texts:
We have:

Good - Evil
Love - Hate
Virtue - Vice
Bless - Curse
Righteous - Wicked
Obedience - Disobedience
_____? - Sin

I don't mean sin as a general disposition, or original sin. I mean a deed contrary to God's eternal law:

  Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22:PL 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ. Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1871,-1872)

  Sin is the breaking of God's law. (CARM, What is sin?)

  Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Sin)

What are those things that are done in accordance with God's will, reason, and eternal Law? Would we call these acts of obedience? sacrifice? praise? Are they discussed specifically?

Please note: I'm not asking for anyone to coin an antonym for sin. I'm not asking for examples of individual acts that count as "not being sins". I'd like to know if the Bible or any well-established teaching deals with this sort of deed, and what such deeds might be called. I am not claiming that performing such deeds will grant anyone salvation, that discussion may be set aside. Also, please don't just say something like "the opposite of sin is love" unless there's a good explanation: I'm not asking for dynamic non-equivalence.

Edit: The answer should make it obvious (somewhere) what is the most appropriate way to fill in the following blanks using a single term or concept, and also why (theologically) that term is best:

What Cain did was a sin, but what Joseph did was a _____
Offering up a sacrifice, visiting someone in prison, and praying are all examples of _____
_____ is an utterance, a deed, or a desire in accord with the eternal law.
_____ is the keeping of God's law.
_____ is nothing more than a morally good act, an act in accord with reason informed by the Divine law.

What is the opposite of sin? When someone does something good, what do I call that?


texts: According to mainstream Christianity, what happens after one dies?

texts:
Old Belief [held for decades]

After a person dies, the person sleeps until Judgment day, and is then awakened and goes into either heaven or hell.

New Belief (realized only yesterday)

Immediately after a person dies,

the soul separates from the body
the soul goes to either heaven or hell (A)
at final judgment, soul + body are united, then the person either goes into heaven or hell (same place as in [A])

This new belief is backed by:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/52-17
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-311/what-happens-when-a-christian-dies

In particular, the Lazarus / Abraham story was literal, and not fiction -- after one dies, one can "see" everyone else who has died (and whether they belong in heaven and hell.)

Question:

I think my Old Belief is wrong, and the New Belief is correct. Is New Belief inline with mainstream Christianity? [I suspect Yes, but want to double check.]


texts: What is the meaning of 'is' in the context of the Trinity?

texts:
The Philosopher Gottlob Frege distinguishes between four different meaning behind the word 'is':

1) 'is' as in identity; Saul is Paul.

2) 'is' as in predicate; Paul is Christian.

3) 'is' as in subset; Paul is a Man. (Paul is a member of the class 'Men').

4) 'is' as in existence; God is.

As one not raised or well versed in the Christian faith, I would like to know, when Christians say

"The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God, and yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy spirit is not the Father."

what meaning they ascribe to the word 'is'. Please feel free to give the different answers according to the different branches of Christianity.

Addendum: If the answer is 1), identity, how do Christians get around the problem of the Transitivity of Identity' If A = B & B = C then A = C?


texts: Do different Christian denominations think each other will be saved?

texts:
There're lots of Christian denominations out there. I'm wondering if each of them have an official answer to "if the Second Coming were today, believers of [other denomination] will/will not be saved". I'm interested in both the bigger denominations (Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism ...) and the smaller ones (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses ...). A full list is likely impractical, but partial tables are also good.

I haven't been able to find anything about this except scattered statements such as "[Jehovah's Witnesses] consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and most limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" which implies that this denomination will say answer the question with "no" for every other denomination. It's possible I am searching for the wrong terms though, so I am asking this question.

Edit: some clarifications per the comments. I'm only interested in the official doctrine, not the beliefs of individuals. A denomination thinks the other will be "saved" if members of the other denomination are treated the same as members of the original denomination at the Second Coming. It is "not saved" if they are treated the same as unbelievers (i.e. non-Christians). For everything else in between, it's "partial" (i.e. part yes, part no).

Related: Do non-Christians go to hell?, however this question is about people who also identify as Christian.


texts: According to Catholicism, does the Eucharist have all the same physical and chemical properties, and physiological effects, as bread and wine?

texts:
Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no
  money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and
  without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not
  bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen
  diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in
  rich food.

  Isaiah 55:1-2 (KJV)

According to Catholicism, do the Eucharist have all the same physical and chemical properties, and physiological effects, as bread and wine? Does the Eucharist nourish the body?


texts:
I attended a class on the Sacraments last night and the presenter was talking about how Bishops, priests and deacons were specifically mentioned in the NT. It made me wonder, how did Christians get their start putting constant and unchanging liturgical elements into their worship?  Most of all, how did early Christian presbyters learn to sacrifice.

I'm not asking so much how did newly minted Christians go from believers to those called to act "In persona Christi" as that's the work of the Holy Spirit and a direct reaction to Jesus' commands, but how did ordinary folks adopt the standards and practices for worship that were common only to the Levitical Priesthood?

Did they do it in imitation or were there actual Jewish Priests who converted and instructed the first Christian priests?


texts: What is the difference between holiness and righteousness?

texts:
Both holiness and righteousness are used to describe God.  Additionally, we as Christians are called to be holy and righteous as well.  These are two distinct words, so they must have distinct meanings.

So, my question is what distinguishes holiness from righteousness?

  You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you
  from the peoples, that you should be mine.  Leviticus 20:26 ESV

  14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your
  former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be
  holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy,
  for I am holy.”  1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV

  You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless
  was our conduct toward you believers.  1 Thessalonians 2:10 ESV

  But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have
  heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22
  to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of
  life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in
  the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after
  the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.  Ephesians
  4:20-24 ESV


texts:
We know that Calvin wrote on church membership:
4.2.8

But as here full certainty was not necessary, he has in its place substituted the judgment of charity, by which we acknowledge all as members of the Church who by confession of faith,
regularity of conduct, and participation in the sacraments, unite with us in acknowledging the same God and Christ.

4.2.9

Such persons we do not approve by our suffrage as members of the Church, but we leave them the place which they hold among the people of God, until they are legitimately deprived of it.

I saw a friend write:

Calvin was inconsistent on his position on church membership. They were included and then excluded from various versions of his Institutes.

My question is: Was Calvin's statements on church membership consistent across all his versions of the Institutes?


texts:
Martin Luther lived from 1483 – 1546 and John Calvin from 1509 – 1564. Both thse men wrote about the importance of infant baptism which can be read in The Large Catechism by Martin Luther & Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

Was there a period in the history when all who believed in Christ allowed infant baptism? If it is true who or which sect started/revived "only credo baptism" procedure?


texts: A recent question mentions World Youth Day. Wikipedia says that it's an event for young people organized by the Catholic Church. That isn't very helpful, since there are a lot of different types of Christian youth events. How is World Youth Day different from other events? Why do people go? What can people expect if they go? Who counts as a young person? What's the goal?


texts:
I recently read an argument which was basically 'Paul against Jesus' type and was something like this:

Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the Jewish laws but to fulfill them:

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17, NET)

And we have this verse in OT:

  Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement. (Genesis 17:14, NET)

It is argued that even though Jesus was circumcised, it is not a requirement now for Christians because Paul preached so.

What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians?


texts: What does it really mean [not able not to sin] according to Augustine?

texts:
From this link, it is said that a newly born baby in relation to sin enumerated by Augustine of Hippo is [not able not to sin] (non posse non peccare).

What I thought from that [not able no to sin] sentence is :

X. a newly born baby doesn't have an ability to choose the right thing completely. So, the next time if this baby still live and grown
up (say, his/her age from 5 to 20) - this person will NEVER be able
to obey his/her parents as it's been told "Honor your father and your
mother" from one of the 10 Commandments.  In other words, there is
not even one at a time where this person obey his/her parents.
Because if there is - then that means this person is able not to
sin.

But my Catholic friend say that X is not correct. He said the correct one is :

Y. [not able not to sin] means something like an inclination. After the baby grown up, he/she will be more inclined to disobey the
parents then to obey. So, the frequency she/he disobeyed the parents is much more than she/he obeyed the parents

My friend told me, that's what Catholic point of view from Augustine's [not able not to sin] teaching.

I don't understand how come the correct one is like that. Because to me, if it is the correct one - then logically this person still has the ability not to sin. This person still can choose between to obey -or- not to obey the parents. And obeying the parents, fulfilled that one of the 10 Commandments.

That's why I'm asking here, what does it really mean [not able not to sin] according to Augustine himself actually ? X or Y ?


texts: Is Romans 1:26 a condemnation of homosexuals or the sin of lust?

texts:
God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26)

I understand that there is no word in either ancient Hebrew or Greek that corresponds to "homosexual" in the sense that we use it today.  We use the term as inclusive of those who have a “natural” sexual attraction to others of the same gender.  Most would accept as fact that in both the general animal kingdom and within humanity some individuals are born with a natural sexual attraction to other individuals of the same gender. It is my understanding that to the degree that the ancients were concerned with the subject of sexual orientation at all, they were concerned with specific sex acts rather than natural sexual orientation.  Some ancient texts indicate that the ancients discriminated between eunuchs by birth and those who became eunuchs later through surgical castration.  The first use of the word "homosexual" in the Bible did not occur until 1946 with the publication of the Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible.

With this background information, is it logical to interpret Romans 1:26 as being a condemnation of lust rather than homosexual orientation?  Lust meaning sexual acts that are not part of a loving relationship, be those acts homosexual or heterosexual.  What is the Catholic interpretation of Romans 1:26?  Do any Christian denominations interpret this passage as not being a condemnation of sexual acts within a loving same sex relationship?


texts:
It is known that Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies' are the types of people who self-identify as "Wiccans" but really don't go anywhere beyond self-identification and using stereotypical associations of Wicca. They have been criticized for not being true adherents of Wicca, merely treating Wicca as a fad, instead of taking the religion seriously and researching what Wicca actually stands for. In essence, they are people who just don't do their research and wish to remain ignorant, refusing to think and critique their own faith. Is there a Christian equivalent to the Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies'?

  ..."fluffy bunny" or the "old lady brigade" have been used in the
  Wiccan and Neo-Pagan community to describe adherents that they view as
  superficial or faddish. Common descriptions given by people
  using the term include elements such as the practitioner deliberately
  choosing to emphasize goodness, light, eclecticism and elements taken
  from the New Age movement over elements seen as too dark, as well as
  the practitioner appearing to follow the religion as a fad.
  The term "fluffy bunny" became more prevalent in the 1990s after it
  was used to describe a depiction of the Wiccan religion in the
  television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show, which featured a
  Wiccan coven, raised ire from practitioners of Wicca who believe that
  the coven in the show reinforced stereotypes.


texts:
Can one be baptized and become a Catholic if they don't believe in every particular Catholic dogma?

I personally am interested in being a Catholic, i.e., being baptized by a Catholic priest, being confirmed, and so forth. However, there are some dogmas that, even after serious biblical study, I am hesitant to believe in.

After responses/ comments from a few members, I narrowed these dogmas to the following:

Perpetual virginity
Immaculate conception
Assumption of Mary

(While I did not include #2-3 in the original post, I am including them in my revision so that further clarification can be accomplished on this matter. The original post was not intended to include each dogma I did not believe in, but rather, to give a few examples.)

Originally, I said that I did not believe that one was required to pray to Mary and the saints. As @AndrewLeach responded,

  You present that praying to Mary and to the Saints are necessary. It's not necessary for salvation to pray to them, merely to accept that they are there if required... However, it is necessary to accept that the Saints are there if required, and that their prayers are effective.

I should clarify that I have no problem with people praying to the saints and/ or Mary, if they wish. I don't feel it is necessary, for anything, but as long as I myself am never compelled to do so, I have no problem if others do.

It seems that the liturgy of the Penitential Rite has the following statement:

  I confess to almighty God,
  and to you, my brothers and sisters,
  that I have sinned through my own fault,
  in my thoughts and in my words,
  in what I have done,
  and in what I have failed to do;
  and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
  all the angels and saints,
  and you, my brothers and sisters,
  to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

So, is one required to recite this prayer during Mass, where he/ she is basically beseeching or praying to Mary and the saints?

All that being said, and this is the primary question, can I still become a Catholic if I do not believe in (accept) those particular dogmas?


texts:
I was having a discussion with a friend and he made the claim:

  The Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants.

This seemed half-true to me, but I thought the origins were more based in the interests of Henry the VIII and having an English National church distinct from the Continental Church. My understanding is that the Constitutional documents are meant to be 'inclusive' but I wouldn't have described them as a 'middle ground'.

My question is: Is it fair to say that the Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants?


texts: Can the grace of God depart from a Christian?

texts:
Can a Christian fall from grace? Please refer to the verse below and shed some light.

Galatians 5:4 “You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”


texts: How is "every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" not contradictory to the "narrow is the way leading to life"?

texts:
The following verses seem to imply that Paul was liberal when it came to the believers' practice of their faith in the Lord:

  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
  alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that
  regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth
  not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth
  to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the
  Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. (KJV, Romans 14:5-6)

However, the Lord's words on the way leading to life seem more strict:

  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the
  way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in
  thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
  leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (KJV, Matthew
  7:13-14)

So, how are Paul's words not contradictory to the Lord's words? I think there must be some explanation.


texts: Is there any evidence for the claim that the Catholic church suppressed translation of Scripture?

texts:
There is a popular Protestant polemic that Catholics don't (or didn't) want people to read the Bible.  It is often furthermore assumed that the Catholic Church went so far as to ban people from having the Bible in their own language.

Supporting the claim are the stories of:

Martin Luther who is sometimes thought to have been persecuted for translating the Bible into German, but who in fact was accused of heresy, and in any event, was not the first to translate the Bible into German.
William Tyndale who was executed for heresy, but also did not even make the first English translation (rather there were others already extant)
John Wycliffe who is often credited with the first English Bible, although older versions went back to the 6th Century, and who nonetheless was never charged with heresy until a good 30 years or so after his death.

In each of these cases, however, the position does not seem to be the act of translating the Bible, or of making it available, but rather of heretical teachings from these translations.

And, clearly the example of the Jesuits, translating the Scripture into hundreds of languages, seems to run counter to the claim that translating Scripture or encouraging lay popele to read it was heretical.

So, the question is, is there any papal directive that specifically addresses the possession of the Scripture in a vulgar (i.e. native) tongue, or addresses the translation of Scripture outside of Latin in a negative light?


texts: Does Bible say that God created insects? Does "creeping things" in Genesis imply insects, too?


texts:
Another question has asked about the Biblical basis for dual-covenant theology, but I'm interested in who holds it. Wikipedia indicates that some "liberal" Christians do, but I'm looking for more specifics. It also appears that "dual-covenant theology" is used pejoratively, rather than being a self-appellation.

Who are some prominent clergy associated with DCT? From what denominations do they hail and how common is it in those denominations?
What term(s) do they use to describe their theological framework other than DCT? Are there major sub-groupings within DCT?


texts: Perowne's quoting John Calvin in Psalm 56

texts:
In Perowne's commentary on the Psalms in one volume, he quotes Calvin  on page 445 in his treatment of Psalm 56.

  "Assuredly," says Calvin, "this is the true test and proof of our faith; when fears harass us, so far as our fleshly nature is concerned (pro sensu carnis), but do not overthrow and unsettle our minds. It seems, indeed, as if fear and hope were feelings too contrary the one to the other to dwell in the same heart; but experience shows that Hope there in fact really reigns where some portion of the heart is possessed by Fear. . . ."

He goes on for a few more sentences. Where in Calvin's writings did he in fact write this? Thanks!


texts: Did Paul write the Epistle to the Hebrews?

texts:
The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an open question. The common scholarly opinion is that the author certainly wasn't Paul.

Most modern Bible translations make no mention of the author, but some older ones such as the King James Version do:

Personally, I find it hard to believe that Paul would have written Heb 2:3-4. In his other letters, he always highlights himself as one of the apostles; here the writer has a very humble attitude and certainly doesn't count himself an apostle.

  Hebrews 2:3-4 (KJV)
   3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
   4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Was Paul the author of Hebrews? What supports Pauline authorship?


texts: Common arguments in support of the partaking of the divine nature being possible only through Eucharist

texts:
How do those Christians who believe that believers' partaking of the divine nature that Apostle Peter was talking about in 2 Pet. 1:4 is possible only through Eucharist prove that? What are their main arguments supporting that notion?

  2 Pet 1:4: "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious
  promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
  having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
  (KJV)

I am not sure if the concept of Eucharist being the exclusive way of partaking of the divine nature is a must belief in any one branch of Christianity. It is most likely that in each branch there could be found both proponents and opponents of that belief. However, in my question I am primarily interested in the arguments of RCC, EOC and main-stream Protestants.


texts: What elements are most commonly included in an exposition of faith?

texts:
The "exposition of faith" (expositio fidei) or "statement of faith" is quite common. The early Church fathers often summarized an exposition of faith, and today, many Christian websites, especially those of churches, summarize a statement of faith for all to see.

What do most statements of Christian faith include? I know this is relatively subjective, but there does tend to be some consensus among the many I have seen.


texts: What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about other Bible translations?

texts:
I was communing with a group of six JWs and one of them brought out an app which compared the NWT with other translations and claimed that there is not much difference between them.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe any translations apart from the New World Translation are good for teaching? Do they believe that there is any possibility of translation error in the NWT?


texts: When did female missionaries appear after the Reformation?

texts:
Assuming that prior to the Reformation, Jesuit priests did not bring missionary wives or families along, as they were not married, when did women become a normal sighting among missionary work around the world?

Note: I am principally thinking in terms of husband and wife teams leaving their home country to teach the bible abroad. The wife often doing sunday school or women bible studies or just sharing faith with work colleagues. The husband doing much the same as a missionary supported by the local church, possibly also acting as pastor of a newly built church. When was this a normal sighting around the globe.


texts:
During bible study I noticed that Acts 8:37 was missing from my bible. Verse 36 goes straight onto verse 38. Some cursory Google searches show that this happens in the NIV but not the KJV.

Is there some controversy with the verse? A translation error? Hidden conspiracy?

Are there other verses of the bible like this? What is the story here.


texts: Was the Trinity still a Trinity when Jesus died?

texts:
Christians believe a few basic things:

God exists as Three Persons in One Being
Jesus died on the cross (and rose again)
Jesus was God.

During #2, however, there seems to be a bit of a problem.  How is that any part of God died on the Cross?  For the period of time that Jesus was dead, was the Trinity actually a Trinity?  And how is this reconciled with the fact that patripassianism is considered heresy by Nicene Christians?

Note, this question assumes that AffableGeek's answer in What is the basis of the view that Jesus was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit upon death?
is understood as "true" for the parties in question.  Given this understanding, a good answer should indicate how the Trinity is maintained in light of it.


texts: What is the best interpretation of Matthew 24:29, from the perspective of an evangelical Christian?

texts:
In the verse mentioned above, Jesus narrates:

"Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

Now, every educated  evangelical is well aware of the fact that the moon does not emit its own light, and that the size of most stars is far greater than that of the Earth.

Taking note of the same, is an evangelical Christian supposed to take this verse literally or metaphorically?

In the case of the former, is there any valid explanation?


texts: How does the relationship of the Church of Scotland to the state differ from that of the Church of England?

texts:
Both England and Scotland have "state churches", but what exactly does that mean? How did these special relationships between a church entity and a sovereign state come about and how specifically do the two states/churches handle their relationship differently?

I'm particularly interested in how the Church of Scotland came into it's current position and if any part of the process was directly influenced by (either modeled after or in opposition to) the status of the Church of England at the time.


texts: Are Catholic priests allowed by church law to provide professional counseling and referrals to penitents who come to them to confess?

texts:
Let us say we have a priest, who is a licensed psychiatrist as well. A devout Catholic confesses their sins to said priest. The Catholic person chats with the priest, and priest asks follow-up questions like a doctor would. Priest then determines that the person is suffering from a psychological disorder, in this example, depression.

From a professional/moral standpoint the penitent/"patient" should not be obligated to pay the priest for his profession, since they came to confess, not to seek medical help. But as the priest orders penance, is the priest allowed by Church law to disclose to the penitent his diagnosis, offer counseling, and/or suggest to the latter to at least seek another psychiatrist for a second opinion?


texts: Why is God said to have married a couple?

texts:
As I understand it, the Catholic Catechism states that divorce is an impossibility because "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:9). Is this understanding complete and correct?

If so, how is it that God is the one said to be marrying the people (presumably through the person of the officiant), whereas it is merely man that is trying to divorce? It seems peculiar to me that forming the bond is viewed as God's role, whereas dissolving it is only Man's role.


texts: Did the church use stories like the Holy Grail to attract pagans?

texts: Sorry if this has been asked before, but I am avid watcher of the History Channel series on the Templar Knights. In one episode, the character playing the Pope announces that stories like the Holy Grail were really mysticism invented by the Catholic Church to attract Pagans to Christianity. Is there any evidence of this or was this simply poetic license?


texts: If a woman does not reach the climax at the time when the husband does, is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated until she achieves it?

texts: If a woman does not reach the climax in the marital act at the time when the husband achieves it (he achieves it before she does), is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated (by herself or her husband) until she achieves it? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.


texts: Do married couples need to live sexually?

texts:
What is the Catholic interpretation of a married couple's need to be living sexually if they don't feel the need for it?
Let's say both of them don't feel the need to live romantically. They got to the point they are ok to live together like brother and sister. They love each other and they don't need sex. It's not an act of sacrifice or any kind of mortification, basically, they lost a desire to have sex and both are ok with it. They are both still fruitful though.

Are they still required to perform sex within marriage so they can keep procreating or this is accepted as ok by the Church's teaching?


texts: Why did the Catholic Church change so radically after Vatican II in regards to the status of Jews?

texts:
Before Vatican II in the 1960s, the Church was overtly anti-Jewish. For example:

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in De Regimine Judaeorum (also called Epistola ad ducissam Brabantiae) that "the Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude".
The Church had the Good Friday prayer that addressed "the perfidious Jews." That prayer is no longer said by most Catholics.
The Church sanctioned the expelling of Jews from many nations.
The Church in some places made the Jews wear special symbols so that they could be distinguished from gentiles.
In the 17-19th centuries you had a series of popes (e.g., Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Humanum Genus) condemning the rising influence of "Judeo-Masonry."
Pope St. Pius X had a conversation with Zionist founder Theodore Herzl and told him that he can't recognize the proposed state of Israel until the Jews recognize the Church and convert.
etc.

This overtly anti-Jewish attitude of the Church that existed for 1960-odd years just seemed to vanish after Vatican II, and was replaced with a positive view of the Jews. I've even heard senior Churchman refer to Talmudic Jews as elder brothers of Catholics. This about-face on the subject of Jews is just one of many radical changes that occurred to the Church in the wake of Vatican II.

If the full deposit of the faith was revealed by Jesus, then how can the Church teach contradiction? How can the Church teach one thing about the Jews for nearly two millenia, and now practically fawn over them?


texts: Is my confession valid if I didn't say the Act of Contrition?

texts: I shared my confession with the priest. He told me not to bother with the Act of Contrition. There was one typed always on the table. I turned to look at it, it wasn't there. I could have said it without it but some words have changed.


texts: What happens in Heaven when we come into contact with fellow Christians who don't wish to speak to us in this life?

texts: Let say for one reason or another, we have friends whom we've drifted apart from in our lives, and they also happen to be Christians. We're all going to meet each other in Heaven, but does the Bible say anything about our unresolved tensions and how we'll see each other from then on?


texts: How to appropriately reply to "You're going to hell"?

texts: According to global Christianity, what is the most Christlike way to respond to someone who randomly walks up to you and says, "You're going to hell"?


texts:
In the Wikipedia page about Jubilee, an anonymous writer added the following text:

  "Jesus declared a Yovel by referencing Isaiah in 27 A.D., i.e. the 1666 year of entry into Canaan and the 34th 49 year Yovel Cycle according to the present day Samaritan Calendar."

I would like to know whether this claim has any evidence, so that I know whether to keep it in that page or remove it.


texts: Where did the idea of the inerrancy of the King James Bible come from?

texts:
Many Christians believe that the King James Bible is the only correct translation of the word of God. And they say that all other versions of the Bible are not inerrant.

What is the historical origin of this way of thinking?


texts: What is the Orthodox Position On Lack of Veneration for Mary in NT Epistles?

texts: I have been exploring joining the Orthodox Church.  I understand that a reverence and honor for the Theotokos is not a bad thing.  If it was good enough for the archangel at the annunciation, it should be good enough for us. That said - I was wondering how the Orthodox Church explains the lack of veneration for Mary in the NT Epistles?


texts: According to Catholicism, why do we worship Christ?

texts:
According to the Catholic understanding of Christology, Worship and the Trinity; would it be accurate to state that we worship Jesus because He is the Person who is the 2nd Person of the Trinity? Stated differently, we worship the Personality of Jesus because that Person is God (the 2nd Person of the Trinity); and not necessarily because He is the God-Man.

That God became Man and wrought our Salvation is a reason to worship God, and by extension, Jesus.

Background: I'm a Catholic and I was thinking about this, but wasn't sure if it would separate the Divinity from Jesus. I came up with this understanding while trying to figure out how to respond to someone who suggests that we worship a human. In the plain sense, I want to say Yes we do- but not because He is human, but because He as a Person is God who simply became incarnate. I wanted to see if this was a sound understanding of why we worship Jesus.


texts:
The originators of the Alpha Course published a newsletter called Alpha News, which I have seen cited a few times.

Is there a way to track down back copies of Alpha News?


texts: Why is Christ often shown with long hair in Christian iconography?

texts:
A friend of mine is Catholic and she has an icon or picture of Christ. It shows him with long, dark brown hair. Is there anything in the New Testament that justifies this representation? It seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that it a common representation.

If not, how far can we trace back this representation? Did it become prominent early on in Christianity?

In the interest of clarity, I should point out that I'm a Sunni Muslim and that I do realise that many forms of Islam frown on figurative representation. I'm not really interested in that debate. The question is purely a question about Christian iconography.


texts: How would Matthew 24:36 be explained from a Post-Tribulation perspective?

texts:
Matthew 24:36 reads:

  But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (NIV)

Wouldn't Post-Trib adherents be able to say that you could indeed calculate the exact day of Christ's return, because it would be exactly 7 years from the signing/enforcing of the peace treaty with Israel that's prophesied in the Bible?


texts:
I've been reading the book of Jasher (supposedly the one quoted in the book of Samuel) and its quite amazing.

But I ask - what is the proof or lack of proof on it's authenticity?

There are however a few seemingly sensationalized accounts, like a wolf talks to Jacob, sons of Jacob leaping up walls, strange humanoid creatures stealing donkeys, Joseph's mother speaking from the grave, and so forth. Unless I misread, it even states that it took a year to bring bricks to the top of the tower of Babel, which leads me to believe they must have had space-suits in those days :D.

Although I greatly appreciated the back-story of Nimrod vs Abraham, I found the passing-through-the-fire account (as well as the attempted infanticide) to be mirrors of other accounts in the scriptures. While repeats of events are known to happen, this seemed derived to a degree.

There is also the seeming God-evolution of Enoch, the "skins" of Adam and Eve which gave Nimrod power (which did not seem to have a symbolic purpose other than a super-hero story).

I also found it interesting that Esau killed Nimrod during a hunting expedition fulfilling a prophecy voiced in Jasher, but the bible simply states that Esau came back hungry from routine hunting.

Of course stories such as Jonah and the fish leave much to faith, which one could take Jasher on, but I was curious what proofs might exist for or against the book of modern day.


texts: Did Saint Patrick actually explain the Trinity using a shamrock?

texts:
The shamrock is a pretty bad analogy for the Trinity. In fact, it's somewhat of a heretical explanation if one puts much emphasis on it. It's partialism:

St. Patrick's Bad Analogies (YouTube)

So, that in itself is good evidence that St. Patrick wouldn't (or shouldn't) have used the shamrock to teach the Trinity. And Wikipedia provides some evidence that he didn't:

  The first written mention of the link does not appear until 1681, in
  the account of Thomas Dineley, an English traveller to Ireland.
  Dineley writes: The 17th day of March yeerly is St Patricks, an
  immoveable feast, when ye Irish of all stations and condicions were
  crosses in their hatts, some of pinns, some of green ribbon, and the
  vulgar superstitiously wear shamroges, 3 leav'd grass, which they
  likewise eat (they say) to cause a sweet breath.

It goes on:

  There is nothing
  in Dineley's account of the legend of St. Patrick using the shamrock
  to teach the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and this story does not
  appear in writing anywhere until a 1726 work by the botanist Caleb
  Threlkeld. Threlkeld identifies the shamrock as White Field Clover
  (Trifolium pratense album ) and comments rather acerbically on the
  custom of wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day

So, what do we have stronger evidence for? Did St. Patrick actually use the shamrock as an analogy to teach the Trinity?

If so, do we know what sort of emphasis or seriousness he placed on the analogy?


texts: Much of Christianity is based on St. Paul's writings.  Did Saul of Tarsus ever claim to be a prophet of God anywhere in the new testament?


texts: How does one test the spirits and identify false preachers?

texts:
The Word of God says,

  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1)

Many televangelist claim miracles happen and profess the name of Jesus. Some have claimed they witnessed terminally ill people get healed and such. There have been some high profile preachers from around the world who have been accused of staging miracles and preaching the "gospel of prosperity" for their own gain. What is the way to test whether they are false prophets taking care not to touch the Lord's anointed? I went through a similar post, but am concerned with teachers who say they are doing it in the name of Jesus.


texts: Does the Orthodox church ever condone violence on an individual level?

texts:
This post made me wonder. Is it true the Orthodox church thinks violence is always sinful no matter the circumstances? If so, in what manner do Orthodox Christians respond to personal violence? For example, I have two small children at home. If someone tried to break in and assault them, does the Orthodox church say I should not intervene?

I enjoy practicing martial arts because I aspire to be able to defend myself and others compassionately (without causing serious or permanent harm) and am very interested to know if the Orthodox church would consider this a waste of time or worse as the Protestants with which I am familiar certainly do not.


texts: Why does "holiness" mean "set apart" (if it does)?

texts:
It is very commonly stated that "holiness" means "set apart". What is the scriptural, linguistic, or other basis for this repeated claim?
Specifically:

On what basis is it claimed that the semantic domain of קודש (qodesh)  and/or ἅγιος (hagios) includes the idea "set apart"?
On what basis is it claimed that this is the primary Biblical meaning?
Who first made these claims?

Perhaps the following, from the entry in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Brown, ed) for Holy provides some justification for this question:

The basic idea [in the OT] is not that of separation (though that is favoured by some scholars, ...), but the positive thought of encounter [with divine power] which inevitably demands certain modes of response.

An example of the sort of evidence that one might expect to find would be קודש occurring in synonymous parallelism with some other word with a clear meaning of "separateness".
I would have expected someone to be able to quote some linguistic evidence for the "set apart" meaning of קודש and/or ἅγιος from a scholarly tome, but this hasn't happened so far. Indeed, several responses simply restate the purported definition (without any evidence), which seems to justify my statement that it is commonly stated as the meaning, and that it isn't entirely clear where this idea comes from. I'll keep digging.


texts: Why does God promise descendants for Hagar?

texts:
Why does God promise Hagar that she'll have a lot of descendants?

If God had planned on fulfilling his covenant through Isaac, the promised son of Abraham, and knew that the strife between Jews and Arabs would be so destructive, why does he instruct Hagar to return and submit to Sarah?

Paul writes in Galatians 4 that Ishmael represents slavery and bondage while Isaac represents the promise and faith and deliverance.  Only Isaac would receive the inheritance while Ishmael would not.

Later on, Ishmael is cast out.  So, I am just wondering: why does God increase their descendants, when he knows that they're not recipients of the new covenant?


texts: How do Christians respond to and/or explain the similarities between other societies' Gods and that of Jesus

texts:
God: Attis

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
Crucified
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected

God: Krishna

Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Performed miracles
Resurrected

God: Dionsyus

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
Performed miracles, including turning water into wine
Referred to as the "King of Kings"
Referred to as "Gods only begotten son"
Resurrected

God: Mithra

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
12 Disciples
Performed miracles
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected
Sunday is day of worship for Mithra

And the most striking and seemingly the base for all other mythologies:

God: Horus

Born on December 25th
Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Adored by 3 kings
Teach at 12
Baptized at 30
12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Known as "Lamb of God", "The Light"
Crucified
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected

Interesting, here is a photo of what is claimed to be Horus's crucifixion:

It does seem to be some uncanny relations between these different Gods and I do consider Jesus to be a God or the God, though I understand it is a little more complex than that summation. But for the sake of clarity of the question I am just addressing Jesus as a God.

I have heard references to astrology in driving some of these coincidental factors such as the Star in the East, December 25th and even maybe Sunday as the day of praise for some Gods of history. But what about the 12 disciples, virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, 3 day death and resurrection. These aspects of multiple Gods' stories from different societies transcend particular star patterns and celestial movements.

Is there perhaps a historical influence from older societies on the stories in the Bible or perhaps maybe there are some natural human psychological tendencies for purity (virgin birth) and guilt (crucifixion) and ego (desire for a survivor who was born from purity and made to suffer that is one of us, is human) that drives humans to tell these spiritual tales to comfort the very minds that create them.

References:
http://rishyrich.hubpages.com/hub/Parallels-between-Jesus-Horus

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=181421

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Parallels_between_Jesus_and_Horus_an_Egyptian_God.pdf


texts:
I volunteer at a soup kitchen which is run by a pastor with a Born Again style.  Each meal is preceded by a sermon and attendees are encouraged to come to Jesus.

I had a come-to-Jesus conversation with the pastor.  He summarized his beliefs, including the idea that God gave Jesus to suffer for all of us.  On this I noted that the punishment suffered by Jesus was not unique: 2000 years later, people are still crucifed and suffer even worse forms of individualized cruelty, in what was and remains a very dangerous place.

Since then, in several visits to the soup kitchen, the pastor has avoided making eye contact with me.   I feel certain that I am among the damned.

Question: Is there a name for my heresy?  I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with the observation that the suffering of Jesus does not make him unique (in that regard).  I imagine that there is a line of Jesuit thinking or something somewhere that already has a name for this particular observation and the consequences that come from it.


texts: Does "Lithium" have any meaning in Christianity?

texts:
I was surfing around and found the following from this link:

Erin from Tulsa, Ok: It is said that Kurt got inspired to this song,
during the time he lived at his friend Jesse Reed's family. Jesse's
parents was born-again Christians, and apparently they are reflected
in Lithium as the person who 'found God'.

My question is that Does the word "Lithium" mean something in Christianity?
I did a research and found out that the word "Lithium" is coming from the Greek word lithos meaning stone, but I can't find any connection between lithium and Christianity and "a person who found God".


texts: Why do Christians in India eat meat in church?

texts:
Why do Christians in India eat non-vegetarian/meat in church, while Hindus don't eat non-vegetarian in temples?

I love Christians because they won't commit violence and they don't kill people to convert them to their religion.  But, why do they kill animals inside the temple-like church?


texts: If one divorces is it considered adultery to marry again no matter what the circumstances were for this decision?

texts:
Jesus teaching on marriage said:

  Matthew 19:9 (NKJV)
  9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Yet regarding divorce Paul writes says:

  1 Corinthians 7:15 (NKJV)
  15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

What church doctrines touch on the issue of divorce and take into consideration both of these verses? Specifically, how would each doctrine apply to a case where one partner gets saved after being married?

If there are different interpretations of these text, what would each doctrine say about my case? I was saved after I was married. My husband was not happy with my Christian faith. He decided to file for divorce.

What teachings need to be considered in order to determine whether I am no longer “under bondage” as it states in the 1 Corinthians reference or if I would be committing adultery if I wanted to, at some point, marry again?


texts: What does "...bring them here and kill them in front of me" in Luke 19:27 mean?

texts:
What does the verse mean? Is it a misconception that Jesus only taught peace, such as saying 'turn the other cheek'?

  But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.’”  Luke 19:27


texts:
I would like to find out, I was confirmed in my Catholic Church, and used to go often. However as I got older, I could never get to church, as my parents did not wish to take me. I then went overseas for a year, came home and moved to another town. I have not been back to a Catholic Church until this past Sunday.

I want to know, since I have been gone for so long, what can I do to enter the Church properly? I love being Catholic and when asked I let people know that I am Catholic. I want to enter the Church correctly. If someone can please give me guidance.


texts: What does it mean to "worship in truth"?

texts:
In the early verses of this scripture, Jesus tells the woman that we wouldn't need to go to the mountains or Jerusalem to worship.

  ...God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:20-24)

The spirit part is pretty clear to me but what do we make of worshiping God in truth?

Do we focus on worship in truth as being about the right way of worship or having the right
mindset or perhaps it far
transcends the idea of correctness?


texts: How do Old Earth Literalist handle the Biblical Earth age?

texts:
I find it a confusing paradox, maybe someone can help clear this up.  If someone considers themselves to be a Biblical Literalist AND an Old Earth Creationist, how do you handle the dates within the bible?  Please see here for the complete article

And simply:

  Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we
  add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using
  the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or
  secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C.
  (4,000 years ago).

There are some grey areas in the calculation, however they're not thousands or millions of years.


texts: What do Latter Day Saints believe happens to persons who have rejected Christ Jesus

texts:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints says this in their third article of faith:

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.  http://www.mormon.org.uk/beliefs/articles-of-faith

I also found this statement while I was doing research into the subject:

As spirits, we will have an interim judgment which will determine whether our spirits go to Paradise (where the Savior went when his body was in the tomb) or to the Spirit Prison called Hell.

Is this Spirit Prison called Hell a place of eternal torment, or do those who have rejected Christ Jesus get a second chance to be saved?
On the subject of unrepentant sinners and the Telestial Kingdom I found this quote:

The Telestial Kingdom will be populated with the unrepentant sinners who, in spite of the fact that they did ultimately acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ, refused to accept His teachings or His atoning sacrifice on their behalf. They were too proud or too rebellious to care to commit themselves to Him in any way, and were willing to accept the consequences for their refusal. They will spend eternity as “servants of the Most High but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come…” Doctrine & Covenants 76:112.

I would also be interested to find out if the beliefs of Latter Day Saints on this subject have any basis in the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.


texts: How does Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theology relate to salvation by faith alone?

texts:
Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor. However, in his book, "The Cost of discipleship", he refers to this term called "cheap grace", just to give a quote:

  Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring
  repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without
  confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is
  grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without
  Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

How does this relate to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, in Lutheranism? There doesn't seem to be any tension between what Bonhoeffer calls "cheap grace" and Martin Luther's "sola fide"?


texts: What did Jesus mean by "not peace but division"?

texts:
I'm having difficulty understanding the following passage from Luke 12:51-53:

  Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

My Question:

Should this passage be ignored or deleted?
If not, then what does it mean?


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that we can choose when to use an indulgence?

texts:
Let's say you've done what is necessary to get an indulgence, but you're pretty clean most of the time and want to use it only after having accumulated a significant amount of venial sins.

Whether it be asking priests to activate it at a certain point in time or even being given the authority to activate it yourself when you see fit, could you choose when to use an indulgence?

Maybe you're on some kind of trip and you can't take the Eucharist, but need the spiritual assistance. Of course, extraordinary grace is out of the question; that would be too easy for this scenario.


texts: How does Protestantism explain Matthew 18:20 in this technology age?

texts:
Is Christ Jesus talking about a literal physical gathering of two or more?

How does the Church explain Matthew 18:20 (NET) in this technology age?

  For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

I'm not asking about a feel good answer. Rather,

What does the Bible say?


texts: Can someone tell me what this crucifix/cross is about?

texts:
My grandmother passed away a few weeks ago and she left me a crucifix/cross with a chain attached to it. However, I am not sure what this style represents. Where could it be from? Who is depicted?

My grandparents where Catholics and my grandfather did a lot of work in and for the third world. The reverse side is blank.

It looks like the biggest person is standing on or inside a piramid like form.
Is he preaching? are there any special groups of 10 people?
What seems to be coming from the mouth?


texts: What is the biblical basis for NOT keeping a literal physical Sabbath rest every seventh day?

texts:
I don't have hard statistics at hand right now, but I think that it's common sense knowledge that most Christians do not adhere to a literal, physical Sabbath rest every seventh day of the week like Sabbatarians do. Instead, I've heard many times informal explanations saying that Christians now enjoy a spiritual sabbath-rest in Christ instead, which is daily, not weekly.
Why are Christians exempt from the mandate to keep a literal physical Sabbath rest every seventh day according to non-Sabbatarians? What is the biblical basis for this view?


texts: Did the Apollo 11 mission result in a Catholic "bishop of the moon"?

texts: I've heard that the bishop of the Diocese of Orlando during 1969 claimed that because Apollo 11 was launched from Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center, which were under his jurisdiction, he became "bishop of the moon" because they were the first to land on it. Is this true? If so, what is the justification?


texts: What happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine?

texts: Inspired by this question and answers for it: what happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine? I'm interested in all variants.


texts: What does John 3:13 mean, NO MAN has ASCENDED to heaven?

texts:
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him. (Hebrews 11:5)
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Kings 2:11)

If Elijah and Enoch (funny they all start with the letter E) where translated what does John 3:13 mean, NO MAN has ASCENDED to heaven?


texts: Why did punishment differ in Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Kings 15:11-12?

texts:
Is there any reason behind why punishment differed in Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Kings 15:11-12? What's the context?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death;
their blood is upon them.
1 Kings 15:11-12 And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,
as David his father had done. He put away the male cult prostitutes
out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

I saw this in Project Reason, saying it is a contradiction of how homosexuals should be treated. One states death and the other says removal out of the land.


texts: Where did the account of Veronica originate?

texts:
Veronica wiping the face of Jesus during his passion is one of the stations of the cross in Roman Catholic tradition. This part of the passion has no basis in the Bible, though.

Where did this originate?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Jeremiah and John the Baptist being born without original sin?

texts:
I am reading The Life & Glories of Saint Joseph, by Edward Healy Thompson, which was first published in 1888. At the start of Chapter VII, in which the argument is made that Joseph was born without original sin (related, but not identical to how Mary was immaculately conceived), he says this:

  From Holy Scripture we also learn that some souls through divine predilection, as those of Jeremias [a.k.a. Jeremiah] and [John] the Baptist, were sanctified before they saw the light of day.

Unfortunately, Thompson doesn’t explain which parts of Holy Scripture he is referring to and seems to assume that the reader already knows.

What is the biblical basis that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified before birth (i.e. born without original sin)?


texts: What is the theological justification for only the priest drinking the wine in a Catholic Mass?

texts:
I recently attended a Catholic Mass for a funeral.  When it came time for the observance of the Lord's Supper, only the priest drank the wine.  There may be some protestant churches which also follow this practice, but any church I've attended always handed out both the bread and the wine to all of the partakers.

It would seem, from a natural reading of the Biblical account, that both the bread and the wine were intended to be part of the observance.  So, my question is, what is the basis, scriptural or otherwise, for only the priest needing to drink the wine?

I found this other question, which was helpful in understanding the logistical reasons for not wanting to have to do both.  It also explained how either is optional, as long as you take one.  But it failed to answer my question regarding the theological reasoning and explanation.  Does anyone know when this practice first became accepted?  What is the theological basis for only one or the other (body and blood) being necessary?


texts: Is it a valid Christian concept to attribute subjectively attactive physical characteristics, as blessings from God?

texts:
In conversation with a fellow Christian the other day, she used the phrase, "God has blessed her with very attractive looks" describing a mutual friend of ours (about whom I agree on the attractive aspect).

If someone is considered very attractive (to narrow that word down - opinion held by the majority, subjectively within a culture, that the person is good looking) is it correct to automatically classify this as a blessing from God?

A few reasons this question comes up is because what does that mean for another female who is at the lower end of that spectrum, where it causes her much pain in her life - from finding a mate to how self-esteem carves her reality? Would that be considered a lack of blessing, of the enemy, or simply chance of the physical world? Or, does it have nothing to do with blessings and is more like a slang Christian phrase?


texts: What is the LDS meaning of the New Jerusalem?

texts: The LDS (Mormon) Church has a visitor's center in Independence, MO, which area is apparently related to New Jerusalem. What is the significance of this in LDS theology and what is the LDS belief on this matter?


texts: Do I need to be rebaptized to take communion in a Catholic Church if I have no proof of my original baptism?

texts:
I was born in a predominantly Catholic country in Latin America and baptized a Roman Catholic, but I have no physical confirmation of my baptism outside of my recollection of my Catholic upbringing (since I was too young to remember the baptism itself). Having not attended Catholic church since leaving home about twenty years ago, will I need to be baptized again or go through the OCIA (Order of Christian Initiation for Adults)?

I attended Anglican church services in the UK and various other church services in other countries, but I have never taken communion at another church. I'm looking to attend a Catholic Church in the states now, but I feel I should ensure that I have all the necessary documentation first.


texts: From a Catholic perspective what does it mean for all creatures to fulfill God's will whether they know and want to or not?

texts:
In the Diary of Saint Faustina, entry (586), Our Lord says---

And know this, too, My daughter: all creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill My will.

I have gone through all 1828 entries of St. Faustina's Diary on multiple occasions and have found no contradictions (save one insignificant date). Therefore, I am convinced of its truth, albeit I am having difficulty understanding what the above quote means.
From a Catholic perspective, what might this mean? For clearly, God does not will the sinner's sin, but rather, permits it (for a greater good, I believe, known to Him. Perhaps this is an answer.)


texts: Did Baptist and Methodists ever believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?

texts:
I recently found references that suggest both Baptists and Methodists used to believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same.  This surprised me because both Baptists and Methodists are Trinitarian and understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God who was never created.  The Bible says that angels are created beings, hence my confusion.  Here are some of the references I found:

From my Morning and Evening devotionals of Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) I found this quote (morning October 3) regarding angels, based on Hebrews 1:14, and speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ:

  “He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon.  All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows.”

From a Spurgeon sermon ‘The Angelic Life’ (22 November 1868) comes this partial quote:

  “Our Lord is called an angel. He is the angel of the covenant...  We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.”

John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9:

  "Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;”

I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus, as the Word of God, was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature who was known in heaven as Michael before he came to earth, and that he is still known in heaven as Michael since his resurrection.  However, this question is not about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although I welcome any modern, up to date insights they might have about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists regarding Jesus and Michael.

This question is specifically about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists NOW, as to whether they believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and, if so, how can this be explained in light of the Trinity doctrine.  I’m not looking for more old quotes, but for up to date information about Baptist and Methodist beliefs on the person of Jesus and if he is also Michael the archangel.

The article 'Who do mainline Protestants believe an “archangel” (such as Michael) to be?' is not specific with regard to what Baptists and Methodists believe about Jesus being Michael the Archangel (or not).


texts: Paying respects during grace, benediction, etc. as a non-Christian?

texts:
I'll make this clear, I'm not Christian, I don't have any religion.  But I respect all forms of religion regardless of what the beliefs may entail.   As a Boy Scout in my younger days I was taught to be reverent and to respect all religions, so I've been curious about this particular quandary I've been in for a bit.

During grace, or benediction, when the speaker makes a prayer (I assume that is what it is) and everyone else is respectingly bowing their heads and closing their eyes (I think this is the right way, correct me if I am wrong), am I in the wrong if I do as everyone else does?  Meaning, as a non-Christian, am I offending Christians if I do what they are doing even if I am not Christian? Is there a way that's okay for me to do as to not disrespect others?


texts: According to Reformed theology, does God show special favor to some believers?

texts:
I am looking for answer from a reformed theology perspective. I know that there are verses in the Bible that God does not show favor. But at the same time there has been many instances where the son was blessed because of the father. In some cases the children are cursed for sins of the father's when the children had not committed any wrong. Their family is put to death.

People quote that all our curses where nailed on the Cross so if we believe in Christ we will be free from these. But the reality in some cases doesn't confirm this. I see that some believers are chosen to suffer all the time for no fault while others in faith are shown favor most of the time. This is more discouraging when it's in the ministry and you don't have any results to show.

It is not encouraging as a child of God, as this is like a human parents favorite child. A child has to learn to trust the Father but is not given a chance. The most common answer I get is you are not praying enough or probably in heaven you will be rewarded. Reality here is some how different from Theology and the question of a righteous God.


texts:
According to the NIV, Mathew 9:20-21:

  Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years
  came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak. She said to
  herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.”

Some websites, such as this and that, claim that the "edge of his cloak" refers to a tzitzit, or traditional Jewish fringes. Is this a reasonable inference based on this passage?


texts: What is meant by 'genuine affective' considering a homosexual relationship?

texts:
In the Catechism of RCC #2357 is written that homosexuals can't have a true affective sexual relationship:

They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity
CCC - 2357

But what is meant by that? I know that it is a sin for them to have sex because there is no sexual complementarity. But why isn't it possible to have genuine affective complementarity?
In my understanding  affection is often associated with a feeling or type of love. But does RCC says that there can't be love between two persons of the same sex?


texts:
Bible shopping...I like to read from the HCSB, but I've seen a number of "types" of Bibles available:

Daily Bible
Devotional Bible
Study Bible
Reference Bible
Thinline Bible

Can someone compare and contrast the types listed, and perhaps suggest a type for my use? I simply want to read the Bible. In big chunks. Uninterrupted by commentary. In large print, no split columns or anything. I want what I would call a "Reading Bible" but popular sites for Bibles don't seem to use that term.

Thanks God bless!


texts: How do these parables explain time in Heaven?

texts:
In many of the parables, Jesus speaks of a time span completing some event.

Examples include:

  Mark 13:34: For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

  Math 25:14: “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. Math 13:33 The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.

  Luke 13:06: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ 8 And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. 9 Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”,

If God is out of time, how is he waiting to return from heaven?


texts: Somebody was born into a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ - could he still "find him"?

texts:
If somebody

a) has no access to the Bible or any other written document on the Christ
and b) has no chance of hearing of "him" through the word of mouth either (because he lives in a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ, for instance), could he still "find the Christ"?

Is there any Christian denomination that would say "yes" and how such a person could "find the Christ"?


texts: Should biblical laws apply to non-Christians?

texts:
Obviously a lot of Christians want to have biblically based laws in the society, in effect requiring everybody to follow biblical morals. But the opposite is also a popular view among Christians: as non-believers are not saved either way, we shouldn't make it our problem whether they sin little or much.

Which is it, and why?


texts: On the crucifix there is sometimes a plate above Jesus' head that has the letters INRI. What does INRI mean or stand for? Why is it there?


texts: When are children held accountable for ther sins?

texts:
There's an interesting topic regarding the salvation of unborn babies that inspired this question.

I believe that babies that die previous to birth go to heaven.  I also believe that young children that die go to heaven as well.

But at what point are children responsible for their sins?  My 2 year old may sin, not knowing it as a sin.  Is she guilty of that sin and will she be held accountable by God?  What about a 5 year old?

The Jewish belief is that they're not accountable until age 13 (thus part of the reason for the bar/bat mitzvah).  Is that really the answer for Christians, though?


texts: Quote like "Anyone can endure an insult but it takes a saint to pass through praise unharmed"

texts: I read this quote several times quickly in unrelated places and didn't take down the reference because I assumed it to be popular enough for me to find it easily through google. Now I can't find it. Does anyone know who said this? I believe it was an Orthodox Christian.


texts: There are bound to be lots of questions like "Is X or Y a sin?". However, what is sin at its root and where in the Bible do we get our understanding of it?


texts:
Many Christian denominations hold the primacy of Peter as doctrine.  That is, they believe that Peter was the most prominent, authoritative, influential, and/or prestigious of the twelve apostles.  Various scriptual arguments are advanced in support of this belief, including Jesus's so-called Selection of Peter (Matthew 16:18) and fact that he is always named first when the apostles are listed.   The Roman Catholic Church bases its claim of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over other bishops on the primacy of Peter.

I am wondering whether, among those denominations that recognize the primacy of Peter, any of them assign a rank to each of the other eleven apostles.  The various listings of the apostles given in the New Testament are not consistent in their ordering, except that Peter is invariably first and Judas Iscariot is always last (if he is mentioned at all).  Do any churches make an explicit statement to the effect of, "Peter is the most important apostle, Andrew the second-most important," and so on for all twelve?  If not, have any prominent theologians from any major denominations (say, the Roman Catholics) argued for such a ranking?


texts: Was man judged at the cross along with Satan and the rebellious Angels?

texts:
In Matthew 5:22 Jesus says that anyone who calls another a fool will be in danger of Hell fire
Matthew 5:22  KJV

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger
of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council:
but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

and in the Revelation Chapter 20:14 it tells us that Death and Hell will be thrown into the lake of fire:
Revelation 20:14  KJV

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Also in the story about Lazarus and the rich man:
Luk 16:22 through 24  KJV

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24  And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Apparently some go to Hell when they die and are tortured by the heat (fire) and at the Great White Throne judgment are then thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:15  KJV

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation chapter says nothing about either Satan, His minions being judged only thrown into the lake of fire.
It does say that the dead are judged but only for their works:
Rev 20:12 and 13  KJV

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Does it seem possible that unbelief is judged along with Satan and his minions at the Cross, and the Great White Throne judgment is for what wrongs they have done on Earth?


texts: How did Luther view 'confessing intentional sins' to a priest for forgiveness?

texts:
The Catholic church at the time of Luther  had refined what they called the sacrament of penance.  It consisted in contrition (genuine remorse for one’s sins), confession (to the priest), and satisfaction (making good, on the priest’s orders, what had been done wrong). Its formal aspect consisted in the absolution given by the priest, while the effective aspect consisted in receiving the forgiveness of sins.. This was typically done in a confessional, a booth where this exchange took place.  Technically, the Priest was only mediating the forgiveness which only Christ provided.

Did Luther have a minor alteration in his view of confession and penance, or a major one after being born again?


texts: In heaven, will everyone be equally special to us (Catholic)?

texts:
It is believed that in heaven, we will have deep and intimate relationships with its every member.

In heaven, will the level of spiritual connection and intimacy shared between everyone be equal ? That is, in heaven, will the level of spiritual connection and intimacy that I share with Sam will be exactly the same as the level of connection and intimacy that I share with Jane?

Or in heaven, will the connection and intimacy between certain members be more stronger than between some other members? For instance, it can be thought that if you were married in your earthly life, the connection and intimacy that is present between you and your earthly spouse will be stronger than that of what you share with other members in heaven; or if you had a very close friend in your earthly life, it seems possible that in heaven, you will have a deeper relationship with that particular friend, compared to your other heavenly relationship.

I am asking this question purely out of my interest in Theology.
Please answer according to Catholic understanding.

Thank you,


texts: How do Christians reconcile Deuteronomy 13:1-4 with their belief in the abrogation of the Mosaic law?

texts:
Deuteronomy 13:1-4 states:

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';

thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus abrogated the Mosaic law (e.g. keeping the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc.) and they no longer feel bound by them. How, then, do they understand the above passage, which states that one may not subtract commandments from the Law, and which seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so?


texts: What do day-age theorists do with "very good" in Genesis 1:31?

texts: I would like to know what day-age theorists do with what God says at the end of creation - that everything was "very good" (Genesis 1:31)?  That is to say, if you look at the fossil record, you see death, disease, cancer, killing, etc.  So how could God say at the end of creation that everything that He had made was very good?


texts:
Which God do Muslims pray to according to Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant tradition?

They believe that God cannot be One and Three at the same time. They believe that God can only be One. They believe that God cannot have a Son equal to Him. Consequently, they believe that God could not have sent His Son (which they believe God doesn't have) to the world to give salvation to those believing into Him (they take Jesus only as a prophet from God). That makes their "God" quite different from Christian God. In fact, if you tell this description of God to any Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant believer, he would tell you that that kind of God does not exist. I know of at least one council that took place in Christian circles (the Orthodox council in 1180) that has declared that "God of Muslims is not the God of Christians, but rather a distorted concept of God created in Muhammad's mind". Perhaps, same declaration might have been made in the Catholic and Protestant camps of main-stream Christianity.

Now, here is my question: if that kind of God does not exist - especially given the fact that there is only One God in this universe - then which God do all Muslims pray to? Of course, we can say that they are praying to a non-existent God, which is not the God, but rather merely their idea of God, their concept of God. Simply put, they are praying into the air, emptiness. At first, this kind of answer looks fine to me, but if you give it a second thought, then you could tell that their description or their concept of God is in fact the same as the concept that some humans (including Jews) had about God before the coming of Christ. Of course, we can discard all the cases of those humans who believed in the existence of many gods, but Muslims believe in the existence of only One God. Does that mean that all people who lived prior to Christ's coming and believed in the existence of only One God also prayed into the air? A case of the Gentile Cornelius comes to my mind who was praying to God and whose "prayers came up for a memorial before God" (Acts 10:4) and the following words of Peter in his regard: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him" (Acts 10:34-35). From this I gather that the Gentile Cornelius did not pray into the air.


texts: Which Person(s) of the Trinity were in Jesus?

texts:
The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one, and God is three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit.) From what I understand the Eternal Son came in human flesh, and we know that resultant man as Jesus of Nazareth. So would it be accurate to say God the Son was operating in a human body as "Jesus"? Were the Father and/or Spirit also in Him?

(I am, of course, looking for answers from a Trinitarian perspective.)


texts: What is Gideon's ephod, and why did he build it?

texts: In the story of Gideon (Judges 6-8), near the end it talks about Gideon building an ephod out of the gold earrings from the spoils of the battle against the Midianites. What is an ephod, and why did gideon build one. Is it significant?


texts: Ruling on eating pork in Christianity as per Bible?

texts: I am  very new to Christanity and so kindly bear with me if my question appears novice. I want to know what is the ruling on eating pork in Christianity as per Bible?


texts: When did the word "Catholic" become a proper noun?

texts:
After reading "At what point did the Roman See start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?" on this site I enjoyed a bit of research into the etymology and meaning of the word "Catholic," and as part of that research read both the article "Yeast," by Jesuit Walter Ong and "'Catholic' Doesn't Mean What You Think It Does" by Daniel Horan.  It has led me to a question.

The word "Catholic" appears to have originally been an adjective, describing the nature of the Kingdom of God on the earth.  I noted its use by Ignatius of Antioch, but though it's easy to assume he only used it as an adjective, it's difficult to discern whether his use was specifically that of an adjective or if the church had already adopted the term as a proper noun.

When, at least for practical purposes, did the word come to be used as a proper noun, identifying any one or more specific organizations?


texts: In which year did Chesterton write the 'I am' (what's wrong with the world) letter?

texts:
In which year G. K. Chesterton wrote the letter with the message?

  Dear Sirs:

  I am.

  Sincerely Yours,

  G. K. Chesterton

This letter was an answer to the question: "What is wrong with the world?".


texts: Does the priest ask for reasons to prevent a marriage during a Catholic wedding?

texts:
In some movies the priest says the following phrase during a wedding: "Whoever is against this marriage should speak now or be silent forever".

Does this tradition exist in the Catholic church (especially in German-speaking parts of Europe)?


texts: Why are there no longer large-scale miracles from God?

texts:
I'll put my frustrations as concisely as I can. I would really appreciate all below points being addressed to some extent.

Why are things not the way they were?

In the old testament, literally millions watched a sea split in two, bread fall from heaven, the earth torn asunder while rebels fell into it, fortress walls crumble on prophetic queue, fire from heaven on more than one occasion, and a number of other miracles (dead raised, axe head floating, leper healed on prophetic queue, etc.) which do not happen anymore...ever.

The prophets of old were legit. They said "x will happen". "x" was very specific and very significant and it was a big deal for their own necks if "x" did not happen. e.g. "Tomorrow the dogs will lick up your blood in this very spot." (somewhere in Kings I think). And boom. It happened. Modern "prophets"? They're panzy and soft. They "prophecy" that "new beginnings will come" and "your family will have a spiritual revival" etc.

I know that Jesus said "the law and the prophets were until John." But why? And why then did John later mention the 2 prophets of revelation (the 2 witnesses)?

Some say that God demands faith and that's just the way it works. We get no "solid proof". But you don't need much faith when a sea is split in two and opens a trail for you, right after a wall of fire spawns itself to separate you from your enemies.

Jesus said "this generation will not be given a sign" when the pharisees asked for one. If I can be frank, Jesus had already given quite a few signs before their request, and after. Voices from heaven, earthquake at crucifixion, dead raised, many many sick healed, transfiguration...

My point is, why has God left the scene of humanity for the past 2000 years, apparently?

It seriously leads one to believe that the ancient stories never happened. But I for one continue in the dilemma because I've researched the Bible quite extensively, and at the least it is quite a legit historical book. The sheer detail in all these stories leads one to believe that they are legit stories. But the sheer absence of such events nowadays leads one to believe they're not.

My struggle would be a lot easier if I watched the Red Sea split in two. You see?

Are we ("this generation", post-Christ) just being subjected to the biggest test of faith in humanity, per Jesus' words, "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on the earth?"

And finally -- I have seen documentaries on modern "miracles". First, they pale in comparison to the above-mentioned, and second, they are highly dubious. They are fluffy and questionable, much like those modern "prophecies".


texts: What is the Biblical basis for believing that it is sinful to commit illegal actions?

texts:
After reading, The Bible seems to allow polygamy. Why doesn't the church? I interpreted the answers to mean (based on the selected answer and votes) that polygamy is a sin because it is illegal.

The most voted answer refutes most arguments against polygamy, admits that the reason why polygamy is illegal stems from pagan tradition, yet concludes that it's a sin anyway because it's illegal.  This brings forth the question: Is something a sin simply because it's illegal?

What is the biblical basis for believing that illegal actions are also sinful?

Edit: A natural implication of Christians being bound to the laws of their country is that if the state tells all Christians or Jews to enter concentration camps, then it is a sin not to enter. Notice that entering a concentration camp may not be a sin at all. Still, I think it's stupid to obey such laws.

Also the state, rather than God, then decides what "marriage" means, as the question I quoted admits. The state prohibits polygamy, even though the Bible doesn't. This means choosing to be governed by others' opinions and whims that have nothing to do with the Bible at all. Whether polygamy is actually a good idea, or can be circumvented or not, is a different issue.

However, to think that it's sin simply because some feminists, or some members of Congress, or perhaps some guy named Bob says it's wrong seems to put men's opinion above God's.

These obviously absurd conclusions make me question whether Christians have any religious reason to bother caring about the State's laws. Secular reasons still apply. For example, we don't want to get caught. We may want a more peaceful society. But are there any reasons beyond secular ones?


texts: Can a Pope elevate a non-heretical yet minority opinion to the level of dogma?

texts:
For example, the empty Hell theory is a relatively recent theological theory that states that Hell is real, but it is empty and will always be empty. There is nothing in this doctrine that conflicts with established church dogma (As far as I know). Nevertheless it is a minority opinion and as I understand it, it faces much opposition.

I'm wondering, is it within the Popes power to take such an obscure and contested opinion and ex cathedra declare it to be a dogma? Or does the Pope first have to consult all the bishops?

I ask this question because I've been thinking about the Arian crisis, which was a situation where the majority of the church denied the trinity and the divinity of Christ (including some Popes and lots of bishops!). In that case it was an ecumenical council which authoritatively declared Trinitarian Orthodoxy, and this was binding, even though at the time almost no one in the church agreed with it and it was a minority view. It took some time for the authoritative decision to permeate the consciousness of the Church and now we have the situation today where the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are considered cornerstone, foundational doctrines of the faith.

So, similar to the Arian situation, would it be possible for a Pope to elevate a non-heretical yet minority position to dogmatic status, even if the majority of the church disagrees? Again, for a concrete example, think of the Empty Hell theory: It's not heretical, but also isn't accepted by the majority of the Church.


texts:
I've watched hundreds of Christian testimonies, and from time to time I come across a few ones where people claim to have heard God's audible voice in certain occasions, for example, because God allegedly gave them instructions, revealed something specific to them, etc. Sometimes they say that it was the Holy Spirit's voice, but for the purposes of this question I count that as God's voice too.
Is this phenomenon supported by Scripture? What is the biblical basis for hearing God's audible voice today?


texts: The Bible does not seem to prohibit slavery (whether using the modern definition or an alternate like "indentured servitude"). Does the Bible explain why it does not prohibit these practices?


texts: Which, if any, of the seven Church Councils viewed as "Ecumenical" by Eastern Orthodox Christians are rejected by the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
I have heard various answers to this question in the blogo- and wiki-spheres, but I would be interested in knowing what has been officially stated by the Roman Catholic Church in Bulls, Encyclicals, canons, etc.

These are the Councils that are viewed as canonical within the Eastern Orthodox Church:

I - 1st Council of Nicea - 325
II - 1st Council of Constantinople - 381
III - Council of Ephesus - 431
IV - Council of Chalcedon - 451
V - 2nd Council of Constantinople - 553
VI - 3rd Council of Constantinople - 680-681
VII - 2nd Council of Nicea - 781

The Eastern Orthodox Church has historically considered the Council of Trullo in 692 as an extension of the 6th Ecumenical Council and I understand that this is disputed by the Roman Catholic Church, so I would also be interested in the official Roman Catholic position on this council.

I am not looking for private opinions expressed by Roman Catholic clerics or hierarchs, even if consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine.  I would like to know the official, stated position of the Vatican.


texts:
In Mark 10:32 it says

  32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went
  before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were
  afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what
  things should happen unto him,...

and got my attention that Disciples were afraid of something and cant figure out what they were afraid of?


texts: Have there been any high-profile converts from Catholicism back to high-church traditions?

texts: There are several high-profile "defectors" (tongue-in-cheek!) or converts from high-church traditions (such as Anglicanism) to Roman Catholicism.  I am thinking in particular of G. K. Chesterton and John Henry Newman.  Are there any corresponding conversions from Roman Catholicism (or another Orthodox/Catholic tradition) to a high-church Protestant tradition, in the last two hundred years or so? (thus excluding the Protestant Reformation itself!)


texts: Athanasian Creed article 6, meaning of "the glory equal"

texts:
In the Athanasian Creed, article 6, we read:

  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

Does the wording of this article mean that there are 3 different and personal glories and majesties which are all equal as opposed to one majesty shared by the 3 Persons?


texts: Bible evidence in favour of creationism?

texts: I need this sort of information to talk about creationism with an agnostic friend of mine. I know about the passages in Genesis, naturally, but I heard there are some more in the book of Job, somewhere. Also, I believe there are some other passages about creation I certainly haven't heard about.


texts: What is the process of conversion to Orthodoxy from Anglicanism/Catholicism

texts:
I require information for a fiction piece that I am writing, due to the fact that I've never converted to Orthodoxy, as I was baptized Orthodox
What is the process of conversion from Anglicanism or Catholicism to Orthodoxy?  Is it as simple as the priest anointing the new member?  Or is it classes and such, then Chrismation.
Note: The people in my fiction piece would have been originally baptized in the name of the Trinity
Also note, the Orthodox Church that the people will be converting to is Ukrainian Orthodox or ROCOR


texts: Who were the Sons of God who seem to have begat the Nephilim?

texts: Genesis 6:1--4 tells about the "sons of God" marrying whomsoever they pleased, and the Nephilim---"the heroes of old, men of renown"---were begotten then. How is this to be interpreted?


texts: Is there a "Reina-Valera" only movement?

texts: I'm aware of the King James (KJV) only movement, but is there also a similar movement for the Spanish Reina-Valera (RVR) bible? My father, who is Puerto Rican, told me that RVR-onlyers were a thing.


texts: What does Eastern Orthodox Christians mean that the Father alone is the one God?

texts:
What does Eastern Orthodox Christians mean that the Father is the one God?
I understand that Eastern Orthodox Trinitarianism differs from Unitarianism in that the former teaches three divine persons of the same substance (ομοουσιος).

Why is it that the "one God" is numerically identical to the Father?

Why don't Eastern Orthodox Christians also confess that the three persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - together "are one God" like the Athanasian Creed does?

Why do Eastern Orthodox Christians do not call the Son "one God" if he is "of the same substance with the Father" as the Nicene Creed says?

What does Eastern Orthodoxy mean that the Father alone is the one God?

"We Orthodox Christians, following Scripture and the credal statements and the liturgical prayers, can never say there is one God who is the Trinity. There is one God who is the Father, and this one God who is the Father has with him eternally, whom he begets timelessly before all ages, his only-begotten Son, who is also his Logos, his Word, and also his Ḥokmot, his Sophia, his Wisdom, also his Eikona, his Icon, his Image. Whether we think of the one Person of the Father, who is never devoid of his Son and Spirit, whether we think of the one divinity—and here we should notice, by the way, that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the term “Triune God” is not a traditional formula. In fact, I believe you never find it in any liturgical prayer ever, the expression “Triune God.” You find the expression “Tri-Personal, tri-Hypostatic divinity,” “Theotēs” in Greek, “Bozhestvo” in Slavonic, but not “Theos” or “Bog.” There is no tri-Personal Theos, God. There is the one Theos, kai Patera, the one God and Father: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty…” That’s the one God. But then that one God is Father eternally with his Son, who is God from God, and with his Holy Spirit. (source:https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_holy_trinity)


texts: What is the difference between the Eastern and Western views of the one essence/substance of the Godhead?

texts: The philosophical metaphysics used by the Eastern and Western church's seem to be heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle, respectively. How does this affect each's theology of the substance/essence in the Godhead?