>>17927428
>Your are assuming that if none used relative identity than it is automatically false.
Nope! I just said it is special pleading and it is according to consensus since only your theology requires it. You have conceded the logical problem because it is assuming classical logic (the standard) and under that system it has failed. This is no different than using alternative logic systems to allow for contradictions to exist.
>A dog is the same as another dog according to their dogness but they are not the same according to their age.
Dog A simply shares some properties with Dog B, there is absolutely no need to say they are the same dog in any sense of the word. It doesn't even work from a linguistic point of view. You wouldn't call yourself the same man as me. Anyway are you now saying the Father and the Son have different divine making properties or that only the things they share satisfy that requirement? Do you believe aseity is required of anything divine?
>>17927430
No you have many Christians who do not believe in the trinity, modern and very old sects, older than yours. You do not have a monopoly on what is Christendom just because your church claims it does. Do you seriously think non-trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the son of God? They simply interpret it in a different way from you