well I'm Wesleyan and Catholics is hard because it can change easy (something I don't want to get into here and thus why I don't go deep into Catholics Doctrine).

The ways I was taught the soul was ether a spirit (Greek as a understanding)
or one entire beings (Jewish play on the word throat) and thus the one protestant should use (not suprises if some don't).

And we'll it is interesting the that it was a catholic,
us protestant have the Armenian teachings rather than the Calvinism teachings. (But this is not what you wanted to talk about here.)

Sorry, I should have said in the Christian/Jewish traditions.
I'm more familiar with the theology or the soul than that.

Well traditionally the soul is defined as everything required to constitute you.
In other words the soul is the minimum amount of property's to be recognized as you.

Note "you" can be replaced with any person, it just easier to express that way.

" STOP TALKING LIKE YOU KNOW EVERYTHING PERFECTLY"
I clearly stated that I cannot know everything.

Second,

"THE HOLY COVENANT AS FIRST DEFINED IN THE NICENE CREED. THAT MEANS THEY ARE >BASED ON<"

No it was base in the Jewish scriptures wich I am not as familiar with that is why both Gods can be defined as the God of Abraham.

Thirdly I'm explaining to concept behind the believe with full knowledge you CANNOT, WILL NOT, and SHALL NOT except the reason.

"Thats what they say, isnt it. Why is that necessarily true?"

"Does it not strike you as odd that a committee attempting to define a state religion would deliberately make a creed which excluded many churches?
Didn't strike you as odd before, did it? Maybe it should?."

Well all these questions can be answered with a concept of the Holy Spirit. The idea is that thè Spirit will lead us in the right direction. One alone may be deceived but it harder for the entire congregation to be deceive and when we here the truth the Holy Spirit will help us recognize it. Of course this only works if you believe in God before hand.

"The FIRST LAW of the CANON was no castration. CANON, not creed. The CANON was much more important to churches at the time. It was written FIRST."

Ah yes. That makes much more sense.

I should let you know that no church follows the Nicene Canon anymore.
In fact only The Catholic Church uses any Canon and it there own.

As for the idea you claimed to be savage I have no way of convincing you otherwise so I'm not going to try.

I told you my axioms imply transcendent. If you don't agree with my axioms you don't need to agree with anything I say.

without explanation is not the same as without a explanation. You can know something has a explanation even if you don't know what it is.

My axioms

Supernatural means without explanation and i believe in the transcendent so, agree to disagree about what there called.

Your name literally contains Gnostic Christian the highest form of hericy. You name is associated with cannibalism, suicide and worship of death.

Of wich suicide and worship of death were known to be practiced. Cannibalism is in the gray so we don't know if it was true.

And you call me genocidal.

"What did you gain from studying fantasy?"
One it only fantasy if you don't believe it, two I got a better understanding of Christianity in general.

"I see that fantasy as quite good, given that Yahweh is a genocidal god.

If I tried to talk you out of honoring Hitler, Stalin or some other genocidal moral monster, would you see me as a demon or Satan?"

One hericy, two more hericy,
Three no a demon is more than a deceiver and satan has 2 wings like any cude. Infact I will say this clearly a human in an of itself can never be a demon and/or satan. That believe is insulting. They can however become possessed (deceived and manipulated to the point that there under the demon direct control).

your arguments hold no water if hericy is include in them in this case the hericy is the idea of the evil God, as by definition he is omnibenevolent.

"Im sorry I have no idea what you are talking about here. At all. the council addressed many other issues, but the biggest problem they had with church behavior at the time was castration. "

I'm saying your correct with your understanding of why the counsel was called. However in order to understand why you must understand that the Christian were trying to fugue out what thay were. The biggest problem they realised was that there was no unified doctrine and so the nicene creed along with a few other was put into affect to be that unified doctrine. However because the creed said nothing about castration the debate was not over. The Creed simply made in optional not mandatory for salvation. In the end it was decided no because of verses in the book of Acts and the letters. Note the bible was treated and good wisdom rather than law at this point.

There were several proclamations the nicene creed
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen." (English translation)

Was simply the second most famous, the bible (scriptures) being the first.

" Regarding your other statements, the problem is, many people isolate particular phrases, sometimes deliberately out of context, to make a point. The practice is called 'cherry picking' and its particularly popular in church sermons and eulogies of all denominations. Exactly the same practice is used for promoting Islamic terrorism. That is a philosophical point."

I am a Christian and I understand that point. That is why in the Wesleyan tradition (the denomination i believe in) were taught to read the entire chapter not just the one verse.

With that understanding "Matthew 19:12 now, but the far more common one is 'if your hand offends you cut if off,' and yes people were cutting off their hands too " that was actually in part what it meant, but it also meant more to get of everything that might make you sin, now i can see how some may have misused this and did it for the wrong reasons.

"but they still all are based on the Nicene creed's statement of the Holy Covenant, that shedding of blood is necessary for God to grant redemption, and as I say, that is an extremely primitve, and almost savage, concept."

If you think so, can't really change your mind there.

After looking at the wickapeta article I see that you misread, that was there reason the council was called it had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed. Wich I'm assume you did actually read.

Yes castration was still an issue at the time because not everyone listened to the apostles when thay said not to.

First God clearly gave power to the church Matthew 18

"There is no rational reason, in terms of philoosphy, why God would need to sacrifice his own son in order to fuflifll some kind of law which apparently you insist even God must obey."

There is it has to do with two concepts.
One God cannot be in the presence of that wich disobedience to him or else it is destroyed.
Second the concept of sacrificing the "clean" to make the "unclean" "clean" and remember God is transcendent (He doesn't follow are logic and reason).

The statement you said was irrelevant was meant to be another example of the problems before the Nicene creed.

Again lastly the church cannot agree on the way to salvation
I believe in salvation by faith "

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." Romans 9-10

Others the book of life
"You cannot enter heaven unless you name is in the book of life" calvinism teaching

Others salvation by good works
Simply you get into heaven if your a good person in general

(Again there may be others I'm not aware of)

I find too many get the good or evil question wrong.

It a truth vs a lie

Demon and Satan seek to steer us away from God.

To answer the questions at the end
I think most people have a wrong or even insulting understanding of the supernatural.
I think if your going to believe at least know what your talking about.
But what do I know I only studied demonology, angelology, and witchcraft. On top of theology (the study of believe)

you made some big errors when talking about the Nicene Creed
castration was handled by the the power of the church (at the time the council of apostles) not the nicene creed.

The nicene creed made because people were questioned the divinity of Jesus and\or God.


This was a problem because the sacrifice means nothing if Jesus was less then God then he was not the perfect sacrifice.

Then there were others that believed in two Gods one that was evil (the God that the Christian belief now) and another that was trying to save us from him.

The nicene creed was use used to set the standard that made God in all parts and purposes the divine.

Lastly the Christians are stll debates salvation, i believe in by faith, others the book of life, and others good works (these the ones I know but there could be more).

Those who argued it was "small" argued that it would replace a bunch of complex, expensive, and labor-intensive means-tested programs with a one simple, low-overhead, easily-automated program. Those who argued it was "big" seemed to mostly arguing against any kind of taxation to fund welfare services (and seemed to think that this would mean a lot more taxation),

I will have to emit that I never heard those arguments before. Great now i have to figure out what they mean all over again.
When it comes to politics I try to take the other peoples terms and put them in terms that is more specific. That way there isn't this ambiguity. Which is the problem your trying to solve with this poll.
So to be "big" and "small" government does mean anything because I try to be more specific than that. Soory I wasn't any help.

Well the the "big" and "small" in this context are (what i call) replacement terms. In other words there terms adopted by the mass of people to present an idea. People use"big" is use to say the government intervenes alot. well "small" is to say it hardly intervenes

How different would the world be if pure reason and morality were the basis of all thought and decisions?

Your talking about the concept of epistemic responsiblity which is good I think more people need to talk about it.

However when you say pure reason your forgetting or did not that we have an antonymic paradoxs. Which leads to the conclusion there is sometimes 2 right answers, which can violate the law of noncontradiction.

Also when you say reason are you talking about human reason or some other. I sometime argue in the transcendent reason which leaves to some interesting discussions to those that understand it rules and leave those that don't confuse. I think your talking about the main stream scientific reason(I may be wrong on that) but I think that is always missing a part of the whole.

Then there is morality. Specifically what makes something morale. What is the goal of morality. Myself morality is to love everyone(i don't really want to go over the definition of love right now) to a level that is humanly unattainable. Others try to make morality attainable with there theorys.

What I'm trying to say is even if pure reason and morality were the basis of all thought and decisions, there actual be little change. In fact maby non at all, because though criticized emotional reson is a thing and has it own set of rules.

not to me. I'm Christian and I always hated the argument because it miss the over points.

The biggest one is that it makes us greedy which is one of the things were not supposed to be

sorry I'm a wesleyan. What is you point?

there is the mind, the body and the soul. The mind and the body are material, the soul is not. Note this is limited to some denomination, so some will not agree with this.

It smacks of the antichrist's doctrine. Jesus warns in Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone saying 'Lord! Lord!' to me will enter heaven. Only those who do my father's will: for many will say to me "See, I have done many great things in your name!" yet I will say to them "I never knew you, you cannot be with me, for you are a worker of iniquity".

One that thing about the antichrst's is blasphemy, heresy. I'll leave it at that

Well this is true he was referring to those who would declare Jesus is lord but not believe it in there heart's or the other way around. Meaning whatsgoinon was theology right.

I just have so many questions when it comes to a faulty argument such as this. First of all, what about people that don’t know about God or haven’t had access to the bible or teachings about Him?
What about people that accepted Christ when they were really young, or didn’t exactly understand the religion fully?
What about the people that believe in their own Gods, do they go to the Christian Hell as well as whatever their religion considers to be the idealized end of time for them?

The first question is something Christians struggle with and we just do not know.

As far as young people, they are taught the religion and it's commitments and can regret at any point.

This last one, they would all go to Christian hell, because in order for them to get there end they would need to be right.

you would not, but I'm simply saying it cannot apply to my God because the fact that he is good is part of an axiom.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If there's a problem of evil for God, then there's a problem of evil for you if you've procreated. You knew this world is a place full of horrors that no good God would suffer innocent sentient beings to live in, yet you did precisely that: you created innocent sentient beings and made them live in it.

This entire argument is literal heresy. If you put forward it you are no longer taking about the God of abraham, which I assume you are because of the upper cases G in God.

When that say that is more like a description of God personally, it has more to tell us that He is good rather than He knows what is good.

Other than that yeah.

you have the fallacy you accused me of in the first place. there you have to stop using the word gods

Also the problem you having is with the fact God is transcendent. I'm trying to explain a concept where best I can in human turmes.

And if you want to know what we believe look no farther than the Nicene Creed

Also you don't understand set's and subsets

ok. Many of you clames are true which is good.

(Also I misrepresented the Holy Spirit by giving you his definition and expecting you to know what that meant)

The best way, I think, is to describe the concept is in sets and subset. You have the set of God, within this set are other sets called subsets. Jesus, God the Father, and The Holy spirit. None of the subsets overlap.

Sorry if I'm hard to understand sometimes. I'm better when I'm speaking.

well let start by saying that there all God. Therefor any think one of the part have then has God has also. Goodness is one part of the substance.

As far as wich ones are omnipresent, that is something I do not know all I know is that it wasn't always that way. Not that God could not have been he just wasn't.

As for the all knowing, that is the the father for Jesus openly emitted that only he know when the world will end.

And the holy spirit is the divine power of God.

very will and I won't bother defending someone else's idea so.
Let me start from the bottom.

God is one entity with 3 parts but each one of it parts is not the other. Father, Son, Holy spirit.
They are of one substance, three minds, and three bodys.

Whatever the substance is, that is what makes them God and it is shared between them.

well omnipotent does mean being able to anything. He is also transcendent in all things.

Yeah, the fist counter argument is wrong.

He let pain happen because of several reasons of which I will name 3

That his glory may be shown to us (the Christian) and to those who have rejected him

We would have no need for a God if everything was going well always

Because he had to punish us because we all fall short, one day he will restore those who believe in them to there full glory.

nicene creed. Then Galatians 3:28. That is all

This is an application of the equivocation fallacy. If each leaf of the three is a separate leaf, then the three together is not "a leaf" but a conglomeration of leaves. If the three parts form one leaf, the the three parts are not individually leaves each but parts of a leaf.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that the 3 leaves made up the one shamrock. Because that is what he meant.

I gave you the definition from the dictionary.

sin is defined as disobedience toward god, or gods.

well normally God is defined as the best thing you can imagine but better.
But if that doesn't work we could try a transcendent being that is in "the world" but not of "the world".

Yes it is ethical to have children. Unless you want the human race to die out.

ontology is a subset of metaphysics.
In other words ontology is metaphysics but is one part of it.

yes, it is a nessary evil. The amount of government intervention depends on the people. The U.S. should remain as small as possible because that sutes there needs, and has been proven though there history. However, as an example; I live in canada we require more government intervention because we're socialist thinkers in a capitalist economy.