well, it would seem that there is quite the penchant for throwing around my name particularly by the very individual whose willful ignorance should at least give him pause before embarrassing himself further within this thread. i certainly must commend you on your patience and forbearance in dealing with naidamar, yielded. i certainly seem to have a lot to learn from you when it comes to this department.
And I don't know what brand of trinity you follow, but your model of trinity is certainly not shared by Grace Seeker or Sol Invictus, no matter how Sol has been trying to lie through his teeth to convince the rest of us that you guys have no disagreement on your brands of trinity. LOL.
i did state earlier that this...what i could only graciously call a resentment towards knowledge and understanding would only serve to embarrass you naidamar and here we have our prime example. could you please explain to us the difference between yielded's conception of the trinity which stands in contrast with mine? in fact if i recall the matter correctly, our difference is not whether the trinity consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, or not even if each of these distinct individuals comprise the one triune god but rather as to whether the shema concerns itself with only the first person of the trinity or all three. i have no business trying to convince you of anything naidamar and i don't recall ever trying to, debunking your false claims and faulty logic is exceedingly sufficient.
and speaking of debunking:
If you think that God is like "almost everybody", then it is your choice, dude.
Muslims believe in God who is not "almost everybody".
premise 1: almost everybody
* loves the good.
premise 2: god loves the good.
conclusion: in the respect of loving the good, god is like "almost everybody".
the above refutes what you tried to pass off as a valid argument in terms simple enough for you to understand. now if you'd like to salvage your failing viewpoint you are more than welcome to try and engage the above syllogism. i've noticed that once we remove the invective statements that you tend to pad your posts with, there really isn't much else other than a horrifying cumulation of hate. please refute the above or else we might just suppose that islam (and much less logic) isn't your area of expertise. oh, and to save you from committing more crimes of logic, please do not respond by noting difference between god and man because the statement was never "in respect to
x god is
exactly like everyone else" but rather "in respect to
x god is
like everybody else". i can also answer further questions if you find yourself having trouble with the meaning of words.
I don't know what you make of Jesus. You said in the other thread that Jesus is not God.
if you had at all cared to read what he said instead of looking for things you could use to add to the aforementioned cumulation of hate, then you would have noticed that he was sustaining an argument for the position that the nicene fathers particularly had the first person of the trinity in mind when speaking the words "we believe in one god". yielded himself repeatedly reiterated that he did believe christ to be god (remember the words "very god"). the argument was never about whether christ was god or not but where the emphasis of "one god" lay (this is the point in which yielded and i disagreed on). i understand that the nature of the discussion is far too subtle for an individual who has proven himself unable to answer whether the muslim deity is personal or not. if you fail to understand such a simple thing, one must really wonder where then you get the arrogance to pontificate on matters far more complex.
now, as it regards to your example yielded, there's not much i have to say. i can't really find anything i disagree with (yet!) but i can say that i doubt i'd ever use such an example to explain the trinity because it just seems to have so much baggage. i find that it makes far greater allowance for people to trip up on some points (as naidamar has so kindly demonstrated) than my analogy concerning space. plus, it is far too jewish for my taste (though this is not a bad thing). most individuals you meet will have a hard time understanding what you mean by 'breath' and such, etc. anyway. aside from my example (that of space) making little use of biblical language, what merits do you find with yours that are lacking with mine? just wondering.
* all rational beings that we possess knowledge of.
mg:
