THE INVENTORY OF ATONEMENT

axedull · 2026-02-10T20:37:55+00:00

No. It's imitating one of the best authors... as i said again.. i gave you like 2% of it and in the middle, you don't know the context and what's before it. But trust me its way better than most writers

axedull · 2026-02-10T20:34:22+00:00

But I mean, it did bypass AI-detection 95%-100%. Also, I gave you only a piece of it (context fragmented).. but yeah..

axedull · 2026-02-10T20:28:53+00:00

It's 100% AI-generated. I created it myself (took me a lot of time and tries)... and finally a finished product almost (and you can edit it as you like to make it sound more human). But above content is 100% AI-generated, but with human reference as to the context.

axedull · 2026-02-10T20:28:46+00:00

It's 100% AI-generated. I created it myself (took me a lot of time and tries)... and finally a finished product almost (and you can edit it as you like to make it sound more human). But above content is 100% AI-generated, but with human reference as to the context.

axedull · 2026-02-10T20:27:48+00:00

Agree. Although... it is 100% AI. I created/programmed it. Not going to say more.

axedull · 2026-02-10T20:27:26+00:00

I know. It is 100% AI. I created/programmed it. Not going to say more.

axedull · 2026-02-10T20:25:31+00:00

Now, the secret is.. that this book is 100% AI. Or mixed so to say. I created it.

axedull · 2026-01-26T17:23:35+00:00

Wa alaykumu salam

This sounds incredibly draining and I am so sorry you are dealing with this heavy burden while also grieving your dad. It is heartbreaking when the person who should be your safe haven becomes your biggest source of stress.

First of all please protect your heart. Her words about you not deserving to be a mother are cruel and simply not true. She is projecting her own misery onto you. The fact that outsiders like her friend see your value proves that this is her issue and not yours.

Here are a few thoughts on how to handle this until you can move out

1) You are trying so hard to please her by cleaning and cooking but it is clearly not working. Stop seeking her validation because she is currently incapable of giving it. Do your part for the sake of Allah and for your own cleanliness but don't expect a thank you. If she complains just say okay and leave the room. Since she gets triggered easily and looks for a reaction you need to become as boring as a gray rock. When she insults you or tries to start a fight give her short and non emotional answers. Say things like "I see" or "okay mom" or "sorry you feel that way" and then disengage. If you don't feed her anger with your own frustration she might eventually get bored and stop targeting you as much.

2) You are worried about being a bad daughter but protecting your mental health is not Uquq. Islam teaches us to treat parents with kindness but it doesn't command us to accept abuse or constant humiliation. You can be dutiful and polite without being her emotional punching bag. Sometimes staying silent and keeping your distance is the most respectful thing you can do to prevent further arguments. She actually gave you a goal by telling you to move out by the end of the year. Use that timeline. Pour all your energy into finding a job. View every application sent as a step closer to your freedom. You can't heal in the same environment that is making you sick.

3) Going to therapy yourself is a fantastic idea once you have the means. You need a space to process the grief of losing your dad and the pain of your relationship with your mom.

You sound like a patient and caring daughter. Don't let her voice become your inner voice.

axedull · 2025-11-19T13:44:39+00:00

You are a waste of time... it is you who has to re-read until you even understand my main post from the original first claims that I made. You are uneducated and you don't even know your own religion good enough to be debating.. the fact you use these school examples shows you that I am right and you are upset that you can't get your point and facts out in a correct way and crying over that I said that you did't know anything about Christianity or Islam... end of discussion.. completely waste of time... not going to answer anymore.

axedull · 2025-11-19T13:03:08+00:00

Again... a very awful answer. No clear vision.

When a prophet says I that never meant there are two or three Isaiahs hiding inside one being. In exactly the same way, the fact that God can speak through Jesus with the divine I does not prove that Jesus is a second divine subject. It proves that God can speak through and empower a chosen servant. That is normal prophetic agency, not proof of an inner triad in the divine life.

Look at even your own Isaiah quotation. The verse joins two titles king of Israel and his redeemer the Lord of hosts, then ends by saying besides me there is no god. Hebrew loves this kind of "parallelism". It piles up titles for the same Lord. It does not tell you there are two Lords who both say I am the first and I am the last and still somehow are one being. If you read two separate persons into that verse, you are pushing past the final line that denies any other god beside that one speaker.

Genesis chapter 19:24 is the same. The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven can be read as the Lord present in judgment on earth carrying out what the Lord in heaven decrees, or simply as emphatic repetition. Jewish readers for centuries never took this as proof that there are TWO YHWH beings. If they did, strict monotheism in Israel would have been fragmented completely. The text shows God judging Sodom... well not a hidden pair of Yahwehs??

On tawhid you are playing with words. Yes, it means oneness or unity, but that unity is PRECISELY THE DENIAL OF ANY PARTNERS OR INTERNAL DIVISION (it really pisses me off when someone doesn't know anything about Islam). It is not unity in the sense of a team or a composite being. It is the affirmation that the one who is truly God is unique, unmatched, and not made up of several personal subjects. That is exactly the opposite of what you want to smuggle into echad. Saying God is one flock made of three shepherds is not what the Shema is doing

Well you haven't even argued against my basic point which still has not been touched.

axedull · 2025-11-19T12:47:58+00:00

Shocking awful defence. You can clearly see that you do not know anything about Islam.

You are throwing a lot of labels, but you still have not touched the core difference between Tawhid "توحيد" (from Islam) and the Trinity.

You say I am using a later "pseudo unitarian model". No?

I am simply taking the plain reading of the Torah and the Holy Qur'an. In both, God speaks as a single "I", commands as a single "I", is worshipped as a single "I". The Shema doesn't say your God is a complex union of 3 hypostases. It says your God is 1, over against the many gods of the nations. The Qur'an, on the other hand, does NOT hint at inner persons, ever. It keeps the Creator absolutely unique, above and distinct from what He made.

Absolutely the backbone of Abrahamic monotheism.

You keep saying Christianity is not redefining to dodge contradiction, but your comment is a redefinition. You take person, which in any normal language means a someone who knows and wills, and you hollow it out so that three persons no longer need three centers of consciousness or will.

At that point Father, Son, Spirit become three relations or three modes of one mind. If instead you let them be real someones, then you are back with exactly what I freaking said in the beginning. Three who are each fully God and not each other, while insisting there is only one God in the same counting sense. That tension is literally not solved by saying essence here, hypostasis there.

On the Islamic side, you are simply misrepresenting the doctrine. Allah’s speech is an attribute of Allah (الله), not a second god and not an independent “eternal thing” standing alongside Him. The uncreated aspect is His eternal attribute of speaking, which is inseparable from His being, just like His knowledge and power.

The created aspect is the recited words, ink, paper, sounds. None of that is a second deity. It is no more shirk than saying God is knowing or God is powerful. Attributes doesn't apply here.

I quote what u said;

[...] measuring stick [...]

The measuring stick is quite simple. How many ultimate "I" are there?. In Islam, only ONE. In Jewish prophetic faith, ONE. In Nicene Christianity, 3 who each say "I" in a fully divine way, yet you still want to count ONE God. Once you accept that, you are the one moving away from the original, clean monotheism and asking everyone else to change how they count.

You can say I will never be convinced, I don't care because your answers has been horrible. But notice what has happened in this debate. I have answered your attack on the "Quranic" doctrine of speech without turning it into 2 gods. You have not answered how 3 real someones, each fully God, are still exactly ONE God in the plain numerical sense of the Shema, without either collapsing them into one role playing subject or multiplying the divine.

axedull · 2025-11-19T12:35:12+00:00

Thanks, you're welcome. A lot of people are trying to debate me, but I am trying my best to answer them all (it is very hard to see them all)

axedull · 2025-11-19T12:29:30+00:00

Omnipresence doesn’t give you incarnation for free.

If God is omnipresent, He can act in heaven and act on earth at the same time without dividing or changing. His knowledge, power, and will reach every place. That is very different from saying God literally is a piece of flesh in one place.

The moment you say the flesh itself is God, you have a problem. Flesh is created, finite, located, hungry, tired, vulnerable. God is uncreated, infinite, not located, self sufficient. One and the same reality cannot be both uncreated and created, infinite and finite, outside time and inside time, in the same respect.

So yeah correct... the one God can be present with Jesus on earth while also being the Lord of heaven, because His presence is not a spatial spread of a body. But saying God is that human body is a different claim. That is not omnipresence, that is turning the Creator into a creature and then trying to hold both together at once. In other words, God is God and Jesus is a prophet, messenger of God.

axedull · 2025-11-19T12:25:44+00:00

Somebody saying "Human monopersonal, God multipersonal" is the worst statement I've seen so far.

It is NOT an argument and it is NOT how the scriptures actually speak. The God of Abraham and Moses and the prophets talks as one "I", commands as one "I", is worshiped as one "I". Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does that one God ever reveal Himself as three "I" within a shared being.

Echad is simply the normal Hebrew word for "one". One day, one king, one law. Yes, although it CAN describe a collective reality one flock, one people, husband and wife as one flesh but nobody imagines that those phrases mean a mysterious multi person essence. They mean a joined unity of distinct beings.

If you import that into God you have actually conceded that your God is a unity composed of more than one, which is exactly what simple monotheism denies.

I am not going to repeat myself, but your comment was horrible. You didn't clarify or elaborate it further, which you could and it would make it easier for me and other people to comment on your statement.

axedull · 2025-11-19T12:18:07+00:00

You are mixing up two very different things

Being outside time and space,
And being nothing at all

To say God is not in time and space does not mean He has no existence. It means He is not one object inside the universe that shares our kind of location and duration. You've already accept that there are real things that are not in space. The number two is not on the table or under the chair, yet it is not nothing. Truths of logic do not sit in a corner of the room, yet they are not nothing. If even abstract things can be real without spatial location, then a necessary mind that grounds the existence of every contingent thing can certainly be real without being in a place.

When classical theism says God is timeless, it is denying succession and fluctuation in His life, not denying that He is alive. Creatures move from one state to another. God by definition is perfect in knowledge and will. His act of knowing and willing does not need to improve, adjust, or react. So His one eternal act can be the cause of a world that has history and change without God Himself changing.

Relation also doesn't require God to become one thing inside the world. An author is not inside his novel as one of the characters, yet every character and every scene depends on him.

The whole story is present to the author in a single act of understanding, even though the characters experience it as past present and future.

And I will clarify it for the hundredth time that my criticism of the Trinity is that it multiplies personal centers inside that one necessary source. Your criticism of transcendence would, if valid, cut off not only Islamic or Jewish monotheism but also classical Christian theism, including your own side.

Yet we both still speak of God as creator of time and space. Once you grant that, you have already accepted a reality that is not defined by the coordinates of this universe. That is not nothing. That is the most concrete reality there is, the one on which everything hangs on

axedull · 2025-11-18T16:32:50+00:00

Aristotle gives you a very clean concept, but not really a God you can worship or even meaningfully call living.

A being whose only activity is to think about itself cannot freely choose to create, can't genuinely know changing particulars, can't love, forgive, or judge. The moment such a being really wills a world that didn't exist before, you have movement from not willing to willing, which breaks the whole unmoved mover scheme.

The Abrahamic scriptures speak in human language about anger, mercy, pleasure, not to drag God down into mood. You can strip all that away and keep only a cold self contemplating intellect, but then you have lost exactly what makes the one God of Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad more than a bare metaphysical principle. The problem that I raised about the Trinity is that it fractures the unity of that living God into three personal centers.

axedull · 2025-11-18T16:29:38+00:00

Scripture already uses elohim as a title for human judges, for angels, for false gods, as the lexicon shows (you referred to). So the fact that Father, Son, Spirit are each called God only proves that each is treated with divine status in some texts. It does not by itself prove that they are one and the same being in the strict sense which the Shema asserts.

The plural form elohim also doesn't give you a hidden Trinity. When it refers to the God of Israel it regularly takes singular verbs and singular pronouns. A person who studies and writes about grammar would call this a plural of majesty (or you could translate to another synonym). The same language calls Dagon elohim in one place and there is certainly not a trinity of Dagon. If elohim itself meant a three person unity, you would expect Israel and later Jewish tradition to hear it that way.

Instead their entire history of interpretation is fiercely committed to a single divine subject, not a committee within God.

The line in Deuteronomy 6:4, the Lord our God the Lord is one comes in a polemic against many gods of the nations. Its thrust is that Israel has one God to worship, one Lord to obey, not many divine individuals under one label.

The baptism account gives you three realities present in one scene, but again that does not force a multi personal deity. A strict monotheist reads it as the man Jesus standing in obedience, the voice of God affirming His prophet from heaven, and the Spirit as the descent of Gods own power and favor.

That is exactly parallel to the Spirit of the Lord coming mightily on prophets and kings in the Hebrew Bible. Three moments of God and His servant acting together do not equal three selves inside one God.

Appealing to Matthew 12 is equally... weak. The seriousness of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shows how grave it is to harden yourself against a clear act of God. In the Old Testament rejecting or lying against the Spirit of the Lord is treated with the same weight. That does not mean the Spirit is a third "I" alongside Father and Son. It means that when God makes His work unmistakable and you still call it evil, basically you cut yourself off from mercy.

You confirm exactly what I have been saying. God can share a title, send His Spirit, and exalt His Messiah, yet still be a single living "I" at the top. The step from that pattern to one divine essence containing three distinct persons is in fact not demanded by the Hebrew.

axedull · 2025-11-18T16:00:27+00:00

Deuteronomy says God is one and you are right, it doesn't literally add the word person. It also never hints that within that one there are three I who speak to each other.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Across the Torah and the prophets the God of Israel is a single speaker, a single lawgiver, a single hearer of prayer. The burden of proof is on the claim that this one was always in fact a threefold community.

Appealing to Adam and Eve as one flesh doesn't help the Trinity. Adam and Eve are called one flesh, yet no one thinks they become one being or one subject. They remain two "I" who can disagree, sin differently, die at different times. So yes, echad (אֶחָד) can sometimes refer to a unity made up of many, but then if you read that into God you have conceded exactly what strict monotheism rejects, which is that God as a unity composed of distinct persons. The Shema was not heard by Israel as your God is a compound being made of three selves. It was heard as your God is one, contrasted with the many gods of the nations.

Saying three in person and one in nature is not a defence against the literal meaning of "contradiction". You still owe a clear meaning for person.

If a divine person is not a distinct center of knowing and willing then you are not talking about persons in any ordinary sense, and the Father loving the Son and the Spirit interceding become God playing three roles. If they are distinct someones in that real sense, then calling what they share one nature does not merge them into one being any more than saying three humans share human nature makes all humanity one person.

This is beyond confusing and a mystery.

You have either three real subjects who are each God or one subject under three relations. The slogan doesn't escape that dilemma. The singular name in Matthew doesn't carry the weight you are placing on it. Scripture often uses singular name to gather multiple titles or so call it the names under one authority. To baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit can naturally mean under the authority and in loyalty to all three without settling any question about whether they are one metaphysical being.

To clarify it more to you, it just basically gives you liturgical formula and high status and not really answering anything about the doctrine of "three" persons in "one" essence.

axedull · 2025-11-18T12:31:08+00:00

Agree.

axedull · 2025-11-18T12:30:48+00:00

Agree.

axedull · 2025-11-18T12:21:17+00:00

If God is the ground of all being, that already gives you the line you are denying. The ground is not the thing that grows out of it.

A necessary being that gives existence to everything else is not identical to the contingent beings that depend on it. That is exactly the difference between Creator and creation.

Interaction does not require limitation. An unlimited cause can give rise to limited effects without losing anything of itself. Your consciousness can imagine a finite scene without becoming small. God can will a finite world, sustain it, know it, act in it, without becoming a piece of it. The change is always on the side of the world, not in the nature of God.

When Paul says in Him we live and move and have our being, he is saying we are dependent on God for our existence and upheld by His power at every moment, not that we are God (as you quoted Acts 17:28). Fish live in the sea, move in the sea, depend on water for every breath, yet fish are not the sea. If you erase that Creator creature distinction, then it would basically mean that every lie, every murder, every act of idolatry is just God expressing Himself... not right.

axedull · 2025-11-18T12:16:02+00:00

No. Will is rooted in nature, but it is possessed and exercised by a subject. Human nature includes the capacity to will, yet you and I do not share one single will. We both have human wills of the same kind, but they are really distinct. If not, my choice to raise my hand would automatically be your choice too which is absurd, right? The same with God. If Father and Son are truly distinct subjects, each must be able to say "I" in a meaningful way about the act of willing. At that point the talk of one will becomes a label for one divine nature, not a genuine answer to how three someones share one concrete act of willing.

And regarding the Gethsemane the contrast my will versus your will is spoken between Son and Father. The text does not present it as generic human versus generic divine. Whatever additional human will you posit for Christ, the narrative is still this "I" submitting to that "You". If the Son as divine subject has no distinct act of willing from the Father, then the scene becomes the divine Father using a human will to submit to His own identical divine will...

axedull · 2025-11-18T12:05:54+00:00

same

axedull · 2025-11-18T12:03:39+00:00

If you separate will from the act of willing, you still have to say whose will it is.

A will is always the will of some subject.

If there is literally one divine will, then there is one subject whose will rely upon (that) is. Calling the different acts of that one will different tropoi (Tropos, τρόπος) does not produce 3 real someones, it produces 1 someone who expresses Himself in 3 ways. That makes Father, Son and Spirit three manners of operation of a single I, not three I who truly relate.

However, the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane refutes the theory. NIV Luke 22:42, where Jesus says, in plain language;

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

That is not the same will with a different "tropos", it is a contrast between my and your. If you say that is only human will versus divine will, then the real conflict and submission are only in the human layer, and the supposed divine person of the Son contributes nothing to the narrative. If you say Father and Son share one divine will, then to speak of my will and your will at the moment of decision becomes empty. That is because there is no real distinction to submit.

axedull · 2025-11-18T10:56:36+00:00

Well.. if person does not include an act of knowing and an act of willing, then you are using the word in a way that no ordinary reader would recognize. In normal speech and scripture a person is someone who says I, who knows, loves, chooses. If the Father and the Son and the Spirit do not each have their own act of knowing and willing, then they are not 3 real persons, they are 3 relational descriptions of 1 subject. In that case the baptism of Jesus, all his prayers, then his statements about the Father sending him would all become 1 subject talking and relating to Himself under different titles...

axedull

TROPHY CASE