You said in post #9: The problem with your analogy is that it is no analogy at all. We are not talking about “tri” aspects of Mary for there are none.
My analogy wasn't primarily a response in post #7 to Mary. So why did you make it that? Why would you even expect that, given what you wrote in post #7?
In post 7, this was the order of what you talked about:
a. "it" (Holy Spirit)
b. comparison to a gestated child (also internal)
c. Mary as mother
d. Jesus as (preborn/born) child
e. Holy Spirit (& whether He's been) carried by a woman
f. the womb (also internal)
So, in your 48 words in post #7, you essentially address these six subjects -- all of which (except c.) focus on the internal: a child in gestation, a child's preborn place of residency (womb), a child to be born & is born, the one being carried by a woman, and two references to the indweller (Holy Spirit). In contrast to that, only ONE reference to Mary.
So then because you didn't recognize that my analogy was geared to that Indweller, you suddenly thought I should have responded to your single Mary reference & would have ignored most of what you said!
Come on now. If somebody's 83.4% of their mere 48-word 3 sentences zero in on the child, the internal dimension, the Indweller, & then you complain how the analogy doesn't fit the "Mom" -- your 16.6% of the subject matter -- & then when that's all pointed out to you, you fall back on, "Whaddya mean I didn't talk about Mary? She's right there in the second sentence?" As if a single reference would trump 2 references to the Indweller, a gestated child, a baby being carried, a baby's place of residency (womb), & Jesus as preborn/born child?
And I have to spend all this time explaining to you what you somehow have seemingly forgotten (or choose to ignore) what you wrote? Are you kidding me?
Between these statements ... along with how you think you can reference the Holy Spirit as an "it" and then, when called on that, just slide right on by with an "oh, what does that matter? type of comment in post #9: "What it convinces you of is meaningless. My point still stands." essentially sizes up your weasel approach to conversations.
“So, in your 48 words in post #7, you essentially address these six subjects...”
No, I essentially address TWO.
1) Yes, but it doesn’t physically gestate within us as a child.
2) Thus, Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is God and she gave birth to Him.
1) The Holy Spirit has never been PHYSICALLY carried by a woman in her womb since the Spirit has no physicality.
So your math is as off as your analogies which are as bad as the false things you make up.
“And I have to spend all this time explaining to you what you somehow have seemingly forgotten (or choose to ignore) what you wrote?”
I forgot nothing. But if I were to forget something that would only be forgetting something rather than making up something no one said or did (which seems to be your MO).
“Are you kidding me?”
Nope.