Is the Qur'an wrong about the trinity?

[exoflare]

JimG,

You’re doing a pretty good job explaining the facets of the Trinity here. I can understand the concept in my mind very well, but have never been very good at putting it into words like you seem to be. Just thought I’d mention that!

 

[inJESUS]

exoflare:

JimG,

You’re doing a pretty good job explaining the facets of the Trinity here. I can understand the concept in my mind very well, but have never been very good at putting it into words like you seem to be. Just thought I’d mention that!

 

[JimG]

exoflare:

JimG,
You’re doing a pretty good job explaining the facets of the Trinity here. I can understand the concept in my mind very well, but have never been very good at putting it into words like you seem to be. Just thought I’d mention that!

Thanks. Since the Trinity involves the very internal life of God, it is not something that we would have known through pure reason. We know of it only because of the revelation made known to us by the Word becoming flesh.

JimG

 

[Shenango]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Joseph_Alison,
I admire your tenacity. However, all translators except you, translate min dooni in 5:116 to mean ‘besides’ or its synonyms. But you know better.

There are some verses which clear take min dooni to mean besides, but you ignore those even when they have been shown to you.

That is your sole point of argument.

The true meaning of “min doon” is “in detraction from”. Detracting from someone means giving them less than 100% their due, starting at 99.9% and counting down to 0%. So the phrase could, objectively speaking, indicate any place on that scale, though if you detract from somebody 100% that effectively becomes “instead of” or “rather than”, which is why the translators choose those words for 3:79, which also says “min doon”. It just sounds better in that context, though 3:79 is essentially saying the same thing as 5:116.

And though I feel 5:116, unlike 3:79, is better left worded as “in derogation of” or “besides”, to interpret the verse as saying Christians took Mary and Jesus (PBUH) as 66.67% in derogation of God is plainly ridiculous. Islam does not acknowledge the sharing of partners in the worship of God, and makes it pretty clear that doing so is in fact a full denial (or “detraction from”) of God.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

The true meaning of “min doon” is “in detraction from”. Detracting from someone means giving them less than 100% their due, starting at 99.9% and counting down to 0%. So the phrase could, objectively speaking, indicate any place on that scale, though if you detract from somebody 100% that effectively becomes “instead of” or “rather than”, which is why the translators choose those words for 3:79, which also says “min doon”. It just sounds better in that context, though 3:79 is essentially saying the same thing as 5:116.

And though I feel 5:116, unlike 3:79, is better left worded as “in derogation of” or “besides”, to interpret the verse as saying Christians took Mary and Jesus (PBUH) as 66.67% in derogation of God is plainly ridiculous. Islam does not acknowledge the sharing of partners in the worship of God, and makes it pretty clear that doing so is in fact a full denial (or “detraction from”) of God.

Sorry, buddy. I will ask my Arab friends to clarify what you said. I do know that whenever there’s a difference in opinion about Arabic translators I will prefer to trust the generally available translators. No offfense. But those people are experts and professional. You are not.

There are just too many min dooni Allahi verses that supports my position that ‘min dooni’ means ‘besides’ or ‘other than’ or ‘apart from’ or other synonyms. I do acknowledge that there are other meanings but in the context it is clear that 5:116 was talking about Jesus and Mary BESIDES Allah, not in any subordinate position to Allah.

4:119 Walaodillannahum walaomanniyannahum walaamurannahum falayubattikunna athana al-anAAami walaamurannahum falayughayyirunna khalqa Allahi waman yattakhithi alshshaytana waliyyan min dooni Allahi faqad khasira khusranan mubeenan
and I will seduce them, and will insinuate [vain] desires into them, and I will command them and they shall cut off the ears of cattle; and I will command them and they shall change God’s creature. But whoever taketh Satan for his patron, besides God, shall surely perish with a manifest destruction.

6:108 Wala tasubboo allatheena yadAAoona min dooni Allahi fayasubboo Allaha AAadwan bighayri Aailmin
“You revile not those unto whom they pray, besides Allah, lest they, out of respite, revile Allah, in their ignorance.”

9:16 Am hasibtum an tutrakoo walamma yaAAlami Allahu allatheena jahadoo minkum walam yattakhithoo min dooni Allahi wala rasoolihi wala almu/mineena waleejatan waAllahu khabeerun bima taAAmaloona
Do you think that God will not make any distinction between those of you who have fought for His cause and have relied on no one other than God, His Messenger, and the faithful ones, and other people? God is Well Aware of what you do.

11:13 Am yaqooloona iftarahu qul fa/too biAAashri suwarin mithlihi muftarayatin waodAAoo mani istataAAtum min dooni Allahi in kuntum sadiqeena
Or, say they: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it, and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.

21:24 Ami ittakhathoo min doonihi alihatan qul hatoo burhanakum hatha thikru man maAAiya wathikru man qablee bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona alhaqqa fahum muAAridoona
Have they taken other deities except HIM? O Prophet (Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), ask them: "Bring your proofs, this Book (Al-Qur’ân) is also present in which there is an advice for the people of my time and those Books are also present in which there was an advice for the people before me.” But most of them are ignorant from the Truth; this is why they have turned away their faces.

25:3 Waittakhathoo min doonihi alihatan la yakhluqoona shay-an wahum yukhlaqoona wala yamlikoona li-anfusihim darran wala nafAAan wala yamlikoona mawtan wala hayatan wala nushooran
Yet have they taken, besides him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.

29:17 Innama taAAbudoona min dooni Allahiawthanan watakhluqoona ifkan inna allatheenataAAbudoona min dooni Allahi la yamlikoona lakumrizqan faibtaghoo AAinda Allahi alrrizqa waoAAbudoohuwaoshkuroo lahu ilayhi turjaAAoona
"For ye do worship idols besides Allah, and ye invent falsehood. The things that ye worship besides Allah have no power to give you sustenance: then seek ye sustenance from Allah, serve Him, and be grateful to Him: to Him will be your return.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

39:3 Ala lillahi alddeenu alkhalisu waallatheena ittakhathoo min doonihi awliyaa ma naAAbuduhum illa liyuqarriboona ila Allahi zulfa inna Allaha yahkumu baynahum fee ma hum feehi yakhtalifoona inna Allaha la yahdee man huwa kathibun kaffarun

Now surely sincere obedience is due to Allah (alone). And those who choose protectors besides Him (say): We serve them only that they may bring us nearer to Allah. Surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ. Surely Allah guides not him who is a liar, ungrateful.

45:4 Qul araaytum ma tadAAoona min dooni Allahi aroonee matha khalaqoo mina al-ardi am lahum shirkun fee alssamawati eetoonee bikitabin min qabli hatha aw atharatin min AAilmin in kuntum sadiqeena

Say: "Do ye see what it is ye invoke besides Allah. Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens bring me a book (revealed) before this, or any remnant of knowledge (ye may have), if ye are telling the truth!

46:4 Qul araaytum ma tadAAoona min dooni Allahi aroonee matha khalaqoo mina al-ardi am lahum shirkun fee alssamawati eetoonee bikitabin min qabli hatha aw atharatin min AAilmin in kuntum sadiqeena

Say: "Do ye see what it is ye invoke besides Allah? Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens bring me a book (revealed) before this, or any remnant of knowledge (ye may have), if ye are telling the truth!

60:4 Qad kanat lakum oswatun hasanatun fee ibraheema waallatheena maAAahu ith qaloo liqawmihim inna buraao minkum wamimma taAAbudoona min dooni Allahi kafarna bikum wabada baynana wabaynakumu alAAadawatu waalbaghdao abadan hatta tu/minoo biAllahi wahdahu illa qawla ibraheema li-abeehi laastaghfiranna laka wama amliku laka mina Allahi min shay-in rabbana AAalayka tawakkalna wa-ilayka anabna wa-ilayka almaseeru
There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: “We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone”: But not when Abraham said to his father: “I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah.” (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.

67:20 Amman hatha allathee huwajundun lakum yansurukum min dooni alrrahmaniini alkafiroona illa fee ghuroorin
Nay, who is there that can help you, (even as) an army, besides (Allah) Most Merciful? In nothing but delusion are the Unbelievers.

Nos vemos después
Cid

 

[Shenango]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Sorry, buddy. I will ask my Arab friends to clarify what you said. I do know that whenever there’s a difference in opinion about Arabic translators I will prefer to trust the generally available translators. No offfense. But those people are experts and professional. You are not.

There are just too many min dooni Allahi verses that supports my position that ‘min dooni’ means ‘besides’ or ‘other than’ or ‘apart from’ or other synonyms. I do acknowledge that there are other meanings but in the context it is clear that 5:116 was talking about Jesus and Mary BESIDES Allah, not in any subordinate position to Allah.

I don’t know what it is Rodrigo. Perhaps I’m too dense for you, or the reverse is true, but you often misunderstand what I say then respond with a straw man fallacy. Well, I’m not into playing games with you, though you may enjoy it.

“Min dooni” means exactly what I said it means. I’ve studied Arabic and know what it means. I never said that “in detraction from” means below someone. I agree that it’s on par with, just not that the reference in 5:116 is to the Trinity or tritheism.

Anyway, I’ll let you return to attacking arguments I didn’t make…have fun!

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

I don’t know what it is Rodrigo. Perhaps I’m too dense for you, or the reverse is true, but you often misunderstand what I say then respond with a straw man fallacy. Well, I’m not into playing games with you, though you may enjoy it.

“Min dooni” means exactly what I said it means. I’ve studied Arabic and know what it means. I never said that “in detraction from” means below someone. I agree that it’s on par with, just not that the reference in 5:116 is to the Trinity or tritheism.

Anyway, I’ll let you return to attacking arguments I didn’t make…have fun!

I’ll make this observation even though you may think it an ad hominem circumstantial:

Why can’t Muslims argue on the facts rather than on semantics? I used the phrase, ‘in subordination of’ rather than ‘in detraction from’. What does it matter? My point will still be the same even if I had used ‘in detraction from.’ I was merely trying to cover both yours and Joseph_Alison’s point. Anything short of equality is what I intended to convey.

Joseph_Alison tried to show that the ‘worship’ of Jesus and Mary was idolatry because Allah was supreme and Jesus and Mary were ‘beneath’ or ‘coming from underneath’ him.

You have tried to show that min dooni means’ in detraction from’ meaning it somehow excludes Allah.

Both meanings are covered by ‘in subordination of’, which I used.

The verses I provided were clear that ‘min dooni’ means ‘besides’, ‘other than’, ‘apart from’, or other synonyms. These verses evidence my claim and disprove yours.

Do you want to try again? Let me substitute ‘in subordination of’ to ‘in detraction from’ - using your exact words? Does it change the meaning of min dooni? I think not.

Ciudate,
Rodrigo

 

[exoflare]

Rodrigo, why can’t you just ignore him? I don’t think anyone on here is really fooled by these tactics Shenango is using. Whether he himself is deliberately using these kinds of tactics, or is just plain deluded, is nobody’s problem but his own.

 

[Shenango]

Well, Rodrigo, I’m not going to defend Joseph Alison’s argument, and that was not my purpose. My purpose was to educate you about the true meaning of “min doon”. But it’s apparent you don’t really care the true meanings of the terms, and just wish to play with them at will to find the Qur’an in error. Really, I wish you could see how much that approach reveals pathetic desperation rather than a desire for genuine learning. But I surmise you care little for that, so I was nuts to think (again) that scholarship and understanding was what you truly desired.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Dear Shenango,
Actually if you read my posts, I’m not desperate at all. You and all the other muslims here would have realised by now I’m quite experienced at debating Muslims: I have heard all your arguments before.

I am interested in genuine learning - that is why I put my posts for your criticism. I do note that semantics is the second last resort of debaters who have nothing more substantive to say.

I will point out the definitions of ‘min dooni’ throughout the many verses in the Quran by scholars more authoritative than you. The contexts of these verses make it very clear that my meaning is correct - in most cases, there really is no other plausible explanation.

Ciudate,
Mata Moro

 

[Shenango]

Greetings Rodrigo,

I’d like to know what credentials you possess in Arabic that would entitle you to argue with those who know the language. Much obliged.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I’d like to know what credentials in formal logic you have that will entitle you to debate me.

Seriously, Arabic is not a problem: If I have a problem with the Arabic I will email Dr Ali Sina or a few other Arabic friends, even ones with dictionaries. Most of the time, I will rely on Arabic translators of the Quran include Shaykh Darwish and Grand Shaykh Qaribullah, and a host of other Arabic speakers. I should think they know Arabic better than you.

In this case, I know I’m correct because of the multitude of Quranic verses that are translated by well-regarded Arabic authorities that back up my point and debunks yours.

Besides, you’re arguing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem here. It is not my credentials that is in question if I bring the evidence of experts. You’re basically arguing that nobody has the right to question Islam and the Quran if they’re not native Arabic speakers. Tough cheese.

 

[Neverland]

Dear Shen,

Gonzales and I debated about “translation” and he couldn’t give any word in Arabic that cannot be translated (the translation includes the explanatory notes, for your information). I think his Arabic is among the best here, isn’t it?

Neverland

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

The true meaning of “min doon” is “in detraction from”. Detracting from someone means giving them less than 100% their due, starting at 99.9% and counting down to 0%. So the phrase could, objectively speaking, indicate any place on that scale, though if you detract from somebody 100% that effectively becomes “instead of” or “rather than”, which is why the translators choose those words for 3:79, which also says “min doon”. It just sounds better in that context, though 3:79 is essentially saying the same thing as 5:116.

And though I feel 5:116, unlike 3:79, is better left worded as “in derogation of” or “besides”, to interpret the verse as saying Christians took Mary and Jesus (PBUH) as 66.67% in derogation of God is plainly ridiculous. Islam does not acknowledge the sharing of partners in the worship of God, and makes it pretty clear that doing so is in fact a full denial (or “detraction from”) of God

In re-reading Shenango’s post it is clear he didn’t get the point. Sorry to the Muslim members but this is a common complaint.

It does not matter that ‘Islam does not acknowledge the sharing of partners in the worship of God, and makes it pretty clear that doing so is in fact a full denial (or “detraction from”) of God’. That is beside the point.

1. It doesn’t matter that this is not Islamic practice, i.e. Islam does not acknowledge it. Thanks for proving the Quran wrong.
2. We are really trying to determine if the Quranic story about Jesus conforms to Christian, not Islamic, practice as Jesus was the Messiah of the Christians. Why would Allah ask Jesus something that is obviously against Christian practice? The only plausible explanation is that Muhammad thought that the Christian practice was the worship of Jesus, Mary and God (whom he mistook as Allah) – i.e. the Trinity.
3. The word, ‘derogation’ is an English word – why quibble about an English word when we’re talking about the most appropriate meaning of the Arabic words ‘min dooni’. Here the most authoritative Arabic translators translate it in relation to 5:116 to mean ‘besides’ or ‘other than’ or ‘apart from’ or synonyms – to convey the meaning of equal status of Jesus and Mary with Allah. This is undeniable. There are many verses where min dooni can only mean ‘besides’, ‘other than’, ‘apart from’ or synonyms.

It is a circular argument (i.e. a logical fallacy) to claim that since the Quran does not permit polytheism (i.e. ‘the sharing of partners in the worship of God’ – to be pedantic in order to avoid semantics games), then 5:116 does not refer to polytheism (i.e. ‘the sharing of partners in the worship of God’). We’re discussing whether the Quran’s view of the Christian belief of the Trinity is correct or not – i.e. we’re not talking about the Quran’s view of Islamic beliefs.

I hope I’m not too subtle here.

Ciudate,
Mata Moro

 

[Joseph_Alison]

2. We are really trying to determine if the Quranic story about Jesus conforms to Christian, not Islamic, practice as Jesus was the Messiah of the Christians. Why would Allah ask Jesus something that is obviously against Christian practice? The only plausible explanation is that Muhammad thought that the Christian practice was the worship of Jesus, Mary and God (whom he mistook as Allah) – i.e. the Trinity.

1. The word, ‘derogation’ is an English word – why quibble about an English word when we’re talking about the most appropriate meaning of the Arabic words ‘min dooni’. Here the most authoritative Arabic translators translate it in relation to 5:116 to mean ‘besides’ or ‘other than’ or ‘apart from’ or synonyms – to convey the meaning of equal status of Jesus and Mary with Allah. This is undeniable. There are many verses where min dooni can only mean ‘besides’, ‘other than’, ‘apart from’ or synonyms.

It is a circular argument (i.e. a logical fallacy) to claim that since the Quran does not permit polytheism (i.e. ‘the sharing of partners in the worship of God’ – to be pedantic in order to avoid semantics games), then 5:116 does not refer to polytheism (i.e. ‘the sharing of partners in the worship of God’). We’re discussing whether the Quran’s view of the Christian belief of the Trinity is correct or not – i.e. we’re not talking about the Quran’s view of Islamic beliefs.

I hope I’m not too subtle here.

Ciudate,
Mata Moro

Salaam Rodrigo;

Now it is my turn to admire you tenacity.
You know Rodrigo, I never discuss with the aim to win an argument, not at all. I never set myself to win discussions, and I do my best to avoid turning a discussion into a confrontation. What I say is my sole responsibility. With such a state of mind it is easy for me to determine when I should stop discussing a specific subject when I judge that going any further becomes a waste of time; what the person with whom I was discussing thinks does not bother me at all.

I said what I had to say concerning verse 5:116. You think I am wrong, no problem.

I was worried that discussions with you would turn to a confrontation, the cheering you received elsewhere in another thread, I was afraid, would inflate you, turning the dialog difficult, but over all, “besides” a difficult start, you were correct and I thank you for that. Looking forward to meeting you in another thread, in another discussion when time allows it.

Salaam.
Joseph

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam JimG;

Joseph,
Yes, Christians also believe in One True God—One entity.

I don’t deny that the Christians profess to worship the One True God; what I am discussing is the belief that the One True God is believed to be a Godhead with three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, truly distinct from each other:

•The Father is believed to be God and possesses ALL the Divine Attributes.
•The Son is believed to be God and possesses ALL the Divine Attributes.
•The Holy Ghost is believed to be God and possesses ALL the Divine Attributes.

You explained earlier that “God the Father begets the Person of the Son by the operation of his divine self-knowledge. Father and Son generate the Person of the Holy Spirit by the operation of the divine will to love”. Whatever the meaning of the terms begets and generate are; the end result is a duplication of the Divine Attributes among three persons composing the Godhead. This duplication serves no purposes in the case of the Eternal Being who is God.

Since by definition one All-Powerful Being can do whatever He wants; including to create less powerful beings to serve His purpose, what is the purpose to have three All-Powerful Beings (albeit under the same umbrella)?
What is the purpose to have three All-Knowing Persons (albeit under the same umbrella), since by definition one All-Knowing Being knows everything about His creation and there is nothing for Him left to know? He has the Absolute knowledge, the presence of two other Beings having the same Absolute knowledge adds nothing to His knowledge.

Theologically speaking, the Father does not will the Son into existence. And the Son does not have a separate existence from the Father. The Person of the Son (and the Spirit) are eternally present simply by reason of the Father being eternally present.

If only the Son and the Holy Spirit were from eternity present, when did God acquire the knowledge of all the other things which came to existence? Actually this is not a question to be answered, by it I simply meant to say that God does not acquire knowledge as time goes by, ALL Absolute Eternal Knowledge of things is with Him, including Jesus, the Holy Spirit and all the other things. He is the One True God, everything else is His creation.

I cannot know myself perfectly. But God can. When God knows Himself, there is nothing lacking in his “idea.” His knowledge is so perfect, that his idea of himself contains everything that is in the original. So perfect that it is even a person. He cannot know Himself other than perfectly. But an idea is not separate from the knower. It is not a separate entity. If there is no knower, there is no idea. Both are eternally present. It is not an act of will, because the Father, just by being, eternally knows Himself. John the Apostle calls this self-knowledge the Word. The Word that God speaks is the Son.

God having an idea of Himself! is this from reason or revelation?
I think this is similar to the analogy with the mind and thought, the Father being the mind and the Son being his thought. An “idea” is generated somewhere, it is the product of another process, it does not take precedence and therefore it is not the first. The One True God is the First, everything else is His creation.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[inJESUS]

what is this min dooni stuff about? no matter what translation you put, the verse is still wrong…we already posted many verses, and ALL ARE WRONG.
Now what? trying to analyze the trinity to say we worship 3 gods? just a wishful thinking; we worship ONE GOD which mohammas failed to understand…what goes within this “one” is irrelevant, coz we believe in ONE GOD.
ALL that mohammad addressed where the heresies that we Christians refute…mohammad was raised learning the nasara teachings, not the masihiyyin (Christian) teachings, coz you obviously do not find the word Masihiyyin (christians) in quran but only the word nasara; and hopefully you people know the differences between the mainstream christians, and the heretic nasara.

So NO MATTER what mohammas/allah refuted, he DID NOT KNOW WHAT MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN, BUT HE WAS STUCK IN 7TH CENTURY HERETIC ARABIA

 

[JimG]

Joseph,

I don’t deny that the Christians profess to worship the One True God; what I am discussing is the belief that the One True God is believed to be a Godhead with three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, truly distinct from each other:

Yes, the Persons are distinct in Person but not distinct in Nature. There is but One Divine Nature.

You explained earlier that “God the Father begets the Person of the Son by the operation of his divine self-knowledge. Father and Son generate the Person of the Holy Spirit by the operation of the divine will to love”. Whatever the meaning of the terms begets and generate are; the end result is a duplication of the Divine Attributes among three persons composing the Godhead. This duplication serves no purposes in the case of the Eternal Being who is God.

No, the Divine Attributes are not duplicated, because they belong to the One nature of God. There are three persons, not three natures. What purpose? God’s purpose is not subject to our evaluation: we only know him by revelation and reason reflecting on revelation. The Trinity of Persons is not something God decides to do; it is the essence of his Being. His nature is One. His Persons are Three. He is not material.

You are correct that God does not acquire knowledge as time goes by, because he does not exist in time. His self knowledge is not creation, because it is not outside Himself. In creating all things extrinsic to Him, God created everything from nothing.

God having an idea of himself is only an analogy. (Still, it has a scriptural basis in that John calls the Son the divine Word, or Logos–God speaking Himself.) Our minds cannot encompass God; we will only know Him fully when in his presence. (And even then, not fully, because our minds are still finite.)

But I still have my original question that really must precondition any discussion of the attributes of God. In Islamic thought, is God Spirit, or is he material?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam Rodrigo;

Hola Joseph

Joseph_Alison:

Now it is my turn to admire you tenacity.

Gracias.

Joseph_Alison:

You know Rodrigo, I never discuss with the aim to win an argument, not at all. I never set myself to win discussions, and I do my best to avoid turning a discussion into a confrontation. What I say is my sole responsibility. With such a state of mind it is easy for me to determine when I should stop discussing a specific subject when I judge that going any further becomes a waste of time; what the person with whom I was discussing thinks does not bother me at all.

I said what I had to say concerning verse 5:116. You think I am wrong, no problem.

I was worried that discussions with you would turn to a confrontation, the cheering you received elsewhere in another thread, I was afraid, would inflate you, turning the dialog difficult, but over all, “besides” a difficult start, you were correct and I thank you for that. Looking forward to meeting you in another thread, in another discussion when time allows it.

Salaam.
Joseph

Gracias Joseph. You need not worry that any ‘cheering’ would ‘inflate me’. I am not an egotistical person. I do not debate merely to win. Winning is important but only in life, not in an internet forum where one is anonymous and the effects of winning are ephemeral. Winning the heart of the love of your life is important. Winning the love of your pets is important. Winning the respect of your friends is important. Winning at a game of golf is important (only golfers will know why). Winning at theological discussions is unimportant. You see, anonymity rules out ego. As you have gathered, my real name is not Rodrigo Dias de Bivar. It is merely a nom de guerre, nothing more. So what is Rodrigo doing on a Catholic forum? Was he really a better person before he came here? No. Will he leave a better person? Possibly.

What is important is what one gets out of these endeavors. What are we looking for when we enter into such places?

I hope you’ll examine every aspect of your own life and religion as you seem to demand of your debating opponents when they make assertions. I’m sure all the members here are good people at heart. We’ve all striving to understand, i.e. make sense of, the big issues in life, or at least one of them.

If I seem confrontational to you then I’m afraid that is not the effect I had wished to convey. Let’s call it ‘conviction’. You have your conviction and I have mine. Sometimes, convictions meet like waves on rocks, in a storm. Neither yielding. I have the conviction of the truth. You also, I’m sure. However, your truth is not the same as my truth. Sometimes they are diametrically opposite. But the greatest truth, I think, is within one’s own self. If you’re a good person then it doesn’t matter what you believe in. Take care.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo