so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?

Yep, I am a trinitarian.

next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?

1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)

I would agree that all of these views were represented, but the vast majority of them were trinitarians.

finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

The word trinity does not appear in the bible, but the concept of the trinity certainly does. There are many concepts taught in the bible which are not specifically named, so a lack of the word "trinity" isn't proof that there is no such thing. You have to go by what the bible teaches about the nature of God, and it teaches that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, and that there is only one God and not three Gods. Here are a couple of verses mentioning them together:

•Matt. 28:19, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
•2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.


>> ^Diogenes:
so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?
next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?
1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)
finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?

next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?

1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)

finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

Christianity doesn't make distinction between people, or races. We're all equal before God. It does make a distinction between male and female, however, as well it should. It is abnormal to want to eliminate that distinction. Look at the abnormal behavior this is breeding:

http://mommyish.com/childrearing/parents-treat-newborn-child-as-massive-social-experiment-on-sex-and-gender/

That child is going to be screwed up for life, guaranteed. Homosexuality isn't natural. If you were to put 20 homosexuals on an island, what would happen? Within a generation, they would die out.

Homosexuality is a sin and at odds with Gods plan. The humanist position of eliminating all distinctions is what is abnormal and is sign of a sinful culture that is in rebellion against God. It didn't go well for Sodom and Gemorrah, and it certainly won't go well for us either.

>> ^alcom:
Excellent point, luxury_pie.
In a broader sense, I was thinking that rather than poking fun at Canucks for indicting people or groups for advocating genocide or inciting hatred, it is a sign of inevitable progress as evidenced by the numerous developed and developing countries listed on the wiki. This shift towards a humanist coexistence rather than one divided by religious, gender and racial intolerance seems only logical. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go as a species.
>> ^luxury_pie:
Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.
@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

Excellent point, luxury_pie.

In a broader sense, I was thinking that rather than poking fun at Canucks for indicting people or groups for advocating genocide or inciting hatred, it is a sign of inevitable progress as evidenced by the numerous developed and developing countries listed on the wiki. This shift towards a humanist coexistence rather than one divided by religious, gender and racial intolerance seems only logical. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go as a species.

>> ^luxury_pie:

Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.

@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

I believe in both creationism and evolution and listening to those on either side to me are just hilarious entertainment listening to circle logic on both sides.

Even the bible tells us evolution will happen, even says in revelations that people's knowledge will increase thousand fold over what was there currently, if one reads it just as it says and doesn't try to think of it as a magic book.

But personally I believe the universe was created, science 'theory' is big bang, there are other science theories that disprove the big bang when you get into string theory and such.

but I think it was created then from then on for the millions of years things have existed we have been left alone to evolve.


Evolution and Creationism coexist and are both correct in my opinion. 100% evolution is incorrect to me and 100% creationism is incorrect to me. It is blending of both.

But that's my belief. And it works for me and my children and thankfully the school my kids go to also teach that very same system. Thank goodness for private schools.

>> ^Skeeve:

This is definitely some quality television.
I love examples of how "short" history actually is.
We have here a video recording of a man who was alive before the existence, politically speaking, of nations like Italy and Canada. He was born before the invention of dynamite and he coexisted with people who knew Napoleon personally. That stuff blows my mind.


indeed, about 5ish years ago, i was having dinner at a buffet and this older lady and gentlemen walked in followed by two other older ladies, i learned from the older man that he was 96, the smaller lady was his wife who was 104 (she looks about 70ish) and the two other women was there daughters who were each in there 60's, i sat there just dumbfounded at all the history these four new as "life" and all i had were crappy books and lame ass teachers in school.

This is definitely some *quality television.

I love examples of how "short" history actually is.

We have here a video recording of a man who was alive before the existence, politically speaking, of nations like Italy and Canada. He was born before the invention of dynamite and he coexisted with people who knew Napoleon personally. That stuff blows my mind.

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^LarsaruS:
Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.
"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.

Maybe I misunderstood/misread you but to me it seems like you feel I believe gays should not be allowed to marry? Since I believe they should be able to I feel like you must have misunderstood me. My comment was only directed towards the flawed notion of morals, morality and ethics as an absolute set in stone ~2k years ago in a desert. This is also why the entire gay-marriage-controversy is utter BS. It is make belief morals enshrined in law fucking real peoples lives up for absolutely no reason at all.
I completely agree that actions that harm others without consent should be illegal. However, I do not like your circular reasoning for the reason why it should be illegal. I believe that it should be illegal because it hurts another human being not because it is "immoral" as morals are fluid and changes a lot. 500-1500 years ago rape and pillage during war wasn't seen as immoral, just effective. Today you get court martialed and possibly shot/hung for it.
If your actions cause pain or discomfort to another human being try to refrain from it, or they might do the same to you (or worse!). That is also the reason why you shouldn't mess with people. Because if you break the I-wont-try-to-kill-you-and-you-wont-try-to-kill-me pact that we base our coexistence and civilization on you might just cause your own demise.


It's not circular reasoning. It's redundant explanation of an axiom (one of many).

Not every action that harms others without their consent is immoral or should be illegal:

1. Train is about to hit 10 people, but you can pull a lever that will make it go on a different track and hit 1 person instead.
2. You run a business. You have underperforming employee. You fire underperforming employee.
3. Some instances of self defense.

Don't let the bronze-age-myth fools soil the name of morality so thoroughly that you stop bothering to use the word except mockingly.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by marinara:
i remember that killing of the female android from the last time i saw the animatrix.
still pisses me off. no vote

yeah..that was a pretty powerful scene.
i loved the movie and the animation at the time was stellar.
sorry you didnt like the vid my man.

better to disagree and coexist than to all just believe the same thing (like some human xeorx machaine)
peace to you!

>> ^jwray:

>> ^LarsaruS:
Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.
"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.


Maybe I misunderstood/misread you but to me it seems like you feel I believe gays should not be allowed to marry? Since I believe they should be able to I feel like you must have misunderstood me. My comment was only directed towards the flawed notion of morals, morality and ethics as an absolute set in stone ~2k years ago in a desert. This is also why the entire gay-marriage-controversy is utter BS. It is make belief morals enshrined in law fucking real peoples lives up for absolutely no reason at all.

I completely agree that actions that harm others without consent should be illegal. However, I do not like your circular reasoning for the reason why it should be illegal. I believe that it should be illegal because it hurts another human being not because it is "immoral" as morals are fluid and changes a lot. 500-1500 years ago rape and pillage during war wasn't seen as immoral, just effective. Today you get court martialed and possibly shot/hung for it.

If your actions cause pain or discomfort to another human being try to refrain from it, or they might do the same to you (or worse!). That is also the reason why you shouldn't mess with people. Because if you break the I-wont-try-to-kill-you-and-you-wont-try-to-kill-me pact that we base our coexistence and civilization on you might just cause your own demise.

>> ^blankfist:

"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
– Ambrose Bierce

It seems to me that you should really turn the sharp end of that quote on yourself blankfist. You don't seem to realize that your own supposed principles should be viewed in that same cynical light.

Let's try to talk about sorting right and wrong, at its most basic level.

I'm basically a hedonist at heart. I say that morality is about maximizing pleasure, and minimizing suffering. Not all pleasures are created equal -- the base pleasures of the flesh rank below the more erudite appetites of the intellect, and those rank below the high pleasures to be found in helping others achieve greater heights of pleasure.

When it comes to designing social frameworks in which people coexist, I think we should try to maximize the net pleasure of all the people involved. I have been persuaded by history and philosophy that this requires a notion of inalienable human rights, and the use of a legal and political system to uphold those rights.

I have also been persuaded that market economies can be both economically efficient and while retaining a great deal of individual economic choice, so I'm willing to entertain including a legal definition of claims to inanimate objects known as "property". I think for a market to function, people must be allowed to purchase and sell property within it, and I think all people should have the right to participate in it, and enjoy the fruits that can be earned within it.

But I also think the overall economic scheme known as a market should be subservient to the overarching goal of maximizing pleasure for everyone in society, and not that society should be subservient to the rules of the market, regardless of its effect on the happiness of the people within it.

I also think that where markets run afoul of intrinsic human rights, like a person's ability to stay alive, or freely express themselves, markets must bend to the higher callings of these intrinsic human rights, rather than vice versa.

The bottom line is that morality can never become a license for me to ignore the effect of my actions on other people -- morality demands that I must always weigh the effects of my actions on everyone, everwhere, and ensure that I am always serving to maximize utility pleasure for society as a whole.

@MaxWilder, thanks for trying to have a civil dialog. You wrote "How is it that people cannot defend themselves right now?" Owning a gun is still a right in the US, but try to carry it with you in public places. That's the important distinction between owning a gun and using it to defend yourself outside of your home. Cops aren't always around, and most recently with the gunman in Arizona, it might've been handy for others to have guns to subdue the gunman.

My "whole" argument has nothing to do with "I can't smoke what I want". Not sure why you're attempting to paint it as such. I'm trying to illustrate how there's more to the immoral statist system of government than just protecting us from egregious crimes like murder, rape, robbery, etc. Like I said, if that was all they protected, you'd not hear a peep out of me. But it's the other areas of control that bother me such as, sure, what you smoke and eat and drive and whatever else. I ask you, name ONE thing in your life where government doesn't intervene in some capacity. It's impossible. They're influencing what we watch, how we learn, what we eat, where we can go, and even how much water is necessary to flush our shits. It's madness.

This was the purpose of my Hayek quote above: "It is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil." -- F.A. Hayek

That quote means that as we try harder and harder to correct the problems with society through the violent apparatus of government, we tend to create more tyranny in the process. To mean we do more harm than good. This is how I view big government, which is what we have in the US. A very big, powerful, rich government.

Those of us clamoring for a free and voluntary society, we think people can do better than the current immoral system of government. You see it as a quick leap to chaos and a warlord-run Somalia world. We see it as a gradual shift from institutionalized violence and coercion to a more moral existence of self-governance. If you think "fear is a good thing", as you wrote above, then I don't think there's any way of reaching you, unfortunately. As the socialist AJ Muste once said, “There is no way to peace, peace is the way.” I think he was on to something. You cannot reach peace by war, central planning, coercion, using fear, etc.

Peace is not a destination, it's the path. Not the end, the means.

If you want to peacefully coexist, you have to start by giving freedom to those around you. Don't try to turn my words back at me and propose I'm saying we shouldn't be vigilant. That's not the case at all. We should all remain vigilant and take steps to protect ourselves.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

If he is, most likely he will be marginalized, driven out or called a racist like Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Or he'll just quietly go down to defeat in a district that's heavily Democratic.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You won't find change in politicians until you have widespread change in the population. I don't know if it is possible to stop the momentum of factionalism that is greatly represented in this thread. ... And mostly gone are the protections from the damage that human nature brings.

I totally agree. Everything is falling apart, all our old norms are failing. From where I sit, that's happened due to a combination of Republicans ruthlessly working to erode those standards and norms, and Democrats failing to put up much of a fight at all for the ideals they claim to believe in.

You and blankie think that's exactly backwards, thus the factionalism.

The problem isn't the parties -- blankfist wants a new party that more consistently follows the ideology of the Republican party, but he wants to scrap the New Deal first. He doesn't want to focus on things where he can find support from people like me.

For my part, I want Democrats to follow their principles and ideals more closely, and while that includes a lot of things blankfist would like (end the wars, end the drug war, repeal DOMA, repeal Patriot), he's ready to call me a Nazi for supporting our very market-based health care reform (or even just scary people like *scary voice* Nancy Pelosi!).

We need to find a way to coexist under the same federal government. Unfortunately, I just don't see how that's going to happen anytime soon. All trendlines point to escalating hostility, which is really, really bad.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Does this mean I can't use my cat/mouse liberty metaphor anymore?


That ended when you couldn't differentiate between species coexistence and inter-species coexistence. Kisses!

Actually, DFT, if you allow me a tangent. I don't deny our communal urges at all. I understand that's a primal instinct that is meant to ensure our survival as a species. If you didn't get along with the tribe, you were either killed or banished (which surely meant you would die without the protection of the tribe).

There's also downsides to this communal desire. Think about this. When one tribe ran across another tribe, they were not primally driven to coexist but rather to murder them and take their women as booty, right? That, or just run from the other tribe. That's because it's also instinctual to identify with a social community with specific identifiable similarities. That can mean race, class, geographical location, belief systems, etc. Would you agree? This is where nationalism and racism and any other type of segregational thought comes from.

So, when one tribe met another tribe, they would instantly recognize a difference in the other tribe whether that be race or simply that they were not part of their tribe (geographical location). That difference sparked a primal fear, and that primal fear is a necessary survival mechanism. I mean, no species would last very long if it didn't have a fear of that which is different. A mouse should not instinctively suspect the best of a cat's intentions.

So, in that way, I think our primal instincts are detrimental to our survival today, because we have a society in which we don't need to fear our neighbor as much as primitive man needed. This is why I believe in individualism, because we don't need to live in such fear of our neighbors anymore. We can now work to persuade people to "judge a man by the content of his character, not by his..." geographical location, belief system, race, class, etc.

Tangent over.