WiseMagic12312

Secularist? What are you talking about? Webster Dictionary ---> secularist - a person not religious or not associated with the church. That's not who I am. Not at all! I'm an individual who thinks for himself. But that threatens you, so you have to associate me to something familiar that you can handle. Useless. Academic bravado?? Why don't you just go discredit every major university on the face of the planet while you're at it. Tell Harvard and Yale that they're full of **** because they employ "academic bravado." Tell everyone with a college education that their degree is nothing more than academic bravado that is unfortunate, but not uncommon. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!! Academics provide the medicine that saves your children's lives. Keeps your wife healthy and strong. Academics are the only reason you have the fancy machine you're sitting behind that allows you to even type your messages of mediocrity to me. But now that it is being used to discredit your faith, it's not good. Academics are bravado!!! Shush the academics! Shut the logic up. Teach more learned helplessness by discouraging people to think for themselves. GREAT IDEA PRISONCHAPLIN! I did not insist that the Nicean Creed employs the language of negation. I demanded that the doctrine of the Trinity is written in, and only in, the language of negation! If a book about cancer was written in the language of negation, doctors wouldn't read it! Again, you can't have it both ways! There's a reason it's called negation. It negates the very point it's discussing! How do you define something at the same time as negating it's existence??? C'mon on man. It's NOT evaluating theology. IT'S COMMON SENSE AND BASIC LINGUISTICS! Am I really the only one who see this?? You just completely shot every ounce of credibility you had in this argument by knocking psychology and refusing to cross-reference it to God and religion. You truly are an uneducated man. Let me spell it out for you, prisonchaplin. God, if there is one, would use psychology to relate to His children. Your quote in your signature is Psych101. Psychology is a basis to identify human behavior and analyze the personalities people have and how they came to be; whether through determinism or optimism. The fact that you are a chaplin is the byproduct of psychological pathologies that exist within your personality, and that have come to be through a strict correlation of yourself and your environment. You employ psychology when you preach in the prisons! So to say that you're not impressed with the cross-disciplinary efforts of the two is insinuating that you are a horrible chaplin. Because apparently, crossing the two has not worked for you. And no, it is not your humble opinion. It is your bias, illogical, uneducated opinion. Again, do the assignment I suggested and see for yourself. This is fun! What next?

I didn't even finish reading this post. I didn't have to. The fact of the matter is that God cannot, nor should He, be defined through the language of negation. It has been discredited for almost an entire century. The only people who hold on to it are the Trinitarians themselves. I understand that you want to give support for the belief, but like I said, you cannot define something through the language of negation! If you don't believe me, then I have an assignment for you. Write an essay. Pick a topic or a subject or an object that only you would know about. Define it only by what it is not. You're not allowed to define it by what it is, even once. Only through what it's not. Then post it somewhere, perhaps here, and see how many people can accurately guess what the topic/subject/object is in its totality. You can continue to belabor the argument, but until you try this assignment, you will not understand to the fullest where I am coming from. My disbelief? More like your inability to think logically. Use the brain that this God you speak of supposedly gave you. Nothing angers me more than people who ignore sound logic and basic common sense to hold on to a belief that is irrational and completely ridiculous. 3 Gods in 1.... WTF? We have a term for that in Psychology. It's not Trinity. It's Dissociative Identity Disorder (D.I.D.). Formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder. Are you insinuating that God has D.I.D.? Get real.

I already agreed with you on that matter in a previous post. But thank you for using it to deter yourself from the real evidence I provided to question the authenticity of the Trinity.

Yes, I have picked up on that as well. I would add to that, Traveler, based on my rewarding conversation with her, that she wants to identify what being a Christian means to her, through her own feelings and experiences. Not what the world tells her -- which I deeply admire and is why I found my conservation with her so rewarding; because I was able to learn that about her. WiseMagic

I want to clarify something. I have nothing against people wanting to believe in anything they want. What I am showing here is my confusion for some doctrine. Of all the religions I have studied, there are 4 pieces of doctrine that make the least sense to me and are the most illogically conceived: 1) 168,000 people will make it into Heaven ONLY and no one else -- Jehovah's Witnesses 2) The Trinity -- Everyone, except the LDS faith, supposedly 3) Just believe and you are saved -- Born Agains 4) Closed Cannon -- Everyone except JW's and LDS. It makes no sense to me. I can't understand how anyone can look at those doctrines, even if there is no God, and accept them as logical, thought out, coherent, unbias, and illegitimate. "Oh you just don't have faith, WM." How can I have faith in something that makes no sense in it's simplest form of logic? WiseMagic

So you honestly believe that God would inspire something through the language of negation when all the proceeding scripture has little to no evidence of God ever speaking in the language of negation?? I refuse to believe that an Almighty being would inspire a doctrine that is so limited in nature and written in language that is erroneous. Whatever, to each their own. You are right. But then again, such support as that is not necessary. The language of negation alone discredits it's validity. As does the scholastically inquiries of it's origin, definition, composition, and roots. For 1500 years, people believed the world was flat. How much longer until the Trinity is finally proven with sound eyes and ears to be wrong. Even the Bible does not support it. It's a chaotic notion that defies the order of what God is suppose to be. Are you insinuating that God is an agent of chaos?? How logically sound is it to believe that God was praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane? Or that He was atoning for His own demands of Justice in the Garden? That makes absolutely no sense to me! Because to manifest Himself in three different forms is not a testament to His divinity,but rather would be a chaotic demonstration that defies all logic and order. The idea of a different entity seeking reconciliation and advocating two different parties makes more sense to me and that's not even a doctrine I believe in. In fact, this is why I refuse to believe in a God or a religion. What a waste of time. WiseMagic

Ok, I am very glad to know that you were not offended because I have enjoyed this discussion. I find it challenging and thought-provoking. I think I more fully understand where you are coming from. It has also made it more clear to me that we are talking about two different things: hence the reason for me looking at it logically, and you looking at it divinely. I do believe that there is a logical way of looking at things and the spiritual way of looking at things. However, one cannot exist without the other. You are taught about the Divine through doctrine. That doctrine would be pointless if it were not logically sound. It wouldn't make sense to anyone and therefore they would not listen to it. So the doctrine in question is what I was looking at logically. However, you weren't looking at the doctrine, you were looking introspectively towards yourself and trying to reconcile your inner feelings with what you've been taught. Logic can be applied in the process, however, it's ultimately you who feels what you feel. While I am not a huge fan of emotions (I believe people would live longer with less of them), feelings are feelings no matter what. So I think what you meant to say was "you cannot understand feelings through logic." Not, "You cannot understand the divine through logic." God has order, purpose, and logic. If not, He would not be God, He would be an agent of chaos. But I think you meant the former and not the latter. You seem too smart to be in need of a lecture about God and logic. :) Thank you for giving me more understanding. WiseMagic

I'm afraid you don't have a choice in the matter PrisonChaplain. All substantial, credible discussion must be backed by analysis, support, and logic. Otherwise it is nothing more than crude opinion. Academically speaking, which is how the world defines credibility whether you accept that or not, your argument holds no merit if you want to inappropriately end it with "I have no interest in justifying the inquisition..." Traveler, I don't comment much on your posts, despite having read numerous posts of yours. IMHO, if someone wants to challenge something you have said, they need to be prepared to back it with irrefutable evidence. As you have demonstrated once again in this post, anyone is going to be hard pressed to out-discuss you. For the record, given my extensive, unbiased research of the history of religion (I don't belong to any religion), the Trinity exists for two reasons, and two reasons only! (As demonstrated academically and scholastically) 1) The council of Nicea fabricated it after the days of heated discussion and confused interpretation of scripture. 2) The Church of Rome, later to be known as the Roman Catholic church, crusaded through the eastern part of the world, enforcing their religion and doctrine. They made it law and killed those who did not obey the law. It wasn't a witch hunt. What a silly thing to call a validated piece of history. It is academically and scholastically proven that Christianity was the law and government for over 1,000 years, and people who did not adhere to the law and government were thrown into prison without trial, or worse, killed. As an additional note, it is scholastically and historically proven that the Trinity is inadequate in its simplest form. Listen up people, you're about to learn something not taught in your religions. The Trinity was written in what is called the language of negation. Academically speaking, it is impossible to define something by what it's not. That's what the language of negation is: speaking about something and defining it by what it's not. It's just not possible. For example: The sky is not tangible. It is not black. It is not living. It does not truly exist as the eye perceives it. -- Ok? So then what is the sky?? See, through the language of negation, I have defined what the sky is NOT, but have given no definition to what it IS. The Trinity is subject to the same limitation, problems, and inadequacy as I have just demonstrated here with the sky. PrisonChaplin, you seem like a great guy, and I have enjoyed many of your posts, but in the most loving form of sincerity I can offer, I think you need to consider a more in-depth study. Especially if you want to be a Chaplain. WiseMagic

Please do not see these responses as rude or belittling. On the contrary, they are asked in the hope that challenging your thinking will derive responses from you that will help me understand more fully where you are coming from. Additionally, please feel safe in continuing this discussion with me; you are. :) So after He has done all these things for you, you want to negate the core element of your faith that demonstrates your faith, love, and gratitude to Him? A) There's a difference between pondering and achieving. B) You contradict yourself when you say you don't want to ponder it, but you want what's best for your children and want to be with them forever. C) If you don't care about the afterlife, and you don't want to be Christian, then why be religious at all? "Because I love and trust God." Well, you're not "following" Him, as you put it, when you negate the very things He wants you to do in order to "follow" Him. I'm sorry, I just see paradoxical inconsistencies in your postulated paradigms and it baffles me. IMHO, I don't think you, yourself, see your own logical, analytical inconsistencies and contradictions. Obviously, it's bothered you enough to create an entire thread over it, where people can put their thoughts and ideas and create discussions that you no doubt wanted to partake in. You wouldn't have created the thread otherwise. So the issue was obviously sticking out enough in your mind while looking for your child's socks. ------------------------------ Again, forgive me for asking such challenging questions that no doubt appear antagonistic in their truest form. I assure you that such is not the case. Not being religious myself, and never being baptized in any church, I logically cannot understand your crude reasoning for your paradigms regarding the very religion you belong to, but I do want to understand; if understanding is possible in this case. WiseMagic

peculiar being an extreme understatement. People, I am not LDS. You all are Christians whether you want to be or not. If you don't want to be Christian, don't be Mormon. You're a paradox, Elgama. Wanting to be a specific religion to follow a God that you want to reward you one day after this life, but then you want to negate the core element of your faith that defines your works that you hope to be rewarded one day? Ok????? :confused: What a petty thing to be thinking about Elgama. I mean, if it's important to you; fine, to each their own. It just seems to me like there are more important things to exhaust your mental faculties over.

Calm down Teancum18. I took his comment to be antagonistic, too. But there's no need for you to react. Unlearn how to react and learn how to act upon.

I am not a member of the Mormon church, or any church for that matter. I have studied many religions and take from each one only that which works for me. I truly do admire the LDS faith. Within the religion is buried some of the deepest doctrine known to man. Whether right or wrong, who cares. Your doctrine still has explanations that no other religion has. I have read the Book of Mormon and found it to be very inspirational. A lot of good stories in there that we can learn from in our own lives. My biggest hold up with the LDS faith is the same hold up I have with every other religion. I don't look for churches or doctrine baed on "right or wrong." I look for them based on what works for me. While I may implement many teachings and doctrines from various faiths, I am not going to join one that I do not believe to be true, or because I believe others are false. Once again, true or false matters not to me. Only what works for me. We all serve our purpose and we are all connected. There have to be people who do wrong--in part--so that those who do right may be rewarded. So even evil-doers are serving their purpose as well. I look forward to my stay here.