How can you say that I believe in an anthropopathic God? That was absurd!<quoted text>
But even I take the premise you made, which carry straw man argument because you cannot arrive to conclude by it that Allah isn't an absurd god, then I still don't see how faith plus his approach make pass Allah for a "valid god", if I can use that expression.
My claim of god being absurd is dervied after the main source that in that case was Quran. So yes ALSO bmz's god is absurd. He said a man cannot be god, so god is not anthropomorphic, but at the same time he believes in an anthropopatic god. Though the difference is little one cannot reject an anthropomorphic god (Yeshua) and accept without problem the existence of an anthropopatic god (Allah).
It's not the oneness of god that make the idea of god clearer or valid.
His approach is rude and fruitless when it comes to arrive to make points. I due to suggest to him to prove the fallacy of Christian doctrine by pointing out their proof, found in the Gospels, against Christians themselves, rather than making affermations backed up by nothing but his words.
Not to speak of his approach with Hadiths where he rejects them labeling to as tales when is more convenient but endorse them when he wants. Is also this approach clear?
Shamma and bmz are on the same level.
And how could you accept that Yeshua was an anthropomorphic God?
God Almighty is neither anthropopathic nor anthropomorphic.
These terms were coined by philosophers in the 16th Century for various pagan deities.
" The conception of these deities was anthropopathic, in their motives and passions they were more powerful and more perfect men, they had a human body and a human countenance, human thoughts and feelings, they resided in the clouds or on a high mountain; they dwelt in a heavenly palace.
I only see you and Joel using those words foolishly in discussions.
My approach is right for folks like your good self and Shamma. You make rude and vain statements and expect me to be courteous to you?
You know nothing about Hadith and neither Qur'aan. Hadith is not our Scripture, Qur'aan is.
Hadith is classified in the following manner:
1. Correct or true
2. Wrong and not true
3. Not reliable
5. Weak or defective
And so on.
So, I reject those, which have been classified by the scholars of Islam as not reliable, untrustworthy, weak, defective, etc.
The New Testament is exactly like Hadith but in the New Testament, right, wrong, weak, defective and untrustworthy accounts are all considered true. That is why I consider the gospels as mothers of all grand confusions.