Would a catholic Latina marry or date a relatively 'progressive' muslim man?

[willymonfrete]

I am a mixed race man (Semitic passing with a beard as you can see from my profile pic hehehe,classicaly italic or classically Celtic- iberian passing shaven)that is also a muslim out of choice and conviction.I shave all the time and I hate how my beard feels on my face,being rough,coarse,and thick.

Growing a beard is not a option for me,even though majority of Sunni Jurisprudence says it is obligatory(though even my maaliki jurisprudence school says it can be just a little bit of hairs only on the chin,though some Mujtahid heads of this school said it's not obligatory unless it feminizes your face to be fully shaven,which it does to me lol)and I generally believe and have the goal of doing the obligatory 5 times prayers,avoiding pork,avoiding fornication,adultery,and alcohol and what are called kabaa'ir or major sins in any major world religion.

I try to be a good person basically,but I am not a fanatic in any sense.

I did not just wake up one day and decide 'I want to be muslim',rather it was a process of years of research and skepticism,shifting through various world philosophies and religions or lack thereof,to find what I personally believe is the coherent truth.

I am not a fanatic,and I respect every person unless they're criminals or something.

Even if I were a fanatic,since I follow the Ibn A'rabi sufi school of thought,this would only be increasing my love for others,rational pursuits,order in life and Generosity and what muslims call 'akhlaaq'or virtues.

I am thus pretty relaxed ,I always take the most liberal interpretation in Jurisprudence,that is orthodox among the Sunnis,and my maaliki school is pretty liberal anyway among the other schools.

I really learn most of my islam from Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and he is a friend of Jordan Peterson and changed jordan's mind that all of orthodox islam is inherently incompatible with (good)western values.

I am not intended per se on marrying a Latina,but I do see it as an option,and Maybe a muslima would be best for me,but i was wondering would a latina catholic date a non-radical muslim man,that respects her faith,her cultural traditions etc ?

due to me always shaving,people do not assume I'm muslim at all,they always guessed puerto rican(as do puerto rican women) since thats the typical mixed-southern europeanish hispanic ethnicity here in my city.

I'm just wondering if I tell her I'm muslim after her initial attraction,if most would want nothing to do with me?

[MrMan]

If she is not serious about her faith, she might.

[willymonfrete]

If she is not serious about her faith, she might.

Catholics can marry non-christians,as can alot of orthodox with the permission of their church,and if the children are raised christian,but recently pope francis even changed that.

So a religious catholic is not outside of the question.But this is only a last resort.

I don't engage in situations that can lead to fornication,or being alone in a room with a woman etc

[MrMan]

If she is not serious about her faith, she might.

Catholics can marry non-christians,as can alot of orthodox with the permission of their church,and if the children are raised christian,but recently pope francis even changed that.

So a religious catholic is not outside of the question.But this is only a last resort.

I don't engage in situations that can lead to fornication,or being alone in a room with a woman etc

I'm not Roman Catholic, but my understanding is that this is frowned upon and marriages are considered nonsacramental. So you would probably get someone not very serious about her faith.

Also, a religious Muhammadan would want to raise his children as Muhammadan. If she's serious about her faith, she would want to raise the children as Christians.

Of course if a man is a true muslim, a true submitter to God, then He submits to the Son because God's wrath is upon those who do not believe the Son, as the Injiyl, endorsed by the Al-Qur'an, actually says. And the Lord Jesus also said all authority is given to Him on heaven and on earth, and He sent His disciples to baptize all nations and to teach the nations to obey his teachings.

Those in the nations who submit to God are those who submit to the Lord Jesus' teachings in the Injiyl. But a Muhammadan wants to obey the Al Qur'an.

[Cornfed]

Do people take traditional Catholicism seriously any more? I had the impression that Catholics were religious, but it is really just wokeness as a religion.

[willymonfrete]

If she is not serious about her faith, she might.

Catholics can marry non-christians,as can alot of orthodox with the permission of their church,and if the children are raised christian,but recently pope francis even changed that.

So a religious catholic is not outside of the question.But this is only a last resort.

I don't engage in situations that can lead to fornication,or being alone in a room with a woman etc

I'm not Roman Catholic, but my understanding is that this is frowned upon and marriages are considered nonsacramental. So you would probably get someone not very serious about her faith.

Also, a religious Muhammadan would want to raise his children as Muhammadan. If she's serious about her faith, she would want to raise the children as Christians.

Of course if a man is a true muslim, a true submitter to God, then He submits to the Son because God's wrath is upon those who do not believe the Son, as the Injiyl, endorsed by the Al-Qur'an, actually says. And the Lord Jesus also said all authority is given to Him on heaven and on earth, and He sent His disciples to baptize all nations and to teach the nations to obey his teachings.

Those in the nations who submit to God are those who submit to the Lord Jesus' teachings in the Injiyl. But a Muhammadan wants to obey the Al Qur'an.

more than one Being that is Divine,is a logical absurdity and impossibility,because such beings would be composite-of general or generic shared divinity and specific difference/special nature,thus being effects of such composition and Anterior metaphysical or ontological parts.Multiple divine beings would limit each other in sovereignity,power,authority as the qu'ran says:

Sahih International: Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him].

if Who the previous muslims call 'the Father'(Allaah) is God because he is the father,then there are no other divine beings,if he is God because of a generic nature of Divinity he shares in common with Jesus(a'layhi al-salam),he(and Jesus(a'layhi as-salam) would be composite,of a specific nature/special-specific difference and a general nature he shares in common with The Messiah son of Mary(a'layhi as-salam),thus being composite and thus a effect.

To believe God is a effect,means he is finite,limited,restricted in his particular mode of being,and not self-sufficient or uncreated.

that is the difference between Muslims and the Nazarenes,we believe in a God worthy of being called God,the fullness of perfections rather then creations or finite beings temporally created.

Believe the Torah and Prophets when they said:

So said the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One Who formed you from the womb, "I am the Lord Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth from My power. כדכֹּֽה־אָמַ֚ר יְהֹוָה֙ גֹּֽאֲלֶ֔ךָ וְיֹֽצֶרְךָ֖ מִבָּ֑טֶן אָֽנֹכִ֚י יְהֹוָה֙ עֹ֣שֶׂה כֹּ֔ל נֹטֶ֚ה שָׁמַ֙יִם֙ לְבַדִּ֔י רֹקַ֥ע הָאָ֖רֶץ מֵֽאִתִּֽי (כתיב

and the Prophet Isaiah(pbuh):“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD,

“and My servant whom I have chosen,

so that you may consider and believe Me

and understand that I am He.

Before Me no god was formed,

and after Me none will come.

11I, yes I, am the LORD,

and there is no Savior but Me.

12I alone decreed and saved and proclaimed—

I, and not some foreign god among you.

So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD,

“that I am God.

13Even from eternity I am He,

and none can deliver out of My hand.

When I act, who can reverse it?”

and Dawud(as):Psalm 86:10

For You are great and do wondrous deeds;
You alone are God.

O Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.
Nehemiah 9:6
Verse Concepts
“You alone are the Lord.
You have made the heavens,
The heaven of heavens with all their host,
The earth and all that is on it,
The seas and all that is in them.
You give life to all of them
And the heavenly host bows down before You.

2 Kings 19:19

Now, O Lord our God, I pray, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God.”

Isaiah 44:8

‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’”

Isaiah 45:6

That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun
That there is no one besides Me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other,

Deuteronomy 4:35
To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him


No,Marriage with a muslim and a catholic is now sacramental between both religions under conditions,you shouldn't talk about something you don't know or haven't researched.

but this is only a last option,or if I meet a latina by chance that likes me and I like her,I will be looking for a virgin muslim wife,hopefully from Hadhramawt or Ma'arib.

[MrMan]

If she is not serious about her faith, she might.

Catholics can marry non-christians,as can alot of orthodox with the permission of their church,and if the children are raised christian,but recently pope francis even changed that.

So a religious catholic is not outside of the question.But this is only a last resort.

I don't engage in situations that can lead to fornication,or being alone in a room with a woman etc

I'm not Roman Catholic, but my understanding is that this is frowned upon and marriages are considered nonsacramental. So you would probably get someone not very serious about her faith.

Also, a religious Muhammadan would want to raise his children as Muhammadan. If she's serious about her faith, she would want to raise the children as Christians.

Of course if a man is a true muslim, a true submitter to God, then He submits to the Son because God's wrath is upon those who do not believe the Son, as the Injiyl, endorsed by the Al-Qur'an, actually says. And the Lord Jesus also said all authority is given to Him on heaven and on earth, and He sent His disciples to baptize all nations and to teach the nations to obey his teachings.

Those in the nations who submit to God are those who submit to the Lord Jesus' teachings in the Injiyl. But a Muhammadan wants to obey the Al Qur'an.

more than one Being that is Divine,is a logical absurdity and impossibility,because such beings would be composite-of general or generic shared divinity and specific difference/special nature,thus being effects of such composition and Anterior metaphysical or ontological parts.Multiple divine beings would limit each other in sovereignity,power,authority as the qu'ran says:

Without unpacking your terms, that makes about as much sense as when the folks on StarTrek Voyager figure out a way to save the day by hooking something else up to the deflector array.... again.

Let me ask you, was there ever a time when Allah was unable to speak words? What about think a word?

The Al Qur'an calls Jesus the Word of God. So does the book of John.

John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made...
(NKJV)

This is in the Injiyl, and Muhammad endorsed the Injiyl and told us Christians to learn from it. Muhammad's message is supposed to line up with the Gospel. If it does not, then the problem is with Muhammad's message and not with what God had already revealed. If Muhammad's message is contrary to what God has revealed (especially since Muhammad explicitly endorsed some of these books) the problem is with Muhammad's message.

Sahih International: Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been],

Again, the issue is what God has revealed, not what the Al Qur'an says. If the Al Qur'an contradictions previous revelation from God, the previous revelation from God it specifically endorses no less, then the problem is not with the previous revelation, not with the Al Qur'an, and of course you have the version of the Al Qur'an that got filtered through the Califate so it would all be the same, with no extra surah's etc.

I'm not going to look up the Arabic. I'll let you do it. I knew a Moroccan who came to faith in Christ who said that the Arabic said God had no 'walad', which he said was a rather physical term, while Christians speaking Arabic confess Jesus as 'Ibn.

then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him].

The Bible speaks of the 'Arm of the LORD' in Isaiah 53. This is different from your theory here. This passage tells of the sufferings and death of the Messiah. A copy of the book of Isaiah was found that was copied centuries before Muhammad was born.

The later Islamic argument developed AFTER Muhammad saying the Bible was corrupted doesn't hold water. Muhammad did not make this argument. He spoke of Christian scriptures as if they were inspired. Later Islamic scholars discovered the differences between their religion and that of the Bible, and alleged that the Bible had been

if Who the previous muslims call 'the Father'(Allaah) is God because he is the father,then there are no other divine beings,if he is God because of a generic nature of Divinity he shares in common with Jesus(a'layhi al-salam),he(and Jesus(a'layhi as-salam) would be composite,of a specific nature/special-specific difference and a general nature he shares in common with The Messiah son of Mary(a'layhi as-salam),thus being composite and thus a effect.

Looks like a mumbo jumbo argument. What does composite have to do with specific nature, general nature or any of these other undefined terms. Your human reasoning is irrelevant. What is important is what is true and what God reveals.

No,Marriage with a muslim and a catholic is now sacramental between both religions under conditions,you shouldn't talk about something you don't know or haven't researched.

You can easily do a web search and see that Roman Catholics do not consider a marriage to a nonChristian to be a sacramental marriage. They accept it as a valid marriage, but not a sacrament. It's not treated like marrying one's sister, etc. But it would likely indicate a lack of piety on the part of those who agreed to it. Both parties would want to raise their children in different religious. A woman who would agree to this would likely not take her faith seriously or be very short-sighted, not stopping to think how the children would be raised.

There is also a long tradition of teaching against marrying non-Christians. I'm thinking of a quote form Origen I have in a book around here somewhere.

[willymonfrete]

Without unpacking your terms, that makes about as much sense as when the folks on StarTrek Voyager figure out a way to save the day by hooking something else up to the deflector array.... again.

Let me ask you, was there ever a time when Allah was unable to speak words? What about think a word?

The Al Qur'an calls Jesus the Word of God. So does the book of John.

It makes absolute logical sense,but christians are generally anti-intellectual and believe based on what a 'book 'says written by finite beings,subjected to change,and also subject to various interpretations.

I am not even american,and I can understand basic english language terms.

basically,I'm saying you and other christians are fools

Allah(swt)called I'sa 'a word' not 'the word'and the Mufasireen say this is because Jesus is a word from allah because he was created by allah decreeing 'Be'and he was.

similar to how Adam(a.s)was created.

furthermore,even Asharis and maturidis say word of allah in its basic form the quran is not eternal in its letters,words or meanings.

and I am neither,I am a Ibn Arabist(Mystical Sufi islam and Rational Falsafa concepts,divine simplicity etc the second and the last being incompatible with ashari and maturidi mainstream sunni belief).The quran is created for me.That is something I agree with the shia on.

its the hanbalis and wahhabis that believe the quran is co-eternal with allah,you know the anthropomorphic Naql -heads?(Naql means textualism,literalism and exclusion of Ra'y or logic))

the qu'ran tells us in a few verses to REASON,and not accept things blindly.Truth is apparent from falsehood according to the koran.

This is in the Injiyl, and Muhammad endorsed the Injiyl and told us Christians to learn from it. Muhammad's message is supposed to line up with the Gospel. If it does not, then the problem is with Muhammad's message and not with what God had already revealed. If Muhammad's message is contrary to what God has revealed (especially since Muhammad explicitly endorsed some of these books) the problem is with Muhammad's message.

why are you christians liars,by hook or by crook to convert jews and muslims to Idolatry,is it because your master Paul was a self-admitted deciever ?

https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evid ... scriptures

I posted this link before,you had no reply,but you level the same lies over and over again ?

the quran is not corrupted https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/

the gospels are https://www.islamic-awareness.org/bible ... ibaccuracy
https://www.islamic-awareness.org/bible ... s/criteria

you didn't have a reply to this.

the injeel was GIVEN to I'saa by Allaah according to the quran while he was alive,yet the 4 gospels were written centuries after christ,and at the very least after his death.

Again, the issue is what God has revealed, not what the Al Qur'an says. If the Al Qur'an contradictions previous revelation from God, the previous revelation from God it specifically endorses no less, then the problem is not with the previous revelation, not with the Al Qur'an, and of course you have the version of the Al Qur'an that got filtered through the Califate so it would all be the same, with no extra surah's etc.

I'm not going to look up the Arabic. I'll let you do it. I knew a Moroccan who came to faith in Christ who said that the Arabic said God had no 'walad', which he said was a rather physical term, while Christians speaking Arabic confess Jesus as 'Ibn.

if the qu'ran had truly endorsed the modern day 'gospels'as words from god,then both islam and christianity would be false religions.
but it doesn't.
Nicene christians believe Jesus is timelessly 'created' in a sense or begotten by the father,yet at the same time asserting he is co-equal to such.

not all trinitarian christians are Nicene today nor believe in divine procession,but at the time the quran was revealed this was the general view of the Nazarene community.

The Bible speaks of the 'Arm of the LORD' in Isaiah 53. This is different from your theory here. This passage tells of the sufferings and death of the Messiah. A copy of the book of Isaiah was found that was copied centuries before Muhammad was born.

Isaiah 53 is not about I'saa at all.

Looks like a mumbo jumbo argument. What does composite have to do with specific nature, general nature or any of these other undefined terms. Your human reasoning is irrelevant. What is important is what is true and what God reveals.

You are a FOOL.this is why I left christendom and pentecostalism,blind irrational belief in a fallible book and no logical defense,understanding or basis for their beliefs.

there are hundreds of holy books,why do YOU believe the bible is the true one?because it says it is?So do the Vedas,the Qu'raan,the various religious books of other faiths.

The Torah (pentateuch)was corrupted over a 800 year period before christ,and the 'Tawrah'is a sharia of moses not the neviim or ketuvim.

WHY believe the bible?asserting that quraan validates the current bible which secular scholars agree is corrupt,is not a argument for the bible.

because if it did,BOTH religions would be FALSE.

You cannot understand basic and easy english terms and concepts,even as a supposed american and because you are too stupid to understand something a 10 year old can grasp,you say it is 'mumbo jumbo'

ou can easily do a web search and see that Roman Catholics do not consider a marriage to a nonChristian to be a sacramental marriage. They accept it as a valid marriage, but not a sacrament. It's not treated like marrying one's sister, etc. But it would likely indicate a lack of piety on the part of those who agreed to it. Both parties would want to raise their children in different religious. A woman who would agree to this would likely not take her faith seriously or be very short-sighted, not stopping to think how the children would be raised.

There is also a long tradition of teaching against marrying non-Christians. I'm thinking of a quote form Origen I have in a book around here somewhere.

I stand corrected on the 'sacramental'part,but yes it is a valid marriage to catholics and some orthodox.

IDK why the rest was mentioned,I could care less how strong her faith is in a false idol.

[willymonfrete]

Answer: The arguments against heretics in the Qur’aan are often according to their premises. This statement in the aayah addresses the Christians and pagans that say Allaah has children, whether male or female. These heretics think of Allaah in human terms and of Him as being of male gender, none of them have asexuality in mind, that is why the christians say “son” and “father,” and the Arab pagans said “daughters.” Muslims believe, of course, that Allaah is not attributed with gender, so He is neither male, nor female, nor neuter. That being said, a male cannot have offspring without a female partner, so the argument is complete. Note that this is according to the anthropomorphist premises of the heretics, it shows them that according to the normal rules of created beings, a male cannot have a child without a femal partner. Accordingly, it is even more absurd to claim that Allah, who is not a creature and does not have gender, to have a child. As for the philosophical point of view, I have no idea what having a child from a philosophical point of view is supposed to mean.

Note that the aayah in question offers several arguments against those who claim that Allaah has a child:

بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ صَاحِبَةٌ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

Meaning: “Allah is the one that created the skies and the Earth without a precedent. How could it be that He has a child when He has no female partner??? He created everything, and He knows everything.” (Al-‘An`aam, 101)

First, regarding the first part of the aayah, which means, “Allah is the one that created the skies and the Earth without a precedent.” Note that Allah affirms the Christians’ claim that Jesus was created without a father or semen. Rather he became existent without a father. So the first part of the aayah tells them, if you mean by Allah being a father that He brought Jesus into existence without precedence, i.e. innovated him without sperm or a father, that is, without the normal cause, then the same is true for the skies and the Earth, and since you do not say that the skies and the Earth are His children, then you should not say that Jesus is His child.

This statement also contains the argument that a child is like its parent, and Allaah is the one that created the skies and the Earth without a precedent, so how can anything or anyone be like Him?

The second part of the aayah, “How could it be that He has a child when He has no female partner???” is an argument against those of them who might argue that Allah had a child in the customary manner, and it was discussed above.

The third statement, “He created everything,” argues with those who say that He had a child in the customary manner, through having a bodypart (such as semen) transferred to a female parter, or having a part becoming a separate entity (asexuality). It tells them that Allaah has the power to create anything, so if He wills for something to exist, He will create it, and it is only for those that do not have this power to work on customary causes if they want something to be. This also contains a refutation of the idea that a child was adopted by Him, because adoption is another customary legal cause.

This statement also has the meaning that since Allah is the only creator, and everything else is His creation, Jesus is merely a creation.

Moreover, since Allah is the creator, and does not have a beginning, then He does not resemble what has a beginning, such as Jesus. Accordingly, how could it be true that Jesus is His son, when Jesus is a human being, with created attributes. After all, offspring are of the same kind as their parent(s). This again contains another refutation of the idea that a child was adopted by Him, because adoption is between things of similar kind.

Moreover, since Allah is the creator, and the Creator cannot be like creation (since He is not created) then He is not a body. Accordingly, He does not have a child because having a child in the customary manner only happens to bodies.

The fourth statement, “He knows everything,” emphasizes the argument contained in “He created everything,” namely that Allah has no like.



Through these arguments, all the normal meanings of having a “child” have been refuted. There are even more arguments contained in these few statements, but this should suffice to show that the Qur’aan did not present a weak argument.

Some might still argue that the word “child” is a metaphor meaning a loving relationship. The reason why Islam does not accept the word child as a metaphor with this meaning is that the word “child” contradicts the concept of ownership; it would be absurd to say that someone “owns” his “son”. Something is not said to be someone’s child and personal property at the same time. In other words, to say that Allaah has a son is to imply a flaw in His absolute ownership. Allaah said in the Qur’aan:

“وَقَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَهُ بَلْ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ”

Meaning: “They said: “Allaah has taken a son.” This saying is a lie, Allah is greatly clear of such non-befitting attributes! Rather, He is the absolute owner of all that is in the skies and on Earth!” (Al-Baqarah, 116) This statement tells us that having a child does not befit Allaah, because He is the absolute owner of everything, and because all things in the skies and Earth are created kind, and Allaah does not resemble it. Since He does not resemble any of it, none of it is His child, because a parent-child relationships are only for similar things.

The concept of having a son then, is incompatible with the concept of believing in one Creator that has absolute ownership of His creation. Moreover, the word “son” implies similarity in kind, which is another reason why it is blasphemy to say that Allaah has a son, even as a figure of speech.

[willymonfrete]

I'll take you on baby steps,Naql-head

if The Father is a God because he is the Father,because of his specific and peculiar nature,none can share in his divinity.if he is a God because of a nature not peculiar to him,a general nature shared with others,he would be composed of 'general nature' and 'specific nature'(which differentiates him from the others),he then would be a compound of those two realities or parts,and THEN would be 'a effect'of such a compound or composition,and thus he(and the others) would be a creation,not self-sufficient,not infinite,and would thus not be 'Divine'.

So,the concept of 'multiple divine beings'is a absurd concept,and a impossibility.

it's like asserting a married bachelor.

Dr.Ryan Mullins (Big Trinitarian protestant scholar)believes in mutual causation or dependance,which is also a absurdity,rendering them all finite anyway,but just for the sake of argument let's assume this.

Circular causation from then perspective of cause in esse (symmetric and reflexive relation must not be implied) is impossible and infinite regress in vertical or essential ( given the transitive relation ) is verily impossible ontologically speaking .

Otherwise in linear causal series such regress is impossible , however circular causation entails the conjuction of the contraries , as it entails that the preponderant agent and the recipient or [maqbul] actualised agent is same at the same time, that means the same ontological referent possess existence and does not possess existence at the same time [ given their essential contingency] .So such mutually exclusive predication is logically impossible as it undermines the 1st axiom of classical logic[ law of identity]

Basically,a 'God' is a being that is self-sufficient,not dependant on prior parts,unrestricted in it's mode of being and a causeless cause and not a effect.

[MrMan]

I'll take you on baby steps,Naql-head

if The Father is a God because he is the Father,because of his specific and peculiar nature,none can share in his divinity.if he is a God because of a nature not peculiar to him,a general nature shared with others,he would be composed of 'general nature' and 'specific nature'(which differentiates him from the others),he then would be a compound of those two realities or parts,and THEN would be 'a effect'of such a compound or composition,

Word salad. You aren't making a coherent argument. What does generality or specificity have to do with divinity?

Dr.Ryan Mullins (Big Trinitarian protestant scholar)believes in mutual causation or dependance,which is also a absurdity,rendering them all finite anyway,but just for the sake of argument let's assume this.

Circular causation from then perspective of cause in esse (symmetric and reflexive relation must not be implied) is impossible and infinite regress in vertical or essential ( given the transitive relation ) is verily impossible ontologically speaking .

You aren't explaining your terms here, but this sounds like it's based on assumptions about the nature of supernatural reality that the originator of these concepts could not possibly know or verify.

And also you seem to misunderstand the nature of the Christian thought on the divinity of Christ.

Otherwise in linear causal series such regress is impossible , however circular causation entails the conjuction of the contraries , as it entails that the preponderant agent and the recipient or [maqbul] actualised agent is same at the same time, that means the same ontological referent possess existence and does not possess existence at the same time [ given their essential contingency] .So such mutually exclusive predication is logically impossible as it undermines the 1st axiom of classical logic[ law of identity]

Did you use an app to randomly generate words and phrases to come up with that? If you don't explain your terms, no one will understand you.

Basically,a 'God' is a being that is self-sufficient,not dependant on prior parts,unrestricted in it's mode of being and a causeless cause and not a effect.

Which really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Do you think God existed in ages past without His Word? Has God been able to speak and think in eternity past?

[Kalinago]

I'll take you on baby steps,Naql-head

if The Father is a God because he is the Father,because of his specific and peculiar nature,none can share in his divinity.if he is a God because of a nature not peculiar to him,a general nature shared with others,he would be composed of 'general nature' and 'specific nature'(which differentiates him from the others),he then would be a compound of those two realities or parts,and THEN would be 'a effect'of such a compound or composition,

Word salad. You aren't making a coherent argument. What does generality or specificity have to do with divinity?
God has to be divine because of his divine nature right?if he has divinity because of his specific nature you know a nature peculiar and specific to him,noone else shares his divinity,if he has divinity because of a general nature that is shared with another,he would have a specific nature that differentiates him from that other 'god'and a general nature that he shares with that god to make both be divine,and thus he would be composed of parts,and not self-sufuccient,since every composite is a effect of that composition,and everything that is composed is finite,so more than one divine being is a logical absurdity

Dr.Ryan Mullins (Big Trinitarian protestant scholar)believes in mutual causation or dependance,which is also a absurdity,rendering them all finite anyway,but just for the sake of argument let's assume this.

Circular causation from then perspective of cause in esse (symmetric and reflexive relation must not be implied) is impossible and infinite regress in vertical or essential ( given the transitive relation ) is verily impossible ontologically speaking .

You aren't explaining your terms here, but this sounds like it's based on assumptions about the nature of supernatural reality that the originator of these concepts could not possibly know or verify.

And also you seem to misunderstand the nature of the Christian thought on the divinity of Christ.
It's not my issue that you don't know good english

Otherwise in linear causal series such regress is impossible , however circular causation entails the conjuction of the contraries , as it entails that the preponderant agent and the recipient or [maqbul] actualised agent is same at the same time, that means the same ontological referent possess existence and does not possess existence at the same time [ given their essential contingency] .So such mutually exclusive predication is logically impossible as it undermines the 1st axiom of classical logic[ law of identity]

Did you use an app to randomly generate words and phrases to come up with that? If you don't explain your terms, no one will understand you.

You don't understand high school english?how does a fluent speaker ,a american that allegedly graduated vcollege not know the definitions of contigency,regress,conjuction,ontology,preponderance,actualisation,axiom,predication etc ?

Basically,a 'God' is a being that is self-sufficient,not dependant on prior parts,unrestricted in it's mode of being and a causeless cause and not a effect.

Which really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Do you think God existed in ages past without His Word? Has God been able to speak and think in eternity past?

God cannot 'think',thinking implies time and would entail a infinite regress of serial moments in time in God,which is impossible.Catholics,Muslims and Rationalist Judaism do not believe a God can have different thoughts in seriality,He has one singular divine act.it is the Nur al muhammadiya or light of muhammad which is created by allah that apprehends universals,not God.But this is a seperate and complex discussion.

I am not a anthropomorphist.god is not even a person or a 'what' in my theology.

[Kalinago]

@MrMan Trinity is either seen in a tritheistic sense like by theologians of the evangelical tradition like alvin Platinga or a modalistic sense as by catholicism,like by brian Leftow.

[Cornfed]

@MrMan Trinity is either seen in a tritheistic sense like by theologians of the evangelical tradition like alvin Platinga or a modalistic sense as by catholicism,like by brian Leftow.

That's not very informative.

[Kalinago]

@MrMan Trinity is either seen in a tritheistic sense like by theologians of the evangelical tradition like alvin Platinga or a modalistic sense as by catholicism,like by brian Leftow.

That's not very informative.

He said I didn't understand the christian view of the triune 'god'.

I just explained that yes I do,it is either Tri-theism or Modalism.

both are logically absurd beliefs.