The pretended Triune God

Trinity

Usual representation of the “Triune God”. 3 in 1.

Trinitarian missionaries tell us non-trinitarians we have to believe in their  “Triune God”. “God is three persons in one being …” Or “one being in three persons”. Basically 3 in 1. We have all heard it before.

Sometimes we are shown a diagram as explanation.

It’s rather ironic that the trinitarian missionary doesn’t believe in a Triune God as pictured above.

He believes in a Triune God-Man as shown here.

Trinity_2

Diagram of the real Triune God-Man. 3 in 2.

The Trinitarian’s God is not 3 in 1. He is God-Man 3 in 2.



Categories: Islam

80 replies

  1. The above demonstrates the serious problems with the ‘triune god’ .

    😀

    Like

  2. LOL, throwing the “Man” part in there throws off any semblance of order and symmetry in the diagram.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I know why the diagram is wrong.

    The man circle is in the wrong place. But where should it be?

    Looks like a brezel. You know what that is don’t you?

    Like

  4. By your leave sire.

    My comments were blocked for some reason.

    Like

  5. Madman, back again? Still defending biblical genocide like a good Christian?

    So, why is the diagram not accurate? Is the son not man and god?

    Like

    • What biblical genocide? There is no such thing.

      How do you defend the murder of apostates and adulterers? If allah is merciful, why does he insist on painful deaths for people who make human mistakes?

      Like

    • Trey

      Is intentional murder and intentional rape a mistake?

      Should they get less punishment and commit the crime of murdering people and raping people again? I do not think it is wise decision to give intentional crime causers less punishment so that they will commit the crime again.

      Babies do not know right and wrong, so Jesus Christ’s commanding the killing of babies is barbaric.

      Trey, the second diagram shows the accurate description of your God because the Son/son is 1005% God and 100% man.

      The first diagram did not show that.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Intellect

      Muslims have to make up their minds what they want to believe. Is allah the same god of the jews and christians as revealed in their respective holy books? If yes, then you are all cursing your god by claiming he commanded genocide.

      I don’t believe we worship the same god – the god of jacob would never have permitted his prophets to kiss the black stone is one good reason to believe this – but you guys insist that we do. You, therefore, are obliged to answer your own defamation of your own god.

      Having said that, in order not to look like hypocrites, you have to explain why you are required to kill apostates, adulterers, and cut off thieves’ hands, causing immeasurable pain and suffering. How do those commands show allah to be a “merciful” god?

      Plus, your god says quite clearly in the hadith that he wants us all to sin, supposedly so that he can be merciful. That means that allah wants/wills that human beings commit murder, rape, child killings, and be responsible for all kinds of human suffering just so that he can prove his “mercifulness.”

      According to your own sources, allah would have loved for people to kill babies.

      Like

  6. This really is a great observation. I too recognize this discrepancy everytime engaging a trinitarian apologist.

    Like

  7. Burahuddin

    I think you have committed the strawman fallacy – making up your own concept of what christians believe and then attacking it.

    Like

    • Feel free to demonstrate how. Are you sure you know what you believe?

      Like

    • Sure.

      there are three persons in the godhead, not four as you have shown. jesus is both god and man, two natures, one person. You’ve shown him as two persons. Those circles in the diagram represent the persons of the godhead, of which there are three.

      Like

    • Wrong. “God” and “Man” are the two natures, the three persons are Father, Son and HS.

      Ironically you present a straw man. There are no 4 persons in the diagram.

      You do not deny the deity you believe in has 3 persons and two natures, do you?

      Like

    • burhaddin

      Your diagram looks like you are trying to represent 4 persons, the two natures exist within the one person of the son, so the “man” circle should not be outside of the “son” circle. Both are the same person.

      I understand the trinity perfectly, your diagram is confusing.

      Like

    • I never said anything about 4 persons. I am not representing 4 persons. “Man” is not a person.
      Why make it so difficult?

      Do deny the deity you believe in has 3 persons and two natures?

      Like

    • burahuddin

      I have made things difficult? You have completely made a hash of the very simple and straight-forward doctrine of the trinity – if you actually understood the concept you could not possibly have made the gross error of showing that “man” circle as separate from the “son” circle.

      The circles in the original diagram indicate the persons of the godhead – if you represent the “man” as a circle, then you are clearly conflating the human nature of the son with his personhood.

      Obviously you are confused, which is why your diagram is confusing. But that is not the fault of the doctrine – it is pretty clear and simple.

      Like

    • “The circles in the original diagram indicate the persons of the godhead”
      No they don’t. “God” is not a person, “God” is the divine nature.

      Stop beating around the bush. What’s the problem with admitting the deity you worship has 3 persons and two natures?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Admit what? The Christian god can exist in whatever form he wants to. Your diagram is still confusing though, not the doctrine.

      Like

    • ” if you actually understood the concept you could not possibly have made the gross error of showing that “man” circle as separate from the “son” circle.”

      That really is a good one. Then you end up with the statement “God is Man”. Do you believe that? No trinitarian would admit to that. Oh dear. What a confusion.

      Like

    • “The Christian god can exist in whatever form he wants to”. Oh dear. This is not about speculation.

      It’s about what one has to believe as ultimate truth, ultimate unchanging reality.

      The ultimate reality you believe in has 3 persons and two natures. And that’s not represented in diagram 1.

      Like

    • “The Christian god can exist in whatever form he wants to”

      So your god can become satan?

      Liked by 2 people

    • //The Christian god can exist in whatever form he wants to”//

      That’s a wrong premise. By definition God can only exists in Godly forms befitting all Godly qualities only.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “The Christian god can exist in whatever form he wants to”

      Are you modalist? The Father and the HS cannot incarnate, can they?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul Williams

      “So your god can become satan?”

      Is satan a “form”, paul?

      Like

    • define your understanding of “form”

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “It’s about what one has to believe as ultimate truth, ultimate unchanging reality.

      The ultimate reality you believe in has 3 persons and two natures. And that’s not represented in diagram 1.”

      Allah has 99 natures, what’s your point? The ultimate reality is that you don’t know what you are talking about and your diagram betrays your confusion. It is not a difficult concept, so the issue is not the doctrine.

      Like

    • Eric bin Kisam

      “That’s a wrong premise. By definition God can only exists in Godly forms befitting all Godly qualities only.”

      Being able to exist in several forms simultaneously is a godly quality. Your rules don’t apply to god, they only apply to the limitations of your understanding.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Are you modalist? The Father and the HS cannot incarnate, can they?”

      Modalist? What does that have to do with anything? Do you admit that you completely ballsed up the diagram, and represented the “man” as one of the persons of the godhead?

      Like

    • Paul Williams

      “define your understanding of “form””

      Define yours dude. You think that satan is a “form”, that has me curious.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “That really is a good one. Then you end up with the statement “God is Man”. Do you believe that? No trinitarian would admit to that. Oh dear. What a confusion.”

      Yes, you are confused, but it is not because the doctrine is confusing.

      You end up with the statement “god can enter creation in human form because he created everything in the universe so he must be able to do as he pleases with his creation.”

      Like

    • LOL

      you made the claim:

      “The Christian god can exist in whatever form he wants to..”

      I asked if your god can become satan, and you refuse to say yes!

      Then you ask me for a definition of the word form that you used and I was merely quoting from.

      Good grief dude be a man and give a straight answer

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul Williams

      “you made the claim:

      “The Christian god can exist in whatever form he wants to..”

      I asked if your god can become satan, and you refuse to say yes!

      Then you ask me for a definition of the word form that you used and I was merely quoting from.

      Good grief dude be a man and give a straight answer”

      You made the claim that satan is a “form” – I cannot answer your question unless yo tell me what you mean by that. Is satan a form?

      I’m just trying to figure out what you mean by that, that’s all. I have never heard satan being referred to as a “form” in any religion, hence my confusion. You are the one using the term in an unorthodox way, and applying to something that is not typical.

      Like

  8. There’s someone here who reckons he can get at least 9 gods out of that diagram. Can anyone top that for the $64000 prize?

    Liked by 4 people

  9. How many persons is the God in the middle of the top diagram?

    Like

  10. Trey said:

    “What biblical genocide? There is no such thing.

    How do you defend the murder of apostates and adulterers? If allah is merciful, why does he insist on painful deaths for people who make human mistakes?”

    Really? Dude, have you even read the Bible? Do you know what the word “genocide” means?

    Before we discuss your red herring about Islam and the punishment of criminals, you need to first answer this question.

    Like

    • faiz

      Allah is supposed to be merciful, yet he commands that his faithful followers inflict horrific pain and suffering on sinners. That is a huge problem for the idea of a merciful god.

      If you believe that we worship the same god, then you have explain OT commands yourself.

      Like

  11. “LOL, so madman the genocide defender will not simply explain why the diagram is wrong. Is the son not supposed to be both “God” and “man”?”

    Well I think that is why the diagram is wrong. If God is three persons, as we believe the bible teaches, then no one of those three can himself be the three persons but this is what the diagram is saying.

    i.e. the Father is God ( but God is the three persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit ).

    This is a non-sensical statement which can only be made sense of through a modalist, (or unitarian?), concept of God.

    The diagram is saying that each of the persons is the God who is three persons. So the diagram is just a representation of the modalist heresy with the “real” God left open to choice.

    I would have put the circle with “man” inside underneath the circle with Son but in a different plane because divinity and humanity should not be pictured in the same plane but that is not the main error of the diagram.

    All abstract attempts to define the trinity in any way, shape or form are condemned by the bible as not being the truth.

    Like

    • madmanna

      You said;
      I would have put the circle with “man” inside underneath the circle with Son but in a different plane because divinity and humanity should not be pictured in the same plane but that is not the main error of the diagram.

      All abstract attempts to define the trinity in any way, shape or form are condemned by the bible as not being the truth.

      Do you know abstract? No. Abstract is saying God who you have not seen is 3 persons 1 God. That is an abstract God i.e. Trinity. Divinity and humanity must be pictured in the same plane? You are confused madmanna but you pictured Jesus as 100% divine and 100% man in the same plane.

      Thanks

      Like

  12. Trey says “It is not a difficult concept, so the issue is not the doctrine.”

    For the last time: The issue is inconsistency and dishonesty when trinitarians communicate the doctrine.

    When you say “the God you have to believe in is three persons in one nature” the statement is incorrect, incomplete.

    Diagram 1 sweeps the human nature under the carpet.

    Like

    • Burhaddin

      Geez louise!!!

      No, no, no and no.

      The person of jesus is of two natures, the father and holy spirit are not. It is so simple dude – there is no conspiracy, no misleading, no dishonesty. You are blaming us for your inability to comprehend a simple doctrine.

      Like

    • For the very last time:

      I understand very well, Trey. Where is the human nature, a crucial and essential element of the deity you worship in diagram 1?

      Without God’s human nature the depiction of the “God” you worship is incomplete.

      Like

    • Burhanddin

      Look, you don’t even understand that the diagram that is keeping you awake at night is a mere representation, a summary, a kind of teaching aid/tool, that goes hand in hand with other studies. Do you get it now?

      It is not supposed to be comprehensive, merely a short-hand, easy to digest, summary for the doctrine. You obviously knew that the person of the son has two natures, so that should be your first clue that you are fretting like a little baby over a very minor issue that was not even the intent of the diagram in the first place.

      I don’t know how much clearer I can be.

      Like

  13. Treyster, you haven’t answered my question. Is the godhead a person?

    Like

  14. Trey, it doesn’t surprise me that you won’t answer my question and instead keep trying to deflect. This is what I have come to espect from most Christian apologists.

    Even though you won’t extend me the courtesy of answering my questions, I will still answer yours despite the fact that they have nothing to do with the issue of Biblical genocide.

    God is merciful but also just. Thus, a person who breaks the law must be punished, though the same law provides leniency in certain situations. Moreover, when the punishment is applied, the person is forgiven and will not be punished for it in the afterlife, where the punishment would be much severe.

    By the way, we may worship the same God, but I don’t believe that He would command people to kI’ll babies.

    Like

    • But babies are dying on a regular basis through causes other than “genocide”.

      Is Allah involved in any way?

      Why does the Quran seem to shy away from addressing this problem?

      Like

  15. Trey

    You said;

    Trey

    September 6, 2016 • 11:26 am

    Burhanddin

    Look, you don’t even understand that the diagram that is keeping you awake at night is a mere representation, a summary, a kind of teaching aid/tool, that goes hand in hand with other studies. Do you get it now?

    It is not supposed to be comprehensive, merely a short-hand, easy to digest, summary for the doctrine. You obviously knew that the person of the son has two natures, so that should be your first clue that you are fretting like a little baby over a very minor issue that was not even the intent of the diagram in the first place.

    I don’t know how much clearer I can be

    I say;
    Why do Trinitarians have a mere representation of God? It is blaspheme according to the Bible.

    Exodus 20:4

    New International Version
    “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

    Trey, you have to repent and reject Trinity or hell fire according to the Bible not me. You said God can be in so many forms i.e. several Gods and according to the verse above, God does not want us to make form of any think to represent him. If God can be in any form why did He say an image of any form is not him and is punishable in hell fire?

    Exodus 32:8
    “They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!’

    God says He cannot be in any form and blame people like Mr. Trey who said God can be in any form. Mr. Trey said God can be a golden calf idol for worship. God says nope. “I cannot be in any form”. Trey, you are now challenging God and want to go on the idol worshipers side worshiping calf the considers God can be in any form at the same time just like you.

    Thanks,

    Like

  16. @Burhannudin1,

    You said:

    “For the very last time:

    I understand very well, Trey. Where is the human nature, a crucial and essential element of the deity you worship in diagram 1?

    Without God’s human nature the depiction of the “God” you worship is incomplete.”

    I reply,

    No it’s not because the Logos had no human nature before the incarnation.

    The human nature is not the self-existent and immutable being of the Logos because it was begotten, both in it’s physical and spritual form:

    We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

    The only thing I don’t agree with here is the phrase: ” begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead”

    The other way to demonstrate the falsity of the diagram is that it leads to a contradiction:

    For example:

    According to the top side of the triangle the Father is not the Son. But if we follow the statements from the circle of the Father to the circle of the Son it says in order:

    The Father is God………God is the Son.

    Therefore the Father must be the Son.

    x is y, y is z, therefore x is z. which is a contradiction because the top line says that x is not z.

    Thanks for the interesting post.

    Like

  17. @Burhanuddin1

    “Without God’s human nature the depiction of the “God” you worship is incomplete.”

    No, the human nature of Jesus is created and was begotten both in it’s bodily and spiritual form. It is not his immutable and self-existent being. See Chalcedon:

    We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

    I don’t agree with the words “begotten before all ages of the Father”. Jesus was begotten in time at his incarnation and resurrection.

    Thanks for the interesting post.

    Like

    • Erasmus

      You said;
      I don’t agree with the words “begotten before all ages of the Father”. Jesus was begotten in time at his incarnation and resurrection.

      I say;
      Where in the Bible or dictionary does it say begotten before all ages of the Father? Begotten remains the same i.e. either metaphorical or literal having sex to produce a child. Where in the Bible does it say “God incarnated into man? or Yahweh incarnated into man?

      Thanks.

      Like

  18. Another flaw in the diagram is that the according to the top line the Father is not the Son.

    However if you follow the statements from the circle of the Father to the circle of the Son through the circle of God it says:

    The Father is God……..God is the Son

    This implies that the Father is the Son which contradicts the statement on the top side of the triangle.

    Like

    • I agree. The diagram is a graphic representation of the philosophical concept “trinity”. It is contradictory and self refuting. Another point is in the diagram you end up with 4 “Gods”.

      But another contradiction is missing, that’s the point of this post. The triune God is also Man (via the Son/Word “person”) but that’s never visualized. At least I never came across such a visual.

      Like

  19. Erasmus said:

    “ut babies are dying on a regular basis through causes other than “genocide”.

    Is Allah involved in any way?

    Why does the Quran seem to shy away from addressing this problem?”

    Ugh, this asinine argument is made by every apologist and it gets stupider every time I hear it.

    It is absurd to compare a death due to NATURAL CAUSES to a death caused by a deliberate act of MURDER. See the difference? Thus, to compare the deliberate act of killing an innocent baby to the death of an innocent baby due to natural causes is the epitome of Christian nonsense.

    Death is a part of life. Unfortunately, some of us die young, while others die old. But to think that one can excuse MURDER because people will die anyway is not only ludicrous, but monstrous.

    Like

  20. Faiz

    You are engaging in special pleading. Natural deaths are most often painful and full of suffering. If that is not the will of allah then what you are saying is that he does not have sovereignty over all things.

    If you avoid pre-supposing the muslim worldview, then god’s commands to kill in the OT are consistent with the doctrine of original sin. No one is pure enough because sin nature is integral to human nature.

    This doesn’t make these passages in the OT easy to digest, but t least christians are honest about them and accept their difficulty. Muslims like yourself will defend the commands of god to murder people who choose to have a different worldview, stone people who commit adultery, kill gays, or to dismember petty thieves.

    All of these punishments are brutal and savage and cause immense suffering and you have defended it by shrugging your shoulders and saying “they’re a bunch crims, so what?!!”

    Don’t be dishonest and don’t try to argue a double standard.

    The difference is that OT commands are limited to that time, that place and to that specific group of people. Muslims are still under allah’s command to inflict what amounts to torture on other people.

    Like

    • Trey, your response is more proof of the damaging effects of your religion on your capacity to think. It’s further proof of why Christianity is a false religion.

      I’m not even going to dignify your laughable claims about Islam. Christian apologists will always try to deflect from the “difficult” passages in the Bible by making the absurd claim that the mass infanticide in the Bible was for that “time” (as if that excuses such behavior), while Islam teaches its followers to kill unbelievers for all time. This tells me that you are just another ignoramus who hasn’t done any serious research on Islam.

      But coming back to the issue…the ridiculous claim that since God allows the deaths of babies due to natural causes, this somehow makes murdering babies acceptable or okay is pure nonsense. This is why false religion is a bad thing. It reduces a person’s capacity to think. A normal person would quickly reject the idea of killing babies, but not you Christians. You guys are obviously not normal. In a different situation, you would have easily rejected this idea too. You know that. Be honest with yourself. But because its in the Bible, your preconceived beliefs prevent you from admitting the truth. Don’t accuse others of dishonesty. Get off your high horse and look at yourself in the mirror.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Faiz

      Your lying about allah’s commands to kill apostates, stone adulterers and dismember petty thieves does not deflect away from the fact that you are utilizing special pleading. You can’t get away with it that easy.

      There is no logical or moral difference between allah willing babies to suffer until they die or whether he orders other muslims to kill them. You are too thick headed to understand such a simple and obvious line of reasoning. You have condemned your own god as well as ours.

      Sadly for you, christians are not commanded to kill anyone who goes against god nor are we commanded to dismember petty thieves – muslims are.

      Like

    • Trey

      When Jesus command people to kill babies in the Bible, then Christians HONEST ABOUT THEM AND ACCEPT THEIR DIFFICULTY. Muslims like your self will defend commands of God to murder people who choose to have a different worldview.

      Jesus command for apostasy – did you not defend this a parable?

      Luke 19:27

      -Deuteronomy 17:3-5 “And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …..and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.”

      -New International Version
      But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

      -2 Chronicles 15:13 “All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”

      -You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.”

      -Deuteronomy 17:3-5 “And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …..and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.”

      Mathew 15:4
      4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’

      Even if it is a parable it is no different Jesus commanded his followers to kill apostates and they are doing it for centuries and still doing it.

      Christian Jesus murdering babies and apostates is a Difficulty to Christians according to Trey but command in the Quran is murder. That is hypocrisy.

      Jesus Christ has commanded so many death by stones but the hypocrite Trey is not worried about Jesus commands of killing with stones by worried about stones Muslims. Hypocrite.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Trey
      When Jesus command people to kill babies in the Bible, then Christians HONEST ABOUT THEM AND ACCEPT THEIR DIFFICULTY. Muslims like your self will defend commands of God to murder people who choose to have a different worldview.

      Jesus command for apostasy – did you not defend this a parable?

      Luke 19:27

      -Deuteronomy 17:3-5 “And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …..and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.”

      -New International Version
      But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

      -2 Chronicles 15:13 “All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”

      -You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.”

      -Deuteronomy 17:3-5 “And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …..and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.”

      Mathew 15:4
      4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’

      Even if it is a parable it is no different Jesus commanded his followers to kill apostates and they are doing it for centuries and still doing it.

      Christian Jesus murdering babies and apostates is a Difficulty to Christians according to Trey but command in the Quran is murder. That is hypocrisy.

      Jesus Christ has commanded so many death by stones but the hypocrite Trey is not worried about Jesus commands of killing with stones by worried about stones Muslims. Hypocrite.

      Thanks.

      Like

  21. LOL, I could care less about your accusations. Christians are expert liars, so to see you accusing me of lying is laughable.

    What’s even laughable is your insistence that kIlling babies is the same as babies dying through natural causes. Your religion has rotted your brain. Christianity is a plague on the world and only now are people beginning to wake up and recognize the BS, like claiming that kIlling babies was okay. Your following Satan when you defend infanticide, not God.

    There is nothing logical about stabbing a baby with a sword. Your thick head will not allow you to see that. Like I said, if it wasn’t in the Bible you would have no problem denouncing infanticide. But because its in the Bible, you can’t bring yourself around to denounce it. Just admit that.

    I find it laugable that Christians pretend to be “pro-life” on the one hand in the abortion debate yet shamelessly defend infanticide because its in the Bible. Another contradiction…Maybe we should call your religion Contradictianity. 😉

    Like

    • Your god obviously commits infanticide continually. I am just asking you why and all you can give as a reason is natural causes.

      Now you are talking like the atheists that you despise to try and unsuccessfuly wriggle your way out.

      That is great dawah for all those who don’t believe your book because it is incoherent and has no answer for the problem of evil.

      Like

    • Faiz

      Hate is all you’ve got.

      You are too dumbed down by islam to recognize that god’s will is god’s will. You would even deny the omnipotence of allah in a vain attempt to win an internet argument. You just don’t have what it takes to reason logically, so stop embarrassing yourself. No one is fooled by your pretensions and allah doesn’t like the way you demean him.

      I also notice that you have dropped your weak defence of allah’s ongoing command for muslims to brutally murder adulterers, apostates and maim petty thieves. Your merciful allah is a bloodthirsty demon who glories in spilled blood and dismembered body parts and the only way you can deal with it is by throwing out red herrings about the OT.

      Allah loves muslims who chop off people’s hands and every stone that crushes an adulterers skull brings you closer to your god. Happy stone-throwing and take some good instagrams the next time you witness a thief being cruelly maimed. Defending these savage acts of violence makes you a good muslim.

      Like

  22. Lol Erasmus, you’re the one trying to wriggle your way out of an obviously uncomfortable situation!

    I already refuted your idiotic comparison. As I said, death is a part of life. It’s not pleasant and I would never wish for anyone to lose a child, but that’s the way it is. It’s a far cry from murder. In the former situation, when a baby’s life is at risk, any decent human being would do everything in their power to safe that precious life. That is what God commands. But despite every effort, the baby dies, then what else can we do? As I said, it was the natural course of things. God had willed that life to end, just like He wills that all human beings will die eventually.

    But in the latter scenario, a baby is intentionally killed. No effort is made to save that precious life. Rather, it is deliberately slaughtered. Why you can’t see the difference is beyond me. You guys have truly been corrupted and brainwashed by your false religion. You know something is wrong when a human being defends murdering babies. I think there might be a loose screw in your head.

    Like

    • Faiz

      I don’t think that you are pretending to be this dense. All life and all death belongs to allah you apostate blasphemer. Are you so stupid as to claim that babies suffer and die separately from allah’s will? LMAO!

      You need to run an buy a hard hat before allah’s faithful catch up with you and start hurling rocks for your apostasy.

      Like

  23. Lol Trey, still not getting it, eh? That’s okay, it’s not your fault that you are stupid. You weren’t born this way. Your ugly religion has slowly corrupted your mind through years of steady brainwashing. .

    Pay attenation now, silly Christian apologist. I never said that natural death is not under Allah’s control, you moron. I said it’s idiotic to compare natural death to murder and ecc use the latter by appealing to the former. Get it? Get your head out of your rear end and try to think without the corrupting influence of the Bible. Like I said, Christianity rots people’s brains. You are cleary one such person. ; )

    Like

    • Faiz

      The hateful fruits of your religion are obvious in you.

      I cannot help but notice that you continue to try avoiding the barbaric punishments that allah commands you to administer.

      You are too stupid to realize that you are making the argument from evil – that convicts allah too, and rightfully so. He wants you cut off people’s hands and administer excruciating pain on sinners. And he’s merciful. You are making me laugh with your dishonesty.

      Tell me Faiz, would you join a crowd of devout muslims and murder an adulterer? By your comments I can tell that you are a very wicked hearted person and would drool over the chance to do it. Maybe you already have.

      The christian god doesn’t command me to do these things. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable.

      Like

  24. LOL Trey, you’re the one defending infanticide, not me! That is the fruit of your religion, you dingbat!

    Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable! 😉

    Like

    • Faiz

      Where have I defended infanticide?

      But, yeah, keep on avoiding allah’s savage commands to brutally murder and maim people why don’t you. I’m under no command to kill anyone, you, as a follower of allah must be willing to carry out his murders of adulterers, apostates and maiming of petty thieves.

      You are still too pig stupid explain the qualitative difference in god’s will between allowing babies to die painful natural death and non-natural deaths. Your gullible, brainwashed mind just can’t deal with that, and you probably can’t find any islamic apologist sites that can answer this question to copy-paste from.

      Like

  25. LOL, Trey is getting angrier by the minute!

    Silly apologist, a decent person does not try to excuse the barbaric murder of infants. That’s what you have been doing all this time. The Bible days that God commanded the Israelites to kill infants. Instead of denouncing this monstrous behavior, you have been making excuses for it. That is the same as defending it. Get it? I know it’s hard with all the brainwashing, but try to use your head. 😉

    A natural death is normal, even if it occurs at a young age. Like I said before, a decent person would try to save a life as long as it was humanly possible. Since death is a natural part of life, and murder is NOT natural, it is idiotic of you to try to compare the two as it they are the same. Your corrupted and rotted mind aside, the two are not the same. Get over it!

    Like

    • You’re funny. I’m not angry in the least.

      A natural death is as much willed by allah as is a non-natural death. So why does allah will innocent babies to die painful natural deaths?

      Every time to try to reason logically, you come out looking like a complete imbecile.What makes me laugh is that you are too pig ignorant to realize how poorly you utilize logical reasoning.

      Like

  26. An unnatural death is the will of God, just like everything is, but it’s not something God commands, you dolt! What are you not getting? God does not command us to do evil. We do it ourselves, and God allows it. See the difference? No, of course you don’t. Your mind cannot process even simple logic like this because of the rotten influence of your Bible. Like I said before, if the Bible did not mention the stories of infanticide, you would not be defending it with such vigor as you are now. You would be disgusted by such things (and rightfully so), but because it is in your Bible, you are too embarrassed and so are willing to stoop so low as to make excuses for baby-killing. You are obviously too embarrassed to admit that the Bible does your thinking for you. You threw your logic out the door a long time ago. You’re the one looking like an imbecile! Anyone who reads your pathetic posts defending the murder of babies will think the same! Sorry! 😉

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: