Total posts: 49
Posted in:
I'd like to begin by saying that this is all theoretical, of course as the title suggests, and my purpose in posting this is to see if it isn't an inherently flawed idea for the restructuring of the American government. I also would consider myself somewhat educated, but I am certainly no expert on American government and law so I'm here additionally to learn what else could be needed for such a system to succeed.
I will begin with a general overview.
A. The federal government as it stands would drastically change. The Executive and Judicial branches would remain largely what they still are today, but the Legislative would instead become a system of direct democracy.
B. State governments would continue to be run similarly to how the federal government is run, with instead mayors acting as representatives who collectively legislate for the state rather than a lower/upper house of state senators. The governor would continue to act similar to a president, with veto power, leadership over the state military and police as granted by the state legislature, and would still be voted in by term.
Each of these have a decent amount of specifics, so I'll mainly hop into subject A.
A(1): EXECUTIVE The executive branch hasn't been my focus for this thought experiment, but in reality it wouldn't be affected much other than the removal of the electoral college allowing for true voting of the president. The president would maintain a cabinet and vice president as well as keep the same duties held currently as stated by the constitution.
A(2): JUDICIAL The judicial branch would also only have minor changes, allowing for a limit of age both lower and upper for supreme court justices of 35-65. The judicial branch would otherwise continue to check and balance the other two branches through recognizing the existence or lack of lawfulness and constitutionality of bills and would resolve court cases of extreme sensitivity and importance. They would also continue to be placed into office by a president with the legislative branch available to veto said nominees by a 2/3 majority.
A(3): LEGISLATIVE Now for the most drastic.
a. GENERAL STRUCTURE
The house of representatives as it stands would be dissolved. The senate, rather than having 2 representatives from each state, would run for office on a federal level regardless of resident state with 9 total senators at a time who have 3 year terms. Those with the power to vote on the bills presented by the senators would be all citizens not currently in a position of public office.
b. RULES, DUTIES, AND STIPULATIONS FOR ELECTION TO THE SENATE AND GENERAL GOVERNANCE
The American citizenry would vote directly on the senators whose main purpose would be the writing of bills and legislature. Those who are voted in as senators must still be citizens and senators may NOT vote themselves, revoking their right to vote for instead the right to write. American legislation would continue to go through the process of first being written as a bill but instead of being proposed to either the house or senate, would be proposed to the American citizenry to be voted in as law. On the first Monday of each month, all Americans citizens would be provided a holiday to vote on all current issues their senators have brought forward for vote. If an emergency vote is necessary, the senators may hold public counsel and if a majority agree on record, an emergency vote may be held within the next three days time, the period of time for which would be broadcast to the citizenry and decided upon by the senators. Bills being placed for vote, without an emergency ruling, after having been approved by the judiciary must be placed on the docket for vote at least one week prior to the voting holiday. Should a bill be passed by the citizenry that needs revision, any senator may propose a revision for the upcoming holiday or for emergency vote. Lobbying of any kind is impermissible and illegal, as well as mass bribery or voter intimidation. Should any group or individual be suspected of such villainy, they are to be investigated by federal police with a minimum of 4 years jail time if found guilty as well as receive the revocation of their voting rights. Should any senator be found colluding with outside influences for financial, political, or personal gain the other senators may at any time and without majority request an investigation of said senator if there be reasonable cause, as well as propose a vote to the American citizenry for their impeachment. Senators and their spouses are not permitted to trade publicly on the stock market. Should they own stock of any kind, it must either be left untouched until the end of their term, sold before entering office, or given to a third party handler that may not in any way communicate with the senator/spouse until the end of their term unless all stock under the senator's name or purchased with the senator's money is sold and the money returned to the senator. Should they be impeached, the president will nominate a new senator for vote by the citizenry before the next voting holiday. If they are not approved by 51% majority, the president will continue to nominate a senator before the following voting holiday until the office be filled. Senators will receive a pay equal to the current yearly average pay amongst the citizenry. Senators will be held to term and age limits, allowing for any senator to serve between the ages of 35-65 in terms of 3 years for a maximum of 4 terms. Senators will not be required to live in or meet at any specific location, nor will be given a minimum or maximum number of bills to propose. Senators may write bills as individuals or as partners for review by the citizenry. Any bill a senator wishes to publish to the citizenry must first be published to the judiciary branch who must approve it. Should a bill be passed by the judiciary and be passed by the citizenry but receive a veto by the president, the bill will return to the citizenry and will be passed by a 2/3 majority vote. A majority vote will be predicated not on the size of the population, but as a percentage of the votes themselves.
c. RULES, DUTIES, AND STIPULATIONS FOR THE CITIZENRY
All American citizens above the age of 18 are required to vote. Failure to vote without reasonable cause, namely health, access, capability, or service would result in a $100 fine. Should you fail to vote and wish to appeal your fine, any may do so with their local city government as well as they may enroll for exemption from voting should it be necessary and needful .Anyone over the age of 65 may also apply for removal from compulsory voting but in doing so will revoke their right to vote at all. Any may also choose to appeal this decision within 5 years time and reinstate their previous duties to vote. Citizens would hold the responsibility for voting each first Monday of the month and for educating themselves on the upcoming bills needing votes. Voting would take place either in person at local voting facilities by electronic ballet or online through government provided services. Votes will be cast and counted through the use of 1 USD crypto per ballet item provided by the government to the citizenry. The citizenry may choose to vote for or against any bill and all votes are to be anonymously gathered. The gathering of data regarding the personal details of persons voting is expressly prohibited and protected beyond the verification of identity by the government, with penalties of a minimum of $5000 dollar fine to be paid to the persons whose information has been illegally gathered. Should a citizen wish to present a bill, any citizen may write to any senator a bill they wish to be proposed. The senators are not obligated, however, to present such bills. Should the citizenry wish for an emergency vote of any kind, either on a specific bill or for the impeachment of a public official, 1 USD crypto will be provided at all times to each of the citizenry to use for the proposing of an emergency vote. The emergency vote may be initiated online through services provided by the government and should it receive 25% of the votes from the total population of the previous voting cycle within one week's time of the original emergency proposal, the vote would be presented to the general citizenry for deliberation and vote. Anyone found guilty of voter coercion through means of violence, bribery, or otherwise illegal and unsavory means amongst the citizenry would face the same charges as those from the government, namely a minimum of 4 years jail time and the revocation of voting rights.
To conclude, this is meant to be based on the ideal that we have a legitimate, accessible, and reliable means of voting as a general population. I suggest the use of crypto due to it's ability to be both online and unique, thus helping prevent voter fraud, but if there's a better way I'm open to it. My focus isn't necessarily on that, however, but on the general system provided so please. Poke away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I'd like to respond, but I messed up my hands at work and they are all taped up so I am typing with my pinkies. Give me a day or two and I'll get to you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The trinity I find to be problematic personally. I see two main issues.
1. If we take the trinity at face value and say that there are three beings and one God, we run into issues of polytheism which is a big no-no for Catholics and Protestants alike. It would mean that all three physically exist and if they are to be interdependently operating, as they are named and treated differently as one would different physical beings, then there are in fact more than one God. I've been told the basic explanation concerning how they are one God and with God all things are possible, etc. However, if we accept the strange premise that all three physically exist separately yet are one God, then God is schizophrenic and feels the need to create additional versions of himself. A self that, mind you, biblically is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent who wouldn't have any need to do so. He could simply introduce himself as himself, not calling himself his own father, son, and a spirit. It makes no sense and it's all kinds of counterintuitive and contradictive.
2. The entire idea of the trinity is built from Catholic precedent which means either A. You are a protestant and apostate from the Catholic(or other Protestant) church yet continue to follow their beliefs under the premise it needs reformation as a result of corrupt or imperfect men and so new protesting religions were created by (sometimes) corrupt and (always) imperfect men in an attempt to rectify holes in doctrine. Does this mean if I, or you, or anyone who doesn't like what we see from a particular protestant belief such as trinitarian doctrine and attempt to correct it without some level of divine intervention are correct in doing so? Or possibly are we making the same mistake that we are attempting to correct ourselves? It's all self-defeating and results in pulling doctrine from a previous group that they would condemn themselves as a result of the ideas of men. or B. You are a Catholic pulling this belief from the Councils of Constantinople and Nicaea whose ideas did not come to pass as a result of unanimous agreement but rather through vote and possible intimidation as some simply did not sign and, not to disparage Catholics, but very rarely is Catholic doctrine built upon scriptural precedent but rather cultural and traditional circumstance.
As a whole the trinity just lacks any sense of realism regarding God and if anything seems like an excuse or attempt to avoid associating with polytheism. That, or to appease existing belief that has perpetuated over the years and folks aren't all the interested in hearing they've been thinking about God all wrong their whole lives so everyone just nods their heads, smiles, and accepts that God is three different people but one God but physically has three different guys going around doing different things who talk to each other who are all one God and one of the three is the son of the other but they're the same and the different ones are referred to with differing levels of reverence but they are equal but one is charge of all of them and us and they all have their own names but are all God. Yeah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Are you a latter-day saint? Cause this is like 80% the same as their theology plus some of the same cultural suspicions/additions(God progression, multiple gods/peoples). 1-5 is nearly carbon copy beliefs though and you're using similar syntax.
If this is the case Christ can comfortably be referred to as either of a Prince of Peace or Pieces. He's Prince of the whole dang thing.
Created:
Posted in:
I've been mulling over a curious question and perused the internet for information but only found surface level answers thus far and am curious if the religious knowledge of the folks here have anything to add.
(KJV) Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
So I personally own a Strong's Concordance of the Bible and its a great resource as anyone who has used it knows. Most any time I come across something in the Bible I find curious I run to my concordance, do a quick translation back to Hebrew or Greek as well as search the roots of the words to try and fully understand the passage. I recommend doing this for anyone going through the Bible, it's exceptionally educational and for me, spiritual. Anyway. This particular phrasing, specifically when he says "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" is a very strange phrase to find. First, the entirety of the New Testament is classically Greek and the Bible Hebrew. This phrase, while if a quote could make sense if Hebrew, is Aramaic. While the languages are similar, the meanings of words do come with slight variations. Such as "sabachthani" is meant to say what is similar to the English forsaken in Hebrew, specifically meaning to be left or abandoned in a particular place whereas for English we use forsaken in an emotional context to say that someone has broken a bond with you. The Aramaic translation is much closer to English, being more closely associated with emotional abandonment rather than a geographical one. As I am trying to understand the meaning of this verse, ultimately the feeling that I might believe Christ is trying to convey is one of loneliness to his father and rather than saying "why'd you betray me dad" he's communicating "why have I been left here" as now at this point everyone has left him there or expects him to die. Either way is sad, but one reflects differently on the character of God and Christ vs the other. If you view it as an emotional forsaken, God's perfect character seems thrown into jeopardy as he would never truly forsake anyone, including his son. As a perfect father he would never abandon Christ. Yet Christ, also meant to be perfect, could be taken here to be questioning his father which would be a form of griping or complaining. While I don't think anyone would count this against him having been whipped, beaten, nailed to cross, and slowly dying in front of his family and friends it would throw some doubt on the nature of his character if taken in the Aramaic or English sense. It truly makes no sense to me. I don't understand why this, and only this phrase is Aramaic in the New Testament and why use that language instead of Hebrew which Christ almost certainly would have spoken instead. It is similar to if I go to a Trump rally as a Russian speaker, transcribe everything into Russian but then keep one phrase in Spanish and translate that back to Russian. I just don't get it. That said, there are plenty of places where the Bible doesn't make total sense which is why I don't believe in biblical inerrancy so normally I'll take what is good and move on. For some reason though this passage continues to be one that I chew on and haven't had a satisfactory answer yet. If anyone has any insight or other source I haven't seen yet I am open to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Always have the sick and hospitalized in mind, any prayer their way is always a blessing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You’re right in that the first part can’t be used broadly to prove the non existence of God. In many ways a big portion is a rephrased PoE argument.
Alright, fair.
However, religions and the religious are all about making statements about Gods power, will, motivations; and most assuredly sets up God as a Hypothesis.Ramshutus Razor is a mechanism for testing that hypothesis.
I do disagree slightly with your premise only in it not being complete. I personally would also consider religion about the relationship between us as individuals and God, our purpose within that relationship, and what is in my own as well as other's best interest when regarding our lifestyle here as a result. Again, just me personally though. I can accept the basic statement here still as setting up God as a hypothesis.
It’s not so much the case it refutes all Gods; but does assuredly refute all specific Gods anyone has ever put forward.
Agree to disagree, but sure. It's your razor, after all.
Take a typical Christian approach - God is love, God wants us to chose him, evil exists as a necessity to empower Good. Yadda Yadda.
So far so good.
Wouldn’t this universe better meet those goals if childhood Leukemia had a 10% better survival rate? Or if smallpox killed 1/10 instead of 1/4. What if Paedophillia didn’t exist?If all bad things that happen for no reason allow for potential better good, would not a universe in which a potential good can always be seen?Or take the whole nature of the afterlife: God needs us to believe in him - but why not make it a fairer choice? For example - no evolution - or better yet, make ever human know God exists, give them free will, make them know what God wants; and give them tests to show they’re trying, and don’t want to be sinners - but don’t tell them there is a heaven or hell.Absolutely subjective I ageee - but rapidly leads you to the conclusion that this is such a shitty universe and structure for any God; that they can’t exist - except for maybe Zeus.
There's a lot to unpack here. I mean, ultimately you say yourself that it really is subjective so if this is the structure you use and then come to that conclusion then I suppose according to the razor you provide then you're following the rules and it makes sense within context. In the same way I could, and do, follow the same instruction to end up at a different result I would assume the structure is still working then. I do personally struggle with it's lack of definition and how open-ended it is, but if it works for you then cheers my friend. Touching on what you state regarding sickness, rape, etc., this is really one of the more difficult hurdles for many regarding God, religion, or just life in general. I have personally struggled with this concept as it really doesn't have an easy answer. I'll give you a quick story of mine, you can do with it as you like. In my own experience, what really changed my perspective was just that, experience. I have been in an abusive home, stalked, and had others attempt murder on my family. I came out of it with a lot of sadness, fear, and bitterness for a long time. It wasn't until much later, when I was trying to help a young woman who was facing a similar situation where her significant other was abusive and she was doing her best to reclaim her children that I felt an overwhelming amount of sheer gratitude and compassion. I personally am not great at sharing compassion either, but at that moment I came to recognize the power of my experience and while I certainly didn't enjoy what was happening at the time, I wouldn't trade it for what it gives me. I have found this to be common among those who experience trauma, that while it is still a bad thing the end product is something truly inspiring to work toward and really makes these experiences worth it. Another quick example of this is a meme post you may have seen before, where a suicide hotline becomes overwhelmed with calls and so an operator is taking two calls at once. They ask the one if it is ok to go on hold because there's another gentlemen in need of help and they easily comply. The operator goes between the two and the two who called in end up having more concern for the one on the other end of the call than themselves and kept checking in to make sure the other guy was ok. So while I personally may disagree with your end conclusion and while I personally do believe that evil is a real, necessary, and beautifying part of life it is still your conclusion to make. Anyway, moving on.
The second one is what gives me confidence that Atheism - at least in terms of major theistic themes (as opposed to zeus or being in a simulation) - is correct. I’ve been trying to come up with a collection of motivations and wills for which this universe would be the best - or even close - for 20 years; and you have two options: simple and common motivations that don’t match the universe, of Convoluted and incoherent sets of disparate goals
I'm not sure if I follow, but let me see if I understand you correctly. To guess, you would claim that the "universe", which I'll just assume is collective existence as it stands, must either have an agreed upon motive for existing or a bunch of different, potentially conflicting ones? And when you say "motivations and wills", can you be specific with me? Do you mean in a general, "the universe exists to accomplish x y z" and "humans exist to procreate and enjoy life as possible, trees exist to grow, spread seeds, and provide further nutrients for other nature, etc" or more about inherent morality regarding life as a whole such as "Killing is bad, rape is bad, consensual sex is good, kids deserve good parents, etc." sorts of statements? I apologize if I am not grasping your concept here, doing my best with the monkey brain provided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
With spirituality and religion we don't always have immediate access to hard evidence even though they are built upon observation. So sometimes it's simply best to go with commonsense or logic to determine if something is stupid to accept or has good reason to consider it. If you already know or are 99.9 % sure God exists you can be very open-minded about many aspects of information and Theistic knowledge....once wrestling with whether or not God exists is no longer an obstacle things change dramatically if you're an obsessed thinker. For one, if God exists it changes the dynamics of reality so while things can get very strange everything must harmonize with logic.
Me personally, I think what you're really defining here is faith and trust and you and I would appear to think of it similarly. I certainly agree that once you accept God, logic has a certain openness to it that allows a lot of leeway. For if God exists, there's a whole lot interest as to what exactly is His doing and what isn't. I find myself more often than not deciding that while yes, "everything" is God's doing by extension, sometimes we give God credit to things that He isn't directly responsible for and we end up with people claiming false miracles or the like. It's a tricky business, sorting between the spiritual truths with regular laws of reality. More often they tend to link up as well which just makes it more fun hahaha So then my guess is what you've got going is logic, commonsense, evidence, and then faith(although not necessarily in that order).
Lol I feel you on that one. That's our curse as God lovers, we want everyone to experience what life has to offer on a spiritual level. Just keep yourself open to information and don't limit your beliefs to doctrine or dogma unless they are appropriate for application. And then you will always experience something you haven't before, don't hold anything back from God and God won't hold anything back from you. One thing people tend to trap themselves into, is lack of freedom. Religion (not referring to any particular) seems to have a knack for locking up a souls freedom in God, it's funny...they cleared the intellectual hurdle of whether or not God exists and now they have set themselves up behind barriers that limit their understanding of the Creator.
You're not wrong, it's a sad truth and a great blessing that when you get enough people of similar belief and put them together in a community they create cultures that usually encourage assimilation and you end up with dogmatic crap. I've wrestled a bit with knowing the balance between community involvement and using the good and supporting parts while removing the less helpful parts that can discourage continued thought and independence. Idk, what I most appreciate about my own belief is that it is incredibly sensible from a conceptual standpoint and really does work in practice so long as it is being practiced. It's when folks add stuff on top or reinterpret things to fit their own sense of morality rather than having a desire to change to something better that makes me sad. I can't complain too much though, I myself am guilty of, as you say, "clearing the intellectual hurdle...and now...set [myself] up behind barriers". What might you suggest is the cause of this yourself?
You come across as a down to earth, realistic and logical guy. Hopefully you contribute more to this section of the forum.
Haha I appreciate it, I'll do my best to stick around. You seem an intelligent and well-thought out person yourself so hopefully I can tickle your brain at least some as much as you do mine
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You're chillin mcgrillin, if anyone gets the odd idea that you are strange just have them look up pictures of sea lamprey's. There's some strange crap out there, I wouldn't worry too much about other's opinion. I mean, unless you're eating pizza with pineapple. Then we might have a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I know from personal experience that spirit exist. To ignore that would be hypocritical. I feel the need to engage and do for them as they also do for me the same as I would a living person. I might have misunderstood the question. I thought you were asking what do you get to as a benefit from my belief. Not a factor for my belief. Caring for my dead us a priority even over working with the gods.
I find that perspective unique. To be clear, there are many who believe in spirits, God, or any other number of supernatural things but that doesn't always necessitate a reciprocal relationship. So in your mind, the knowledge of your belief itself requires action if I understand correctly. Honestly, I think that's great. Faith ought to be an action based ideal not just an open or empty belief. Just out of curiosity, what might entail your relationship with said spirits? You noted that you help them and they help you, what might that look like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'm afraid I'm still not 100% understanding here, but think I'm getting there. I understand, and agree with, your take on how holy law is subjective which makes lots of sense. In total, to guess, you would say that you maintain your position as a result of your personal background/family as well as a distaste for any claiming a religious law as universal and/or objective? And out of curiosity, what then would you say could cause you to, as you say, "REALLY believe"? Most any, if not all, belief at some point is going to make an objective claim regarding morality at some point, if not at the very least making an objective claim that morality is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
While an interesting concept, it would seem there may be a lot of subjectivity involved that would it make it difficult to quantify this as absolute. It is really impossible to know whether a different universe/version of existence would be better than this one, let alone the "best", without actually experiencing it. Not to knock it, but it seems like this is taking "the grass is greener on the other side" to the full extent. I do, however, find very much enjoy the point here:
Conversely, one can take the universe and determine in what way it appears optimal; and use that to determine motivations and values.
This has a lot more potential for broad usage and is very interesting in concept. If put in to practice, could you give me an example of how you would, or have, applied this yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If potential is a "red herring", then what is centerfold in your mind that it might draw attention from? Personally, I find potential as really the basis for science, religion, or belief. In my opinion, we discover to find new potential for ourselves or to understand the potential of other things. I'm curious what you then see as what potential would be diverting us from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
My beliefs are in a constant state of flux.
Fair enough.
Due to the factor: Not Enough Information
What might you consider "enough" information? Or do you believe that it is even possible to reach a point where you have enough knowledge to stake a religious claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
So then I would assume from you citing Hume's Guillotine that what causes you to keep your position is a belief that the idea of a deity dictating divine law is contradictory? I would then assume though that as you state you have a belief that you have some reasoning behind the "ought" of belief, whatever it is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
While I appreciate that is your position, you didn't answer my question really.
Knowledge of a 2000 year old hypothesis is simply that.Though as I stated, a 2000 year old hypothesis falls a few billion years short of the mark.
Let me see if I can lay this out in simple terms for my brain. You know of religion as a 2000 year old hypothesis. You know that it is "a few billion years short." So while you know these things, that religion in your terms is too young and creation too old, then that means your opinion is developed entirely by what you consider knowledge. Knowledge that is quite recent, all things considered. Does this knowledge then make you exempt from any future potential discovery? Or to put it another way as I had mentioned before, what then is your motivation to your belief?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Liberal christains: Against cruel and unusual punishment and opposes the death penalty no matter what.Conservative christains: Thinks China is evil for punishing people for disagreeing with the Chinese government.God: Anybody who refuses to worship me and agree with me on everything by faith burns in hell forever (a fate worse than death).Both types of Christains: This is fine.
I'm gonna ignore all this here. No offense, but this is largely speculated opinion. Unsourced opinion. Throw down an article or something and we can talk about the ramifications that the specific group and that belief have as a result of their opinion. Otherwise, Christianity is simply far to broad in belief to throw out these kinds of absolutes. If you wanna call on a particular one, we can talk about that.
Me: If your against the death penalty or against cencorship, you should call out God for being worse than communists in China for sentencing people to fates worse than death for their freedom of speech.
Here is your pure opinion, however, and we can work there. If, and only if, those previous statements are true then it is fair to say that arguing against the death penalty/censorship while supporting God is hypocritical. However, I personally believe in God. I consider myself a Christian. I believe Hell exists for all eternity and that we self-determinate based on what is most comfortable for our existence. An evil murderer/rapist wouldn't be very comfortable hanging out with the choir boys who spend all their time gardening, singing, and helping out old man Jenkins with his car. As a result, Hell exists for the purpose of housing those individuals who are too rotten to be elsewhere. I don't think there's nearly as many people going there as some might believe, but rather the select few who elect to that path. I don't believe "China" is evil as it is a country. In the same way Germany isn't "evil" or America, or Malawi, etc. I believe there can, and likely are, evil people there. Probably some in the ruling class as well. I believe in God as a Father figure, one who created our spirits and provides a place for our bodies. I believe religion, as per the old Latin, is meant to "reconnect" us to Him and that He has no interest in alienating His children. To say that anyone has truly believed everything God does is improbable to impossible and yet I believe He would still like us to return to Him and that there is a way to do so. But again. This is my opinion, my specfic belief.
In my opinion, yours is built on some faulty presumptions and could use a onceover. Get specific with me, which denomination are you referring to, if any? Are you basing this solely on your experience with other Christians? Define God to me and his motivation in your eyes as well as why that is the case. Is your point focused on the issue of the death penalty/censorship/China or is it more that you believe God to be uncaring and thus deserves to be despised? Or that you believe Christians to be hypocritical as you have seen them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Would you mind extrapolating on those first three, commonsense, logic, and evidence? Do you mean that these are requirements and the basis of your faith or more that they act as supporting pillars? And just out of curiosity, if you find yourself missing one of those does it make a difference?
This is a great point and very true. Spirituality also helps to open up ones consciousness to have greater awareness. I often refer to spirituality as a cultivation, it is very much like a life long progression.
On my religious mission, this was likely the greatest realization I came to. I so often wish I could just dump the understanding of this concept into another's brain. Far too frequently people aspire to perfection and think they see it among others so they only become increasingly discouraged. Making peace with one's imperfection and choosing to improve slowly, recognizing failures and seeing them as opportunities to grow for the future, is just incredible. Cultivation is a great description, very fitting. A slow, rewarding, painful, and gratifying process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you haven't already, I recommend checking out Hyrum Smith and his "Belief Window" model. It does come in a religious context so be forewarned, but it puts to scale what you explain in the beginning of your post in a religious mindset which might be interesting for you to check out. Anyway, if I understand correctly you maintain your position because of lack of knowledge? Not to say you are unintelligent, but you mention a lack, or rather unavailability, of knowledge regarding God. Assuming that is the reason, I would assume then that you spend quite a lot of time studying? I'm curious to your motivation, for if it is an unavailability of knowledge then what is your recourse? And if you were then to come across some new knowledge(whatever it might be) that you didn't have before would that potentially change your position then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I find your position especially interesting here. So you belief is centered largely on a sense of duty and responsibility from what I gather? In my personal experience, the larger masses keep their inner belief because it's what gets them through rather than practicing something because of an obligation to others. If you don't mind me asking, what invokes that sense of duty? You mentioned that if you didn't hold your belief it would be hypocritical, why is that the case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I can actually get on board with this quite a bit. To be honest, if everyone took this stance and had responsibility for themselves and their loved ones we'd be a happier people. I also find it very interesting to hear that you find peace within becoming another part of nature. A nicer way to look at things then what I previously envisioned. Personally, when I hear atheists tell me they're going to turn into dirt and then that's that it always makes me a bit sad to think that's all they aspire to. Your opinion is a little deeper though which I appreciate. Simply having the desire to exist, do so happily, and then allow what comes next is respectable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Very interesting and very cool. I've always been of the opinion that spirituality is especially helpful when life is difficult, good to see I'm not alone in that opinion.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Generally speaking, I still believe miracles happen. We may not recognize them as the same as parting the red sea, but even in modern recorded history we've had some great, incredible things happen. As to whether it is a weak point, yes and no. My personal opinion regarding Christianity is that miracles are only used by God in situations of either great need or where the faith of the person isn't generally affected by the miracle anyway. For example, when we look at Christ. Many of the people who chose to follow him originally were there because of the miracles. They heard some dude was making free food and healing sick people and they thought "aight I can get with that." Then Jesus starts teaching doctrine and the sacrament and these huddled masses gradually disappear. While its possible the miracle convinced a few of his divinity, if you're going by biblical record Jesus should have been hailed as the God he is. Instead they killed him. Or in the case of the Israelites, they have the plagues, red sea parted, and are led around the desert by a lightning cloud that drops food from the sky and they still thought to worship a gold calf. People have a tendency to see a miracle, temporarily be convinced, then remind themselves of their own inner belief and search for the theology that better matches it rather than change to a religion that requires something uncomfortable. It's easy to rationalize it away is all and miracles just don't convert. Its been tried, doesn't work. Just look at Jonah. Or the Canaanites. Or Cain. Etc.
Tradesecret: 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
^
Created:
Posted in:
Whether atheist, agnostic, or theist what do you see as the benefiting factor that most prominently contributes to your belief. To be clear, I'm not asking what caused your belief or lack thereof but rather why maintain your position?
Me personally, I stay a religious person because I know spirituality has, and does, help me overcome challenges while having the possibility to help others. Without the focus on God that I've had I can be quite confident that I personally wouldn't have had the focus on personal growth that I have.
Lemme hear what ya got
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
word
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I don't really do running, I'm more of a power walker. Cardio isn't what I prefer anyway, I'm more into power lifting. It's a life choice.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So to be a "true" Christian, your expectation is that either Christians denounce themselves of their belief or go practice these things?
I personally don't believe in Bible inerrancy so the point here is pretty underwhelming to me as far as whether or not my belief is a fallacy. The point I'm making is that the point being tried to be made is being done in a poor manner. In similar fashion, I could simply claim that Atheists lack morality and are trapped in a relativistic moral loop. Or in short hand, all atheists must be jerks since there is no universal code of ethics and until all of them prove their moral code we shouldn't assume any of them are good as soon as one of them sucks. Or since Atheists don't believe in any god that they should prove it by screaming it from the rooftops like the loudmouths they ought to be. Both of these statements are silly, as is the point here. If the goal is to debunk Christianity, you're better off focusing on the drawbacks of known doctrine or negative effects of religious culture. Or even just to show contradictions without being obnoxious, focusing on contradiction of legitimized teachings common to most Christianity. This sort of response is akin to telling a child they are a stupid idiot for trying to pull 3 cookies out of the cookie jar when only one comes out at a time and then clapping yourself on the back for being such a good influence. Sure, maybe you're right, but execution matters. TBH the goal of Mr. Thomas here is a little less clear considering he's either trolling or trying to preach a new strain of religion that's some intensive inerrancy Christian belief. I can't decide which is better.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Do you prepare these each time or just the outline of bold and underlined headers to fill?
If you didn't have proof or pics you can just say so.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
So you're suggesting these are practiced, legitimate practices of current Christians? Not a gag post made with the purpose of inflaming people? Sources for each scripture pls with examples of the majority of major Christian religions practicing this in large quantity. If, as you also say, you follow the entirety of the Bible, are you suggesting you intend to practice these things? Show your work. Or as the kids say, pics or it didn't happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Contradictions certainly exist within the Bible. Its just reality. Personally I roll down into a different rabbit hole of open canon which is not usually popular with most main Christian groups. If you believe all scripture is written and revelation is over, or closed canon, then figuring out the contradictions in scripture usually becomes some battle of semantics and translation debate. It's really up to the individual to come to their own conclusion here. Some Christians prefer just to take from the Bible in parts, others say it all must be perfect, and more yet say it is incomplete or imperfect. Up to you my dude.
Created:
Posted in:
This is more of a question rather than a position. Should there be a federal aspect to education in America? Constitutionally there is no provision for any aspect of federal government being involved in education and as a whole has caused a lot of issues with schooling in the attempt to make all states schools equally credible. What would be a solution if the federal government wasn't involved anymore? Or how could we make it more effective as it stands now?
Created:
-->
@DynamicSquid
I can get behind this to a point. I do think that a pattern needs to develop first as there is always outliers, but overall the students can generally tell who sucked and who didn't. In fact, I believe in Japan the student presidency is given a certain amount of power in firing teachers if they are considered terrible teachers. Now if America, which I am assuming is where you are from the system you are talking about, took school government more seriously as well as had more funding/actual education then this would be much more feasible. Or maybe this type of system is what might get us to that point itself, who knows. All I know is too many of us Americans viewed education as a burden when its a blessing and too much of the education was burdensome when it could've been enlightening. Give the kids the right attitude and understanding, this works out.
Created:
-->
@Jasmine
Same bruh
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I agree, in particular I'd like to see 7DA's. As someone who is LDS, I personally live healthier than most but they take it a good deal further. I'd be real curious to see the logistics on it. It is worth noting though that enough atheists did live healthier than some at least. Makes me want to see the actual data and see where it really stacks up. Lots of interesting psychological stuffs to see there.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
In fact, atheists generally enjoy better health than members of any religion.
Last I checked, this study lacked specificity. It was noted by the researchers that this study did not differentiate between atheists and simply those non-secular as well as it lumped together anyone of any belief as one category. While still possibly true, in contrast its then equally fair to source the studies saying that those of religious standing are normally happier than those who are not.
I think one of the reason for this may be that attributing results (bad or good) to the supernatural ends the conversation. The supernatural is by definition beyond our ability to understand and/or control, so we waste our time trying to understand the disease or reverse its progress. If we instead assume that the thing is only hard to understand and control for lack of information, then we are motivated to understand better and such improved understandings eventually translate into better health outcomes.I would not say that Atheists never report miracles, they just don't report them as miracles. Rather, Atheists report miracles as mysteries and in so doing open up doors towards discovery that consistently disprove supernatural explanations given sufficient insight and understanding.
This ^^^ Very true.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I meaaaan, this is a very assumptive position. Assuming supernatural things happen, assuming this is accepted as axiomatic by the community(theist or atheist), then yes. Atheists are on shaky ground. Using those assumptions. Rolling with those assumptions, is it not then also safe to say the opposite can then be true, that a religious person has no supernatural experience even when they should? I can also say with certainty that I have conversed with men and women who had miraculous things happen to them yet are still not religious. It is comparable to them how ancient greeks decided that gods controlled lightning because they did not yet have another explanation at the time. Using "supernatural" things as evidence of God is really quite difficult and ultimately even in most scripture ineffective. The entire premise of Satan's rebellion is that he had the perfect life with a perfect father and chose to leave it as well as a third of heaven. To put that in simple words, he LITERALLY was face to face with the God of creation and said suck it along with lots of other brothers and sisters. The children of Israel were led around the desert eating mana from the sky, following a lightning cloud after Moses led them through the plagues and the Red Sea, yet they still made the golden calf and apostatized. The basis on religion has much more to do with personal choice than the supernatural. Sure, it can have an affect and be very influential to some. Using it as a goalpost to smack atheists with is a little silly and probably hurtful. Personally, I think if we experience something legitimately supernatural than we should treat it with some reverence and gratitude for the spiritual experience rather than as a proving point. Prove the point through the tenets of the belief and the spirit associated with it instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That was honestly pretty insightful. Thanks bro
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You are missing the point. The fear of death, sickness or poverty is one reason of why you aren't as happy as you could be.
- Does smoking weed make you happy? If you do and it always make you happy, it makes you die happy, which means you will be happy for the rest of your life. That is a win.
- Does working at fast foods make you happy? If yes, you will contribute your life to something that makes you happy or you will quit to find something else that makes you happy. You can make a win out of this.
- Is being poor really miserable? All the monks in the world says no. The capitalist doctrine of that richness=good is what kills people.
I'm not sure if I can totally get behind you. What I am worried about is a long term effect, like keeping with the weed example. I can see where it could be considered a win to die doing something that makes you happy, but if I do it now, regret it later, and it comes to bite me in the butt, is it really making me happy? With something like weed it is easier to quit and call it a day. Going into financial debt is a bit tougher on the consequence side though. And I do not mean that poor is equal to miserable, that was my inadequate phrasing. I've spent most my life poor and been plenty happy. I do, however, want to achieve certain financial goals. Not only for myself and hopefully a future family, but to be able to assist others as well. Monks can be happy and poor, but for a lot of the world they have to pay for their food and it makes me happy to be the one able to provide that. If you are correct that death, sickness, or poverty is the issue, poverty is a great possibility. Death and sickness I think made our peace. Death cannot be stopped, same with sickness. We can delay the best we can but they aren't going anywhere. I can, however, battle poverty. Are you suggesting then that that is a bad idea? And possibly the root of my indecision?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, find something repetitious that makes me content? Or accept the repetition and find ways to be content aside from it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I like the general attitude of this, but it doesn't seem to take in to account the long term. For example, smoking weed might make me happy for now and the foreseeable future but 30 years from now it'll probably kill me. Or choosing a to be a food service worker might work for now, but 30 years down the road it'll make me poor and miserable. Or am I missing the point there?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
While I agree crypto is dangerous and currently a volatile investment, it has value for a reason. Looking at currency around the globe, most of the world has based their worth on the USD. This has come to be for a couple reasons but has largely stayed that way because of oil. The Saudi's would only trade oil using USD and everyone needs oil so it became the de facto currency to measure things by. This is great for American government who can now have immense control. Add crypto to the scene. A digital currency that defies regulation and governmental control, who's value is not tied directly to USD. We also now look at the near future, with the Chinese now having made a deal to trade in Chinese Yen for oil instead of USD, suddenly American control of world economics loosens and we need something else to use universally that we can all measure by. Will it be Yen? Who knows. Maybe USD will continue for many years to come. But. Crypto has the unique position to allow the world to trade in something that is literally only given value by its mere use and existence. Which I suppose is how currency mostly runs these days anyway but crypto just takes it a step further. While it isn't a sure thing, I would consider it unwise to so easily set aside something that has seen such regular and massive growth year after year after year. If it was a "get rich quick" scheme, I'd imagine it would've looked like doge or gme. A temporary explosion followed by people getting their money and leaving or getting stuck holding the bag because you bought for the hype. Bitcoin, ETH, even Litecoin have been growing steadily for nigh on a decade. I wouldn't sneeze so easily at it. The serious strategy behind crypto is to enhance world banking and business contracting at which it has already shown itself successful. Personally if you wanted to invest in crypto, I would be cautious and study on the current state of the crypto you want to buy. I am a big believer in ETH, have been for years. I think it's bitcoin on crack and is going to overtake it within the next 5-10 years, but that is my opinion. Another incredible part about crypto is the market hours for it. Within the time the stock market has had a full week, the crypto market has had almost triple that amount of time to be open on the market in the same week. Its market never closes. Which means that a decade of having an investment in the stock market is going move 3x slower than if it were crypto. It is a great part of why it is dangerous, as you can have huge movement while you're dead asleep and also why it's powerful and can make people tons of money. But hey. Just my 2cents.
Created:
Posted in:
For my first 19 years of life, I had a very structured outline of how I would conduct my life. I did well in school, made some great friends, had some incredible and terrible experiences, and basically followed the plan. I spent my entirety of high school choosing a career, bouncing between law, medical, finance, finally resting on cybersecurity within the military. I come from a low income family and to make a long story short I can expect no financial support from my parents. After high school I worked and invested to go on a religious mission, which I did. After my experiences there I found myself once again doubting my career choice. I come home to nothing, having spent basically everything I had. I lived in my friend's parent's office space for a few months, got a job at a restaurant, and moved into a different place where I rented a room. I started college and have been trying different careers since. My mother expects me to finish college, as when my great grandfather passed he left all the money he had for me and my sister's education. It would be enough to cover about 3 years at a state college which is an incredible gift. As a result of this gift, I want it to be spent in the best way possible and so I dove deeper into trying to make a decision. I joined a cybersecurity program on campus while working three other jobs and still at school, trying to support myself, get educated, and decide on a path. Honestly, all that came out of it was a feeling of dissatisfaction. I've gotten my own place now, still work at the restaurant as a server and have started investing in my future. College only made me more angry at our education system and its stupidity, working all this much has frankly burnt me out, and I'm still no closer to a real decision. Some say focus on passion, which if I went with would be to major in religious studies and become a professor. Unfortunately for that path, there is no real money at the end of that rainbow and I'd likely hate the school I work at. Teaching would be incredible and I find it extremely rewarding but not at an American school. Then some point to money and say just to make as much money as possible, then do your passion. Which I'm like, "ok that makes sense." But then you look at stories of success and nearly every one of them tell you that if you just go in for money you're gonna hate yourself and likely not succeed anyway. Which I'd rather not do. So then you get right back at education. Keep getting educated and trying to find a career path, although I could be wasting the precious few funds I have on something that I'm not likely to get much back from that I couldn't do myself. If my American history class is literally a study of the Constitution, I can read wikipedia. I own a copy of the Federalist Papers, I can be educated on these topics without spending all this money. Unfortunately, self-education has little in the way of credentials and modern work life demands more and more often to produce a degree. Now every time I sit down and try to come to a decision, I feel paralyzed by the sheer amount of choice. I know dozens of ways I could just go make money or do something I really enjoy or go for an education. If you've made it this far down the rabbit hole with me, what would be your advice? What's the best way to sort through all the crap without wasting time or money and avoiding hating myself in 10 years.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
FAUXLAW,YOUR QUOTE SLAPPING JESUS IN THE FACE AGAIN!!!: "Thus, there are actually many gods, of which our trinity is but one set, dedicated to Earth, who created Earth. our trinity, along with all these other gods, have created, over time, the expanding universe, each one, a portion of it, peopling planets like our Earth ....... Our Earth is but one of countless planets created for this purpose for many, many people, each children of a specific one of the many gods."WTF! Barring the fact that there are so many needless "commas" in your unchristian like quote above, you once again SLAP JESUS in the face with your Twilight Zone Bible ignorant statements above by saying there are many gods in the universe, where Jesus' inspired words state there is ONLY ONE, which is Jesus as shown below, you stupid MORONIC fool!“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43: 10-11)"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5)"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:6)Therefore, since you are not following Joseph Smith's Book of Moron's Bible, why don't you just take it outside and just piss on it and set it on fire!As Jesus would say, there is a sucker born at times in that they will become a MORMON like you! LOL!
NEXT?
Bruh
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I'd simply ask you to investigate the full name of the church. If someone within the church is legitimately stating they are not Christian, that is a bit concerning. As far as "falling outside traditional understanding", yeah. That's fair. In my personal experience the confusion that comes in is when members of the LDS church state that they don't believe in the Trinity, other Christian denominations can take that to mean they believe in a "different" Jesus. Which is sort of true. But mostly not. They still believe in the Bible, including the New Testament. The main difference is the belief that Christ is physically different, at which point folks can get see that as not close enough to the mainstream to be considered Christian. Honestly, the most Christian people I've met would say something very similar almost every time being something along the lines of, "well, it sounds like we're on the same page. See ya there." Tbh I don't mind the church being considered the weird cousin of the group, it is certainly different. When people go to drag it through the mud it is saddening though considering when it all comes down to it, it's really not that different. That said, if you're not going for a positive or negative connotation than I'm unclear as to the use of the word. But whatever. Semantics. Doesn't matter in end then.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let us talk about credibility here. BITE method itself isn't necessarily the most credible as it no peer-reviewed publications and isn't verified by the scientific community. While Mr. Hassan was a credible practitioner of mental health science it does not make him the end all be all of the subject. As such using the model as a scale on any group ought to be done with caution before counting BITE method as an unassailable truth. Your video is then an ex-mormon talking about the church in a negative way which honestly is slightly more credible in my mind than the BITE method. That said, you find me a legitimate psychological community willing to agree on the church being cultist than please provide them. I personally have over two decades of experience in the church as a leader, member, missionary, and inactive member. Would it be equally credible then if I create a video on how the church is actually the God's gift to the planet and I prove that using only the Bible, a source not recognized or agreed upon by the general community?
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
BITE method doesn't work either, nearly all of the points in no way fit. The easiest one to debunk is money, the LDS church uses its funds toward charitable giving and not towards the leadership. There's no threats or use of violence, manipulation of private information, or any "hidden information" that would largely affect anyone. The only information hidden is people's private info and incomplete documents. Even the finances of the church are posted publicly and vetted by a third party that then reports to the members. Just another misconception to negatively connotate the LDS church. The only part that the church can be guilty of is the emotional aspect, and that is a result of culture and imperfect members and largely is perpetuated by the members and far less so the leadership. That said the bad parts of church culture can center mostly in Utah where the majority of its members, it should be noted, do not even live.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This paradox ignores an important aspect of God which is necessity. Being omnipotent doesn't necessitate doing all things, it is having the opportunity, should it be needed, to do whatever it is that is needed. IF God needed to create a rock that he couldn't physically lift(which he doesn't) than he could. He could then proceed to allow himself to move it again if it was necessary. This line of thinking lives in the realm of "what if" in reference to a being that would never realistically be faced with such a situation which is fun to think about. Ultimately I see it in the same light as when fanboys wouldn't stop asking Stan Lee about which comic characters would win in a fight to which he answered, "Whoever the author decides, I write the story." We can ask God all day if he could make a rock he can't lift, ultimately its up to his discretion.
Part of omnipotence would require being capable of adjusting your own abilities at will anyway. To which some might run back to the paradox and say, "Well then he never was really incapable of lifting the rock." I would equivocate this to looking at my spindly self who can bench around 120lbs, and then after working out for a while and getting to 160lbs lost it and am back to 120lbs, then saying, "Was he really ever incapable of lifting 160".
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
No other theological position is able to properly provide a satisfactory balance of the one and the many. One tends towards absolutes and the other towards relativity. Take the JWs and the Mormons and the two cults of the Christian religion. JWs focus on ONE GOD. Mormons focus on many gods. They are simply the Christianized versions of every other religion in the world. Islam for instance. What is common with JW and Islam? Both are fixated on absolutes. They have no real ability to be flexible in their positions. Or take the Mormons and say, Hinduism, or dare I say it atheism. Very much flexible and relative in their points of view. Mormons don't believe in Hell. Hindus - take a relativistic point of morality and athiests. They often say they just believe in one god less than Christians - yet the underyling principle really is they believe every person is their own captain and master - a god without calling it so.
Be careful throwing out the C word my friend. First definition you're gonna get for cult: "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object." By this definition almost all if not all religions are cults. So if you mean this definition cool, but more likely you mean it as derogatory, as if to say "they are strange and different, we should call them as such." Not cool bruh. Also, "Mormon" is just a nickname and isn't recognized as the actual name of the organization. Go with LDS if you're gonna shorthand it if you would. Latter-day Saints do believe in Hell also, but that it is far less populated than what other Christian denominations may believe. More often than not it is referred to as "Outer Darkness" within the church but really it is Hell. The word Hell pops up in the Book of Mormon and countless talks and writings from its leaders. To say LDS people don't believe in Hell is simply inaccurate. That said, your point on "Mormons focus on many gods" is technically true but misleading. They believe in a Godhead, which is for all intents and purposes equivalent to the Trinity except that they believe each of the members are physically different. As in Jesus has his own body and spirit, God the Father has his own body and spirit, the Holy Spirit its own spirit. That said they are still referred to as "One God" and accept that within the Bible and Book of Mormon. The most common phrase to use is that they are "One God in purpose", that is to say they are so similar in purpose, state of mind, and ability that they are completely in sync and therefore fairly called as one "thing". In the same way a married couple can physically be different but also one. Or two bestfriends. Or a dog and cat when they want your Del Taco. Anyway, just a bit of knowledge to throw out there. If you're curious on anything else just ask my dude.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let me start by saying that I personally do not believe in a Trinitarian God. That said, let me see if I can supply some knowledge.
The Trinity itself is a concept that was set down and agreed upon during the Council of Nicaea/Council of Constantinople who then set up the Nicene Creed. If trying to conceptually understand the Trinity you should start with a Wikipedia search of the above. Personally, I do not agree with the Trinity but if you're trying understand what it means and if it completely meshes with the Bible you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone who can do both of those things. The doctrine was created by a council of men in a political circumstance and not necessarily to declare what they at the council all truly believed but what they would have the rest of Christendom generally agree upon. It wasn't until later it became heresy to disbelieve in the Trinity, but anyway. Ragnar gave a sufficient example as to explain the Trinity but maybe here is an example that will better suit your brain. I personally when trying to understand the Trinity think of it as computer. A computer is made of a few components, a few more important than others, but all operating to the same purpose. The motherboard inside holds the real guts and power, your screen giving the visual results of what is being processed, your hard drive holding the data of all those things. In the Trinity they see all things as one body, thereby one computer. Christ in this case would act more as the memory unit who had a temporary wipe while he experienced humanity for a short time until he was ready to fully receive the knowledge he had previously. Honestly, no example really works perfectly, that is simply what works for me and hopefully sheds some light. It is also worth noting that the Council of Nicaea focused mostly on the divinity of Christ and the concept of the Trinity was already around at the time, it is usually however the benchmark theists use to decide when Trinitarian belief became prominently accepted and agreed upon as orthodox.
I'm also quite certain you have heard of and can come up with many other metaphors of a similar kind for the Trinity. In all reality we are trying to understand a concept that in essence isn't fully explained. Trinitarian belief can, and is, supported by scripture but is also disputed by scripture. The issue you face is whether someone who is explaining the Trinity to you is using closed canon/open canon as well as whether they support a perfect/imperfect Bible. You'll find any Christian hard-pressed to give an infallible answer using only scripture or metaphors to explain the Trinity or really most Christian belief if they are supporting a closed canon perfected Bible. If one truly could do that there would be a lot less debate on religion. Hope that makes a little sense
Created: