Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[muon2]

No aspect of the revealed supernaturally based religions should be taken as fact, as they are all based on lies.

Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

You say that supernaturally revealed religion is based on lies, but start the thread to attack a part of them by the means of a false-premised statement. How is that not hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, some of the very traits you attack in religions such as Christianity?

What false premise, be clear as I am not a mind reader like you, and what can you know for a fact about anything supernatural?

Regards
DL
[/quote]

You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge).

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways. 

What I know for a fact is that things of this universe can be a single whole entity yet manifest themselves in aspects that do not retain all the properties of the whole. This has been observed from the smallest to largest scales in the universe, and I have given some examples in this thread. Even knowledge in a system at a fine grain scale can be manifestly lost on a macroscopic scale as is well known in statistical mechanics. To suppose that anything of this universe cannot be whole and yet have limited manifestations ignores the data and facts of the universe. Therefore there is no contradiction to say that if God is of this universe, God could have manifestations that lacked all the properties of the whole, including knowledge.

That response would suffice if God were of this universe. So to be complete I should take up the other case that God is not of this universe and is a subject of faith alone. In that case I can look to faith as being the province of beings who are of this universe and are subject to its physics. As such it is reasonable that beings of faith not of this universe may follow the same behavior as beings of this universe. That is, beings of faith could have manifestations that do not exhibit all the properties of the whole. Note that I do not claim they must, only that it is not contradictory to say that they do.

You might say that I have proved nothing in this second case. But if so, then your counterclaim also proves nothing since we lack any direct knowledge of what lies outside our universe. We each are making claims based on our faith in what might or might not be beyond this universe. It is not unreasonable that such faith in what might or might not be beyond our universe includes some properties we observe in our universe. Nonetheless you are entitled to a faith that either there must be nothing beyond our physical universe (a point not generally supported by current physics), or that what is beyond the universe cannot have some of the basic quantum properties of this universe (also not generally supported by current physics).

[Greatest I am]

No aspect of the revealed supernaturally based religions should be taken as fact, as they are all based on lies.

Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

You say that supernaturally revealed religion is based on lies, but start the thread to attack a part of them by the means of a false-premised statement. How is that not hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, some of the very traits you attack in religions such as Christianity?

What false premise, be clear as I am not a mind reader like you, and what can you know for a fact about anything supernatural?

Regards
DL

You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge).

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways. 

What I know for a fact is that things of this universe can be a single whole entity yet manifest themselves in aspects that do not retain all the properties of the whole. This has been observed from the smallest to largest scales in the universe, and I have given some examples in this thread. Even knowledge in a system at a fine grain scale can be manifestly lost on a macroscopic scale as is well known in statistical mechanics. To suppose that anything of this universe cannot be whole and yet have limited manifestations ignores the data and facts of the universe. Therefore there is no contradiction to say that if God is of this universe, God could have manifestations that lacked all the properties of the whole, including knowledge.

That response would suffice if God were of this universe. So to be complete I should take up the other case that God is not of this universe and is a subject of faith alone. In that case I can look to faith as being the province of beings who are of this universe and are subject to its physics. As such it is reasonable that beings of faith not of this universe may follow the same behavior as beings of this universe. That is, beings of faith could have manifestations that do not exhibit all the properties of the whole. Note that I do not claim they must, only that it is not contradictory to say that they do.

You might say that I have proved nothing in this second case. But if so, then your counterclaim also proves nothing since we lack any direct knowledge of what lies outside our universe. We each are making claims based on our faith in what might or might not be beyond this universe. It is not unreasonable that such faith in what might or might not be beyond our universe includes some properties we observe in our universe. Nonetheless you are entitled to a faith that either there must be nothing beyond our physical universe (a point not generally supported by current physics), or that what is beyond the universe cannot have some of the basic quantum properties of this universe (also not generally supported by current physics).
[/quote]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You say that supernaturally revealed religion is based on lies, but start the thread to attack a part of them by the means of a false-premised statement. How is that not hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, some of the very traits you attack in religions such as Christianity?
[/quote]

What false premise, be clear as I am not a mind reader like you, and what can you know for a fact about anything supernatural?

Regards
DL
[/quote]Absolutely nothing.

[°Leprechaun]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

I have yet to see any good arguments for religion, here or anywhere else. There are some good ethical ideas in some religions, but religion, by definition embraces an invisible deity, which has never been proved; what is religion but a crutch? We have autonomy over our own beliefs our own thoughts and our own actions. To surrender to dogma (which is what religion really is, is it not?) People believe because they want to believe, right? I want to believe that I will win the powerball, but that doesn't mean I will. I am not going to surrender to the wishful thinking fallacy, the appeal to emotions fallacy, and certainly not the ad hominem fallacy. These are among the many logical fallacies that some if not many religious people fall for.
To surrender to the idea that we somehow need to believe in order to be "saved" is a fallacy, we don't need to believe in a transcendent reality; believe in yourself, that is the answer.
Religion in the world today is very sectarian and divisive. If you want to take a leap of faith, take a leap of faith and belief in yourself rather than having a codependent relationship with that old time religion. Most Christian sects tend to believe in old time dogmas (faith alone, the crucifixion, the trinity and other fallacies). Spong is right; if religion isn't going to change it will (and should, therefore), die. Nietzsche and other before and after him have made good arguments.
It is difficult to discuss religion with those who are religious, those who make claims with nothing to back up those claims.
I am glad to see that you are not intimated and won't back down Greatest I am. A good offense is a good defense. If religious people don't want their beliefs criticized they can go into their closet and pray. They shouldn't try to force their views on those who are not going to be intimated, or cajoled, or back down from reason, logic, and common sense.

In a sense, I wish I was forced to back down on my positions. Then I would lose an argument and actually learn something new. Having a mental paradigm shift is one of the greatest pleasures I know of.

I think that that is what this quote refers to.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said,  "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

This reigning, to me, is talking about our mental positions reigning over other positions.

In a sense, this monarch/me wants to be a peasant again when it comes to arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be

Thai is why I have a hard time understanding why some resort to lies to win arguments. They do not recognize the joys of losing an argument and learning something new. They place the win above being correct while I just prefer to be correct.

Regards
DL



 

An argument or a debate can not by definition have any emotional aspects to it. When emotion is added it morphs into a fight.
An argument or a debate is a contest, like a game of chess. Still there can be ego involved, as there is in a game of chess. The best way to improve at chess is to play someone better than you. That is the best way to learn.

[Greatest I am]

An argument or a debate can not by definition have any emotional aspects to it. When emotion is added it morphs into a fight.
An argument or a debate is a contest, like a game of chess. Still there can be ego involved, as there is in a game of chess. The best way to improve at chess is to play someone better than you. That is the best way to learn.
[/quote]

This is true, and what I seek.
Unfortunately, the level of good apologists on both sides seems to be going down.

I used to compliment both sides for their renderings when I first started posting, but of late, I seldom have that opportunity.

It seems that the further into the Gap God is pushed, the fewer religionists get to know how to defend him.

Regards
DL

[°Leprechaun]

In "Going Home" Thich Nhat Hanh compares the finite to a drop of water and the infinite to the whole ocean.*
The trinity is false because three is three times one. Simple math. If three equals one, then three equals nine and pigs will fly. If a=3 and b=1, then to say that a=b is to say that b=3 and three times b is nine, so since b=1 and b=3 then three times b=nine and 1 times 1 equals 3 times 3 which equals 9.
So if the divine is 3 persons then the divine is 9 people et cetera et cetera et cetera.
To say god is 3 is to say that there are three gods, speaking literally. That is a no brainer.
What difference does it make if you say that you believe in one god or three gods?
Where's the problem. Why would it matter? None of it matters. None of it can be proven because the spiritual is not natural, unless the natural is an illusion. If life is but a dream, then we already could be spiritual, but who really knows?
* actually an infinite number of oceans. The best way to conceptualize infinity, perhaps, is to say that infinity equals zero. Multiply x by zero and you still have zero, so if x=infinity then infinity equals zero. If you divide 1 by 2 and continue to divide the result by 2 you will never get to zero. If you look at pi you will never reach the end of pi, that is how I look at infinity. Did the deity create pi or did pi create the deity? Did the chicken come before the egg or is it an infinite loop and therefore we will never know which came first?

[muon2]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

[°Leprechaun]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

[muon2]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

Correct. What I am defending is the proposition that if there is a God, then a Trinitarian God is not inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. I base that defense in the facts we do know about the behavior of matter and energy and the our knowledge about the relationship between statistical physics and information.

[°Leprechaun]

Does O god =good?
They are the same letters but they don't mean the same thing.
god is found in the word good by erasing one letter... but that is not my point, it isn't a semantics game. Good is what matters not god, since we can be good without god.

[°Leprechaun]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

Correct. What I am defending is the proposition that if there is a God, then a Trinitarian God is not inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. I base that defense in the facts we do know about the behavior of matter and energy and the our knowledge about the relationship between statistical physics and information.

Whether a Trinitarian God is true or even plausible is not as important as the theology behind it. If someone commits murder, is that ok? The dogma behind the Trinity is that Jesus took the penalty for my sins, therefore I can sin all that I want, and there would be no responsibility or accountability. That, I think, is the crux of it all.

[muon2]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

Correct. What I am defending is the proposition that if there is a God, then a Trinitarian God is not inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. I base that defense in the facts we do know about the behavior of matter and energy and the our knowledge about the relationship between statistical physics and information.

Whether a Trinitarian God is true or even plausible is not as important as the theology behind it. If someone commits murder, is that ok? The dogma behind the Trinity is that Jesus took the penalty for my sins, therefore I can sin all that I want, and there would be no responsibility or accountability. That, I think, is the crux of it all.

That may well be the crux, but I was addressing specifically the question raised by the thread. By defending the proposition it answers that question. I have no problem with reasonable debate about theology. I have difficulties with those who use specious arguments to attack religion. I find that making a claim about the apparent self-contradiction of the Trinity by assuming something that contradicts physical reality to be specious.

[°Leprechaun]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

Correct. What I am defending is the proposition that if there is a God, then a Trinitarian God is not inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. I base that defense in the facts we do know about the behavior of matter and energy and the our knowledge about the relationship between statistical physics and information.

Whether a Trinitarian God is true or even plausible is not as important as the theology behind it. If someone commits murder, is that ok? The dogma behind the Trinity is that Jesus took the penalty for my sins, therefore I can sin all that I want, and there would be no responsibility or accountability. That, I think, is the crux of it all.

That may well be the crux, but I was addressing specifically the question raised by the thread. By defending the proposition it answers that question. I have no problem with reasonable debate about theology. I have difficulties with those who use specious arguments to attack religion. I find that making a claim about the apparent self-contradiction of the Trinity by assuming something that contradicts physical reality to be specious.

Fine, actually, as I said the Trinity may or may not be a plausible concept, although I don't think it is.. so rather than challenge your statement, myself, I will link to the arguments against it...

[°Leprechaun]

maybe by doing that I can move the discussion forward

[°Leprechaun]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoRmDHXIwHM

"Some apologists will openly admit that the Trinity is self-contradictory,
but will argue that this is okay because even though such a contradiction is beyond human understanding, it totally makes sense
to Yahweh. Some other apologists, however, will insist that the
Trinity is totally logical."

"The law being violated is the law of non-contradiction. If you
believed in three gods, that would actually make sense. It's the idea
that you can have a human who is entirely human, while
also being a god who is entirely a god that doesn't make sense."

[°Leprechaun]

The reason for the link, is that rather than going around in circles I will simply link to a video that addresses the question at hand. Somehow I want to end my part of the discussion as I have said all that I need to at this point in time anyway

[°Leprechaun]

Why would a Christian even want to believe in the Trinity?

[Greatest I am]

In "Going Home" Thich Nhat Hanh compares the finite to a drop of water and the infinite to the whole ocean.*
The trinity is false because three is three times one. Simple math. If three equals one, then three equals nine and pigs will fly. If a=3 and b=1, then to say that a=b is to say that b=3 and three times b is nine, so since b=1 and b=3 then three times b=nine and 1 times 1 equals 3 times 3 which equals 9.
So if the divine is 3 persons then the divine is 9 people et cetera et cetera et cetera.
To say god is 3 is to say that there are three gods, speaking literally. That is a no brainer.
What difference does it make if you say that you believe in one god or three gods?
Where's the problem. Why would it matter? None of it matters. None of it can be proven because the spiritual is not natural, unless the natural is an illusion. If life is but a dream, then we already could be spiritual, but who really knows?
* actually an infinite number of oceans. The best way to conceptualize infinity, perhaps, is to say that infinity equals zero. Multiply x by zero and you still have zero, so if x=infinity then infinity equals zero. If you divide 1 by 2 and continue to divide the result by 2 you will never get to zero. If you look at pi you will never reach the end of pi, that is how I look at infinity. Did the deity create pi or did pi create the deity? Did the chicken come before the egg or is it an infinite loop and therefore we will never know which came first?

"In "Going Home" Thich Nhat Hanh compares the finite to a drop of water and the infinite to the whole ocean.*"

Much idiocy is written about the Trinity.

If that analogy was worthy, then one would have to wonder why, if asked to dive into water, 100% will choose to jump into the ocean than into a drop.

Mind you, some believers might be brain dead enough to choose the drop to dive into.

Let us pray in fact that many theists do. That would reduce the harm they do to the innocent by quite a bit.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Why would a Christian even want to believe in the Trinity?

Short answer.

Theists want to believe due to insecurity. Our tribal instinct is quite strong thanks to fear.

They want a powerful God. Not a good one.

Have you seen this excellent rendering?

https://vimeo.com/7038401

If you want to watch the whole movie, you will learn more with the way the story ends than hours of reading, if you give it even a small amount of though. At least I recall doing a couple of WTFs.

Regards
DL

[muon2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoRmDHXIwHM

"Some apologists will openly admit that the Trinity is self-contradictory,
but will argue that this is okay because even though such a contradiction is beyond human understanding, it totally makes sense
to Yahweh. Some other apologists, however, will insist that the
Trinity is totally logical."

"The law being violated is the law of non-contradiction. If you
believed in three gods, that would actually make sense. It's the idea
that you can have a human who is entirely human, while
also being a god who is entirely a god that doesn't make sense."

Thanks for the link. The quote in it I was most drawn to was this:

"The Trinity is the idea that Jesus is simultaneously 100% human and 100% a god. The only way this would make sense is if there is no distinction between being a human and being a god, which I doubt many theologians would accept."

In 1918 I might have seen a quote like this:

"Duality is the idea that light is simultaneously 100% a wave and 100% a particle. The only way this would make sense is if there is no distinction between being a wave and being a particle, which I doubt many physicists would accept."

This would be a decade or so after Planck and Einstein published their results on photons and the photoelectric effect. It would be a few years before DeBroglie published his results on matter duality, and allow one to substitute electron, carbon atom, or any other type of matter in the quote where I wrote light. We now know duality to be quite real and that waves and particles are just as distinct now as then. As an aside, utilizing duality is essential to the very communication system that allows me to write and you to read this post.

My view of the video is that it is based in part on philosophy that existed before the 20th century and it doesn't recognize how our current understanding of the universe forces our philosophy to evolve as well. Of course my 21st century view of philosophy doesn't prove the existence of the Trinity, but it does suggest that the arguments about whether it makes no sense need to be updated from the 19th century.

[°Leprechaun]

"The Trinity is the idea that Jesus is simultaneously 100% human and 100% a god. The only way this would make sense is if there is no distinction between being a human and being a god, which I doubt many theologians would accept."
Actually a Unitarian Christian can believe that Jesus is both human and divine.
Colossians:
2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:

2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

So, does that verse teach that Jesus is God Himself and not one of three persons?

[°Leprechaun]

The video itself is dealing with the question of whether the Bible teaches the Trinity, and is talking about orthodoxy. It states that the trinity does make sense, but not according to orthodoxy.

I don't think that the Trinity is Biblical (for example God is almost always referred to in the singular and  singular pronouns are used... Genesis being one exception, but Judaism doesn't teach Trinitarianism)

[Greatest I am]

"The Trinity is the idea that Jesus is simultaneously 100% human and 100% a god. The only way this would make sense is if there is no distinction between being a human and being a god, which I doubt many theologians would accept."
Actually a Unitarian Christian can believe that Jesus is both human and divine.
Colossians:
2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:

2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

So, does that verse teach that Jesus is God Himself and not one of three persons?

If Jesus can be God, then so can we. That fits perfectly into Gnostic Christianity and not at all in Christianity.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
   
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

[°Leprechaun]

If orthodox Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, why insist on Trinitarianism, which is not biblical?
It is only biblical if you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Bible itself does not insist upon, but in fact the opposite is the case, the Bible itself rejects literalism.
So, if you believe the Bible you don't have to take any of it literally which leads to the problem(?) of taking what could be taken metaphorically, metaphorically, and taking literally ethics which lead to being good (which ethics are good and which bad, is a matter of interpretation)

[Greatest I am]

If orthodox Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, why insist on Trinitarianism, which is not biblical?
It is only biblical if you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Bible itself does not insist upon, but in fact the opposite is the case, the Bible itself rejects literalism.
So, if you believe the Bible you don't have to take any of it literally which leads to the problem(?) of taking what could be taken metaphorically, metaphorically, and taking literally ethics which lead to being good (which ethics are good and which bad, is a matter of interpretation)

It is always difficult for one who believes in facts to chat with those who believe in faith.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship. 

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL