texts: When we forgive our offenders, does it mean we do not want God to punish them anymore?

texts:
On of the biggest issues i have had with easily forgiving is because of some (ill advised?) thought that  doing so automatically exempts the person from punishment, i know its naive,  but when one is young, that would be the best one could do. But  i think that this may not be the case. I read in a christian leaders webpage (iv since lost the link to the page) that refusing to forgive because of some form of fear that the other party will sort of get away with it  'reveals a flawed eschatology' he argued since  even Christ when just about to be crucified asked Peter to put back his sword, since if  he saw fit,  Christ would have asked for angels. From this he argued that we do not necessarily have to think the  person will not be  punished to forgive, rather we are letting God  deal with punishing them. (Im talking about dealing with unforgiveness of major events, stuff that we may struggle with over long periods).

What does it mean (or involve) to forgive?

1. Let them of the hook so they do not get punished.
2. Let them off the hook so God is the one to punish them.


texts: Was Christianity intended to have denominations?

texts:
Does the Bible guide us to break into denominations? There are plenty of verses about unity and the church but then there's the 12 tribes of Israel.

From a biblical standpoint, are denominations our way of making Christianity fit our needs or are they options that are meant to attract more people to different parts of Christianity? Does the Bible approve of denominations?


texts: Complementarianism - What are the roles of men and women in the church?

texts:
Complementarians believe that men and women are equal but have different yet complementary roles assigned by God.

What do complementarian church leaders in history believe are the differing roles of men and women in the church?


texts: On what basis should Christians oppose child marriage?

texts:
In most of the western countries the minimum age for marriage is 18 years. (Some would like to argue that this could be 16 or 15 but none would argue it to be 9)

As a Christian I take pride in the fact that Christianity does not support the horrible custom of child marriage (which is still practised in some parts of the world).
It is one of those things that you don’t think much about because it seems so very basic.

However it recently crossed my mind that I’ve never seen a Biblical backing to it. Could it be that it’s only a cultural concept that I think of as a Christian concept?

So my question: Does the Bible define an age of marriability? If not, then on what Biblical basis should Christians oppose child marriages?


texts: The earliest assertion in Christianity that abiding in Christ is only possible through Eucharist

texts:
When was the first statement made and by whom in Christianity that abiding in Christ is only possible through Eucharist?

I only found such statement made by Cyprian. Was there anyone who said the same prior to him?


texts: In Romans 3:1-8, what is God being faithful towards?

texts:
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
  By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written,
  “So that you may be justified in your words,
  and prevail in your judging.”
  But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved! (Romans 3:1-8, NRSV)

This passage tells us that although some Jews were unfaithful, their faithlessness does not nullify the faithfulness of God. What does it mean for God to remain faithful? Faithful towards what?

Also, in

  So that you may be justified in your words,
  and prevail in your judging.

Which words and which judging is referred to?

Thank you, brothers and sisters!


texts: Are there any Christians who are partially cessationist with regard to the gifts of the Spirit?

texts: I'm aware of the existence of both cessationism and continuationism as extreme positions regarding the gifts of the Spirit. One affirms that all the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, whereas the other argues that all of them are still in effect. However, I was wondering if there are any Christians situated somewhere between these two extremes? Do "partial cessationists" exist? Are there notable examples? If so, what is the biblical basis for their "partial cessationism"?


texts: What led to Marshal McLuhan's late adult conversion to Catholicism?

texts: McLuhan didn't talk much about his conversion. Does anyone have any information about his reasons or how this happened?


texts: According to Catholic Tradition, did God create people to be prophets or did He choose people to be prophets based on good works?

texts:
According to Catholic Tradition, did God create people to be prophets? Or did he choose people to be prophets based on good works?

For example, before Isaiah was born, did God know that he would be a prophet? Or did God choose Isaiah after he performed good works or proved his suitability to be a prophet in some way?


texts:
Must one believe that there is only one True and Living God to be saved? Obviously the scripture states in various places that God is one (Deut 6:4, Isaiah 45:5), and I do believe this and I am fully convinced by it, but would it be possible for a new convert not to know this truth and still be saved?

The reason I ask this question is because I am trying to examine presuppositions that I have, and how they influence my interpretation of certain texts.

Please note I would appreciate answers based on Scripture.


texts: What is the basis for saying that Adam was created without sin?

texts:
I've googled multiple phrases and in different ways, but I haven't yet found any verse that says that Adam an Eve were created without sin. Or that simply says they were without sin before the fall, for that matter.

But I did find multiple scriptures saying Jesus was/is without sin...

It says Adam was made in the image of God...
But so is the rest of humanity.
And we are sinners.

Is it possible that Adam was sinful in nature, but just wasn't held accountable for his sins because he didn't know right from wrong?


texts: How were people baptized in the name of Jesus without the Holy Spirit in Acts 8?

texts:
My question regards this passage:

  Acts 8:14-17 ESV Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

My understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that it comes with believing in Jesus immediately like it says in Ephesians 1:

  Ephesians 1:13 ESV  In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

What's up with this case in Samaria?

NOTE: I've looked at this question: Why was it necessary for some people to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands and others just received it after believing? and feel that it asks specifically about hand-laying, which I am not, so its answers don't quite answer mine. I'm just wondering why the believers didn't get the Holy Spirit even though they had become believers.


texts: What does Revelation 21:5 mean by "everything"?

texts:
Revelation 21:5 (NIV)::

  He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

My pastor included this verse in his sermon today, and after reading it, he added his own emphasis, "And this means ev-ery-thing!"

But does it really?

What "everything" is being made new?  My car won't be new again, will it?

What is this verse really saying?


texts: According to Protestants, why was Mary troubled at the greeting of Gabriel?

texts:
We read the following in Luke's Gospel (1:26-38 DRB):

  And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, [kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Question

My question is two-fold:

Was Mary troubled at

a) the fact of Gabriel's speaking with her, or
b) what he said to her (i.e. the "manner of" the greeting)?

If (b), what does this imply for Protestants about a) Mary, and b) the uniqueness of the (manner of) greeting as relates to other angelic visitations in Scripture (if any).

Thank you in advance.


texts: Are LDS church manuals considered to be the words of God?

texts:
In some manuals I've read in the intro that it is official church doctrine, and in some books written by apostles (like Miracle of Forgiveness) it says it's not official church doctrine. Anyway, if a manual (not just any lds book) doesn't specifically say that, are all manuals considered 100% official church doctrine anyway? Seminary? Institute? Everything? And does that mean they're considered to be the words of the apostles, which would mean they are the words of Christ?

E.g. I have heard some (Beginning Phase, Conclusion) of the history of making Preach My Gospel, the manual for missionary work.

  President Boyd K. Packer said Preach My Gospel was “designed beyond the veil and put together here.”

From that (along with other spiritual experiences) I can tell it's the word of God, but in the First Presidency Message it doesn't specifically say that. I'm a little lazy to be researching the making of every manual.

Sorry, this is probably a dumb question that I could figure out by common sense, but it would be nice to have references to back it up.

Aside, Maybe I have this question because I don't fully understand the difference between canonized scripture and the word of God in general (I haven't looked into that very deeply)?


texts: How long can the Catholic Church be without a pope?

texts:
According to Wikipedia the longest papal election in the history of the Catholic Church was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271.

How long can the Catholic Church be without a pope so that we can say that the succession was broken?

If there is defined no length of time, then if simply we don't need a pope for three hundred years, we can wait that long to elect one and papal succession would remain unbroken.


texts: Can Catholic priests disclose the fact that someone has seen him for confession?

texts:
I recently spoke to one of my (catholic) highschool teachers who was then not a priest but is now a priest.
We were talking, and he mentioned he knew one of my professors during my graduate studies.
I asked him how he knew my professor, and he told me 'confession'.
Q1. Is that allowed? Well obviously the contents of the confessions are confidential, but is the fact that this person goes to confession with a certain priest not held in confidence?
I asked him if it was allowed, and he said yes.

Q2. Follow-up question:
What's the difference between talking to priests and talking to, say, psychiatrists?

(I choose for this example, psychiatrists or psychologists, in re the stigma of mental health. I choose psychiatrists specifically, since, because psychiatrists are necessarily medical doctors, I can say 'patient' as in 'doctor-patient privilege' as analogous to 'penitent' as in 'Priest–penitent privilege'.)

Afaik, psychiatrists don't even disclose that a certain patient consults with them.

On the one hand, seeing psychiatrists isn't as common among humans as confession is among Catholics, and there isn't quite a stigma in a Catholic seeing or having seen a priest or a particular priest since well we're all sinners but don't necessarily have medical mental health problems.

On the other hand, priests seem to have stricter confidentiality laws than psychiatrists: They can't disclose death threats if it would break confidentiality.

It seems weird to me that death threats cannot be disclosed if it would break confidentiality but that someone goes to a certain priest for confession is not confidential.
Edit: Btw, I recently thought of the possibility that he could've said something like 'religious consultation (but not necessarily specifically confession)', in that Catholics could seek spiritual advice from priests without confessing anything.


texts: How is free-will formally defined as distinct from determinism, randomness and determinism-randomness hybrid to support moral responsibility?

texts:
Usually free-will is assumed by most faith traditions as a prerequisite for moral responsibility in order to justify eternal punishment. The argument goes as "you are truly responsible for your immoral deeds because you were perfectly capable of acting morally, but chose not to, and therefore you are guilty and deserve punishment". In other words, there is an assumption of a self capable of having chosen otherwise. But this definition sounds kind of handwavy to me. What do they really mean by "capable of having chosen otherwise"? Does this mean that if we somehow go back in time and press the "univere's play button" again, a different decision would have come out of the same self? But how would that be different from randomness?

I would appreciate a formal (hopefully, mathematical if you can) definition of free-will that clearly differentiates it from determinism, randomness and any kind of determinism-randomness hybrid. Furthermore, I would love to read a logical discussion of how the formal definition provided would support the existence of true moral responsibility. Let me explain why. If the only options available were determinism, randomness and determinism-randomness hybrid, I cannot see any hope for true moral responsibility:

Determinism: your actions, either moral or immoral, are just the ripple effect of past events, you cannot help but do what the laws of Physics make you do, you had no choice, it's not your fault, therefore there is no true moral responsibility on your part.
Randomness: your actions are random, chaotic, there is no control, you are lucky/unlucky that you behave morally/immorally by random chance (e.g. because of weird quantum randomness in the brain, for example). In other words, it's just a matter of luck, a matter of winning the morality lottery. If you behave immorally, it's not really your fault, it's just your bad luck. Therefore there is no true moral responsibility on your part either.
Determinism-Randomness Hybrid: your actions are the result of a combination of deterministic rules applied to past events combined with random quantum noise or something along those lines. Depending on how strong are the causal ripple effects from past events and how strong are the random noises altering them, you end up acting either morally or immorally. In part you are unlucky, in part you have no choice. Anyway, it's not your fault. Therefore there is no true moral responsibility on your part either.

So, somehow, free-will is supposed to have a mysterious formal definition that distinguishes it from determinism, randomness and determinism-randomness hybrid that allows for true moral responsibility in a way that these other concepts can't. I would really appreciate such a formal definition.


texts: Did Jesus perform a single miracle before his fast and temptation?

texts: Did Jesus perform a single miracle before his 40 day fast and temptation by the Devil?


texts: Will I get answers to all my questions when I die?

texts:
Sorry if this is way too open but I have so many questions about this world, religion, gods and what on earth is going on. I can't imagine anyone really would be able to answer these type of questions now but will I find out at the end? I've probably watched and read too many conspiracy theories about stuff like this and dug myself into a hole but I just get sucked in and want to know. Will I ever find out?
Also while I was thinking about what to ask on here and put myself out there, hoping not to come across as a moron, why did I start to get a little upset?? Is it wrong to ask these things?
I won't go on and see what I get back from this.


texts: In regards to Commentaries by Origen Adamantius, what were "characteristics of divine inspiration" for authors that create church doctrines?

texts:
After reading works by Origen Adamantius regarding scepticism surrounding the divine inspiration of 1 Corinthians 7:17 & 2 Timothy 3:16 written by the apostle Paul, disciples might wonder if early church councils established textual validation for "divine inspiration" in authors that create church doctrines.
In the "Commentary on John" [Book 1] by Origen Adamantius, we read in section #5:

Consider on this point the language of St. Paul. When he declares that "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable," does he include his own writings? Or does he not include his dictum, "I say, and not the Lord," and "So I ordain in all the churches," and "What things I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra," and similar things which he writes in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess **the character of words flowing from divine inspiration**. "

Early Christian Writings - Origen
Origen seems to speculate the "divine inspiration" of Shaul / Paul the Apostle in the self-imposed remarks found in 1 Corinthians 7:17.
1 Corinthians 7:17 [KJV]
"But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches."
In 2 Timothy 3:16 [KJV], we read :
[16] "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

In response to Origen Adamantius, what were "characteristics of divine inspiration" for authors of church doctrines?


texts:
I have discovered recently that some Christians believe Abraham's bosom is an literal place.

For those who have this view, was Abraham believed to be the ruler of this place? And was it perfectly acceptable to pray to Abraham as evidenced in Luke 16:27?


texts: How did people know that their visions of God were not false before the Bible was as a book compiled?

texts: I looked at many Christian apologist websites, like GotQuestions, which states that anybody who claims to see God can have their claims evaluated by Scripture. So far so good, but how would people like Abraham know that their visions of God were real and that they were not deceived if they didn't have the complete edition of the Scripture?


texts: Does Luke chapter 16 verses 9 through 13 warn us that there is no middle ground between serving God and serving mammon?

texts:
Luke 16:9 through 13  KJV

9  And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
10  He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11  If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12  And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
13  No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


texts: Catholic Equivalent of Systematic Theology Books

texts:
I am looking for the “textbook” that catholic priests use when they are learning to become priests. A comprehensive book that covers everything Something like the systematic theology books that protestants study from in seminary.

Are there any catholic priests that can share what textbook they used? (Other than the bible of course)

Thank you.


texts: Calvinism: How does Limited Atonement Work in View of the Universality of Christ's Work?

texts:
Issues, Etc. has a post on Lutheranism vs. Calvinism. I'm more or less in total agreement with the pastor on the first two of the five Calvinistic points. However, he loses me when talking about limited atonement.

At 29:37 in the audio, he begins to tell a story about a friend from seminary who was a Calvinist, and this Calvinist's need for assurance of absolution following a grievous sin. The pastor goes on to explain from 31:40 - 32:46 that because Christ has taken the form of man, that he represents all men. Every sin has been paid for, for every man. Obviously a Calvinist would disagree with taking the atonement to this extent.

In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did). They also say that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). How is it that if Christ is the last Adam and is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world that we still speak in terms of particular redemption and also limits as to who the atonement covers?

Edit:
As an example of what I'm asking, please consider John Owen's argument for Limited Atonement that if Christ has paid for the sins of all people and some still end up paying for their sins in Hell, then we have two realities that appear unthinkable:

Christ's precious, perfect blood was shed in vain for some people.
God's justice was satisfied in Christ, and now he's also executing his justice on those in hell. How can this be justice, then?

These points make the case for Limited Atonement in the Calvinistic sense, but it seems to stand in opposition to the scriptures I cited above. It makes the 2nd Adam less effectual than the first and it means that Christ is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2 leaves no room for a "potential" propitiation. So how does Limited Atonement harmonize with scriptures such as these?

Note: At this point in time, I would call myself a Calvinist. I've done so for about 10 years. I'm not new to this, but I'm not as willing to accept the "L" in "TULIP" any longer on ground of logical proceedings that seem to contradict scripture. Thus, I'm seeking to learn what I may be missing.


texts: If I seek God, does that mean that I MUST be elect, according to Calvinism?

texts:
I want to find God, at least I think I do.  I struggle with the different interpretations of the path to salvation and even though I don't LIKE the idea of God electing some and giving others absolutely no chance for salvation ever, it does have some decent biblical support.  Maybe it is an inconvenient or hard to face truth, I'm not going to pretend I know the answer for sure.

I have heard the argument that it is literally not possible for a non elect to seek God.  They simply can't, they never will, they just inherently want nothing to do with him and people who do seek God, put what little faith they as a human being can muster into Jesus and pray to be saved then that is 100% proof that the individual was one of the chosen to be saved and they were willed by God to come to him and could not have rejected him no matter what.  Am I understanding this correctly?


texts:
Matthew 18:9

  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.
  It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes
  and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Now it is obvious that self-harm is a sinful act. I understand that the verse is not meant literally but I wonder if it can be justified in different situations. Even some saints used self-harm to prevent them from sinning in a different area of their life. (St. Francis throwing himself into bushes with thorns to deal with lust)

For example:
If a man is worried he might commit an adultery, is it ok for him to get castrated? There is a discussion going on whether to castrate sex offenders. It will protect our society and maybe even their families. Or maybe tell a lie to prevent harm if saying the truth could cause greater harm.
There are many other examples I could mention but I don't want to make them as a subject of my question but simply to ask:
Can we treat sin with another sin? Or can one sin be justified as the mean to prevent another sin?


texts:
We know from the Bible that devils are fallen angels, once created good but who chose to join Lucifer's rebel uprising and consequently lost their place in heaven.

Can those angels ever be saved? Can the angels that remain choose to change sides? Is there such a thing as salvation for an angel?


texts: Why was Descartes' interpretation of the Catholic transubstantiation not approved by Church and how can it be improved?

texts:
Transubstantiation is the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus the Christ.

Now Descartes changed the philosophy of Aristotle who said that the accidental properties of the bread were kept the same but that only the substance of it changed in His Body. Descartes told that, following his philosophy, that there aren't any accidentals any more but the flavor and shape of the bread were also transformed into the body of Christ. And that is why you tasted bread but it was Christ.

Descartes thought that his point of view should have an equal result compared with that of Aristotle. But the church put his book on the 'black' list as a wrong philosophy. The church 'invited' people to change this till it is good.

So why is the theory of Descartes a problem understanding the transubstantiation and how could his theory be improved to get it off the 'black list'?


texts: There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around. The most recent example that comes to my mind is probably the incumbent Pope's decision to condone contraceptives. So, the question is: How can common believers be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? Has this matter ever been discussed in history?


texts: Wave offering; What exactly was the point?

texts:
In Leviticus 7 verse 30, This passage is written:

  30 With their own hands they are to present the food offering to the LORD; they are to bring the fat, together with the breast, and wave the breast before the LORD as a wave offering.

On this passage, did they really wave the sacrifice before offering it? and what exactly was the point in waving it?


texts: Do Reformed paedobaptists call for the baptism of household servants, just as Abraham's servants were circumcised?

texts:
In Genesis 17:9–13 we read:

  9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. (ESV)

I understand this passage to say that male household slaves and the male children of household slaves were to be circumcised, regardless of any "statement of faith."

In modern times we don't see many examples of household slaves or servants.  However, several hundred years passed between the beginning of the Reformation and widespread prohibitions on chattel slavery in the West.  Other forms of generational household servitude continued even longer.

Many Reformers affirm that baptism is the new sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision, and therefore practice infant baptism (or paedobaptism) for the children of believers (WCF 28-4).  Thus, my questions:

Do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, explicitly argue that members of one's household, including one's household slaves or servants, ought to be baptized (even if they make no statement of faith)?
In the absence of any examples of (1), do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, explicitly explain why household slaves and servants ought not to be baptized?


texts: How does the Catholic Church respond to the claim that its authority to interpret scripture is based on circular reasoning?

texts:
I've heard the claim that scriptural references to the establishment of the Catholic Church and its authority to interpret scripture is circular reasoning.
From a conversation I was having with a friend:

There's no scriptural evidence for it. Well, the claimed scriptural evidences depend on circular reasoning (i.e., the only way know what's referenced is the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church authoritatively interprets it for you).
What evidence is there (besides the word of the Catholic Church) that Jesus established the Catholic Church? It's a completely presuppositional claim that he did.

How does the Catholic Church respond to such a claim?


texts: The New Testament teaches that Christ was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:14–15)--what does this mean?

texts:
In Matthew 3:14-15 it says,

  And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it
  becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Can someone please expound what Christ was referring to when He said that He should be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" (I am specifically looking for what it means to fulfill all righteousness)?


texts: What term is used to mean a prophetic message has a present and future application?

texts: I am looking for the term that describes prophecy as both present and future in meaning.


texts: What is the basis for the idea of a seven year peace treaty with Israel in the end times?

texts:
I have heard the concept that in the end times there will be a 7 year peace treaty signed with the nation of Israel, and that three and a half years into that treaty, it will be broken.

What is the biblical basis for this idea?


texts: What did Jesus mean when He said we must "eat His flesh and drink His blood"?

texts:
In John 6, Jesus states that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us:

  Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of
  the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever
  eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
  him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is
  real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me,
  and I in him.  Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of
  the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.  This
  is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna
  and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.  (John 6:53-58 NIV)

Could this have been a reference to the Passover Lamb of which the Israelites were supposed to eat all of it?  What  is the common Protestant understanding of this?  Do some traditions associate this with Communion?


texts: How old was St. Joseph when he married the Blessed Virgin Mary?

texts: According to the Church Fathers or other Catholic theologians, how old was St. Joseph when he married the Blessed Virgin Mary?


texts: If we are to think good things(Phil 4:8) why are there seemingly pointless sinful things in the Bible?

texts:
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Phil 4:8 (KJV)

This is a fairly well known verse that deals with not dwelling on things that are, in a general term, bad. If God didn't want us to think of bad things, why did He put seemingly useless bad things in His Bible? 2nd Samuel 16:20-22 seems to not have a point except for showing how wicked Absalom is. Surely we get the idea that he was really bad because of the way he overthrew his father's kingdom and tried to kill him; is there a different point of this passage?


texts: Did David prophesy "God ruling the nations from a Tree"?

texts:
A few days ago (on the Feast of the Cross) the Vexilla Regis popped up in the breviary. Its 3rd/4th stanza says:

  That which the prophet-king of old
  hath in mysterious verse foretold,
  is now accomplished, whilst we see
  God ruling the nations from a Tree.

The prophet-king is obviously the Old Testament King David (the Latin original as well as most translations I found mention him more explicitly).  In the context of the hymn it is clear that this prophecy is foretelling Jesus' death on the cross—his death as the victory establishing his kingdom, the tree as cross he died on.

To me this seems to be a very explicit prophecy made by David. Unfortunately I was not able to find such a prophecy.

Question: Is there any place in the Bible (probably the Psalms) or in the extrabiblical tradition ascribing a similar prophecy to King David? If not, where does the cited piece of the hymn have its origin?


texts: What is the difference of the 10 commandments from other Biblical laws?

texts:
What distinction do The 10 Commandment have over other rules in the Bible?

Is breaking any of The 10 Commandments an immortal, unforgivable sin while other sins are not?

I just want to know the difference; why is there in a "top 10" list?


texts:
Some preachers teach that Tithing does not only mean material things, but it also means giving 10% of your time as well. Some even say 10% of your everything, like your thoughts, your desires, your food, etc.

Is there any ambiguous1 reference from the Bible to support this? When did this teaching evolved? Is there any particular Christian sect who follow this?

It's a good teaching anyway.

1  I can't find any direct reference


texts:
There are many who go around blaspheming much worse and nothing happens to them. The reason I've heard is that God does not interfere and manipulate. He lets things run their course and has set aside a day for judgement.

  Acts 12:23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an
  angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

Then why did God strike Herod immediately? Why didn't he wait to judge him on judgement day like he does for others? Herod's sin seems trivial compared to what you can see at the 9 o'clock news.


texts: According to Roman Catholic doctrine, does the incorruptible body possess blood?

texts:
In my translation of a work by John of Damascus entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν, it is my understanding that John wrote,

  Even as his body prior to the resurrection of the dead was corruptible, broken, eaten, and drunk, nevertheless, [it was] not corrupted. Then why has he not done this after the resurrection, but before the resurrection? Because the body that is incorruptible by the resurrection is neither broken, nor eaten, nor drunk. Neither does the incorruptible body possess blood, nor would it be rightly called "flesh" (σὰρξ), just as Gregory the Theologian stated in the Oration for Baptism: "Believe Christ, the Son of God, shall come again with his glorious presence to judge the living and the death. No longer flesh, yet not bodiless, of a more God-like body (for which things [God] Himself knows the reasons), so that he may also be seen by those who pierced him and remain God without passibility."

Greek text:

  Ὥσπερ ἦν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ πρὸ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως φθαρτὸν, κλώμενον, ἐσθιόμενον καὶ πινόμενον, ἀδιάφθορον μέντοι· ἐπεὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦτο πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως; Ὅτι τὸ διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἄφθαρτον σῶμα οὐ κλᾶται, οὔτε ἐσθίεται, οὔτε πίνεται· οὔτε αἷμα τὸ ἄφθαρτον κέκτηται σῶμα, ἀλλ' οὔτε σὰρξ ἂν δικαίως ὀνομάζοιτο, καθώς φησιν ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ εἰς βάπτισμα λόγῳ· «Πίστευε Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥξειν πάλιν μετὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, οὐκ ἀσώματον δὲ, οἷς οἶδεν αὐτὸς λόγους, θεοειδεστέρου σώματος, ἵνα καὶ ὀφθῇ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκεντησάντων, καὶ μείνῃ Θεὸς ἔξω παχύτητος.»

John explicitly states that the incorruptible body does not possess blood (οὔτε αἷμα τὸ ἄφθαρτον κέκτηται σῶμα). If this is true, how can Roman Catholics drink Jesus' blood during the Eucharist if indeed Jesus, presently with an incorruptible body, does not possess blood?


texts: Patron saint of professional excellence? Professional excellence and holiness?

texts: Are there saints that were excellent at performing their duties as professionals? Of course, there can be legends that Saint Joseph was perfect master, but there is no evidence of his dedication, skills and mindset that can be role-model for following. I feel that professional excellence and mastery is the hardest achievement that one can make and the ultimate virtue that benefit the others. Why the notion of holiness is so silent about it? Why we can not hear about professionals-saints?


texts: Which cup of wine did Jesus tell his disciples to drink during the Last Supper?

texts:
During the Last Supper, when Jesus told his disciples to drink the wine because it was his blood.  Which cup of wine was this?  Was it the third cup, or was it the cup of Elijah (or one of the other cups) in the Passover Seder meal?

(Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25)


texts: How did the Seven Deadly Sins originate and how is it used?

texts:
The "List enumerating character attributes guaranteeing political success" (Lust, Envy, Covetousness, Anger, Gluttony, Pride, and Sloth) has a long career as "the seven deadly sins."  What I don't see is a list in Scripture that differentiates these sins from any other. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it isn't good, I just wonder how it is that these sins came to be almost on the level of the 10 Commandments.

I understand that the list itself was compiled by Evagrius Pontus, but why is it that it became popularized?

So, who put this list together, and what purpose did it serve in the early to modern church?

Is this, for example, the distinction between a venial and grave sin?


texts: In two online Catholic Bibles, what accounts for the difference in the numbering of the verses in Sirach Chapter 7?

texts:
When I was preparing to answer a question on this site, I wanted to use The Penny Catechism's Q 332.

It referenced Ecclus 7:40, and I was unable to link this as is my custom to RSVCE as in this online edition, the book of Sirach Ch 7 went to only v. 36.

An internet search revealed Sirach 7:40.

What accounts for this difference in the numbering of the verses in in Sirach Chapter 7?

Both the editions of the online Bibles are Catholic and I am assuming that the explanation will come from Catholic sources, but I would think any Bible expert might have the explanation.


texts: Did Pope Benedict XVI grant permission for heterosexual couples to use artificial birth control methods?

texts:
In a book of interviews by Peter Seewald, Light of the World, Pope Benedict is quoted as saying something to the effect that homosexual prostitutes would be better off if they used condoms than if they didn't.

Did he ever issue any subsequent opinion or even hint that it would be acceptable for heterosexual couples to use any birth control methods other than natural family planning?

(I hate asking questions prompted solely by other questions asked here on the site, but I think this is broad enough and may help to clarify things and otherwise improve the Internet.)


texts: What is the weight of authority behind a teaching of the Papal Magisterium?

texts:
In World Over - 2013-12-12 | EWTN - video start at 20:15/55:51 -  Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, says, referencing the Pope Francis himself, that the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [Joy of the Gospel], paraphrasing, "is a number of reflections that the Pope does not intend to be part of the Papal Magesterium."

Please see Pope St. John Paul II [the Great]. Noting that it seems that the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium is not to be considered as part of Papal Magesterium, the question is what is the weight of authority behind a teaching of the Papal Magisterium? From the list, is there a way to rank say interviews, books, through to Apostolic Constitutions? What would be the ranking criteria? Which of these are not binding on the next Pontiff in that he can reform them?


texts: Is mindfulness meditation banned in Eastern Orthodoxy?

texts:
Is focusing on your breathing to meditate banned in the Orthodox church, in particular the Serbian Orthodox church?
I know that it's not allowed to not focus on anything at all, because the devil will enter the mind in such cases.
However what if I just focused on my breathing instead, and in case that it's not allowed either, is there an Orthodox alternative to it, which gives the same or better benefits?


texts: Are Catholics allowed to entertain that the Old Vulgate might contains errors?

texts:
In Decrees of the First Vatican Council (1868) in Session 3, Chapter 2 "On Revelation", items 6-7 state:

The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.  These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.

I cannot tell if a Papal Encyclical is the same as infallible statements which are Fides ecclesiastica or ex-cathedra or if they contain such infallible statements.  If not, it appears as though an encyclical statement still represents the end of theological debate, as per Pope Pius XII in Humani generis (which is a Papal Encyclical itself):

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

As I cannot ascertain the difference between an infallible statement and a statement which closes a topic to theological discussion the question is:
Given declarations in the encyclical of Vatican I regarding the Old Latin Vulgate (whether these declarations are dogma or not, I cannot tell), are Catholics allowed to entertain that this translation contains errors, considering that another Encyclical states that encyclical statements close their subject matter to debate?


texts: Luke's introduction, doesn't seem like he is claiming he was inspired?

texts:
When reading the introduction of the Gospel of Luke, it seems very clear that he isn't really claiming to be inspired by God or anything. Rather he is saying that he thinks himself to be more worthy of writing these accounts because he knows the story from the beginning (and probably also because he is educated and not some unlettered person).

Luke 1:1-4 (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2  Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3  It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4  That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

What really gets me is his statement:

It seemed good to me also

And another interesting point is that he mentions that many people have written Gospels (which we have only basically 4 now):

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a
declaration

So I am interested to know, on what basis do the Christians say these accounts are inspired or the word of God? The author sure doesn't sound to come off as that to me, it seems more like a historical account, albeit one that is theologically based, and not something that sounds inspired.


texts: In which denomination(s) are Christians allowed to bury and hold a Christian funeral for their deceased nonreligious or just non-Christian relative?

texts:
In which denomination(s) are Christians allowed to bury or hold a Christian funeral for their deceased nonreligious or just non-Christian relative in a Christian cemetery near the church?

I am thinking about an instance where a non-Christian or nonreligious family member dies, and relatives just happen to be Christians. Do Christians ask their minister to perform a funeral for the deceased individual, or do they ask a humanist funeral officiant to do the job? Also, is there a general rule for allowing or disallowing non-Christians to be buried in a Christian cemetery, or is that more of a denominational sort of thing or is that up to the pastor to decide?


texts:
I'm reading Matt Perman's book What's Best Next and found this interesting:

  Knowing how to get things done enables us to fulfill God’s call to make plans for the good of others. This is one of the most exciting reasons to me. The biblical call on our lives is not to do good randomly and haphazardly. Rather, God calls us to be proactive in doing good — even to the point of making plans for the good of others. For example, Isaiah 32: 8 says that “he who is noble plans noble things, and on noble things he stands.” We often think of doing good simply as something we are to do when it crosses our path. But Isaiah shows us that we are also to take initiative to conceive, plan, and then execute endeavors for the good of others and the world. (And this requires, of course, actually knowing how to plan and actually make our plans happen!)

  Perman, Matthew Aaron (2014-03-04). What's Best Next: How the Gospel Transforms the Way You Get Things Done (p. 23). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

In reading through Isaiah 32, there seems to be a kingdom of righteousness being described that sounds really good - but then it is almost immediately followed by a warning of destruction.

Not really knowing Isaiah as well as I should, I'm trying to understand the context from which Perman is making this leap.  Is this inference from Perman (that we should be actively planning noble things) directly drawn from the prophetic nature of what Isaiah is preaching here, or is there an eisegesis that is required to make the point?


texts:
Upon seeing certain statements in John Calvin and John Wesley's writings some have concluded that these men believed Jesus is Michael. What evidence is there to show that John Wesley and John Calvin did not believe that Jesus is Michael?

Here are a few references to what John Calvin and John Wesley say.

John Wesley

  Daniel 10:13  Withstood me – God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael – Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained – To counter – work their designs against the people of God.
      Daniel 10:21 – Michael – Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it. source

  Daniel 12:1 -   For the children – The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. source

John Calvin

  "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." --
  J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
  source but found here

  "Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people....The angel...calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people"

  (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65). source but found here


texts: Do Apostolic successionists allow for 'binding and loosing' powers apart from posession of the 'keys'

texts:
In Matthew 16 we see Jesus conferring the keys of the kingdom:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” - Matthew 16:19

The 'binding and loosing' authority appears, in the context, to be the applicational power of the keys rather than a second gifting.  In other words, Jesus doesn't appear to be gifting two separate things but rather one thing 'keys' with 'binding and loosing' authority.
This same binding and loosing authority is spoken of again by Jesus in Matthew 18:

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. - Matthew 18:18

In this instance the binding and loosing power is spoken of as regarding the entire church in general and those individuals involved in the restoration of a sinful brother in specific.
As near as I can tell the description of the binding and loosing powers in the two passages are identical.
My question is twofold and is for those who hold to Church governance by apostolic succession:

Are the binding and loosing powers conferred with possession of the keys or are the two distinct?
If the former, then must we not conclude that, at least as regarding discipline within the Church, we all possess the 'keys' since we all (at least corporately if not individually) possess the 'binding and loosing' authority?


texts: What is the biblical basis for elder disqualification?

texts:
The Bible speaks to the qualifications of overseers and deacons, and also mentions that they are to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation.

What Biblical basis exists, then, for the disqualification of those who are called to shepherd? Specifically, how to these align with the Biblical doctrines of repentance and forgiveness (if, say, a leader was repentant and sought forgiveness over a sin)?


texts: Why is Infant Baptism considered to be invalid by so many Protestant denominations?

texts:
Catholics and several Protestant denominations (and maybe even Orthodox churches) practice Infant Baptism, while many other Protestant denominations do not.

This question addressed the argument for Infant Baptism.  So, what is the argument against it?  That is, "Why is Infant Baptism considered to be invalid by many denominations?


texts: Why couldn't a person in the OT be both priest and king?

texts:
In 1 Samuel 13, Saul is king and yet performs priestly duties even though he shouldn't have.  Samuel rebukes Saul and tells him that his kingdom is slowly coming to an end because of his disobedience.

My question is: where in the Bible is it established that a person could not hold both the positions of king and priest?

Some other information that may or may not be interesting:

1) Melchizedek appears to Abram in Genesis 14 as BOTH priest and king.
2) Of course, Jesus fulfills both roles as the true Priest and true King.
3) The role of king of Israel wasn't established until the time of Saul and David, so during the writing of the Mosaic Law, kingship should not have been a thing.  Were kings mentioned in the law? (if so, why?)


texts: Could more miraculous works bring more persons to faith?

texts:
There are those who say that if they saw the miracles that happens in the time of Moses, or the disciples they would surely have faith.

What are the Biblical reasons for miracle? Is it to create faith?


texts: Does Daniel 12:1–2 indicate the damned will have physical bodies like the Saints?

texts:
In Daniel chapter 12 we are given some insight into the last days, and it appears the many who have been buried will awake. Does this mean that all will have the same type of resurrection body?

  Daniel 12:1–2  (NKJV)
  "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. 2  And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.


texts: What is the basis for Christian disapproval of creation of artificial life?

texts:
We can now design bacterial genome from scratch, as mentioned in this thread on skeptics.se, and this opens up new and exciting possibilities for solving many problems the humanity is facing today, from efficient generation of drugs and fuels to pollution and world hunger (although the latter might require more advances before a feasible solution can be engineered). Naturally, most secular thinkers hail this as a dawn of new era for humanity with less suffering and more prosperity for everyone.

Religious figures, on the other hand, almost universally condemn this advance. Why? What is the basis on which Christians dislike the idea of artificially created life forms?

I understand that different branches may have different explanations. Since I'm don't know much of the difference between them, it's OK if in your answers you will concentrate on any one of your choice.


texts: Issues with legal documents and marriage

texts:
My fiance and I are planning our wedding and are having some trouble because we are from different countries. We are both Christians and would like to have a wedding that is honorable to God biblically.

We plan to be wed in Japan and it is sometimes custom that they will sign marriage documents and turn them into city hall even months before the actual ceremony. These marriage documents legally state that the two are married. It is beneficial for myself since it is required for a visa and job. However, this seems to be a problem as we do not think we are "actually married" since a ceremony wouldn't take place until months later.

So I am wondering if it is even acceptable before God biblically to allow for this legalization of marriage even before a ceremony. I am also wondering what Bible passages speak about marriage so that we would be able to put in as much consideration to this as possible.

EDIT: I think I should clarify more about what I'd like information about. I took note about how God was present to ordain the first marriage between Adam and Eve. I'm assuming that the covenant of marriage must be made before God. If "submitting legal forms" before an actual ceremony constitutes as marriage, is that "a covenant made before God"?


texts: When were "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" in Colossians 3 first argued to refer only to the Book of Psalms?

texts:
Some groups of Christians hold to exclusive psalmody, that is, they believe that the only songs that may be sung in public worship must come from the canonical Book of Psalms.  These Christians have to deal with two passages in particular that on at least a cursory reading seem to command singing more than just the Psalms: Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.  The latter of these reads:

  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. [ESV]

In response, the common argument made by exclusive psalmodists is that this entire phrase refers only to the Book of Psalms; for example, by Brian Schwertley.

  When we examine the Septuagint, we find that the terms psalm (psalmos), hymn
  (humnos), and song (odee) used by Paul clearly refers to the Old Testament book of Psalms and not ancient or modern uninspired hymns or songs. ("Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense," 10–14; see also Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion)

Psalms have been used exclusively or primarily in worship by some groups since the early church, so I wonder – who was the first Christian writer to make the argument that Paul, in referring to "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," was referring only to the Book of Psalms?


texts: What are the stipulations for a mixed marriage to be valid in the Catholic Church?

texts: If a devout Catholic woman wants to marry a Baptist man, what what must be made to make the marriage valid to the Catholic Church if they have both gone though the Catholic wedding preparation but would like to be married in a non-catholic church? Would the Catholic Church consider such a marriage valid? I have heard that a special dispensation from the local bishop is necessary; How should that be acquired? If the marriage is valid, is it also allowed to baptize the children Catholic?


texts:
A friend of mine once said that, "God said he would never destroy the earth again." I assume she was referencing the time of Noah's Ark, where the Great Flood wiped out the entire world.

I was simply wondering if this was true, and if there were any other cases in the Bible (or elsewhere) in which God said something like this?


texts: Was the KJV "too highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it"?

texts:
In the Emphatic Diaglott, the second paragraph under the heading "To the Reader" states:

But can it be fairly said that such is the case with our present English Version? We opine not. Though freely acknowledging that it is sufficiently plain to teach men the social and religious duties of life, and the path to Immortality, yet it is a notable fact that King James' Translation is far from being a faithful reflection of the mind of the Spirit, as contained in the Original Greek in which the books of the New Testament were written. There are some thousands of words which are either mistranslated, or too obscurely rendered; besides others which are now obsolete, through improvement in the language. Besides this, it has been too highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it, to be worthy of full and implicit confidence being placed in it as a genuine record. In the words of Dr. Macknight, "it was made a little too complaisant to the King, in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, and kingly rights, and these it is probable were also the translators' opinions. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect." And according to Dr. Gell, it was wrested and partial, "and only adapted to one sect;" but he imputes this, not to the translators, but to those who employed them, for even some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by "reasons of state." [bold mine]

Is there any historical record as to the veracity of this statement about the wording of the King James Version?


texts: Do any major denominations refuse to recognize Holy Baptism in other denominations

texts:
Most denominations recognize baptisms in other denominations.  (See, for example Eph 4:4-6), "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".)

The World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission published Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry in 1982.

Are there major Christian denominations (in the 21st century) who don't go along with this, and who require members to be rebaptized?


texts: Are subheaders of Bible chapters part of the original text?

texts:
I'm attempting to store the Bible text of several translations into a single database. What I'm noticing is that some translations have some sort of subheaders within the chapters that don't seem to belong to the chapter verses themselves.
I always assumed the text consists purely of books -> chapters -> verses. But it seems there is text outside of the verses like these subheaders. For an example of what I mean see below:
In the English Standard Version (Romans 1), for example:

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation
...

I have a couple of questions regarding these headers:

Is there is an official name for these subheaders?
Are they part of the original text or added by the translation?
Do they belong to a verse or are they outside of the verse text?

Any clarification is appreciated.


texts: It seems common in Christian communities (and in questions on this site) for people to say they have been saved.  What does someone mean by this when they say it?  How would I know that I have been saved and is there a particular moment of saving I should be able to identify?


texts: Is it possible that Jesus never laughed or smiled during His public life ? Are there  verses in the Gospels which directly or indirectly bring out the sense of humor  which Jesus ought to have had ?


texts: What are the requirements for godparents in the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
I talked to quite a few people today about Catholicism. I asked one couple questions about being godparents, because they were godparents for another child. However, this couple is not even Catholic. They also were not married in the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that godparents were required to be active members of the Catholic Church.

What are the requirements for godparents in the Catholic Church? Does the Catholic Church sometimes disregard the rules regarding godparents?


texts: Why did Huldrych Zwingli oppose music in the worship service?

texts:
Three of the most influential reformers, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli, took very different approaches to music in corporate worship. Of the three, Zwingli was the most accomplished musician, but he was also the most negative about music in worship – he apparently rejected it completely.  Not even Calvin's unaccompanied psalm-singing was sufficient for him.

Jeremy S. Begbie writes:

  Zwingli was ruthlessly consistent—the intricacies of Latin polyphony, the sounds of the organ, the chanting of the Psalms, the setting of the Mass, even the unaccompanied unison singing of the Psalms in the vernacular (as Calvin allowed) must all go. (Resounding Truth, 115)

Zwingli's recommendations were apparently put into effect in Zurich: organs were silenced and then destroyed, and in 1525 "the city council enacted the ban on singing in worship."

I'd like to explore the reasons for this view.  Begbie provides some insight – the regulative principle of worship played a role, for example, whereas a fear of the worldliness of music did not.  But I'd like to see more detail, particularly from the writings of Zwingli himself.  For example:

How did Zwingli deal with the apparent commands to sing in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19?
Why isn't the use of instruments in the Old Testament precedent for their use today?
Did he see a difference between a corporately recited prayer and a corporately sung psalm or hymn?
Why not at least unaccompanied exclusive psalmody, like Calvin?


texts: What is the biblical basis to say that prophetic words spoken today are equivalent in authority to scripture?

texts:
Continuationists, in general believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active and available today, including prophecy.

So far as I am aware, prophecy in this context refers to (or in theory includes) foretelling of events, or descriptions of the current state of things independent of any prior knowledge of the one speaking the word (for example the details of someone else's life and some word in relation to that).

More importantly, so far as I am aware, they believe in prophecy, in terms of special revelation received to an individual directly from God (the Holy Spirit), either as a word for another individual, or a prophecy over a nation etc.

My question is, given the assumption of special, direct revelation from God pertaining to modern prophecy (assuming that this is biblical), what is the biblical basis to claim that (at least some of) these prophecies are equivalent in their authority to scripture? I.e are they to be taken as inspired, inerrant, infallible (in-so-far as scripture is also)?


texts:
This is a simple historical Q & A question regarding the rumor that Luther made this fairly inflammatory accusation.  The question is simple. Is there any solid proof that Luther really thought this and made this incredible accusation?

Is it true that Luther claimed Popes and priests commonly practiced sodomy?


texts:
In the Old Testament, there are lengthy poetic passages or entire books of poetry (e.g. Song of Songs). What poetry, if any is there in the New Testament?

John 1:1-18 and Luke 1:46-55 seem like candidates to me.


texts: At the Last Supper what would the disciples make of what Jesus said about partaking of the bread and the wine?

texts:
Luke 22:15-20 is clear that the cross yet lay ahead of Christ. Then he said, "This is my body which is given for you… This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you”, commanding them to eat and drink.  Did the bread which he broke, speaking of his broken body, and the wine to be drunk, speaking of his shed blood, mean something to the disciples different to their view of those emblems after Jesus’ resurrection, once they started to do that in remembrance of him? Obviously, Jesus HAD to institute that Supper before he died! And Greek tenses may allow for past or present tense to underscore the assurance of what would happen. But on that evening, their partaking of that bread and that wine could never have struck them as being a literal partaking of the actual body and blood of Christ.
For clarity, I am NOT wanting any examination of whether the Last Supper was, technically, the First Supper of a new event for Christians (as opposed to being connected to the Passover seder for Jews). Nor am I wanting comments about which cup was used, when. Those matters are dealt with in existing Stack questions.
A similar question to mine is here, Lutheran response to non-literalist interpretation of the Lord's Supper  ‘What is the Lutheran response to the argument made by some, that Christ couldn't have meant "this is my body" in a literal sense, since he was himself bodily present in the midst of the disciples, in the same upper room, as distinct from the elements?’ The only answer given, from the Marburg Colloquy, 1529, was not helpful.
I am not looking exclusively for the Lutheran response, but for views from all Christians who partake of those emblems themselves within the general fold of Protestantism. This would exclude all who do not partake of the bread and wine passed around at this event. I am not looking for the Catholic view either, not yet, as I may frame another question for them after I have had responses to this one.
My question seeks insights into believers partaking of the bread and wine prior to Jesus’ body being broken and his blood being shed. This only happened once in history and I am not aware of any comments from those few as to how they understood it, compared with how they came to understand it the second time (and thereafter, down the centuries). Now, it could be that there are some ancient Catholic sources that would shed a little light on my question, so I do not preclude those being quoted by Protestants; I just don’t want answers extolling (or disagreeing with) either Catholic or Protestant views of what the emblems came to mean after that ‘First Supper’. My focus is entirely on that ‘First Supper’. So, please help me with a matter that is very narrowly focused, even if the range of answers can come from a very broad school indeed!


texts:
What are the 'things offered to idols' written about in Acts 15:29 and the 'things polluted by idols' of Acts 15:20?

How was this understood by the Apostles and their followers?

On what laws in the Old Testament is this 'rule' based?

Can Sunday be a religious day for Christians if it was already a religious day offered to the pagan sun god?


texts: Are (or should be) the resolutions of the SDA General Conference public?

texts:
Currently I'm doing a little bit of research on how different churches are organised.
As far I can understand, the General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church has an important role on discussing different important matters which are voted and eventually shared around the world.

The General Conference is responsible for the spiritual and developmental plans of the church around the world.
Source: adventist.org

If I get it correctly, after each General Conference event, a resolution is made containing the changes in the way how the church works (organizational issues, believes/principles (?) etc).
How are these resolutions shared and to whom? Who has access to them?
Should they be public (to anyone, including people outside of the church) or be available only to the members of the church?
The point which I'm missing is:

if they would be shared only with the pastors/leaders, how would a member know if something is changed?
if they are shared only with the members, how would someone from outside (who eventually wants to be a member) know what they are going to accept without knowing what the General Conference decided before?
are there any points which should not be shared with members? Similarly, are there any parts which are shared with members but not with non-members?
how would somebody from outside of the church request as much information which is supposed to be public?

While this question is about the SDA church, for comparison, I'm interested how other churches/organisations handle this subject (e.g. LDS, JW etc).


texts:
Why is Philip the evangelist called "the evangelist"? To my knowledge, he didn't write a Gospel.

Acts 21 8

  8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.


texts: Does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura prohibit the use of empirical information to understand the bible?

texts: As an example, what about examining Jesus' interaction with the Roman Centurion using historical documents explaining how the Roman Army was run?


texts: Can some one let me know about the picture?


texts: What are the responses to the "Radical's Critics" argument concerning Genesis 1 and 2?

texts:
The Radical's Critics argue that there is a discrepancy between the Genesis 1 account of creation and the Genesis 2 account, and thus proving that the doctrine of inerrancy is false.

Has this been addressed by Apologists, and if so, what is the response given by them?

From The Creation Narratives

  "When it is realized that there are two distinct creation stories in
  Genesis belonging to two different periods and derived from two
  different sources, inconsistency becomes intelligible. That it exists
  at all, however, is sufficient to discredit a theory of divine
  inspiration that is obviously out of accord with the facts”.


texts: How did the Inquisition impact modern Christianity?

texts:
Related Question

  How did the Crusades impact modern Christianity?

How did the Inquisition impact modern day Christianity own sense of morality and spirituality?
What do these things mean to a person of faith?

  The Inquisition, Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis (inquiry on heretical perversity), was the "fight against heretics" by several institutions within the justice-system of the Roman Catholic Church. It started in the 12th century, with the introduction of torture in the persecution of heresy. Inquisition practices were used also on offences against canon law other than heresy. (Wikipedia)


texts: Does the Traditionalist and Sedevacantist ignore the words of St.Ambrose saying "Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Ibi Deus"?

texts:
The above Latin quote, attributed to St. Ambrose means “Where Peter is, there is the Church, there is God.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Jesus “entrusted a specific authority to Peter”:

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living stone,” thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (CCC 552-553)

The Daily Roman Missal has this to say about the feast of The Chair of St. Peter:

  This feast brings to mind the mission of teacher and pastor conferred by Christ on Peter, and continued in an unbroken line down to the present Pope. We celebrate the unity of the Church, founded upon the Apostle, and renew our assent to the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, extended both to truths which are solemnly defined ex cathedra, and to all the acts of the ordinary Magisterium. (pg. 1485) - “Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Ibi Deus”

Cardinal Caffara also had a statement of support reminding all the Bishops to not contradict the Pope;

«I was born Papist, I lived as a Papist, and I mean to die a Papist! If a Bishop has a thought contrary to that of the Pope» – he concluded: «he must go away, but really he must go away from the diocese. Because he would lead the faithful into a path that is not the one of Jesus Christ anymore. Therefore, he would lose himself eternally and would risk the eternal loss of the faithful». - Card. Caffarra: «Let who is against the Pope go away; he will lose himself»


texts: Do Western Christians confuse Mysticism with Emotionalism?

texts:
I repeatedly hear Western Christians repudiate mysticism. This post is NOT about the merits or dangers of Christian mysticism. Another question addresses that sufficiently. This question deals with whether or not Western Christians are accurately defining mysticism.

It seems that what is often called 'mysticism' by Western Christians is actually what might be better called 'emotionalism.' This is evidenced by the fact that mysticism always seems to be presented as the opposite extreme of rationalism (which implies that mysticism must be irrational). It seems that the trend of creating this dichotomy began historically in Western culture in the Romantic period. But is mysticism the same thing as emotionalism or is this a false dichotomy that we have inherited from Romanticism? Why or why not? If not, what definition would you offer for it?

Any sources from Christian history (east or west) would also be appreciated when addressing this question.


texts: Did everyone tithe in Israel? When did the tithing come into the church?

texts:
Did everyone tithe in Israel?  Merchants/fisherman/blacksmiths etc.?

When did the tithing come into the church?


texts: Lutheran response to non-literalist interpretation of the Lord's Supper

texts: What is the Lutheran response to the argument made by some, that Christ couldn't have meant "this is my body" in a literal sense, since he was himself bodily present in the midst of the disciples, in the same upper room, as distinct from the elements?


texts: What is a historicist’s view of the seven seals in Revelation?

texts:
Historicism is a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology that associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events (which may also be symbolic of repeated occurrences). This means that many things in Revelation have occurred while other things have not. Also that the symbols in the visions match major historical events in remarkable ways and in a chronology that actually occurs in the annals of history.
Historical interpretation naturally takes much more work than pure symbolic or mere speculative interpretation because one actually has to be familiar with the history of the world as it pertains to the Christian church. To be expected, the outcome of such hard work also leads to large amounts of information to provide as there is so much evidence to weigh. For example, this old classic on Revelation (Horae Apocalypticae; or, A commentary on the Apocalypse, critical and historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel 1862) is around 3000 pages of detailed arguments wrapping history around Revelation in chronological order.
My question:
Under a Protestant historicist view what are typically the seven seals in Revelation referring to?


texts: What is an overview of how Christians interpret 2 Timothy 1:6-7 and apply it to their own lives?

texts:
2 Timothy 1:6-7 (ESV):

6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, 7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

What did Paul mean when he advised Timothy to "fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands"? How was Timothy supposed to apply Paul's advice to his life?
I would like to see an overview of how Christians usually answer these questions and how they go about applying whatever the passage is teaching to their own lives. Do most Christians tend to understand 2 Timothy 1:6-7 in the same way or is this one of those passages that cause a lot of controversy?

Personal thoughts: my educated guess is that Paul is probably using figurative language, similar to the "go buy more oil to keep your lamp burning" of the parable of the ten virgins (that's my own way of paraphrasing it by the way), to mean the gift of the Holy Spirit that Timothy probably received by Paul's literal laying of hands on him (like the many examples in the book of Acts) and as an invitation/command for Timothy to give himself more fully to the control of the Holy Spirit, although the exact concrete way in which he was supposed to do that is not totally clear to me.


texts: Historical evidence for a separate Jewish branch of Christianity?

texts:
I've met some non-Hebrew people who have come from a Protestant background, become fed up with their faith, changed churches, etc and now call themselves Messianic Jews. This comes with some claims of things like

They are the true church.
Messianic Judaism developed in parallel with Christianity.
Messianic Judaism is somehow "more authentic" than the Christian church.

What I'm interested to know is this: what type of historical evidence is there to support the claim that the church of the Holy Apostle James in Jerusalem was populated only by gentiles and the "Messianic Jews" maintained their own, separate congregation? Or that this happened anywhere else?

I know Scripture records that the Apostle Peter started doing something like this to a small degree and was rebuked by St. Paul but that seems to support the opposite conclusion.


texts: What is the difference between belief and faith, from a Protestant perspective?

texts: I want to know what is the difference between belief and faith from a Protestant perspective. Can anyone explain this to me?


texts: Did Pelagius or Pelagians in General Deny Orthodox Christology

texts:
In St. John Cassian's work "On the Incarnation: Against Nestorius" he claims that Pelagius believed

  that Jesus Christ had lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked. ... They added as well that our Lord and Saviour became the Christ after His Baptism, and God after His Resurrection."

On the Incarnation of the Lord Book I Chapter III. Page 552 or 553 of the second series of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.

The author of this answer (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52958/27623) takes issue with that claim. Is this actually what Pelagius himself, or Pelagians in general believed?

It seems logical that the patristic teaching of the incarnation implicitly teaches an indwelling of grace in mankind brought about by the union of God and Man within the person of Jesus Christ and therefore this is something that the Pelagians want to deny, so they explain that Jesus Christ was simply a man that through his own will and efforts obtained the indwelling of God (sort of like a Christian version of Nietzsche's super-man) and is gracious to us by giving an example.


texts: What determines when the Flores de Mayo and the Santacruzan festival will occur each year?

texts:
As Wikipedia says:

  Flores de Mayo (Spanish for "Flowers of May") is a Catholic and
  Aglipayan festival held in the Philippines in the month of May...The
  Santacruzan is the pageant on the last day of Flores de Mayo, held in
  honour of Helena of Constantinople (known as Reyna Elena) and
  Constantine the Great finding the True Cross in Jerusalem.

The Santacruzan appears to always be held on a Sunday in May (a parade goes by my apartment in New York City). But what determines the dates of the Flores de Mayo (including determining what Sunday the Santacruzan will be celebrated)? One data point: the day for 2014 seems to be today (May 18).


texts: Is healing with honey mentioned in the Bible?

texts:
From webmd

  Honey’s healing properties are mentioned in the Bible, Koran, and Torah.

Is is true that the Bible talks about healing with honey? What does the Bible say about honey's healing properties?


texts:
My wife asked me this question last night, and I didn’t know the answer, so I thought I would ask it here.

The question:  Besides fish, is there any passage in the Gospels that directly mentions Jesus eating meat?

My assumption is that He would have followed Jewish dietary laws, but I couldn’t think of any specific passages off of the top of my head.


texts: What significance, if any, does the doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary have?

texts:
I understand that the Catholic Church (and perhaps the Orthodox church as well) teaches that Mary is "the eternal virgin" Mary.

If this were an important doctrine, it seems there would be fairly clear reference to it in the Scriptures.  However, the Bible is incredibly silent on it and even seems to indicate that Joseph had no union with here until Jesus was born.

  When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded
  him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth
  to a son. And he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25 ESV

Admittedly, I don't believe Mary is the eternal virgin, and it seems by implication that Joseph would need to be an eternal virgin as well since he was married to her.  Nonetheless, in my understanding, it seems to me to be such a minute issue that it's hardly worth the effort to invest any significant amount of energy debating it.  Other things seem to be of far greater importance.

So, here's the question:

What importance does the eternal virginity of Mary have?  What does it matter?  A what would have been so horrible about her and Joseph enjoying the intimacy God provided for a married couple?


texts: According to reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over during the millenium?

texts:
Regarding the 1000 years, Revelation 20:6 states:

  Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection.
  The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of
  God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
  (NET)

According to pre-millennial reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over during the 1000 years?


texts:
As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. Matthew 9:9

Did Matthew the Tax Collector author the Gospel?

If not, did someone author the Gospel under Matthew the Tax Collector's name?

Or was the author an entirely different man named Matthew?


texts:
Are there any of the large groups of believers in Jesus that would object to praying with other denominations, non-denominations or sections of Christianity?

Example: Catholicism, Protestant, etc?


texts: Why has "Devil's advocate" office been changed?

texts:
Pope John Paul II abolished* reduced the power and changed the role of the Promotor fidei (Promoter of the Faith) office, better known as Advocatus diaboli (Devil's advocate) in 1983, thereby the number of saint has increased since then a lot.

* -  The misconception about the abolishment of the office comes from incorrect information in Wikipedia article

What was the reason of this action? Is the unnatural rise of saint only a side-effect, or it was meant this way? Why?

Was the office of Advocatus diaboli considered as bad or just dead-handed? Why?

Are there any other impacts caused by this decision?

  Pope John Paul II eliminated the position of promoter fidei in 1983,
  ending 400 years of tradition. Since then, saints have been canonized
  at a rate about 20 times faster than in the early part of the
  twentieth century. Apparently it's now like the multiple Who's Who
  reference guides. If you're nominated, you're in. There's no
  opposition, thus it's lost it's meaning. And with no opposition, your
  great idea may not be developed to be of much importance.

from AskCatholic.com


texts: Origin of the quote "If he'd had anything more precious, he'd have given it"

texts:
I'm looking for a quote by a Holy Father (can't remember if it was a recent one or not) from the Orthodox tradition. I seem to remember his discussing the nature of the atonement and the fact that God could have 'snapped His fingers' and forgiven everyone but instead he chose to reveal Himself by sending His most precious Son to undergo humiliation for us in a revelation of the love of the Holy Trinity.

Then he mentions that this happened because the Son is the most valuable thing which the Father possesses and that, if He had anything more dear to Him, He would have given that instead. I believe I came across this while reading Orthodox Dogmatic Theology but I can't find the quote. Help, please?


texts:
I have heard the term "Lordship Salvation" several times now, including in an answer I read recently.

Can anyone explain to me what this is?

Is this the official position of any major churches?

Is this a term only used by critics of the view?  (Like "easy believism" or "cafeteria Christianity" - terms nobody would actually associate themselves with!)


texts:
What did God make the universe from? It seems Himself, since before Creation, only God is.

This seems to me to be the most important question for Christianity. NOT why, how, where or who, but what. From what outside or within Himself, could God have made the universe?


texts: How could a loving, just, merciful God have created such an unfair test for humans?

texts:
According to the Bible, God is loving:

  1 John 4 (NIV)

  8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

  1 John 4 (NIV)

  16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

... as well as just, merciful, and compassionate:

  2 Thessalonians 1 (NIV)

  6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you

  Deuteronomy 4 (NIV)

  31 For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.

  2 Corinthians 1 (NIV)

  3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,

Now, Jesus said:

  John 14 (NIV)

  6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

This means that the only way to salvation (rather than eternal torment) is by genuinely accepting Jesus - being a good person, for example, is not enough.

So, how could any God to whom the aforementioned adjectives (loving, just, etc.) could reasonably be applied possibly impose such an unfair test for humans to have to pass in order to attain salvation?

I say 'unfair', because people born into a devout Christian community basically have a ticket to heaven from birth, whereas those who are born into a devout community of another religion basically have a ticket to hell.  At the bare minimum, it is dramatically easier for the former to get into heaven and dramatically harder for the latter... and that's not touching on those who are simply unable to believe in any god, in a society of unbelievers where certain people have seen enough evidence of various different conflicting religions that they cannot believe in any one, even if they wanted to.  Belief isn't a choice, after all; it's more like a function of your experiences.

So, how does this dramatically skewed playing-field (in favour of devout Christian communities) square with a God that loves his creations?  Why would he be so unfair/unequal in his judgment of them?  Surely the fair way would be for him to appear to every human at birth, giving them an equal knowledge of him.  This, by the way, would presumably lead to there only really being one religion - if every child had an innate knowledge of God's nature, there couldn't be such drastically different religious dogmas because many would simply go against what a child had been told by God at birth.


texts: How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible?

texts:
Morality changes over time
Morality is not a constant; what a group of people finds to be morally acceptable or morally unacceptable evolves over time, generally because of an increased understanding or awareness, and generally this occurs (we like to think) in a more progressive, positive direction. Note: it is irrelevant whether our moral views have or have not progressed in positive direction; all that matters is that it has changed.
For example, 100 years ago (and still to some extent today), many white people (Christians included) believed that blacks were an "inferior race". Before that, slavery was considered acceptable in many parts of the world. Before that, the mistreatment and subjugation of women was acceptable. Today, there are still people who think it's wrong to be homosexual, and I'm sure as with the others those views will fall more a more out of favor.
The Bible doesn't change
But as you know, the Bible is static; it's words don't change and it is never updated. The lessons it gives are supposed to be independent of the time or age you are born in. But it is quite clear from reading the Bible that some of passages espouse a morality that is no longer accepted today. How is this reconciled with today's views?
For example, imagine a father reading portions of the Bible to his son back in 1610. He comes to Leviticus 27:3-7:

Set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty
shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a
female, set her value at thirty shekels; 5 for a person between the
ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels
and of a female at ten shekels; 6 for a person between one month
and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver
and that of a female at three shekels of silver; 7 for a person
sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels
and of a female at ten shekels.

This father would have just told his son that women are worth less than men. Back in 1610, that might have been an acceptable moral view, so he thinks nothing of it. But zoom forward to 2012: a father reads the same passage to his son. Surely he must say something about that passage, lest he wants his so to think women inferior.
Should you choose to personally re-interpret this passage as being morally acceptable, that's fine, but there are numerous other passages in the Bible which suitably demonstrate my point just as well. For example, it's generally understood in the modern world that beating our children with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, 23:13-14) is a little... "Old Testament", to say the least. Even if you still think beating your children is okay, I doubt you think it's okay to kill them if they talk back (Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, Matthew 15:4-7, Exodus 21:17). I doubt most of you still support slavery, which is supported in both the Old and the New Testaments (Matthew 10:24/24:45-46, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-4), or find it okay to give your daughter as a slave ("maidservant" in some of the prettier editions). Let's be real here, there are passages in the Bible which contain morally questionable messages; this isn't a bold claim.
Since most Christians seem to be normal, decent people, what's going on here?
I honestly just don't know because my own parents—while religious—never even tried to explain the Bible to me. In fact, my parents for the most part completely dismissed the Bible, and engaged in Christianity in a more organic, "everyday positive lessons" manner. But for those who actually take the time to sit down and read the Bible, whether in Church or at home, what do you do when you come across passages such as these? Do you simply pass them off as historical relics of a long-expired moral past, or do you try to justify it as some sort of metaphor that accords with our beliefs today?


texts: What do mormons believe about eschatology?

texts:
As I understand, mormons affirm some sort of final judgment where people are judged according to their works.

I'm curious what that looks like. Is it a balancing scale, where if you did more good than bad you pass and if you did more bad than good you fail? Or is it more of a "everything bad you do will be punished and everything good you do will be rewarded"?

Furthermore, how does mormon belief on this issue compare to the three mainstream christian views: Universalism, Annihilationism and Eternal-Conscious-Torment?


texts: If God could make Mary sinless, why not anybody else?

texts: In this thread one of the answers states that Catholic tradition has Mary as sinless from conception (if I read it correctly). I don't want to sound flippant here but this begs the question: if God could do it for Mary with no problem, why not do it for everybody? I mean, why even bother with the crucifixion at all? If you think about it, He could have done the same thing with all of Adam's first generation and poof! Problem solved. Why go through all the trouble?


texts: Is the LDS observance of the Sabbath on Sunday based on revelation?

texts:
Is there modern revelation as to the day of the week where we should observe the Sabbath? I hear that in countries where saturday is the official day of rest, church meetings are held on saturday. So, is there some revelation stating the day of week we should observe the Sabbath, and this is an exception, or is it revealed that the exact day doesn't matter too much, as long as it's every 7th day?

So, in essence: Do we meet on sunday because everyone else does it, or is there actual doctrine regarding when we should meet?