Trinity and Trimurty

[Muhammad]

Muslim philosopher Imran Aijaz used this argument against the trinity

if X, Y and Z were contingent entities, then how can contingent + contingent + contingent = non-contingent? - since, if all three were necessary beings *on their own*,they would have no need for the other two. If X was a necessary being, say,it would necessarily exclude Y and Z (necessity is a sufficient condition for excluding Y and Z). The eternity of three necessary beings causes more problems because, should such a thing be the cause, they would be three *distinct* beings - i.e. the scenario would be tritheistic


A polytheist might well believe in 3 distinct sentiment beings with godlike power.That's precisely what christians say the trinity entains.Admittedly the polythiest would assent to the sentence "there are 3 gods" and christians wouldn't, but in terms of the content of your belief s , there is nothing between you.How would the doctrine of trinity be any different if it were instead claimed that the 3 gods always agreed each other, but each had its own distinct "essence" and yet the 3 still formed a single commitee, called "god"?It is not a essential part of polythiset that gods dis-agree with each other or that they have bodies.i recommend consulting a dictionary if christians dispute this. is the trinity indistinguisble to external observers? well, jesus died on the cross; the father didn't, jesus was once a baby boy; the spirit wasn't. the deciples were supposed to have been filled with the spirit, not the father. the bible depicts the members of the trinity having conversation with each other, and even asking each other question.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Muhammad,

thank you for the post.

can you please define the word "contingent" for us?



~compassionately~

[ihsan]

Contingent refers to depending on something else for it's existence. The eternal being should be self-dependent for his life.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ishan,

thank you for the explanation.

it's unfortunate that this philosopher did not take his argument to its logical conclusion, but then again... he really can't, can he?

thanks for the clarification however i shall leave this thread for those that think that the Trinity had made some type of logical sense prior :)



~compassionately~

[nr]

since, if all three were necessary beings *on their own*,they would have no need for the other two.
Jesus needs the Father just as much as the Father needs Jesus. The use of the father when there is not a son is contradiction just as great as the use of the word son when there is not a father. Also, the use of "being" here seems to suggest that we believe that God consists of 3 distinct bodies which is incorrect. We believe that God is 3 distinct persons consubstantial and of the same essence.

[Just Me]

We believe that God is 3 distinct persons consubstantial and of the same essence.

With all respect, I'm not trying to hound you, because I once believed in the trinity too, although I couldn't explain it rationally. Here are some points to think about:

How can you say that God and Jesus were of the same substance when it is obvious that Jesus was a physical man and God is not?

How can you say they were of the same essence when the Bible itself makes it clear that they did not even share the same will? Otherwise, why would Jesus pray, "Thy will and not mine be done" and why would it say that Jesus "learned obedience by the things that he suffered?"

There are many other points on similar lines, but I'm sure everyone on this forum familiar with the debate.

An excellent book that I recommend highly is "When Jesus Became God" by Richard Rubenstein. It's an eye-opening account of the history of the trinitarian/unitarian conflict in the early church...very engaging narrarative style and very thorough research.

[Ahmad24]

"A polytheist might well believe in 3 distinct sentiment beings with godlike power.That's precisely what christians say the trinity entains.Admittedly the polythiest would assent to the sentence "there are 3 gods" and christians wouldn't, but in terms of the content of your belief s , there is nothing between you.How would the doctrine of trinity be any different if it were instead claimed that the 3 gods always agreed each other, but each had its own distinct "essence" and yet the 3 still formed a single commitee, called "god"?It is not a essential part of polythiset that gods dis-agree with each other or that they have bodies."


I have to say the above is clearly a misunderstanding of the concept of Trinity at least according to some Christians.first it's good to understand the terms, like "God" before we make it look like it's just "power" shared by 3 persons and any God is nothing but this "power" that may lead to say that even Muslims are poltheists who worship 99 Gods.

[Muhammad]

shared by 3 persons and any God is nothing but this "power" that may lead to say that even Muslims are poltheists who worship 99 Gods.


Do you know of any of those 99 attributes that take the form of man, monkey, woman, etc? Do these attributes argue and say, "hey i don't need your help in creating multiple universes" If I say that you are a human being, and you are also a male, and you are also a student, and you are also a Christian, then I suppose you shall agree that this means that you are four seperate and individual beings merged into one such that it is possible for your "Student" persona to die and go to hell for three days while your "Christian" persona did not die and did not go to hell? RIght?

If you were a student who was enrolled part-time in the military, I assume that you would accept as completely logical a situation where a gang of killers come after your "student" persona with the intent of killing it while your "military" persona remained a safe distance away. I am assuming that you would also accept as completely logical that your "student" persona would then grab the phone and frantically beseech your "military" persona "military persona, military persona, why have you forsaken me?" and "Military persona, please let this cup pass from me" ..etc.?

I assume that you would not than object to my logic if I were to claim that your military persona then decided to sit back and do nothing and your student persona was brutally murdered while your military persona watched in all safety from the military base and was not itself killed? Right? Is this logical in your eyes?

[Ahmad24]

**"Do you know of any of those 99 attributes that take the form of man, monkey, woman, etc? Do these attributes argue and say, "hey i don't need your help in creating multiple universes"**

That's not necessary, Imran Aijaz agrees :

"It is not a essential part of polythiset that gods dis-agree with each other or that they have bodies"

If we say that God is "power" and that's all then when God in Qur'an say I'm the most merciful the most forgiving God i.e with Godlike "power" . and then we read somewhere else says Al aziz al hakim God .bearing in mind that Goid is nothing but "Godly power" , someone may conclude from this that Al aziz and Al raheem are different Gods since they both are called God i.e with Godlike power.

That's why i said we need to define the terms well according to the Islamic belief and even the jewish and Christian will agree on the same definition.


***If I say that you are a human being, and you are also a male, and you are also a student, and you are also a Christian, then I suppose you shall agree that this means that you are four seperate and individual beings merged into one such that it is possible for your "Student" persona to die and go to hell for three days while your "Christian" persona did not die and did not go to hell? RIght?**

I think you are talking about Modalism?

Anyway, If i have to give an analogy , consider the analogy of water, ice and gas which is not very perfect in my opinion but it may make the concept more clear. those 3 different shape are identical in the essence (God) and different in shape (personality). It's no violation of logic when i say that God is one in A and 3 in B and that Jesus is fully (in sense A) man and fully (in sense B) God .

[Yahya Sulaiman]

There's a difference between the reality of a doctrine and the reality of the way that this doctrine is practiced. I find, reflecting on my years at a Christian high school (during which I was a very enthusiastic Christian), that Christians will tend to think of the three parts of the Trinity as three separate entities without realizing it. That's just the way the human mind works: it will believe in what in can imagine rather than what it cannot imagine. Ergo, the Trinity doctrine, while not being polytheism in essence, is polytheism in practice, in reality.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

[Muhammad]

If we say that God is "power" and that's all then when God in Qur'an say I'm the most merciful the most forgiving God i.e with Godlike "power" . and then we read somewhere else says Al aziz al hakim God .bearing in mind that Goid is nothing but "Godly power" , someone may conclude from this that Al aziz and Al raheem are different Gods since they both are called God i.e with Godlike power.

:If i made a car does that mean that the car is part of my essence?
Is my making attribute part of my essence? Is "made" another Muhammad according to you?

That's why i said we need to define the terms well according to the Islamic belief and even the jewish and Christian will agree on the same definition.


Since they are of the same essence than does that mean the father god was taking a beating and put on a heavenly cross?

***If I say that you are a human being, and you are also a male, and you are also a student, and you are also a Christian, then I suppose you shall agree that this means that you are four seperate and individual beings merged into one such that it is possible for your "Student" persona to die and go to hell for three days while your "Christian" persona did not die and did not go to hell? RIght?**

I think you are talking about Modalism?

Anyway, If i have to give an analogy , consider the analogy of water, ice and gas which is not very perfect in my opinion but it may make the concept more clear.

No it makes the concept even more absurd.If I have a cup of water which can become steam, liquid, or ice, then it is not possible for me to drink the "liquid" while the "ice" and "steam" remain inside the glass. It is not possible for the "liquid" to ask the ice to save it from being drunk while the ice stayed a safe distance away and was not itself drunk. This is simple logic. In a similar manner, if god, krist, and the holy ghoast are all merely three "personalities" or three "states" for one being, namely God Almighty, then it is not possible for one "personality" of God to DIE while the other two remained a safe distance away unharmed by death Would it be logical to picture the "ice" form of a bucket of water praying to the "steam" form of itself . Further, did water start out as liquid and then decide to "beget" for itself another personality as "ice" and then add on a third personality as "steam"? Did God start out with one "personality" and then one day "beget" for Himself multiple personalities to keep Him company?. Does He usually speak to His other personalities and beseech them for salvation? (Matthew 27:46) Did He sacrifice one of His personalities to "save" mankind? Do some of His personalities have knowledge not available to others (Mark 13:32)? Are some of His "personalities" more powerful than others (John 14:28)? Are some of his personalities submissive to others (Luke 22:41-44)? Is this our mental picture of God? How will we answer Him on the day of judgment when He asks us about these claims we have made against Him?



-- those 3 different shape are identical in the essence (God) and


the structure of the crystal lattice in ice truly is a unique feature and depends upon a phenomenon known as hydrogen bonding. This results in a structre which is less dense than liquid water at the same temperature. This is the reason why ice floats while most solids would sink. The hydrogen bonding is due to the highly electronegative oxygen (and hence occurs in other substances such as hydrogen fluoride as well, with fluorine being even more electronegative than oxygen).

Now let us apply this to the analogy given above. The water consists,
ultimately, of molecules, both in the solid state and in the liquid state. Now when the Kinetic energy of of the water molecules is decreased (which will register as a drop in temperature) and the hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces are strong enough to induce solidification (an exothermic process in which latent heat is given off), the water becomes ice. How can this possibly work with God? Is He made of molecules etc. which orient themselves spatially in different ways depending upon the energy content of the substance? Is He made up of small parts like these which are generally indistinguishable from each other?





It's no violation of logic when i say that God is one in A and 3 in B and that Jesus is fully (in sense A) man and fully (in sense B) God .

It is a direct insult to logic.Something cannot be both A
and ~A, for if that is allowed, then anything goes -- logically speaking.Consider a much simpler case than man-god myth.Can you, for example, be "fully male" at the same time that you are "fully female," ? But female is the only other equally fundamental "attribute" that could be at all applicable or comparable to the concept of "fully male."

Being "fully God" for example has certain fundamental attributes such as infallibility.

Being "fully Man," likewise, has certain fundamental inherent attributes (theologically speaking, once again) such as fallibility.

[Muhammad]

That's why i said we need to define the terms well according to the Islamic belief and even the jewish and Christian will agree on the same definition.


But one thing your forgetting is that the jews have never come across a trinity in their ot.I know of jewish women who will not touch a christian translation of the ot when at court because this translation is imposing christian interpretation on a holy jewsish text.

[nr]

merely three "personalities" or three "states" for one being, namely God Almighty, then it is not possible for one "personality" of God to DIE while the other two remained a safe distance away unharmed by death
I don't view God this way. God is the Trinity. Without Jesus there is no God, without the Father there is no God, and without the holy Spirit there is no God. The Father and Son are inextricably linked yet also two distinct persons. For example, if there was a perfect person that person would be absolutely submisive to God. But then it's impossible for God to be perfectly submisive unless there exists at least two persons. Obedience, and all that is good, cannot be expressed by a singular person. And in some ways, the Quran is right. God did not have or beget a Son. The Son has always existed, infinitely begotten by the Father. The nature of the Trinity is one essence. When Jesus says "I am the truth, the way and salvation" he does not mean that the Father is not the truth or that their exists an isolated truth away from God. He means that the Father and Son are together the truth and the holy Spirit leads us to the truth.



Edited by - nr on 10/27/2003 04:49:43

[nr]

But one thing your forgetting is that the jews have never come across a trinity in their ot.I know of jewish women who will not touch a christian translation of the ot when at court because this translation is imposing christian interpretation on a holy jewsish text.
This is probably due to the translation of the Septuagint before Christ.

[Muhammad]

1) The meaning of "beget" is as follows:
Quote:
be•get

Pronunciation: (bi-get'), [key]
—v.t., be•got or (Archaic) be•gat; be•got•ten or be•got; be•get•ting.
1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect : a belief that power begets power.


2) The meaning of "coexist" is as follows:
Quote:
co•ex•ist

Pronunciation: (kO"ig-zist'), [key]
—v.i.
1. to exist together or at the same time.
2. to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries: Although their ideologies differ greatly, the two great powers must coexist.


3) The meaning of "eternal" is as follows:
Quote:
e•ter•nal

Pronunciation: (i-tûr'nl), [key]
—adj.
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphys.existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.


Source: InfoPlease.com

If we stick to these rules, we can see who is right and who is wrong.

Having a son (literally), or/and a begotten son means that whatever begot it or produced it gave it life . This is true if we stick to the rules laid out above. Now if you want to say that the Father had begotten a Son, you are saying that the Father however it happened, produced or gave life to the Son. Thus the meaning of the word "begotten". So the claim, "God has an only begotten Son", is what has been demonstrated to be impossible.

If on the other hand you want to say that the Father is eternal and coexistent with and just like the Son, then the Son cannot really be begotten after all, since it was therefore an un-produced item - eternal. This means that nobody gave it life. Which by extension means that it is not really a son. You can call it a "Son" but this is just a label and it does not entail the meaning of the word "son", or more accurately the meaning of the phrase, "begotten son".

If any such thing as an "eternal thinker" existed, then "thinking" on the part of this "thinker" would be eternal, but any specific thought that this thinker had would not be eternal. It would have had to begin at a specific point. So it is with OSM's reference to jesus as having been "eternally begotten" of the Father. If jesus had had no beginning, then there would have been no point at which he could have been "begotten."

[nr]

Having a son (literally), or/and a begotten son means that whatever begot it or produced it gave it life . This is true if we stick to the rules laid out above. Now if you want to say that the Father had begotten a Son, you are saying that the Father however it happened, produced or gave life to the Son. Thus the meaning of the word "begotten". So the claim, "God has an only begotten Son", is what has been demonstrated to be impossible.
Because the Son has always existed, there is no point in time where the Father existed but the Son does not. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm


If on the other hand you want to say that the Father is eternal and coexistent with and just like the Son, then the Son cannot really be begotten after all, since it was therefore an un-produced item - eternal. This means that nobody gave it life. Which by extension means that it is not really a son. You can call it a "Son" but this is just a label and it does not entail the meaning of the word "son", or more accurately the meaning of the phrase, "begotten son".
This is the traditional notion of the Trinity. The use of the word Son only implies the relationship that the Son has in the Trinity. We speak of the Word being the firstborn because through God's Word everything was created.


If any such thing as an "eternal thinker" existed, then "thinking" on the part of this "thinker" would be eternal, but any specific thought that this thinker had would not be eternal. It would have had to begin at a specific point. So it is with OSM's reference to jesus as having been "eternally begotten" of the Father. If jesus had had no beginning, then there would have been no point at which he could have been "begotten."
Who is OSM? This is the traditional Trinity expressed in the Nicaea creed. "Eternally begotten from the Father. Begotten not made".






Edited by - nr on 10/27/2003 21:45:09

[Ahmad24]

***Since they are of the same essence than does that mean the father god was taking a beating and put on a heavenly cross?***

Remember they are not the same personality. It was te human Jesus who was put on cross according to Trintarians not the God Jesus .

***No it makes the concept even more absurd.If I have a cup of water which can become steam, liquid, or ice, then it is not possible for me to drink the "liquid" while the "ice" and "steam" remain inside the glass. It is not possible for the "liquid" to ask the ice to save it from being drunk while the ice stayed a safe distance away and was not itself drunk. ***

Never mind. Have them in 3 cups :)

***This is simple logic. In a similar manner, if god, krist, and the holy ghoast are all merely three "personalities" or three "states" for one being, namely God Almighty, then it is not possible for one "personality" of God to DIE while the other two remained a safe distance away unharmed by death Would it be logical to picture the "ice" form of a bucket of water praying to the "steam" form of itself ***

I really think you are confusing modalism with the trinity according to most Christians .

***Now let us apply this to the analogy given above. The water consists,
ultimately, of molecules, both in the solid state and in the liquid state. Now when the Kinetic energy of of the water molecules is decreased (which will register as a drop in temperature) and the hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces are strong enough to induce solidification (an exothermic process in which latent heat is given off), the water becomes ice. How can this possibly work with God? Is He made of molecules etc. which orient themselves spatially in different ways depending upon the energy content of the substance? Is He made up of small parts like these which are generally indistinguishable from each other? ***

an analogy is not supposed to be identical to the thing it is like . molecules?

***It is a direct insult to logic.Something cannot be both A
and ~A, for if that is allowed, then anything goes -- logically speaking.Consider a much simpler case than man-god myth.Can you, for example, be "fully male" at the same time that you are "fully female," ? But female is the only other equally fundamental "attribute" that could be at all applicable or comparable to the concept of "fully male."
Being "fully God" for example has certain fundamental attributes such as infallibility.
Being "fully Man," likewise, has certain fundamental inherent attributes (theologically speaking, once again) such as fallibility.***

Your definition of the law of Non/Contradiction is incomplete. Of course something can be both A and ~A you can be short and you can be not short.you can be alive and you can be dead . you can be fat and you can be thin,can't you?

when I said :
"It's no violation of logic when i say that God is one in A and 3 in B and that Jesus is fully (in sense A) man and fully (in sense B) God ."

I did wrote "A" and "B" for that reason i meant that the law of Contradiciton speaks about things of same sense and time place etc . But i wanted to say that Christian could believe that Jesus was God and man but in different sense.Let me give you an example:

[a] To stab a child in the face with a sharp object is to commit an immoral act.
[b] Bob stabs a child in the face with a shart object.
[c] It is not the case that Bob commits an immoral act.

Now the above appear to be contradicition . but sometimes things appear to us in such contradictiory way, not because it's real contradiction but because we simply lack sufficient knowledge of how to clear up the appearent contradiction . if i add another statment to the above statments :
[d] Bob is a dentist
With such ainformation the above statments no more contradict each other.applying the same on the trinity , A christian can say that God didn't reveal in his revealation knowledge which can clearify the appearent contradiction that we have in the trinity . but he believes that God is logic.so there must be some information which make this concept logical but they are not given them.

And this is not something limited to Christianity, For exampl we muslims believe that God know what we will do in the coming second whethere good or bad but in same time we believe that we have free will . this may appear as a contradiction and even some Christians do not believe that God know everything about the future and some Muslim philosophers believed the same because they were stuck in having explanation to this .If i know that you gonna kill someone next moment. how can i know without affecting your free will? which include your nature and ability in taking decision by your ownself. Here we just appeal to what a christian may appeal to when explaining the trinity .

This issue is more complex than that. but due to my lack of time nowdays I try not to go in much detailes


***But one thing your forgetting is that the jews have never come across a trinity in their ot.I know of jewish women who will not touch a christian translation of the ot when at court because this translation is imposing christian interpretation on a holy jewsish text.***

True. but they all have same general definiton of one God .

[ihsan]

The names of God are attributes, i.e. QUALITATIVE, descriptions of his personality. The trinity fails because qualitative and quantitative are confuesd together.

[ihsan]

Further, the logic of stabbing in the face is faulty. None of these sentences independently are meaningless.

From the very outset, one argues a totally ridiculous viewpoint when it comes to the trinity. God is one person and 3 at the same time is absurd.

[nr]

I think you misunderstand. If we said that God was one person but three person then that would be a contradiction. However, this is not the doctrin of the Trinity, which says that God is three persons but also one.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"If we said that God was one person but three person then that would be a contradiction. However, this is not the doctrin of the Trinity, which says that God is three persons but also one."

Let's see...one person but three persons, and three persons but also one. According to the rule of conversion, these two statements mean exactly the same thing.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

[nr]

Let's see...one person but three persons, and three persons but also one. According to the rule of conversion, these two statements mean exactly the same thing.

The official doctrin is that there are three persons sharing one divine nature.

[Ahmad24]

What's independently meaningless when I say :

Ihsan is 3 in A
Ihsan is one in B

---------------------------------------------------------

nr said ***The official doctrin is that there are three persons sharing one divine nature***

we have 3 personalities that of Jesus,Father and HS let's call them A,B and C. And we have the divine essense which is identical in all personalities ,let's call it D

So Jesus is AD
Father is BD
HS is CD
Question :

Is this D (which is essense of God) Personal or impersonal being?

This is also in regards to your statment "If we said that God was one person but three person then that would be a contradiction. However, this is not the doctrin of the Trinity, which says that God is three persons but also one."

[nr]

Is this D (which is essense of God) Personal or impersonal being?

D is only the result of the combined oneness of the three persons. The three may speak as one and the three are perfectly united in will, purpose, and love thus exposing the will of God, which could be named D. No one fully comprehends the trinity but it's merits are that the doctrin does not contradict itself or the revelations recieved in the bible. It would appear that some concepts of God are singular, for example truth; though Jesus does say that he is truth and holy Spirit is the spirit of truth. Others attributes such as love require multiple persons but also express oneness.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

nr, if I may say so, it seems that you keep evading the logic of the arguments being presented. You're just skipping around the points we're making with irrelevant generalities. That's my take on it, anyway.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

[nr]

Any proof of contradiction must start from the premises contained in the Trinity. I believe in two types of contradictions. For example, "whoever saves his life shall lose it but whoever loses it for my sake shall save it" is not the type of contradiction that would invalidate the doctrin. On the other hand, there are completly meaningless contradictions that we should reject with logic.

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Holy-Trinity.html has a pretty good definition of the Trinity.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

The definition of the Trinity given in that article (if I could even call it a definition rather than an attempt to evade defining it) is just like every other one: it's words, and nothing more. The words lack clear, objective definition, because the author, as is always the case, has no idea what he's talking about. It's just a lot of nonsense. Sorry if I'm being too direct, but that's just the way it goes, in my experience--it's all words. Read the Athanasian Creed, for instance, and tell me if you aren't dizzy after you finish it.
;-)

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

you know... i could mount a very effective defense of the Trinity Theology... hopefully, nr will be able to rise to the challenge here.

in any event...

let me ask this question.

let's say that you and i are having a debate and you beat me. does that mean that you are acutally right and i am acutally wrong? let's say that i beat you. does that mean that i am actually right and you are actually wrong?

no, what it shows us is that one of us is a more skilled debator, not whom is right and whom is wrong.



~compassionately~

[Ronnie]

Peace All,

Since you offered Vajradhara, I'm curious :) Please do so.

Regards

[nr]

you know... i could mount a very effective defense of the Trinity Theology... hopefully, nr will be able to rise to the challenge here.
No, well I'm going to be quite busy these comming weeks. Besides, who will want miss your writing? I have to admit though, for the most part I've dealt only with scriptural objections to the Trinity.

Sorry if I'm being too direct, but that's just the way it goes, in my experience--it's all words. Read the Athanasian Creed, for instance, and tell me if you aren't dizzy after you finish it.
The Athanasian creed is a bit hard to read but I've found the Nicea creed is quite elegant.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

All the creeds are in the same boat, in varying degrees. It's all just words.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

[mpriest]

Salaam

Nr before you leave,I want to say that I admire the respectfull
way that you defend your beliefs.We enjoy open minded persons
as you are.

matthew missionary priest

[nr]

I'm not leaving. Just lots of school projects.

[mpriest]

i am glad that you continue to study,see you later.

matthew missionary priest

[Muhammad]

Richard Cartrights arguments against the trinity

http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/Notes/trinity.html

enjoy

[Vajradhara]

Namaste ronnie,

i had, if you saw it before it was deleted, a post up here outlining what i would establish and how i would do so and what source material that i would use.

as i was working on the project, however, i felt a bit dishonest and decided not to complete it. i'm not a christian and though i can logically defend their position, i do not agree with it and i can refute it as easily as i can defend it.

it would be dishonest of me to put forth a defense of the Trinity and then have to defend it as i don't adhere to it.


on with the thread then, and thank you for listening.



~compassionately~

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I can completely understand that. That's exactly the reason why I've solidly refused all my life to join debate teams despite being very good at debating. I just can't see myself arguing in favor of something I flatly disagree with. Even if I could do it, I'd feel dirty.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

[muslim_suad]

I see the trinity as a made up thing by the roman catholics and paul. Even thought i dont have any proof of the bible being corrupted i believe he did and there is no proof that the bible stayed the same for all these years either.Even if i had evidence christians wouldnt believe it because they dont want to be wrong in their beliefs.

"Alif Laam Raa. A book which we have revealed to you (Muhammad) so that you may lead the people from out of the darknesses into the light by their Lord's leave to the path of the All-Mighty, the Praiseworthy." [Qur'an 14:1]