LittleToe,
To deny that the Pharisees had a theology problem is to throw out two thirds of what's written in the four Gospels. Jesus wrangled with them almost every day for over three years, not principally about their lack of love, but about their misinterpretation of the Scriptures. They trusted in their own teachings and had abandoned God's teachings. That was the underlying reason why they lacked love.
The same is true today. In over 60 years I have never met a Trinitarian who is such due to a sincere love of the Bible. All of them believe it because of what men have said, not due to discovering it themselves. The doctrine has been carefully developed and phrased over centuries of time. It is stated in a particular way and requires special terminology for its explanation - terminology that is not found in the Bible. Those who argue for it make a point of giving original Hebrew and Greek terms a special meaning that often conflicts with what many translators and other scholars have said. There is no way that the average reader, left to himself, would discover a doctrine so well hidden in the Scriptures if, indeed, it was actually there.
Like many Trinitarians, you claim that people who believed in the Trinity were persecuted for that belief. But where is the evidence for such a bold claim? History is silent. On the other hand, millions of Jews, Muslims and non-Trinitarian Christians were hounded to death by both Catholic and Protestant Trinitarians. Here history is so loud that it is deafening with reports about the Inquisition and Dark Ages, the expulsion of non-Trinitarians from Spain and other lands in the 15th century, their expulsion from Poland in the 16th century, their burnings at the stake in Protestant England even as late as the 17th century, etc.
Yes, I do doubt your sincerity and love. If you were genuinely fair, you would have made an equal issue of all the rantings and ravings of the Trinitarians in this thread. The thread even got its start by someone who blazed away with both barrels loaded as if out to kill.
Your objection to my cartoons is additional evidence of your bias. All you can come up with is that cartoon editorials have been misused and abused, but you can't point to a single one of mine that fits that category. I haven't lied or deliberately distorted anything. It is sheer pettiness to say the Devil doesn't have horns and carry a pitch-fork. A cartoon is only a cartoon, and generally people know what's meant by such an illustration. The same can be said about meeting Peter at heaven's gate or about seeing two members of the Trinity hiding behind clouds. The purpose of the cartoon is to convey a message. If that message is truthful, it will not be offensive except to people it exposes or those who have an overly-sensitive concept of what's right and wrong.
I imagine you will continue to find objections to anything I say. You have that right. But I urge you to try being a bit more fair in your criticisms. Try to see that where there is smoke there is fire and that there can be and often are abuses involving name-calling and offensiveness on both sides of this issue of the Trinity.
Herk