

So many incorrect statements in a single sentence...

I'm just going to bed.

Biblical inerrancy is the position that the Bible is accurate and totally fre from error, meaning evidence for evolution is shrugged off because the Bible says that we were created. Time to take a stab at it.

Evolution does not coincide with the formation of man-apes. To understand evolution, you need to understand the concept of fitness, so lets bring the concept of fitness in. Lets also say it's in the same species. An organism with a higher fitness is more likely to survive than an organism with a lower fitness level. This results in the genetic split of organisms, but they don't form man-ape like hybrids now. It's a very slow shift, a man and an ape can't form a half-ape-half-human organism due to the fact that evolution is very slow. And the concept of fitness causes this split... let me diagram it in a simple case.

Absolute Fitness

1.8__X____X__
1.6__X____X__
1.4__X____X__
1.2__X____X__
1.0__X____X__
0.8__X____X__
0.6__X____X__
0.4_XXX__XXX_
0.2XXXXXXXXXX
ABCDEFGHIJ

Absolute fitness is defined as the number of individuals with a genotype after selection divided by the number of individuals with a genotype before selection. Lets start with a control group with equal propagation of each genotype.

A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
G-1
H-1
I-1
J-1

After the first generation, the relative integer ratios change to this:

A-1
B-2
C-9
D-2
E-1
F-1
G-2
H-9
I-2
J-1

After the second generation.

A-1
B-4
C-81
D-4
E-1
F-1
G-4
H-81
I-4
J-1

I'm using integer coefficients, but you can get an average propagation of a genotype by doing (absolute fitness)^(number of generations), presuming all genotypes are equal.

Now, using mathematics, lets calculate limits at infinity.

A-0
B-0
C-positive infinity
D-0
E-0
F-0
G-0
H-positive infinity
I-0
J-0

This shows genetic drift. And if the organisms with genotype C and genotype H are merged together, the mating preferences will be those with the same genotype.

I think I can explain microevolution very well, changes below the species level.

Lets look at human chromosomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes. One chromosomes carries around 400 to 3340 genes. This is around 48 million to 250 million base pairs (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine). If one mutation occurs, the whole structure changes.

There are 23,000 genes in the human genome, and six billion base pairs, all in the nucleus of a cell. How many cells does an average human have? 100 trillion cells. This means 600 quintillion base pairs in a human at any given time. And then the fact that human cells are always being replaced throughout mitosis, cells divide in hours, there are things that go wrong through mitosis. Most people would see this when people get cancer. Harmful mutations will be pushed to the side and erased by natural selection.

Another example of mutation is in the human CCR5 gene. Homozygotes are immune to HIV infection, and heterozygotes have a delay in HIV infection. This is an example of a beneficial mutation, and that will be propagated through natural selection.

Can anyone recall the claim that "All humans are different?" It's clear through microevolutionary principles and the human genome.

I'll admit it, the Bible was a true book. However, there is no logical principle following this.

For some x, p(x).
For some x, q(x).
Therefore, for some x, p(x) and q(x).

Lets try something out, through proof by contradiction.

The Bible is error-free.
The Bible says pi equals 3.
In 1 AD, the best approximation of pi was 223/71 < pi < 22/7, which was computed in 250 BC by Archimedes.
Therefore, because 3 is outside the range of 223/71 to 22/7, the Bible is not error free.

I don't believe God uses men like fax machines for transmission of his will and word. I believe the Lord inspires people with knowledge, and experiences, then allows them to use their own understanding and language to transmit what they have learned. Depending on who they are, and what their life experiences are, and who their audience is, they will explain it differently, and with varying degrees of exactness.

I don't look to the scriptures to be word-for-word transcripts of the words of God. I look to them as the inspired attempts of God's servants to communicate His will as revealed to them.

While I believe God's word is perfect, I love that His servants aren't, and that they record they have left us is a testimony to the great things that can be accomplished through imperfect men, who even though they had unique and transcendent experiences with Deity, still didn't understand everything there was to know about the world, or even fully understand all the ramifications of the revelation they did receive.

My belief that the scriptures aren't perfect does not lower my respect for them, or for the power of God. In fact, it's just another example of God coming down to our level, to communicate with his children according to their own language, according to their own degree of understanding, line upon line, precept upon precept. I think it's fascinating.

i say evolution all the way. i was raised catholic and forced to go to church, but i dont go for that s***. because if that adam and eve crap were true, it means were all related. therefore, we should all be mutated because we were created out of insest. on the other hand if you consider evolution, it makes sense why different races of people around the world look different. when they evolved, they adapted to fit their enviornment. also, since we all wouldve evolved from animals who were not related, no insest is involved which means we are not retarded. add in the fact that in the bible, god just magically creates earth and then animals and people. what about the rest of the universe? what about fossils from the times of the dinosaurs? we have scientific proof to know these existed, but there is no proof behind creation. creation is like god's magic trick, and we dont even have any proof there is a god! so how can creation be legit in any way?

I had a random thought, what if humans came from dirt, as told in Genesis, but evolution was still occurring? There's just a few problems with religion for me. First, the same God is worshipped in Judaism, Christianity, and possibly Islam (correct me if I'm wrong), all with differences. Why would the Christian Bible be perfect when there is the Hebrew Bible and the Qu'ran? All three are proclaimed to be the word of God. Second, Jews don't believe in Jesus Christ, yet they worship the same God. Third, Christians and Muslims antagonize eachother, even though they worship the same God.

I had a random thought, what if humans came from dirt, as told in Genesis, but evolution was still occurring? There's just a few problems with religion for me. First, the same God is worshipped in Judaism, Christianity, and possibly Islam (correct me if I'm wrong), all with differences. Why would the Christian Bible be perfect when there is the Hebrew Bible and the Qu'ran? All three are proclaimed to be the word of God. Second, Jews don't believe in Jesus Christ, yet they worship the same God. Third, Christians and Muslims antagonize eachother, even though they worship the same God.

I believe a large part of the answer to that can be found in the account of Abraham & Sarah + Hagar and their children, Isaac and Ishmael.

The bible is not a scientific manual.
If evolution is true then there are NO deities of any kind.
If there are no deities, then you can probably rule out any form of afterlife.
If there is no afterlife, then no one will be be able to say "I told you so".
If we evolved, then our ability to speak, our desire to create, our need to relate and communicate about subjects as bland as the weather, our moral codes, all of this is pointless because...

...the question as to where we came from has already been answered by our scientists.

...so now what the hell do we do?

I suppose the next question is what are we going to change into, what is the next step in our evolution? Telepathy? Telekinesis? Other abilities beginning with 'Tele'? Or perhaps along the line Cybernetic implants because any natural evolution has come to and end?

I guess my question is, what do Evolutionists live for? I mean besides proving Theists wrong of course?

The bible is not a scientific manual.

So far, so good.

If evolution is true then there are NO deities of any kind.

Wrong. If evolution is true, we know how new species appear, how they split, and how they cover every biological niche. Nothing more, but nothing less.

If there are no deities, then you can probably rule out any form of afterlife.

Again, this link is incorrect. Afterlife has nothing to do with deities. Afterlife could be purely natural, just unknown. Could be purely supernatural, just a realm for human trascendence, think of the nirvana.

If there is no afterlife, then no one will be be able to say "I told you so".
If we evolved, then our ability to speak, our desire to create, our need to relate and communicate about subjects as bland as the weather, our moral codes, all of this is pointless because...
...the question as to where we came from has already been answered by our scientists.

So, our history is pointless just because we didn't came to be in a supernatural way? because noone had a purpouse for us? Probably, your parents didn't have a project for you when they conceived you, you were born without a purpouse. Is your life meaningless because of that?
We are driven by needs and wishes shaped by evolution. But we are not determined by them.

...so now what the hell do we do?

It looks like freedom to determine ourselves is scary. We have to decide our destinies, we are not slaves to anyone's will. We are free, we do whatever we want, and we will be the measure of it. Morals still exist, good and evil still exist.

I guess my question is, what do Evolutionists live for? I mean besides proving Theists wrong of course?

Evolutionists live for their own motives, whatever they are. They probably live for their families, or their love for knowledge, to understand how things happened, or to gain more money, who knows.

The human being is an end in itself, not means to an end.

There's just a few problems with religion for me. First, the same God is worshipped in Judaism, Christianity, and possibly Islam (correct me if I'm wrong), all with differences. Why would the Christian Bible be perfect when there is the Hebrew Bible and the Qu'ran? All three are proclaimed to be the word of God.

First of all, the Christian Bible contains the Hebrew Bible. The Qur'an is a later text that claims to correct and supercede them both. Those of the Jewish faith don't consider the Christian New Testament to be accurate, and neither Jews nor Christians consider the Qur'an an authoritative text.

It eventually all comes down to one's experiential beliefs concerning the nature of revelation/communication from God.

I believe there is Universal Truth. If something contradicts it, or teaches contrary to it, then that takes it down that source a few notches in reliability.

While still holding to one established line of transmission that I hold to be closest to the Pure Truth, I believe all the foundational writings of all the major religions contain degrees of Truth, but some more, and some definitely less, than the others. Some are clearer, and presented more accurately than others. But I'd say very, very few (if any) are what I'd call perfect in their current forms.

Second, Jews don't believe in Jesus Christ, yet they worship the same God. Third, Christians and Muslims antagonize eachother, even though they worship the same God.

And I think that's a big problem. Personally, I think the majority of those of each of those faiths who are participating in active antagonism are not following the texts and teachings they claim to revere. This doesn't reflect nearly as badly on Pure Religion as it does to hypocritical (or ignorant) professors of it.

The bible is not a scientific manual.

Agreed.

If evolution is true then there are NO deities of any kind.

Completely unmerited conclusion.

If we evolved, then our ability to speak, our desire to create, our need to relate and communicate about subjects as bland as the weather, our moral codes, all of this is pointless because...

This is a question that has been on my mind a lot lately. I'm an atheist, and technically, I have no obligation to feel a need to abide by any moral codes, excluding societal influences. So I wonder sometimes if there is no afterlife or higher power, what could possibly be the reason for a moral code? There's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, if you know what I mean.

However, I feel like John Locke's essay on natural rights actually provides a reason for the development of moral codes outside of religious beliefs. He writes about how man exists in nature, and there is a fundamental law of nature that essentially guarantees a man's right to life, liberty, and property. And if a man hinders another man's guaranteed natural rights, then it is the responsibility of every man in nature to essentially punish that man with a punishment of equal magnitude to his crime. This makes every man a judge and every man the police force in society, though. And out of fear of other men, and fear of losing one's property, men enter into government with each other.

I think this is applicable, in a society which abides by no fundamental religious and moral beliefs, because it's very similar to game theory. Men as individuals have equal power, but also equal threat potential. When men enter into community with each other, they relinquish some of their power individually, but they become more powerful as a whole. Through this, a moral system centering around respect of each of the other members within this community could be derived. Certain societal standards could develop and evolve in such a climate where community promotes survival and protection over individualism. So essentially, I guess, the golden rule would apply because in order to enter this society, one must trust that no man will take away one's natural rights other than those surrendered as application to the society. Also, one must then abide in such a way that he does not take away another's natural rights. So.. treat others as you want to be treated. I think it could totally have come from evolution.

*Edit. It's like game theory because in working together, the men actually end up better off with less fear. However, they did relinquish some of the power they held as individuals.

First, the same God is worshipped in Judaism, Christianity, and possibly Islam (correct me if I'm wrong)

You are wrong. (no offense). Christans and Jews worship the same Trinitarian God (Both believe in Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In contrast, The Islamic Faith worshipps a two-part god consisting of Allah and his lesser son. In Christianity, all three parts are equal, while in Muslim, Allah holds the highest position. "Allah" originally came from the Moon god, whereas the Judeo-Christan God is eternal. Also, the Q'aran and the Bible contradict, especially in matters concerning the essence of God Himself.

First, the same God is worshipped in Judaism, Christianity, and possibly Islam (correct me if I'm wrong)

You are wrong. (no offense).

No, you're wrong. (no offense).

Christans and Jews worship the same Trinitarian God (Both believe in Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In contrast, The Islamic Faith worshipps a two-part god consisting of Allah and his lesser son. In Christianity, all three parts are equal, while in Muslim, Allah holds the highest position. "Allah" originally came from the Moon god, whereas the Judeo-Christan God is eternal. Also, the Q'aran and the Bible contradict, especially in matters concerning the essence of God Himself.

There's so many incorrect things wrong with this.
1) All three believe in the same God of Abraham, the God of Moses, etc. Their understanding about His nature, however, is different.
2) I have never heard of someone of the modern Jewish faith who believes anything remotely resembling Trinitarianism.
3) Islam does not hold that Allah is two-part, or has a son. In fact, the Qur'an states that it is blasphemy to say so.
4) Allah is the Arabic word for "God". It's a cognate with the Hebrew El. He is certainly believed to be Eternal.

*Edit. It's like game theory because in working together, the men actually end up better off with less fear. However, they did relinquish some of the power they held as individuals.

It's amazing how game theory pops up in all aspects of human psyche/society Whenever there is a human interaction with a set of rules and a certain reward (not necesarily a physical one, but a perceived one) you can start applying game theory.

Allah is not, in fact, the Judeo- Christian God. to support my claim, here is a quick run down on the real Allah:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

He is absolutely NOT the God of Abraham.

Interesting page.
This is the further reading they advice: http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-islam.html

Interesting... I hope all their sources are as accurate.

Edit: [/Sarcasm]

Frankly, those sites are crap.

Are you familiar at all with the story of Islam's beginnings? As told by Muslims? Are you at all familiar with the idea that Muhammad knew his people were all idolators, and had corrupted the true nature and aspects of the One God? The story of him clearing the Kabbah of the idols, and setting it up as a place of worship for the One God of Abraham?

If you do real research, instead of relying on smear sites for info, you'll find that descriptions of pre-Islam Allah are very similar to that of pre-monarchical Israelite El.

In the description of the most ancient Israelite religion, El was the father deity, who had seventy divine sons. The greatest and chief among those sons was Yahweh. Each of those sons were assigned a nation, and Yahweh was given Israel as his capital. Compare the dead sea scrolls and Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32: (The late Masoretic hebrew text changes 'sons of God' to Sons of Israel',)

"When the Most High (El Elyon) assigned the nations their heritage, when he parceled out the descendants of Adam, He set up the boundaries of the peoples after the number of the sons of God [El]; Yahweh's portion is Jacob, His hereditary share is Israel."

...Which ties in with the divine council scene of Psalm 82, understood in biblical studies to be a poetic account of Yahweh taking control of all the nations from the wicked under-shepherds (the bene elohim, the sons of the most high), who were also understood to have a connection with the Kings of the nations.

Yeah, the whole "moon god" thing is crap.

I'm reading this amazing book called "Abraham: the first historical biography" that is, quite frankly, an epic and beautifully written narrative gracefully weaving history, culture and religion. Abraham's Sumerian roots and background are really fleshed out and give amazing context to his relationship with Yahweh, who is expounded upon in a very respectful manner by the author. Even though I would call it a secular, purely historical look at the founding father of modern religion, it's already given a great deal more breadth and depth to my understanding of the man and his time.

Edit, the Gilgamesh epic is also brought up quite a bit in it too, which is, of course, cool.

Allah:
1. Not in the Bible. The Bible calls Him "Yhwh" or "yahweh"
2. Allah is not a tinitarian God: only one god. No Son, no Holy spirit
3. Allah is not fully knowable like The Judeo-Christian God; he has never revealed himself to Man like Yahweh has.
4. If Christ is God to Christians, but not to Muslims, they are different Gods. (Jews believe in Christ as well, they just believe He hasn't come yet).
5. "and when the forbidden months have passed, slay the infadels everywhere they are found." VERY contradictory to what Yahweh would have said

Say what you like, they are different gods