₦airaland Forum

thehomer: How exactly does your God then come into play when something has to exist?

That is exactly what the permanent "necessary" IS.

Energy and space aren't aren't matter.

If you say this, then you accept that non material things exist. Progress.

thehomer: Then why do we need your God?

Because matter being mutable cannot be self existent - - - as said already a zillion times.

I just thank God I do not live in Saudi Arabia.

@ OP - - - You are f00lish in the extreme.

thehomer: Is it possible for nothing to exist?

NO.

Freksy: The bible has never said the universe came about in 7 days. Can you point to any statement or verse that suggests that? The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis "day," though it does not say for how long. However, it does describe what earth's condition was just before that first "day" began.
Many consider the word "day" used in Gen. 1 to mean 24 hrs. However, in Gen. 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion "day". In Gen.2:4 all the creative periods are called one "day":

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created , in the day (all the creative periods) that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens ," - Gen 2:4
The Hebrew word "yohm", translated "day", can mean different lengths of time. It would seem reasonable that the "day" of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time - millenniums. The account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 x 24), but over many millenniums of time.



"'Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day."—Genesis 1:3, 5.
Gen. 1:3 does not announce the birth of the sun or other luminaries. The sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: "And gradually light came into existence." This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was light diffused.



On the first "day" diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light (sun, other stars and the moon) could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth "day," things apparently changed. Had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would "serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years." (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. They were only visible, but not created on the fourth creative day.



Genesis creation account is as correct as mazaje is a humankind. Those who dismiss it as myth or allegory are very ignorant. The account is in harmony with the discoveries of modern science.

Questions for you: Does observable evidence show that undirected explosion can result in better organization? Do the bombs that fall on cities in wartime produce superbly designed buildings, streets and signs with traffic laws? What does experience by the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 show?

Excellent and sensible post. i am not christian and the bible is not my creed, but i cannot get over the vacant st.upidity of those who choose to read Genesis in a literal sense.

thehomer: And what evidence shows that there is something that is external to our present reality?

To the extent that matter being mutable cannot self exist, then it had a trigger, and an effect cannot be its cause and as such must be external to itself. Simpliciter.

thehomer: The statements you made show that it does matter.



So God is detectable. Now can you tell me what you detected that made you decide that it was a God?



I find it very difficult to see this supposedly analogous relationship between the universe and a person.



You say everything is evidence of a God which is physical yet is at the same time non-physical?

So what exactly do you regard God as? You've said it is physical and detectable. If everything is evidence of your God, then nothing is evidence of your God.

In relation to the example given about what can be known about that which is external to our present reality.

mazaje: I am an atheist and yet am still opened to the possiblity of the universe having a creator or creators. . .What we don't know remains, unknown. . .If there is anything that will give us a full explanation of how the universe came about or what brought it about, science is what will do that and not the primitive religions. . .Man made gods and religions are all man made. . .That is my position. ..

I have told you before that you are more agnostic than atheist.

thehomer: Actually, it does matter whether or not God is physical.

O no it doesn't.

If it is physical, then it is a part of this universe and should in principle be detectable.

Of course it is. Just the way the feeling, sound, etc of the mother is detectable by the babies in the womb: i.e - everything they perceive around them is the mother.

Secondly, why not take the universe itself as being the physical God

Yes of course, in this context it is!

Think of the universe as the physical body of the mother, whereas, such a mother still has a mind which is non-physical and is the core of her being and thinking.

rather than going one step further and saying that the universe is within this physical God?

We yet make the distinction because we know that matter cannot self exist and as such cannot be God. With reference to my statement above, where I wrote "Yes of course, in this context it is," i mean that with respect to the analogy in the OP: I.e - everything we see and perceive in this reality are the sounds and evidence of God - the super structure that emanates ultimately from God. However the reason we do not equate matter or the universe to God is the fact that these are mutable and cannot self exist as I have told you a zillion times: as such, these cannot be the necessary "permanent something", which, at all events, MUST exist.

And let me also say that I use the words "within", "box" and "container" only with allusion and deference to the analogy in the OP, which still flows and makes sense. This does not mean however that I strictly regard God as such please.

mazaje: That is not true. . .God is not just the permarnent thing that is assumed to exist. . .The universe is NOT the human society and it must not function as one. . .God does not mean the creator alone to people, he answers prayers, performs miracles, saves people, loves people, etc. . .This is a very testable hypothesis. . .

At its most intrinsic and basic level, that is indeed what the God idea is - that eternal thing that pre-exists and creates. This is agreed on by all theists. Details and qualifications are a matter of understanding and culture.

And logically, it could not be otherwise.

I might also add that this is particularly the case with reference to PURE theistic-atheistic discussions where the issue is the existence of God and not necessarily his idiosyncrasies.

Kay 17: Many materialists believe causal relationships merely shift forms of a permanent entity: Matter. It wld be illogical to conclude that these fellows believe in God.

At the most basic level of the idea advanced in the OP, such permanent matter would still be God.

However i take a different shift of things: because for me, it is obvious that matter cannot be permanent in the past: two things make this obvious: (1) The fact that matter is mutable means it cannot self exist, and (2) the reality of the Big B@ng.

Kay 17: This is untrue. Most cultures don't accept the view that a God is an uncaused being, rather he is an unequal being. And humans who are able to perform incredible feats are deemed divine.

Zoroasterianism despite being monotheist, accepts duality.

I dont have the slightest idea what this post means.

thehomer: Sounds are caused by vibrations being transmitted through some medium and for these sounds to be from God, then God has to be a physical entity. Is your God a physical entity?

Secondly, deep space is a poor transmitter of sound so the sounds that you're referring to are suspicious.

I spoke of ALL sounds. In other words you are living in a bubble. Everything you hear is either within the bubble or transmitted from without the bubble. So the issue is not deep or shallow space my friend. The issue is about everything you see, hear, feel, smell, touch. In short, everything you perceive.

For the purposes of this particular line of reasoning, it does not matter if God is physical or not. As I have said before, you are free to see it as physical, but its existence as the sum of the whole, the container or "box" in which the universe is, the womb in which the babies live and grow, cannot be denied.

mazaje: The god hypothesis is a testable one, it is a scientific hypothesis if it is true. . .tell me what god is and show how it exist in reality, then I will show you that it doesn't because i should be able to test it and verify if it exist or not. . .Go ahead , take show your shot. . tell me what a god is and show how it exist. . .

Because something cannot emerge from nothing, as we have said a zillion times. As such, since things exist, then there logically exists something permanent, from which things exist. That is simple logic and makes perfect sense. That permanent something is what people call God in different languages, period.

thehomer: I'm assuming that this story is to draw an analogy between a believer and a non-believer. For this discussion, I'll assume that the believer is a Christian. The fundamental problem here is that if a baby's senses were functional, surely they would be able to hear, feel and listen to the mother. The mere presence of these physical sensations and their absence when compared to a God shows just how deficient the idea of the God is.

It beats me that it has not occurred to you that all the sounds about us in the universe are the sounds of God in the same way as all the sounds around the babies in the analogy are the sounds of the unseen mother and her movements.

So sad of course. But the Christian Theist would tell you with awe and reverence that his faith is founded on such. That Abraham being willing to kill his son was a good thing. That Mary being pregnant without the help of Brother Joseph was a good thing. That na holy spirit hammer am. Indeed. And educated bozzos not only believe such trash, but would look upon you with great pity, sadness and condemnation, if you do not!

kimakazee: Ask my brothers, the Nigerian Christians who have refused to defend themselves against the forces of evil, especially those who are been killed daily because of the the word of GOD, but not to forget that the Jews will never allow you hurt them talk less of the Americans or even the British who brought us the bible. this type of action has gone to deter those people who even wan to attempt slapping them because they know the consequences of even trying, lets come down to Nigeria to see a clear case of slapping competition, whereby each radical sect are competing on whose slap has the loudest sound, because of how Christians keep turning the other cheek for this competition to continue.
what i am saying in essence is that we live in a world that has changed overtime, where by wickedness has become more daring, evil men are unrepentant, so unless we begin to say enough is enough, the enemy's camp never sleeps

THANK YOU!

enobong18: did you just say religion of donkeys? Hmmm! But seriously, if it will take me being a donkey to make haven, I will gladly be!

Dont worry, you have made heaven already as you are already a successful donkey.

[quote author=Itoroetti ]@op ,I don't know if u are trying to make mockery of christianity or not.but let me assume u are not making mockery.[/quote]Nobody needs to make a mockery of Christianity: it is a mockery itself, which is well known by those pale skinned aliens who taught it the silly nonsense in the first place and used it to enslave you.

In summary Christianity goes as follows -

A talking snake convinced the first woman to eat an apple against the will of God, and so man became sinful and mortal and in order to redeem this, God came down to the earth as a man through a woman that he used his holy ghost to fvck and impregnate and then the man was killed and so the sin of eating the apple was forgiven and anyone who believes this and lives a good life will be saved and those who do not believe it will burn forever in a place called hell.

This is worse than fairy-tales meant for children and it is astonishing that vast swathes of adult humans believe this gibberish. It means, of course, that human beings are essentially toads.

Don't worry, I know that you will express shock that I do not believe the story.

don't u think that husbands would not have bin beating and maltreating their wives?

Husbands who beat their wives should be beaten too, and very seriously at that.

don't u think that people won't be killing others if there is a little atom of forgiveness in them?

People who kill others should be killed too, and in the most sadistic way conceivable.

don't u think u will sleep without locking ur door,knowing fully well that u are safe?Jesus made a statement and I guess,we ought to look into the significance of the statement and that of his life.
@pagan; becareful of what u say and do.at times u may say certain thinks to catch funs or to attract "likes" from fellow nairalanders.but becareful,cos if God visits u positively or negatively,it always end with different stories.

Jesus' teaching in this regard is most irresponsible.

Consequences must be exacted, and every parent understands this, otherwise you make people monsters.

Jesus' teaching in this regard is very misguided and wrong indeed. It is in fact a very dangerous pacifist ideology which would lead the world into anarchy and impunity if adhered to. If people believe that when they hurt other people, the victims would "turn the other cheek" then such people would lose any sense of consequences/ retaliation and continue to act with impunity. There would be no sense of deterrence.

If someone slaps you, the correct thing to do is to slap him right back with overwhelming force and ten times over for that matter. That way, he would immediately learn his lesson and would not attempt such again. In fact, in so doing, you would have made him a better person through discipline and learning the consequences of his actions. You would have taught him that every action begets a reaction and made him wise to the laws of Karma and Nemesis. You have in fact done him a favour

Spare the rod and spoil the child, is another way of saying it: from same scripture, no?

I was watching the series "Merlin" and I saw an episode in which there was a band of robbers who attacked a village every year and seized their ENTIRE harvest, killing anyone who dared to keep back even a morsel to eat and survive. When Arthur arrived on the scene he taught the villagers to FIGHT BACK and protect their harvest, killing the robbers if necessary. This is the CORRECT teaching, and falls in sync with the laws of nature: i.e - survival of the fittest. Maybe Saint Jesus would have taught otherwise? Arrant nonsense.

Weakness is a sin.

claremont: I think there is a thin line that separates human beings from animals, and that is our capacity to show empathy and sympathy. The day we loose this basic trait is the day we stop being human beings, we become no different from animals. Shame and woe unto those who disrespect the dead for whatever reason!

I'm a black immigrant hence I should know how the shoe pinches, but personally, I don't give a flying f-uck what Margaret Thatcher did during her time in power. The bottom-line is that she is dead, and my condolences goes to her family. May her soul R.I.P.

You are simply a selfish person, that's all. You are only concerned about yourself and no one else. You have no perspective of history, symbols, meanings and the tide and march of time. In a nutshell, you are a buffoon, and a disgrace to every soul that has ever been enslaved or discriminated against in history.

Margaret Thatcher deserves to have her corpse diced into a thousand pieces and dumped in a pit latrine and spat upon a million times a day. Humanity really needs to show that level of disgust against those of us who deny us our very humanity.

This is a most senseless and ridiculous thread. What does it serve to prove, even acceding that all its claims be true and correct. What then? What's the remote relevance of anything being said here to anything remotely relevant anywhere, anyhow?

Most striking is the fact that we have here an OP who is busy lamenting the who's and when's of Catholic history, saying that this or that party did this or that act first, used this or that term first, etc. That's pretty rich coming from a person who practices a foreign adopted religion himself, and worships foreign men as Almighty God.

JeSoul: There are several points in this quote that I'd like to address but I'll stick to just the highlighted. There is certainly truth to the point that wholesale religious faiths may have questionable eggs in the mix.

But rather than focus on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a particular belief, I think it is wiser to focus on the fruit of the belief instead. I say this because we are all different. From different backgrounds, families, cultures, academic training, religious ideas etc etc...the only universality in this equation is God. The way I approach, digest & apply a concept is almost guaranteed to be completely different from you. By this, I think it not wise to try to use your personal template and expect we all will fit in the grid nicely. I can't use my spiritual yardstick to measure the validity of your beliefs - and vice versa. But caveat lector, as long as the consequence of such a belief is by all accounts, undeniably godly in fruit.

There are two principles for every christian laid out in Romans 14.

¹ To keep what one believes about controversial issues of the ceremonial kind to between oneself & God for the sake of harmony (and for the exact reason I stated above - we are all different).

and

²*very important* That there is room for heterodoxy within the body of Christ. That it is perfectly okay for two christians to disagree on an issue and yet both of them can be right about their beliefs.

I think in spite of the spiritual complications of agreeing/not agreeing with the trinity doctrine, there are genuine christians on both sides of the issue. I would bet both sides believe wholeheartedly that Jesus died for their sins & faith in Him leads to salvation - and that is enough according to John 3:16.

On the "politico-socio ramifications" you touched on. I would say that simply because the echo of a shot ramified in the negative through history, doesn't mean the initial shot was wrong/bad. A singular nuclear technology today can either power electricity for an entire nation, or arm a atomic weapon. Religious, doctrinal belief of these kinds (trinity, tongues etc) to me are somewhat innocuous - it is how the person chooses to apply it, and the resulting fruit that will judge the legitimacy/illegitimacy of such a belief - seeing there is no perfect, omniscient judge - except the Lord God Almighty.

A measured, wise, temperate and truly edifying response. You never dissapoint one: your views in things remind me a lot of one of the most measured persons ever to grace this forum - MyJoe.

I almost wholly agree - save with regard to the bold in yours. You may want to think on that again. How possible is it, really?

Finally, you will agree one way or the other that the trinity serious draws a question mark on the monotheistic claims of the Christian faith, does it not? Not that there is anything bad in polytheism.

JeSoul: You're right it is a source of constant tussling among some christians. The rest of us simply choose to apply the time-tested principle laid out in Romans 14. Everytime I see loggerhead -ing over the issue I always scratch my head. To me, whichever you believe is really inconsequential in the big picture, so why squibble?

It is indeed spiritually inconsequential but it is politically and socially mightily consequential. I say this because I believe that once your heart is in the right place, believing or disbelieving the trinity will do diddly squat one way or the other.

However it has mighty politico-socio ramifications. In the first place, it is the key doctrine that gave rise to the entire birth of Islam. A doctrine that caused such a mighty schism as to birth an entire religion (with all the terrible consequences that have followed since) is clearly not harmless.

Finally, although this is not relevant, believing that a fellow human being is Almighty God says a lot in very poor terms about the mind of the person who believes such a thing. It, at the very minimum, shews such a person to be capable of believing absolutely anything, and also shews such a person as hardly capable of individual original thought. This is my general view and is not meant as offense to anyone in particular please. I just believe it is a classic case in point on religious gullibility. You see, there is a saying that if you throw in a beautiful woman into the mix, you can sell absolutely anything. You can sell a man arsenic for dinner so long as it proceeds from the hand of Eve. In the same way, you can get otherwise intelligent and reasonable people to believe gibberish not fit for toddlers, once you package it as religious faith. This is a truth that has been demonstrated time and again throughout history.

and you're welcome on the compliments. I mean it, you're a gifted writer.

I must say he is also a gifted thinker.

okeyxyz: Clearly you don't understand the issues of the trinity.

Clearly, I do not.

Trinity simply means: Three witnesses. The principle or law is a witness that all must conform to, and whoever(father or son) wields the power of this law is also a witness.

This has to be your own special re-mix of the doctrine because this is certainly not what the doctrine is at all. Remember that when we have a discussion regarding an ancient doctrine, recourse must be had to that which the doctrine is actually described as from origin; and not to that which you give as your own special re-mix or opinion.

You did not invent the trinity doctrine and I am not interested in arguing against any special individualized re-mix of the doctrine that you might have. I am interested in discussing the doctrine as extant from antiquity, thank you very much.

Now here is one of the oldest statements of definition of the doctrine -

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Therefore there are three. Father, son and holy-spirit(The law\constitution\principle).

And this is a polytheist statement, son. You contradict yourself.[/quote]

And has anybody claimed they are the same entity?

If they are not the same entity, then clearly you are not monotheist. This is a cold hard fact cast in stone that you cannot argue against. Different entities mean more than one entity and that is not monotheism which refers to only ONE entity. This alone completely kills off your argument, friend.

Note also that your assertion that they are not the same entity flies against the Nicene Creed referred above.

And for emphasis, I repeat that that statement alone from you is a wholesale concession that your Christian faith is polytheistic.

You seem to be arguing against your own imaginations here, because the claims you trying to debunk were never made in the first place.

I am arguing against the trinity doctrine and not against your contradictory re-mix of it.

And monotheism refers to the one true spirit(I also stated this in my first post), not the one true person.

And once again you are inventing your own definition of things. This above is NOT the definition of monotheism, and if it were, then it would also apply to many versions of polytheism as they all espouse one true spirit behind all things. Indeed, it is a definition that renders monotheism meaningless as it can be argued that all things always have the same eternal spirit behind them; and as such, any form of polytheism would qualify as monotheistic. Even the Hindu faith would qualify as monotheistic under such an obtuse definition, as we would refer to Brahman as t he source of all things, the eternal. The truth, is that monotheism refers to ONE personage as God, period. Arguing otherwise is plain mendacious.

okeyxyz: Yes, the holy spirit as we know it now is a principle, just like the laws of moses were a principle until the personification(Jesus) of it came.

This still means that there is no such thing as the Trinity. At best you are advancing 2 forms of God - Father and Son, and the expression or power of both.

And how does the son not qualify as equal to god?? If two people operate by the same laws and powers, have they not become equal??

Being equal is not the same thing as being the same entity. Husband and Wife may be equal before the law, does not mean husband is wife or wife is husband. They could still have different opinions and desires, such as Jesus did from his Father in Gethsemane.

Is a high-court judge in lagos not equal to a high-court judge in abuja? since they operate by same constitution and power? Of course, one may have become a judge before the other but the other has attained the same position as the first one. That is why one cannot overrule any judgement passed by the other. Perhaps you'd care to explain your basis of equality...

Of course they may be equal, bu they are certainly not the same person, which is what the Trinity teaches. . . .

In fact, i will go one better: the minute you use the word "equal" you are clearly talking about two different entities. Because I cannot be equal to myself. I am myself, period. Once you say "equal" you are saying A = B, namely that two different entities are equal in power or nature. Now, once two entities are involved, you are clearly no longer a monotheistic faith!

Capisce?

Paschal007: No not at all.

Just that bible said Jesus is the Son of God (Matt16:16) and there's no way he could be that unless he's divine...

But is being divine the same thing as being God?

What does it even mean to be divine, can you define and specifically qualify that?

Let us say that God is living. Let us also say that we are children of God, and as such, we are living. Does this mean that we are God? Under Christian worldview, we are not God. However under some pantheistic views, everything is God and God is everything, and as such we ourselves are microcosms of God and part of the infinite God.

In what way is Jesus a different type of "child" of God, than you and me are. I have an elder brother who is the first son of my father, but he's a man just like myself, i think?

Pastor Kun: Bros this trinity doctrine has been thrashed out severally on this forum and has been established not to be a true christian doctrine since it has no sound biblical basis but rather a catholic invention to suit some of their false doctrines. The question why bring up again this over flogged topic

I bring it up to question the basis on which Trinitarian Christianity can be called a Monotheistic faith.

It must perforce accede to being polytheistic: given that even polytheistic faiths still refer ultimately to one eternal source as the creator; but which is expressed in various gods - equal of course, to the hypostases, referred to in trinitarian dogma.

okeyxyz: The issue is not whether there is a trinity(three operations\facets or witnesses of god) but rather the understanding of the trinity. So I explain here:

The Father is the first, the creator and owner of the holy spirit by which all things are created and ruled. He is the father because he is the first to operate by the holy spirit.

The Holy spirit is the power or legal system by which the father operates and rules the universe(It is this spirit\mindset that the law tries to imitate in a "shadowy" manner). The holy spirit is a principle\value-system and a mindset that reveals god's understanding and judgment. So christ is the second person to operate by this power. It is actually the holy spirit that is referred to when we say "There is one true god", What it means is that there is one true principle of god. So a true worshiper of god is anybody who operates by this "ONE" true spirit of god.

By this explanation, the Holy Spirit is not a person, but a principle or force. This would mean that there is no such thing as the "Trinity" ab initio.

The son is the second person to receive(or be birthed by) the holy spirit and by this "birth" becomes the SON of god. So in quality, size and number; he is equal to god the father but a different person. Just like a biological father sires a son by his genes, he and his son are one because it's the same gene-system working in them both but they have separate existences and personalities, but it is the holy spirit that makes them "ONE GOD".

By this explanation, the son would not qualify as equal to God, and as such, there would be no such term as "God the Son" and as such, no such thing as the Trinity.

frosbel: I will take the bait and say YES.

This should hit a few pages by COB

But then you do not believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity, and as such your answer is understandable. This question is really directed at Christians who believe in the Trinity and assert that their faith is yet monotheistic.

Is it?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[2] A nature is what one is, while a person is who one is.[3][4][5]

The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.[6] According to this doctrine, there is only one God in three persons. Each person is God, whole and entire. They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds". While distinct in their relations with one another, they are one in all else. The whole work of creation and grace is a single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.[6] The three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

Trinitarianism (one deity in three persons) contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects), and social trinitarianism (three persons united by mutual love and accord).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

emmaebi: omg was the world sleeping wen she collect dat crown. even if na she be the only woman wey remain 4 dis world i go marry. kai!!! imagine kwashiorkor has now become beauty.

That is what the cat-walks of Milan and Paris dictate to the world: whereas, every virile and se.xually alive man knows very well that women come best full bodied and voluptuous.

Orobo beta pass lepa.