I'm saying the Trinity is a counterintuitive concept that is based on consistent revelation of the character of God as Three Persons in the Bible and that kind of logic you presented is just the usual way people misunderstand it and impose human standards on it.
I made no theological arguments or imposed any standards. I simply pointed out that the construct presented by Phat is logically false. You claim I 'don't have a clue', but all I did was logic, and you found no fault with the logic, so I think your criticism is unwarranted.
If you want to make theological arguments about how your god doesn't have to follow the rules of logic, you are welcome to do so.
Then I'll say it more clearly: The Trinity is not logical
so you agree that your characterising me as having no clue was in fact unfair because I was saying what you just said. so unless we both have no clue...
One God in Three Persons can be represented by the burning sun: its orb representing God the Father, its light representing God the Son, its heat representing God the Holy Ghost,
The analogy just leads to the confusion you are trying to avoid, surely. The light is not the sun. The heat is not the sun. so it isn't the same as the diagram. If you were arguing that the Trinity are different aspects of God, it would be a different diagram and would be heresy/heterodox.
You tried to show that the Trinity is illogical as cause to dismiss it because you think it should be logical.
No I didn't and I don't expect theology to be logical. Will you now admit your error and apologise?
Here's what I did. I pointed out that the diagram Phat posted is logically false. Phat can agree he believes in something that is illogical, as you did, or he could defend it's logic. Maybe he could argue the diagram is itself an imperfect representation. Truly, it being illogical is why I reject it, but I wouldn't expect you to feel that way, Faith - rest assured.
As a matter of fact it is a tenet of Islam that it's good to lie to your enemies
An opinion the rest of the world shares.
And besides, it is not a tenet of Islam. I await your (Islamic) references. I suppose you could try and argue al-Sadiq - looking at Taqiyya and Kitman - but he is representative of a minority of Muslims. About comparable to Anglicans I'd say (aka Shi'a). Also, lying is only permitted as a means to preserve safety and never if an innocent would be harmed.
Similar to Western notions of the morality of lying.
In the majority, Sunni, sect - the general historical principle is that lying is not obligatory but may be permitted if under duress. In Sunni Islam although lying if your life is under threat is permissible, it is considered preferable to die as a martyr reaffirming your faith.
Similar to Christian notions on the morality of lying.
quote:There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license [to deny one's faith under duress], but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that [instead of choosing death].
so you could take back your "faith" and save your life
If you did take back your faith you'd be an apostate. If you told an immoral torturer that you had taken back your faith, but you still believe God is the only God and Muhammed is his prophet, then you haven't really taken back your faith and you haven't committed a moral offence (if it is OK to kill oppressors, of course it is OK to lie to them).
A Christian must die for his faith, not save his life but give it for Christ. Big difference there.
Not really. First, most Muslims actually agree with this, but forgive those that crack under pressure. Just like Christ forgave Peter and venerate those that stick to their guns. As ever, reality is not quite as simple as you would like to preach it is.
Of course, if you want to argue that Christians favour martyrdom more than Muslims - I'm sure that'd be entertaining.
In fact, it would be interesting to crunch the number of converts from childhood culture into any given belief...and see how the numbers compare. If Christianity is more than simply cultural indoctrination, we might see a trend through these statistics.
I'm pretty sure Islam comes out ahead in most analyses especially when you include rates of deconversion in the numbers (Christianity is losing a lot of Westerners).
Give us something that God would say to humanity. (Not a God of human imagination, but a hypothetical Creator of all seen and unseen who plausibly exists despite lack of evidence.)
The challenge is to imagine something saying something that is not in our imagination?
Let's say we discover an ancient Israelite scroll or carving that contains the end of Genesis and the Beginning of Exodus but in the middle is a lost text and that text has this information along with an explanation followed by a mathematical proof of the existence a two-dimensional shape that forms the prototile for an aperiodic tiling, but not for any periodic tiling. along with a long speech by God about nuclear fusion powering the stars which is identical to what's happening in the sun. I'd imagine we'd see a deep explanation for human psychology along with methods for creating an environment that maximally fosters humanity along with reasons for how and why this works. And so on.
In short, I'd expect him to sound entirely unlike the people he is speaking to. Not a revolutionary of his times, with some interesting advances in theology or morality - but someone that could have sparked the industrial revolution in ancient Israel.
I mean, obviously artists aren't always like that, and maybe the Creator is a bit of a bum. But if he was to be worthy of veneration he'd have to do that kind of thing. I could imagine a creator saying 'What's going on on this planety? Life? How did that happen? Sorry for the inconvenience, but I have to kill you all now', I suppose but you'd dismiss that as the god of imagination. It's all imagination really - but my most realistic estimate is that such a Creator would be radically different than humans by virtue of the radical differences inherent in the definitions of the beings.