This is confusing for many but have you ever read a book called Flatland?

Yes, I have. It's been an important book for its time and a short read, and easy enough if you watch the TED-Ed video first. I'll be reading Flatterland later, which is an unofficial sequel and longer.

This is a good way to understand the Trinity.

You, on the other hand, don't seem like you have any idea how things were in it and trinity. So much for using a reference.

It's still incomplete but its much better than the egg or states of matter illustrations that are used.

Then why use it? Can you do no better than an explanation that is pretty much worthless by your own admission?

Thank you for stating this again without explaining why this makes no sense.

Not something I'd be so thankful about to devote the full terminal section of an argument to. When you are making absolutely random claims, I don't see why I should be scavenging for sense on them, so you probably should not participate in any debate, especially mine. Though you can still post if you sometime turn rational - I'm not banning you.

It's forcing a view that the religious do not have, unless you are limiting your view to the Unitarian view, which is not the representative majority of Christianity.

A false premise that you tried to explain with your previous paragraph. Unless you can't see things through, I wonder whether you mean anything with the entirety of this argument.

Separateis the important part of the trinity that is partly but not entirely explained in the above paragraph.

Not even partly. The above part was about how they don't need to be separate, so I'd recommend you read yourself more carefully before thinking you've explained something.

Therefore, it wasn't even something worth consideration, and your next reply is to be of similar quality, then don't bother.

But, a price can not be paid to void. It must be paid to someone. Not to mention that there doesn't seem to be a price anymay.

The correct answer is, and something no Christian has spoken on either debate, that the price was a gamble. Yahweh made a gamble with Christus to free humanity from the constraints he set already, so yes, there are laws of nature you can never run away from.

Since in Christian theology, the only thing greater than Yahweh is the Trinity, it could have made those laws that everything in existence must follow, including its own parts. As a cryptographer would say, anyone can design an encryption algorithm that he can not break.

But apparently, the religious are baffled with a simple question the specifics of which they prefer to keep preaching.

I'm willing to even notice alternative answers, but nothing I've received comes close to being one. All I've received are things that are, at best, worth being believed only by the most irrational, in both these debates, seemingly disguised for themselves by tring to sound complicated. These are the people trying to preach Christianity on a debate site...it'd be embarrassing if they could convert me.

I believe their masters would be more knowledgeable about the topics.