Sulla, the journey continues.
You are a very difficult fellow to agree with, Jeff. Like I said, I'm in substantial agreement with your observation that the Trinity is not usefully discussed on boards like this. I happen to think that is mostly because people on your side don't bother to educate themselves about what it is they disagree with. And because they have a fudamentally dishonest approach to things where they prefer to engage the weakest arguments of their opponents instead of the strongest arguments.
So, if people only educated themselves on the Trinity like you did, they would believe? Ok. Duly noted. Still haven't heard any arguments from you, as you put out this odd "strong/weak" dichotemy. You just say that "we" Trinity debunkers take pot shots at the weak arguments. Yet you haven't put out a strong or weak argument. However, if you have, let me/us know. Thanks in advance! As for your dishonest approach, you haven't given anyone here an alternative. So frankly, you are the dishonest one.
Look, I see that you now say you've studied the matter extensively and still conclude it is illogical. I don't believe you. I think, if you had, you would not toss out things like 1+1+1~=1 or the amazing observation that, in humans, natures and persons are not separable. You'd be entitled to think the same of me if I tried to defend the teaching with some H2O example, or egg example, or clover. I didn't, of course, and wouldn't because I know that those are not compelling arguments. Anybody who would be convinced by those arguments for the Trinity is probably not engaging the question at a very high level.
So what is your high level argument again?
But, back to you. I think this thread has generally supported my viewpoint that anti-Trinitarians like you prefer cheap shots to real discussion. And I think this thread has shown a high level of bad faith from your side: you keep changing the subject: for example, asking me to offer up a strong argument for the Trinity (how many times do I have to agree with you that there isn't much point in that sort of discussion?). And I think this thread has shown how you mis-understand things like the observation that the Trinity is a mystery, preferring to suppose that means those who believe it accept illogical arguments.
I don't really give a rats ass what you think this says about me. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS COMPLAINED ABOUT WEAK ARGUMENTS YET HAVEN'T PRESENTED A "STRONG" ONE. What I think this says about you is that you would rather frame the argument instead of joining in it.
I, on the other hand, have shown no particular inclination to adopt illogical reasoning at all. I am the paragon of rationality.
You on the other hand have shown no inclination to discuss your beliefs. You are the paragon of bullshit.
So, where do you think the problem lies?
That you will not present any argument at all and insist that all any anti-Trinitarians do is take pot shots at the "weak" arguments.
So you Sulla, our local Trinitarian hot shot, where is your "strong" argument again?