The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer |


Comment: "You are the one who claims
"You are the one who claims
"You are the one who claims to know how God works..."
I didn't say that I fully know how the trinity works, I said I don't see mutually exclusive concepts in the trinity. I have no reason to believe an attribution of a logical paradox is justified. You are saying God operates with inconsistency, so in a way it seems you are claiming to know how God works more than me. I say I find no inconsistency, but you affirm it's there, because you think you know enough about God to attribute it to him. a paradox is not the idea that you don't know something works, a paradox is when inconsistency is demonstrably 'known' to be inconsistency, when there is no doubt about the illogical nature of something. You seem to have no Doubts about God's being in this subject, you assert it is illogical. If God is not the author of confusion, how can you say that his very being is confusion, illogical, inconsistent, a paradox? Could it be at least possible to you that maybe your interpretation method is the thing that is lacking logical congruity rather than God's being?
Replies to this comment: