texts: Is swearing (making an oath) considered bad in Christianity?

texts:
My Catholic friend and I were chatting once and I said something along the lines of "I swear I'm not lying". She asked me to promise to her and not to swear since it's discouraged in her religion. I asked the reason and she just said that's what the church told her.

Is this claim true? Is swearing discouraged in Christianity? If so, why?

It may help to know that I was swearing to God that I was not lying. Is this allowed in Christianity, or is it appropriate only for important situations?


texts: Was "eye for an eye" law in the O.T. imperative or only permissive?

texts:
Was "eye for an eye" law in the O.T. permissive or imperative in its nature?

What I mean here is that if somebody took my eye in that time and I were one of the Israelites, then I could have taken his eye too in an act of revenge, and later I would have no feeling of guilt as according to the law it would have meant that I had acted righteously, i.e. according to the law.

However, what if I failed to act in that way (for example, I was physically very weak and I just couldn't go to my offender and take his eye, or let's say I was simply a coward), would it be then considered that I didn't act according to the law? Would I then be considered a violator of the law? If not, then this law is only permissive, if yes, then the law is imperative.


texts: Does Christianity have any dietary guidelines?

texts:
Based solely on recollection from my childhood religious education, I understand that by Christian doctrine (regarding a vision/revelation Peter had), Jesus fulfilled the law and so the Jewish dietary laws (kosher) are not required to be followed anymore.

How fully does this apply?  Do Christians get any "kudos" by eating kosher?  I understand that salvation would have nothing to do with it, but is it considered a "good work" anyway for whatever that's worth?  Do any other dietary suggestions/guidelines/laws apply to Christians?


texts: Why do translations use words like "servants" to mean "slaves"?

texts:
Luke 12:45-48 uses the word "servants". What kind of servants get beaten up by their master?

That looks a lot like slaves to me. We have an English word for that thing. It's called slaves. So why use servants? Servants are employees that got paid. Slaves are properties that got beaten up.

Does the Bible translator bowdlerize the Bible to keep it politically correct?


texts: Any instructions given by contemporary prominent preachers on how to receive the gift of tongues?

texts: Is there any method/instruction given by prominent preachers recently on how to receive the gift of tongues? Some specific way of prayer, some specific steps to follow, what kind of attitude is required and so forth?


texts: Are Christians allowed to practice Eastern martial arts?

texts:
I know some people, Christians, who study Eastern martial arts. They explain this by saying that they do not practice the spiritual aspects of karate or kung-fu; but they use only the physical component of martial arts (i.e., they study it as gymnastics).

The spiritual component of Eastern martial arts can be substituted with prayer to God.


texts: What's God's justification of not allowing the choice of personal annihilation?

texts:
Question: God is just, so what would be God's justification according to the Bible of Not allowing the choice of annihilation of yourself if you found out Jesus actually never knew you after death?

This question is in my Baptist church view

This is so you would not be in complete doom and torment for eternity in hell. In Baptist and many other dominations you get once chance on Earth to repent and that's it. Then you either go to heaven for eternity or hell for eternity.

The reason I ask this is I don't see how someone can be 110% sure they are saved on this Earth unless something miraculous happened such as an angel coming down and telling me I'm permanently saved for example. (I need 110% confirmation if I'm ever to have peace and depression removal).
Also, you have no choice in being born. The decision of being born is by your two parents (conception) so it's not your own choice. I also don't believe in Calvinism (So I don't believe God creates most of the worlds people just to allow them to be in torment for eternity).  Matthew 7:13

(Post was Edited to give a more unique Question so it's not similar to: "Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire?")


texts: Was it Jewish or Gentile Christians fed to lions and tigers, and did that influence the contention that developed between Jewish and Gentile Christians?


texts: Why isn't supralapsarianism's first decree to create?

texts:
From Wikipedia

  Supralapsarians believe that God chose which individuals to save
  logically prior to the decision to allow the race to fall and that the
  Fall serves as the means of realization of that prior decision to send
  some individuals to hell and others to heaven (that is, it provides
  the grounds of condemnation in the reprobate and the need for
  salvation in the elect).

Also from wikipedia Logical order of God's decree

  Save some and condemn others

  Create the elect and the reprobate

  Authorize the Fall (by which all deserve to be condemned)

  Provide salvation only for the elect

In my understanding - "to save and to condemn" need a preceding logical order (in mind) that there must be something to save and to condemn.

The question : why the logical order in Supralapsarian like 1, 2, 3 above ?
Isn't that the proper logical order is (in the mind) to (1) have something plural (create), and then the next order (2) want/will from those something plural, some are saved and some are condemned, and then (3) choose/elect which names that are saved and which names that are condemned.

Another source from  this link:

  the election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
  the decree to create the world and both kinds of men
  the decree that all men would fall
  the decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ
  the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to these elect sinners

Can someone please explain how to elect something when there is nothing to be elected ? Wouldn't it we need number zero (0) in our mind there is Cain Abel Esau Jacob Mary Josef Moses Abraham Judas etc etc etc. Then next thing is (1) I want Cain Esau Judas to be in hell and I want Mary Josef Moses Jacob Abraham to be with me.

Thank you.


texts: According to Trinitarians, why does Jesus glorifying himself amount to nothing?

texts:
John 8:54-55 has Jesus saying

"“If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who
glorifies me, he of whom you say, ‘He is our God,’ though you do not
know him. But I know him; if I would say that I do not know him, I
would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word."

For unitarians, this makes sense - Jesus is a man, the Father is God, and so what is important about Jesus is that the Father (= God) glorifies Jesus, not that Jesus might glorify himself.
For Trinitarians, why would Jesus, who is God, glorifying himself be 'nothing'?


texts: According to LDS theology, did God create the world ex nihilo?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  According to the Mormon doctrines, who created the universe?

I was listening to a story on NPR about Mormon business ethics, when the claim was made that according to the LDS church, God did not create the world out of nothing, but rather out of chaos.  Is this understanding correct?

Along with this, I understand there is a claim that men and women can become like God as well.  How do these two relate? Is it understood that Mormons can actually speak their own universes into existence?


texts: Noun for a person who believes in ordinances?

texts: A person who believes in sacraments is a "sacramentalist".  Is there a noun for a person who believes in church ordinances instead of sacraments?  "Non-sacramentalist" seems odd, as well as too broad in scope.  Thanks!


texts: Both Torah and the Old Testament relate to Jews. How different or similar is Torah and the Old Testament of Bible?


texts:
According to Deuteronomy 7:6, the Israelites are called the "chosen people". Who in fact are the chosen people, and does this include Christians?

What sets the chosen people apart, are there special rights or honors that go with this title?


texts: According to Protestants, what is the lesson being taught by scripture when God killed so many men for looking into the Ark?

texts:
Many people find a short passage in the Old Testament to be both disturbing and very peculiar; that being 1st Samuel 6:19,

  and He (God) smote (killed) the men of Beth-she-mesh, because they
  had looked into the Ark of the Lord, even He smote of the people
  50,070 men.

The disturbing question is why God would kill so many men for simply looking into the Ark.  It seems to be a very peculiar thing to do.  One thing is obvious, God is using this event and recording it in His Word as a historical parable. A teaching lesson with a spiritual meaning.

What is that meaning?

I am not attempting to ask God's motivation for killing these men; but I am asking, what God is teaching through this story?  Are there different interpretations of this lesson between the different denominations of Christianity?


texts: Is the light that is created on the first day the sun?

texts: I am in the process of doing a thorough read and examination of the bible in chronological order for the new year and was pondering if the light God created in Gen. 1:3 was the same light given by the sun created in Gen. 1:16. Genesis 1:3 quotes "And God said 'Let there be light,' and there was light." giving evening and morning to the first day, while Gen. 1:16 explains "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night"(NIV) clearly referring to the sun and moon, but if the sun was created on the 4th day then what was the light made on the 1st? I know the bible has a tendency to jump back and forth given that later on it explains the creation of man and women, then goes back to the creation of Adam before Eve in Gen. 2:7, so is this what is happening in Gen. 1:3 and Gen. 1:16?


texts: Are St. Maximilian Kolbe's writings available in English?

texts:
St. Maximilian Kolbe was known for printing his pamphlets in the years leading up to World War II.  Reportedly, he had some very interesting musings on relativity, the speed of light  and Christ's redemptive power.

I can't find any of his works in English (or Polish for that matter), although I read his quotes now and again.  I've never seen an actual book or collection of writings written by him.

Is there a published collection of his works available anywhere?


texts: Why has God punished every human for one person's sin?

texts:
God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden because Eve ate the fruit that God told her not to. And this let evil into the world. If God loves everyone, so much so that he let his son die for us, then why has every subsequent human and animal had to live and deal with the result of evil?

How does the Bible explain this, given that it says God is just?


texts: Is the genealogy in Matthew a complete Genealogy, or did he abreviate it for a specific reason?

texts:
The genealogy in Matthew 1 lists the names in 3 groups - From Abraham to David, David to the Exile, The Exile to Jesus.

I'm just interested to know is this a complete family history for Jesus, or is it done "poetically" so that there are 14 generations in each group?

Is Matthew trying to highlight something to his Jewish readers by pointing out there are 14 generations between each event?


texts: From the Baptist perspective: Does Leviticus 20:13 prove that God is advocating for the murder of homosexuals?

texts:
Just to clarify, so we don't get any wrong ideas here. I am a baptist. I believe that faith in Jesus Christ ALONE will save you from death and that baptism isn't necessary for salvation. I study the KJV, although I acknowledge the MEV, NKJV, and ESV as legitimate translations of the Bible.

About a week ago, an acquaintance and I were having a discussion about God and about my faith in Jesus Christ. He was trying to find reasons to prove to me that God was not the loving almighty father that I believed him to be. He used the verse Leviticus 20:13:

  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

to try and prove to me that God advocates for the murder of homosexuals. I told him it was untrue and after that my argument kind of fell apart. I didn't really know what to tell him without confusing him and proving his point. I told him I needed to study up on this and come back to him with a better answer.

I'm asking this because this passage has me incredibly confused. In the passage, God is giving the law to Moses so that the Israelites know what to do and what not to do. the Bible constantly refers to this as the Law of Moses. In the book of Romans, Paul goes on to say that the law is no longer relevant and that God freed us from the law when he died on the cross for us.

My question is this: is God advocating for the murder of homosexuals? And, how do I counter this argument without confusing the lost person that I'm debating with.


texts: Why is the Notre Dame Cathedral not a Major Basilica?

texts: The April, 2019 fire brought the Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris into limelight all across the world. It is said to be home to many important relics including the Crown of Thorn traditionally believed to have been worn by the Lord on the cross. My question is: Why has the Catholic Church not extended the status of a Major Basilica to Notre Dame Cathedral ?


texts:
It's a debate that atheists seem to thrive on. Fact vs. Faith.

Personally, I believe in a co-existence of the two, but I'm interested in what the Bible has to say about us learning about our environment and explaining His creations rather than accepting them as they are.

Does the Bible say anything about science?

EDIT:
I know that the bible does not directly use the word "science." Even though it didn't, it still discussed the idea of gathering knowledge and learning about things outside of Christianity... As many of your answers have indicated.


texts: Is thinking of God as a Loving Father specific to Christianity?

texts:
I was looking to respond to someone who sent me a Christopher Hitchens video saying that nothing would be different if Jesus never existed and I was thinking of all the ways this is dead wrong.  One of those ways was that Jesus taught to address God in Heaven in our prayers as "Our Father".  This may have been foreshadowed in the OT, as far as I know it was never made explicit until Jesus did so.

So for the purposes' of apologetics, can I say concretely that the idea of God as a loving Father is specific to Christianity?


texts:
With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question:

According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?


texts: According to the LDS Church (Mormons), how specifically did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?

texts: As I understand it, the LDS Church teaches that the Book of Mormon was written on gold plates in a language called "Reformed Egyptian".  According to the LDS Church, what did Joseph Smith use and how exactly did he translate the Book of Mormon?


texts: Does Catholicism teach a physical 'New Earth' or is it only a state of mind?

texts:
In my Catholic catechism classes, I have always heard that a Christian's ultimate aim is to reach heaven with the Lord and that heaven is not a physical place but a state of mind.

But in Revelation chapter 21, and also in some places of Old Testament, it is said that God will make a New Earth (or reform this corrupted earth so that, essentially, it's a new earth).

Is that where humans are finally destined to be?

Is that going to be a physical place just as this earth?

What is the Catholic Perspective on these questions?


texts: Understanding Trinity, is the belief that each Person has independent Will?

texts:
In the trinity the belief is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the holy ghost is God.

The Father is a Person, and Son is a Person, and the holy Ghost is a Person.

And they all always existed, no beginning to any of the Persons.

Co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal.

Now is the understanding that they have independent Will?

Luke 22:42 | Bible Hub

  Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will,
  but yours be done

If they have different Will's, how can they still yet be All-Powerful?

Have they ever had different Will's?

Example when Jesus was in such distress and was calling out 'Why have your forsaken me' it would seem obvious his Will was to be saved?

What I am trying to get at is, if indeed they have different Will's, one of the Person's will want to overcome the other.

Interested to hear what theologians have said regarding this matter as it seems to be logically you can't get around this issue.

If you say that they don't have independant Will, then they are not All-Powerful.

Example:

Jesus wants A, Father wants B. Jesus wants to do what the Father pleases (B), and the Father wants to do what Jesus pleases (A). So do they choose A or B? And whenever either of them submits to anothers Will that would make them not having the attribute of All-Powerful.

It becomes more complicated when you bring in the 3rd Person.
Jesus wants A, the Father wants B and the holy ghost wants C.  Now they all have to agree before doing something, and have to agree who will be submitted their will and forgoing their attribute of All-Powerful.


texts: How can God be three Persons when He is defined by thousands of singular personal pronouns, which define ONE Person?


texts: Why do religious people find it hard to accept that you don't need religion to have a good moral code?

texts: Just curious why some religious people think that without god there is only evil. Why can't a person without a religion be a good person, sometimes even better than some religious people?


texts: What is the cross in the mantra "carry your own cross"?

texts:
Why did Jesus carry the cross and why did he say that everyone should take up their own cross?
And what is the cross anyway?


texts: According to Catholicism, what are angels and what are they for?

texts:
I am a Roman Catholic and believe in angels, so I would like to know more about angels and their characteristics. It would be very useful if answers are related with biblical comparisons.

What is an angel?
What is their purpose?
Where they will be?
How many are there?
What do they look like (a spirit/physical body)?


texts: Is Baptism of a child still valid if one of the pouring during baptism misses?

texts:
In the Rite of Baptism for one Child the Celebrant when baptizing the child, says and does:

  N., I baptize you in the name of the Father,

  He immerses the child or pours water upon it.

  and of the Son,

  He immerses the child or pours water upon it a second time.

  and of the Holy Spirit.

  He immerses the child or pours water upon it a third time.

The question: Is the baptism still valid if as the Celebrant pours the water each of the three times on the child, one of the pourings does not make contact with the child (and the miss was noticed on home video after the ceremony was conducted or perhaps was noticed by the family but for whatever reason, they did not presume it was their place to bring this to the attention of the Celebrant)?


texts: What is the minimum amount of action required to get in to heaven?

texts:
I've had this discussion with a number of my Christian friends, and have never managed to get a definitive answer. There may not be just one, but I'd like some scriptural backings for each opinion, please. (This is my first question on here, and apologies if it's a bit too broad a topic without a definitive answer. I really hope there is one.)

Some friends say that you need to be attending church regularly, praying, repenting, and being seen to "make an effort" to practice the Christian teachings every day, in every decision, etc.

Whereas others say that all you need to do is accept Christ as your saviour, and believe that the way to heaven is through him, whether or not you choose to then live your life in a "Christian manner" after that.

Are the former being too strict on themselves?
Are the latter looking for an "easy way out" in allowing them to lead a life of sin?


texts: Which Christian Churches today teach that a Christian should not pursue a highest post in the state?

texts: Which Christian Churches today teach that a Christian should not pursue a highest post in the state (like president, chancellor, prime minister, etc.)


texts: Why does Mosaic Law insist on primogenitur even when the dad despises the first born son's mother?

texts:
If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.
  (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

Why does the writer assume that like or dislike of the wife will map neatly to like or dislike of the son? In my experience and reading, this is not necessarily the case.

In case you're wondering, the line he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked does, in fact, strongly imply that he is expected to wish to do this. Otherwise, the regulation prohibiting it would not be necessary.


texts: Can a diocesan priest become a missionary? Can he demand it? Does he need consent from his bishop (I know he can become a religious without consent)?.


texts: Comparison of Age of Earth according to Biblical theories

texts:
I Have read that according to Biblical references the age of earth is 6000 years. Even if you quote Young Earth Creationism they too will give only 10,000 years old.

While in different belief like Hinduism, the age of the earth is comparable to that arrived to by contemporary scientific cosmology. Doesn't this imply the notion that the Bible isn't perfect at all?


texts: Does the Catholic Church recognize any marriages performed by a Justice of the Peace

texts:
Does the Catholic Church recognize a marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace?

I (Kathy) am a widow and have met a Episcopalian man (Dana) who is divorced but never married in any Church.  We were told, no problem...until tonight when we were told that if Dana's former wife was also Episcopalian that the Catholic church recognizes the marriage as valid even though it was performed by a Justice of the Peace ...BECAUSE....the Episcopalian Church recognizes marriages performed by a Justice of the Peace.

Then, to make it even more confusing, we were told that if Dana's former wife was Catholic then the Catholic Church would NOT recognize it...BUT...wouldn't the Episcopal Church recognize that marriage?

Following the logic, then the Catholic Church would equally recognize it?  Now, the real kicker is that she never practised any religion and never did Dana as an adult.  But he is a good man and he is in the RCIA program and we want to live a good Catholic life but, without him getting an annulment, we can't marry in the Church...according to what we have been told.

Please advise if what we have been told is true.


texts: What were the findings of the Acts Seminar?

texts: The Seminar on Acts of the Apostles sat for ten years until 2011, examining the Acts of the Apostles. What were its main findings and how were they arrived at?


texts: How and when did the water come into being?

texts:
In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the waters.

So this is before creation, so where does water come from? why it exist before the first day? And if there is face of water, there seems to me should be some gravity somewhere, what's the stage of universe at this time?


texts: Was it a miracle of God that the Jews incriminated themselves and their children in the blood of Jesus?

texts:
The Bible said that the Jews as a whole accepted the guilt of killing Jesus and declared guilty themselves and their descendants:

  "When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a
  riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the
  crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that
  yourselves.' And all the people said, 'His blood shall be on us and on
  our children!'" -Matt. 27:24-25

It seems highly incredible that a single person (not to say the whole people) would take responsibility of the lawful execution of somebody they perceived as blasphemist, not to say accept responsibility to their own children.

Do Christians perceive this episode as a God's miracle?


texts: What verses from the Bible claim that Jesus has justified and redeemed man by his sacrifice on a cross?


texts: What is the difference in doctrine between the Pentecostal church and the Assemblies of God church?

texts: I attend an AG church and am told the AG churches are Pentecostal, but a distinction is drawn between AG and Pentecostal. What's the doctrinal difference?


texts:
What passages of Scripture were used by the popes and crusaders to justify the Crusades?

I am specifically interested what the individuals that were contemporary to the crusades were saying. For the purpose of this question, I am only interested in arguments based in Scripture.


texts: When did the angel archetype change from masculine to feminine?

texts:
Throughout the bible, angels typically appear as men or a masculin form. They're often described as warriors, engaging in battle.

(Source)

However, in modern, generally Western (or at least American) culture, angels are thought of as feminine figures, often portrayed by women (or Victoria Secret models).

(Source)

When (about) did this change occur?

I realize this may not be a very well-developed question (please, feel free to modify/enhance it), but I think I'm on to something here - even if it is merely a curiosity.

I get the feeling that one of the reasons for angels being thought as feminine has something to do with the New Age movement and their concept (and often worship of) Guardian Angels, but it's just a gut feeling or sorts.


texts: How is the "perpetual" excommunication of Acacius by Felix III currently understood in Catholicism?

texts:
Around AD 485, the patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, was excommunicated by Pope Felix III, in a dispute over both theology and authority.  This excommunication, however, seems unique in that it was said to be "perpetual," as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

  Acacius was branded by Pope Felix as one who had sinned against the Holy Ghost and apostolic authority (Habe ergo cum his . . . portionem S. Spiritus judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus); and he was declared to be perpetually excommunicate — nunquamque anathematis vinculis exuendus. (source)

Wikipedia further indicates that Acacius was "irrevocably excommunicated," though I'm not sure if that's an accurate characterization, particularly in light of the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on excommunication, which does not seem to address the concept of a "perpetual" excommunication.  After reviewing that article, I can conceive of a few ways that the perpetual excommunication of Acacius could be understood:

That this excommunication was simply a "reserved" excommunication, one that could only be absolved by the Pope, and the "perpetual" was an indication of the Pope's confidence that absolution would not be sought or given.
That this excommunication was of a special category not described in the CE, and that it truly was irrevocable, without any possibility of absolution.

If so, does this special category continue to exist today?

That Wikipedia and I misunderstand the term "perpetual" in this context and thus this isn't actually any different from many other excommunications (perhaps the adjective simply means "perpetual until absolution")

How does Catholicism today understand this excommunication of Acacius by Pope Felix?  Was it truly "irrevocable," and if so, can such excommunications be pronounced today?


texts: Why does the Fifth Ode (Prayer of Isaiah) begin at verse 9 and end at verse 20?

texts: Ode 5 in the LXX Book of Odes, and in the canon at Byzantine Orthros/Matins, starts at Isaiah 26:9. Why does it skip the first nine verses which open with the introduction making it clear the whole chapter is a song? (‘In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city (etc.)’) And why are the last two/three verses of the chapter not sung?


texts: What is the Jehovah's Witness official viewpoint of 12-step programs like AA?

texts: I've been meeting with a Jehovah's Witness lately for some study. I've asked questions similar to this and not received a clear/official answer - just an opinion. I've searched Google and only found the opinions and experiences of Witnesses who secretly use AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) or ex-Witnesses sharing their ideas. From those stories I think I have an idea of what the answer is, but I'm wondering what the official stance is (and why) if one exists.


texts: Why would Catholics believe that being kind to one's father will bring reparation for sins?

texts:
Sirach 3:12-14 tells us:

  12 My child, support your father in his old age, do not grieve him
  during his life.

  13 Even if his mind should fail, show him sympathy, do not despise him
  in your health and strength;

  14 for kindness to a father will not be forgotten but will serve as
  reparation for your sins.

From a Protestant perspective (Protestants who hold to the Apostle's Creed, for instance), verse 14 goes against everything in scripture because it teaches that you can do a good deed and it will take care of your sins. But only God can forgive sins.

But Sirach is part of the Catholic canon as inspired by God. Do Catholics believe that a Catholic in good standing can do good to one's father as noted in Sirach and have his sins forgiven, or have I misunderstood the "reparation" part of this verse?


texts: Is there a difference between theology and apologetics?

texts:
I've heard that it all has to do with knowing the right audience. Perhaps, if the audience be Christian, it would be labelled as "theology", and if the audience is non-Christian, it would be labelled as "apologetics". So, apologetics might be just Christian theology re-packaged to a non-Christian audience.

(There is this book by R.C. Sproul, and I suspect that he is writing to a Christian audience by his usage of "we", making it sound like an ordinary textbook or handbook on theology. However, the term "we" can be re-interpreted as "the author and other orthodox Calvinists", making it sound like proselytism. Either way, it is clear that R.C. Sproul is writing with a specific purpose: to persuade the reader his own view of God, the Holy Trinity, or the Holy Spirit. And if the reader buys it, believes it, is changed by his writing, then he'd fulfill his purpose as a writer. Writing is an art. An art of persuasion.)


texts: The Lds Prophet Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe in God, the eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

texts:
The Bible also teaches God is eternal. Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou are God." And in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 1:17, Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen"
Yet Joseph Smith contradicts not only the Bible but his own words from his first article of faith.
""We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will now refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...he was once a man like us... (Smith, Teaching of the Prophet, pp. 345,346.)
So how does the Lds church reconcile/justify this "glaring" contradiction?


texts: What are common criticisms against using the KJV?

texts: I know that many people and churches prefer using translations other than the KJV. Why? What are the common criticisms against it?


texts: Who tells us that the whole Bible is inspired?

texts:
I understand the inspiration concept, but I don't understand how to consider a quote if it's inspired from God [then we consider it God's Words],  or if it explanations by the the apostle or prophet?

Is there any verse in the Bible says that the whole Bible is inspired, and not absolute-human-talk?


texts: How similar was the resurrected body of Jesus to his physical human body?

texts:
Different Christian denominations have differing theologies of the resurrection: what it means for us, how it happened, and so on. What do the main bodies of Christian belief (Orthodox, Catholic, "mainline" Protestant) have to say, if anything, about Jesus' resurrected body, compared with the human body he had in his lifetime? Did he sleep? Did he grow tired? Did he get hungry? Did he have to defecate?

This passage from Luke seems to say that Jesus had flesh and bones, was hungry, and ate food, and this question assumes all those things are to be taken literally.

  Luke 24:36-43 ESV As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

Again, I'm looking for an overview of beliefs from major Christian denominations; answers can be based on Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Church Fathers, or whatever each denomination uses to construct its fundamental beliefs.


texts: Do Mormons secretly pray about you and then consider you included in their church?

texts:
I met two men on the street who were Mormons. We had a nice discussion and they gave me their book with a bookmark pointing to a verse in it.

Later that day I met with my friend and he said I shouldn't have accepted anything from them because this is the way how they include you in their church. They pray quietly the prayer of acceptance over you without your knowledge.

Do Mormons secretly include you in the Church?

How much of this is true? What is the process of one to be accepted in LDS Church?


texts: Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?

texts: Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) and at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?


texts: When was the formal title of Pope first officially bestowed on the Bishops of Rome?

texts:
I’ve read conflicting claims about who the first Pope was. I read this question in a newspaper - "Was Boniface the first true Pope?" Boniface I (418-22) was spoken of as a pope, but so were his predecessors, Zosimus (417-418) and Innocent I (401-17). Was it not Damasus (366-384) who made the theory about Peter an essential part of papal doctrine? He was the first pope to refer consistently to the church of Rome as the 'apostolic see' and to address bishops of other churches as 'sons; rather than as 'brothers'.

The answer given by Dr. Ahmes L. Pahor, Birmingham, to that newspaper question was, "While Siricius (384-399) is thought to have been the first Bishop of Rome to style himself Pope, he is not the first to have used the title. This appears to have originated in the East, in Alexandria, one of the main four seats of patriarchs at the time. Heraclas, Bishop of Alexandria (231-247), appointed 22 bishops to oversee Egypt, apart from Alexandria, his own diocese. He needed to take this action as the Egyptians turned to Christianity in great numbers and there was a need to have other bishops to help Heraclas administer the ever-growing Coptic Church. The Alexandrians saw Heraclas as 'father of the fathers' or 'papa', and thus the title 'pope' was bestowed on him by his congregation in the first half of the third century (about 150 years before Siricius)."

However, I read elsewhere that Pope Damasus took the title "Supreme Pontiff" in 380, for the first time. Yet I understand Catholics say that St. Miltiades was named Pope on 2 July 311, and Marcellinus (who died 304) was also called Pope. I’m just so confused as to when the title of Pope was bestowed, but not retrospectively.

Please note, I’m NOT asking about the title of Bishop of Rome.

Is there any recorded evidence as to when the title of Pope (papa) was bestowed upon, and publicly acknowledged by, the Bishops of Rome?  I’ve searched high and low on Catholic web sites, but although all the Bishops of Rome are referred to as Pope, I want to know when this became a distinctive title of the Bishops of Rome.  A complete list of all 266 Popes can be found here: The List of Popes.


texts: Is salvation acheived by faith alone, or does it in fact require some works?

texts:
I was raised a Lutheran, and am looking for an answer from someone (like a Lutheran) who believes in salvation by grace alone (by faith alone, etc.). I still believe in salvation by faith alone because much of the New Testament seems to indicate this (John 3:16, Romans 3:28, 1 Corinthians 3:11, etc), but I am wondering how we rationalize these words of Jesus (below) and how they can be reconciled with the 'faith alone' philosophy. They seem to explicitly state that one 'must do the will of the father' in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (have salvation, right?).

Jesus said, in Matt 7:21-23
(NASB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a] miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’


texts: Have any Christian denominations publicly raised concerns about the Catholic Jerusalem Bible?

texts:
I have been reading through the Catholic Jerusalem Bible and have found a lot of pleasure in the copious footnotes and the surprisingly readable text. However I am aware that there are some issues, particularly in that the Dead Sea Scrolls are only lightly referenced since they were still largely unavailable at that time, and the number of "corrections"  that have been added in footnotes is rather large, particularly in the Old Testament. I have asked on Biblical Hermeneutics about specific translation issues.

While most of the corrections seem minor1, it seems the prolificty of minor corrections could raise concerns about its value as a Study Bible in the Christian community. Have any particularly denominations raised this as a concern? Overall, how well received and how widely used is it?

1 Consider JB 2 Kings 8:18, which has the footnote "j. 'from the family' corr.; 'daughter' Hebr."  This is a benign and obvious emendation.


texts:
I live in a very atheistic land. People hate religion because the main religion in my province has abused the people. Thus sometimes when I speak to friends and coworkers I present Hell as follows.

We have been designed to love (worship) God and find our joy in Him. Heaven is where we get to love Him perfectly and enjoy Him perfectly. But a non-believer does not want to love God or enjoy Him. The non-believer wants to be God for himself.

So if heaven is the place where God is at the center and all our attention is turned towards Him, it would go against the desire of the unbeliever's heart for God to send him to heaven. So if a person goes through life rejecting God, Hell is the place where God does not intervene (no common grace). Then does God offer the object of desire of the rebel heart?

I understand that Hell is a punishment, but does this explanation of Hell fit with the biblical teaching?


texts: How should a Christian evaluate whether a particular action a sin or not?

texts:
Since they are directly addressed in the Ten Commandments, most people agree that committing adultery or murder is sin; yet this world is a complicated place full of things that are not so clearly addressed. Some traditions believe using electricity or wearing pants are sins, others do not go so far.

What guidelines can a Christian use to evaluate whether a specific action is sinful or not?


texts: Crucified for false accusation, how did Jesus' death turned into a redemptive sacrifice for our sins?

texts:
In the OT God provided a way for His people to redeem their sins through burnt offering and sacrifices. In a way to demonstrate His grace and love for His people, and to give a glimpse of His salvation plan.

The circumstances in which Jesus was crucified is not as an offering to redeem anyone's sin. Instead it was intended as a punishment although for false accusations.
How did Jesus' death on the cross turned out to become a sacrifice to redeem sins?

While on the cross Christ pleaded the Father to forgive us. Then the whole of mankind's sins was on Him and the Father forsook Him. Am I right to say that, at that moment, through the Son's pleading, Son of God (God Himself) deomonstrates His great love. And in the act of shielding God's wrath Jesus took upon Himself the sins of all men. And the crucifixion becomes a redemptive sacrifice?

So, though intended to be a punishment under man's law, Jesus, the trinity God made Himself a sacrificial lamb and die on the cross?


texts:
Similar to the question Does the right side have a higher status than the left?

Not having much knowledge on Christianity in order to jot down the actions as in the above mentioned question.

Does the right side take a higher status, preference or position in terms of positivity than the left?

If so, why?

Examples of different action rendered with/on both sides exemplifying their difference would be appreciated.


texts: How do you "Convert" somebody to Christianity?

texts:
A highly debated topic I know. There are hundreds of answers for this, but I would personally like to know what the Bible says about this.

If somebody was interested in being saved, what is my responsibility as a disciple of Christ to do?


texts: Did the Saints commit mortal sin sometimes?

texts:
Does the Catholic tradition record if some saints committed mortal sin from time to time during their holy life or after conversion?

There are many saints who converted and lived their lives in the state of grace. I'd like to know if they still committed a mortal sin from time to time, went to confession, repented, and got back to their holy way of living?

Saint biographies don't typically mention any kind of an incident that would show their failures, but rather describes how they were always faithful.


texts:
Did Jesus Christ know as a baby that He was the Son of God?

When He worked carpentry with Joseph, His earthly father, did He know then Who or What He was? Did He sense in anyway prior to being a young prodigy (learning and eventually teaching in the temple) that He was the Anointed One?

Do the Scriptures say anything about this issue? Do any church traditions or the writings of the Early Church Fathers offer any perspective?


texts: How do Unitarians understand these verses which seem to say that all created things were created by Jesus?

texts:
John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Colossians 1:16: For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
Hebrews 1:8, 10: But about the Son he says, ... He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands. Revelation 3:14, "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God."

These verses all say that it was Jesus or God the Son who created the universe. Isaiah 44:24 says:

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE.

According to Unitarian theology Jesus Christ is a created being and He never preexisted His incarnation as a man. So explain how or why Jesus is identified as the Agent of creation according to the verses quoted?


texts: Is it against the LDS Word of Wisdom to use marijuana as medicine?

texts:
The Latter-day Saints subscribe to a revelation dubbed the "Word of Wisdom" which outlines a code of health which Saints in good standing are expected to live. It's found in Doctrine and Covenants 89. Generally it prohibits use of "herbs" (drugs) such as tobacco for the body, but recommends it for treating cattle.

However, the LDS Church is pretty clear that drugs which are prescribed by a competent medical professional (a doctor) are allowed within the recommendations of the doctor. (This has traditionally meant things like morphine, sleeping pills, etc.)

When there is sickness or disease and healing is desired, there are a few recommended courses of action, such as obtaining a blessing with faith under the hands of priesthood brethren. Just as important to Latter-day Saints, however, is seeking care using the best medical knowledge available.

I've seen this question online before, but haven't found any answers that are definitive or official: How does the Word of Wisdom or LDS doctrine in general apply to medicinal marijuana (prescribed by a doctor)? Is it prohibited entirely, are there only some permissible cases, or is it A-OK? (Assume it is legal in the politick; Mormons believe in following the law of the land.)

Again, I'm posting here because I'm sure it'll attract higher-quality answers than I've seen elsewhere which are more speculation than citing official or declarative sources.


texts: Were the indulgences in the Catholic Church always to be followed by Confession?

texts: Wikipedia's article on indulgences says that indulgences in the Catholic Church, especially prior to Reformation, were granting people only the remission of punishment, but not the remission of guilt. It says that the guilt would only be remitted through Confession (Sacrament of Penance). Was Confession in those times a necessity that by all means was to follow after an indulgence was obtained? Would the obtained indulgence lose its power if Confession did not follow?


texts: Does anyone have a good definition of "Evangelical"?

texts: I know the word itself means "of or related to the gospel."  That's not what I'm talking about.  I mean, when the term is used to refer to a subset of Christians, what are the characteristics being implied?  What is the criteria used to determine what Christians are "Evangelicals" and which ones aren't?


texts: Context for Paul and Solomon's usage of "heap burning coals on his head."

texts:
Romans 12:20 - "On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Proverbs 25:22 - "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you."

Do these two verses have the same contextual meaning or are Paul and the author of Proverbs saying different things?  And what might the meaning be given their context?


texts: Are Catholics obligated to follow the 4th Commandment in Heaven?

texts:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to The Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days The Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore The Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11 RSV)

Exodus tells us that "The Lord created Heaven and Earth", and that He rested on the seventh day, and that by the fourth commandment, we are obligated to honor Him on the Sabbath.

My Question: In light of the fact that Exodus mentions Heaven in this passage, are Catholics obligated to follow the 4th Commandment in Heaven?


texts: Why is the interlocking-squares (gammadia) a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood?

texts:
I was reading about the relatively new discovery of the Apostle Phillip's gravesite in Turkey, and it briefly mentioned that the square was represented in his grave and it was significant because the square is a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Mosaics and Images from Byzantine Ravenna, Italy:

I was also reading about it here: Christian iconography

Why is the square a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood? What ancient documents detail this?

If no ancient documents, then are there Jewish or early Christian graves that somehow convey that the square represents the Melchizedek Priesthood?


texts: I had this question for a while and I just can't find the answer. Whenever I go to church all I hear, is that boys can do this, that and other things, but the girls can only listen and sing. It makes me feel very sad and depressed since I feel like I'm only an object that men has in order to not feel lonely .


texts: There is a verse that i remember that talks about a father with two sons.  The father gives money to both of his sons.  One son invests his money and returns it to his father after becoming wealthy, or something like that, and the other son squanders it.  If i remember correctly, even though the second son squandered his money the father still showed him compassion.  Does this sound familiar to anyone?


texts: Why aren't the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with each other?

texts: Both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Church worship the same God and the Blessed Mother Virgin Mary and the Saints and the Holy Trinity. Do language and cultural differences separate them? What current issues prevent the churches from being in full communion with each other?


texts:
Apostolic succession, in Christianity, the teaching that bishops represent a direct, uninterrupted line of continuity from the Apostles of Jesus Christ. According to this teaching, bishops possess certain special powers handed down to them from the Apostles; these consist primarily of the right to confirm church members, to ordain priests, to consecrate other bishops, and to rule over the clergy and church members in their diocese (an area made up of several congregations).(source).
Apostolic Succession means that the current ministers of the church derive their authority by unbroken succession from the apostles. Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans accept this concept but it is denied by most Protestants.
What is the Biblical basis against Apostolic Succession?


texts: How do Catholics explain that the fighting leaders of the Hebrews were old men?

texts:
In the books of Joshua and Judges the leaders of the Hebrews are old men like Joshua himself or Judah. In particular the following verse made me wonder something:

Judges 1:3 (ESV):

  And Judah said to Simeon his brother, “Come up with me into the territory allotted to me, that we may fight against the Canaanites. And I likewise will go with you into the territory allotted to you.” So Simeon went with him.

When I first read this verse I understood that Judah himself went to battle against the Canaanites, but he should have been very old at this time. Then I realized that Judah was also very old when leading the Hebrews.

The Hebrews battled against a lot of countries at this time and I had always thought that the leaders engaged themselves in battle. Now I want to try to understand this and looking at different versions of the bible I found that the same verse of the NIV version is very different:

  The men of Judah then said to the Simeonites their fellow Israelites, "Come up with us into the territory allotted to us, to fight against the Canaanites. We in turn will go with you into yours." So the Simeonites went with them.

Reading this, I understand that Judah and Simeon didn't fight but instead the (presumably younger) members of their tribes were the ones who battled against the Canaanites.

How do Catholic Christians explain this? Did the older men fight themselves or were they just the leaders of the Hebrews, but didn't engage in battle?


texts: Did any saint pray '15 Prayers of Saint Bridget of Sweden'?

texts: Was there any saint (or blessed, or venerable) that prayed '15 Prayers of Saint Bridget of Sweden'? Does any saint (or blessed, or venerable) recommend that prayer? Did the St. Bridget pray them?


texts: According to reformed theologians, was Barnabas an Apostle?

texts:
We usually read the position that there were only 12 Apostles + Paul, and that after the Apostolic era, we have no more Apostles at all. Specially I see this among Reformed theologians.

But how do these theologians explain Acts 14:14 and Acts 14:4, where Barnabas (not one of the twelve and, obviously, not Paul) is called an Apostle? (ἀπόστολοι is the same word used in Matthew 10:2, for example)

  4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the
  Jews, and part with the apostles.

  [...]

  14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this [...]

Note on the verse 4: in the passage's context, we see in verse 1 that only Barnabas and Paul were there at Iconium as Christians in that specific "apostolic" mission, so, when we read verse 4, is clear that "apostles" there are Barnabas and Paul and no one else.

Another interpretation: There is a theological branch that will call them "Apostles of the Holy Spirit", because they were separated by the Holy Spirit in Acts 13:2 pretty much as the twelve were separated by the Lord at Matthew 10:2. Mainly Dispensationalists will hold on this view. And they believe that the Goly Spirit still separating His Apostles today.
A good answer could deal with this view too.


texts: Does Catholicism Have Anything to Say About 'Physical Evil'?

texts:
Does the Catholic Church have anything specific to say about the Problem of Natural (or Physical) Evil. I'm not asking for a defense of Moral Evil, which I have heard answers for and accepted them as valid. However most explanations focus on Moral Evil; so does the Roman Catholic Church have anything additional to say on Physical Evil?

The writings of a revered Saint on the Subject would be sufficient in place of an official teaching from the Magisterium.

EDIT: And by Physical/Natural Evil I mean things such as disasters, disease and other things which do not have any human related causes. I know some cancers and disasters have been caused by human activity, but many seem to happen by virtual of the way the universe is.


texts: What is stopping Christians from having just one doctrine/interpretation?

texts:
As far as I know, there is only one God, one Jesus, and one Holy Spirit, and they are ONE. But, what we have here is dozens of different doctrines (I'm not sure if "doctrine" is the right word for this). Catholics, Protestants, Mormons etc.

And, the driving force of understanding the Bible comes from the guidance of Holy Spirit. And the Bible of course is the best place to learn about God's will. Since there is only one Holy Spirit that is teaching us all,

Why can't we have a universal belief and practice? What creates this different bible interpretations from the spiritual point of view?
Is it possible to have just one universal doctrine/belief/practice?


texts: Is the book "The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley" a legitimate collection of Wesley's journal entries?

texts:
The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley, written by Daniel R. Jennings, claims to be a compilation of John Wesley's supernatural experiences. The book claims to be compiling these stories from Wesley's journal.

Is John Wesley's journal available? How authentic is this book by Daniel Jennings?


texts: What are the R numbers in the eSword NASB?

texts:
Psalm 103:14 (NASB)
(14)  For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.

Here, He is R2 and but is R3. What do those R numbers that mean? Are they still Hebrew words?

The screenshot was taken from my NASB package in eSword.


texts: Do any Christian groups forbid lending at interest?

texts:
Is charging or paying interest disallowed by any groups in Christianity, and if so which ones?

So for example I sell someone a laptop and they don't have the full money right now and lets say the laptop cost £500 so then I tell them they can pay over two years but I will expect a total payment of £700 instead. The extra £200 will be interest.


texts: How to corroborate the Tower of Babel account? Is George Smith a credible historian?

texts:
In his 1880 book, Chaldean Account of Genesis, British Museum scholar George Smith published his translation of an inscription from an archaeological fragment. The inscription tells of an ancient ziggurat and says: “The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded”.

It this a good way to corroborate the account of the Tower of Babel? What are some other ways?

P.S. Is there any picture of this fragment online?


texts: Why are the White Cliffs of chalk not taken out by the Flood?

texts:
So The Great Flood God sent out in the time of Noah.  Why did the flood not take out the chalk wall in Dover because chalk is so easily washed up.

catastrophist have made attempts to tackle the problem of how these kinds of chalk deposits could have formed during the flood, the details are still where difficult to understand in the framework of catastrophism.


texts:
This topic is an expansion of a question on the English Stack
  Exchange.

What influence does pietism have on modern-day Lutheranisms?

Although I am aware that pietism has contributed positively to Lutheranism and other denominations of Christianity, I am going to focus narrowly on Lutheranism to keep this question in specific scope. The answer may discuss:

the change in attitudes towards religion between Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism
the change in attitudes towards religion between Pietism and Enlightenment Rationalism
why Pietism is generally not a derogatory term, but merely describes a different thinking pattern
how to identify a display of Pietistic behavior in a Pietistic Lutheran church, and how to distinguish it from one that focuses on Lutheran Orthodoxy or Enlightenment Rationalism


texts: Old Roman Catholic Bibles having indulgence charts?

texts:
I just listened to a podcast of an Orthodox priest talking about his conversion into the Eastern Orthodox church. He mentioned something about how he once courted an irish Catholic girl who had a big old coffee table Bible from the early 1900's. In the front of the bible there was a chart for how to obtain specific indulgences for specific amounts of "time" in purgatory.

As a grandson of Vatican II, I've always understood purgatory as a process and not a place.

Benedict XVI does an amazing job of clearing up misconceptions.

At any rate, I am curious as to whether or not these "indulgence charts for time reduction in purgatory" were ever actually inserted into catholic bibles...obviously erroneously?

I would prefer answers from Catholics...or non-Catholics who are very knowledgeable about this, rather than anti-Catholic exaggerationalist.


texts: Luke 8: Telling others - What's the difference between Jesus driving out demons & healing Jairus's daughter

texts: In Luke 8, the man freed from the Legion demons is told by Jesus not to follow him, but to tell everyone round about. But later, Jesus heals Jairus's daughter and tells the family not to tell anyone. Why would Jesus want the man who had demons driven out of him to tell everyone, but not want Jairus's family to tell everyone about the miracle?


texts:
What is a year dedicated to a certain saint or something else? Is it important?
Does it require anything in particular of Catholics?


texts: According to "continuationists" what explains the 1900 year hiatus?

texts: Do "continuationists" (who believe that the signs and wonders of Acts 2 never ceased) explain the apparent 1900 year hiatus as divine sovereignty dispensing early rain then and latter rain now or as 1900 years of a lack of faith and/or understanding?


texts: How can Pharisees turn someone from God if His grace is irresistible?

texts:
How does Calvinism reconcile these words from Jesus along with its doctrine of irresistible grace (IG)?

  Matthew 23:13,15 ESV But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

I bolded the parts that seem to say that it is the Pharisees who are causing these people to turn away.

The reasons why I think this passage and IG are at odds is because if the person being proselytized...

...did not already receive God's IG, and was therefore not elect to begin with, why would Jesus say that the Pharisees make them a child of hell?
...did already receive God's IG, how could any actions from the Pharisee's interfere with that?


texts: Why is God the Father referred to as "Eternal Father" in LDS writings when He is not believed to be eternal?

texts:
I was recently reading some LDS material and noticed something that did not make sense to me.  As I understand LDS teaching, God the Father was once a man on another planet who attained godhood through how he lived.  Prior to that, He was the spiritual offspring of the god of that world.  Thus, He had a beginning and is not eternal.
However, LDS scripture refers to Him as Eternal Father in many different places, including the following:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen  D&C 20:79
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.  Moroni 4:3
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Articles of Faith 1:1

So, my question is why the term "Eternal Father" is used of a being who is not in any way eternal.  What is meant by the world "eternal"?
(For these references, I just searched the lds.org site for "eternal father".)


texts:
Is there a diagrammatic representation of soul, spirit, heart and their components based on the tripartite view of man? I understand there can be overlapping but I'd like to know if there is a visual representation (may be like set diagram) that relates 'heart' to the other components. Similarly, what other pieces can fit the description of heart and how do they exist in the context of spirit and soul?

According to the tripartite perspective, when the scripture says 'heart' does it include the whole spirit and soul? Or does it include some parts of spirit and soul? For example, in verses such as Matt 15: 19, Mark 7:21, and Heb 4:12, thoughts (generally related to 'soul') are also part of 'heart'.

A sample of the sort of think I'm looking for:


texts: May not get a response in time but our pastor's first name is Joseph and I was wondering on the Feast of St. Joseph the worker, May 1st, can we request our pastor to offer the Mass intention in his own honor on his name's feast day, since his name is Joseph, ie, would a priest in his humility refuse to offer a Mass for himself?


texts: Can you be a Christian and serve in the Military?

texts: Can you serve in a military service and not violate the will of God?


texts:
Why is Jeremiah 31:31-34 interpreted by Catholic Christians to point toward Jesus? How and why has Christianity fused together the idea of a Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, or messiah, with the concept of something that God will do? Is the verse really pointing to a prophecy that will be fulfilled by a מָשִׁיחַ, or are Christians just vulnerable to the hindsight bias?

Please give the answer in English!

  Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day
  I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that
  they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the
  Lord.

  For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel
  after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst
  and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and
  they shall be My people.

  And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his
  brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from
  their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive
  their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.

  לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת אֲבוֹתָם בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם
  לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי
  וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה:

  כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי
  הַיָּמִים הָהֵם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה נָתַתִּי אֶת תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם וְעַל
  לִבָּם אֶכְתֳּבֶנָּה וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ לִי
  לְעָם:

  וְלֹא יְלַמְּדוּ עוֹד אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו לֵאמֹר
  דְּעוּ אֶת יְהֹוָה כִּי כוּלָּם יֵדְעוּ אוֹתִי לְמִקְּטַנָּם וְעַד
  גְּדוֹלָם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה כִּי אֶסְלַח לַעֲו‍ֹנָם וּלְחַטָּאתָם לֹא
  אֶזְכָּר עוֹד:

-- Jeremiah 31:31-33, chabad.org


texts: What are Christian arguments against the use of anesthesia?

texts:
I understand that the practice of using chloroform as an anesthesia was forbidden by Protestant Christians early in the history of its discovery. That is until Queen Victoria used chloroform during the delivery of her son.

What were the early arguments against the use anesthesia, what biblical references were used?


texts: Was 30 the canonical age for Catholic priesthood in the 1700s?

texts:
I understand that the current canonical age for Catholic ordination is 25 years. Was the minimum previously 30 years?

The documentation of a priest's ordination in 1775 shows that the diocese spent some time examining the age of the applicant. At issue was whether he, a "cleric of minor orders", was old enough to join "the Order of the Presbyter". A note up front on the document reads "older than 30 years". In letters, the applicant declared that he was 31 years of age, while one official noted that he appeared more like 24. In the end he was ordained. The example is from the historic archives of Durango, RGHC AHAD-120, p. 561.


texts: Is there a special significance attached to a Latin Mass?

texts:
Every so often, one of my Catholic acquaintances will mention that they will be, or have just attended a Latin Mass.  I know pretty much nothing about a Latin Mass, other than (obviously) that it's performed in Latin.

Is there a spiritual, ritual, historical, or special significance about a Latin Mass?  Or is it more something that people attend simply because they enjoy the uniqueness of it, like it's something that's just "neat" or "interesting" to attend rather than something with a deeper meaning?

If there is a deeper meaning, of course, I'd like to know what it is.


texts: According to the Catholic Tradition, Are People in Heaven Waiting for Other People to Die?

texts:
According to the Catholic Tradition, are people in Heaven waiting for other people to die?
Or are they very busy chatting with God, the angels, and other people who have already died and gone to Heaven?


texts: Is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of "the Monarchy of the Father" consistent with the Athanasian creed?

texts:
Background: this particular question arose from considering the implied ground of the following question: Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity? The author of the question assumes a Trinitarian position that is consistent with the 'Athanasian creed'*, with a view to ascertaining the legitimacy of Eastern Orthodox (doctrinal) objections to the 'filioque clause'.

My question is: How (if at all) is the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity – which includes the doctrine of 'the Monarchy of the Father' – consistent with the Athanasian creed?  Particularly the following parts:

  So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

and

  And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.

I'm most interested in an Eastern Orthodox perspective, but would also welcome an explanation of how 'co-equality' is reconcilable to other views of the Trinity that include 'economic subordinationism' or 'relational surbodinationism'.

*Also known as Quicumque vult – I realise that it is not technically a creed (in the sense of being approved by an ecumenical council) and is almost certainly not authored by Athanasius of Alexandria, but it has come to be widely known by this moniker as it is judged to be wholely consistent with his Trinitarian-championing views to the extant of its being regarded – at least in the West – as a touchstone of Trinitarian doctrine.


texts: What does it mean to "worship God" to Christians in general?

texts:
When Christians worship or pray to God, generally what is in their mind? Do they pray to God who is one person among Trinity or do they pray to all three of them as one?

I am asking about what is in their mind in general, not what should be in their mind theoretically.


texts: What is the Protestant explanation for how Mary could provide Jesus with his flesh but be part of the fall herself?

texts:
What supporting arguments do Protestants offer for Mary being sinful, yet providing Jesus with his flesh and blood body; how do they believe Jesus could be born from a sinful Mary and not inherit the effects of the fall from her?

By the effects of the 'fall', I mean what the first couple's sin caused to happen to the whole creation. This includes animals beginning to eat each other when previously they were vegetarians, vegetation changed to include thorns and thistles, the ground becoming hard to work with labour of sweat replacing previous tasks which did not result in perspiration, begetting children changed to include labour which induces sweat, when the implication is it would not have prior to the 'fall'. Additionally, marriage relationships changed to include the woman being ruled over (possibly dominated?) by the man without this changing her desire for him. Satan began to have his own 'seed' progeny, referred to by Jesus in the gospels by his saying, 'your father the devil'.

It is my understanding that Protestants believe the scripture text which says Mary conceived Jesus in her womb, indicating that she supplied the genetic material that any other woman would while conceiving a child. This means Mary gave Jesus her flesh, (egg) to fulfil the scripture which states that Jesus was the bloodline(flesh and blood) of King David (e.g. in the Gospel of Matthew's genealogy.)

Also, could people give me some advice on voting as I am new: do I have to do the voting? What if I'm not satisfied with the answer? Each answer gives information and food for thought but I don't think it fully answers the question.


texts: Joel 2: From Eden to Ruination? To what is this referring?

texts:
Joel Chapter 2:1-2.

  1     Blow the trumpet in Zion;
      sound the alarm on my holy hill.

  Let all who live in the land tremble,
      for the day of the Lord is coming. It is close at hand— 2     a day of darkness and gloom,
      a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains
      a large and mighty army comes, such as never was in ancient times
      nor ever will be in ages to come.

  3 Before them fire devours,
      behind them a flame blazes. Before them the land is like the garden of Eden,
      behind them, a desert waste—
      nothing escapes them.

I find this scripture utterly amazing. It seems to be a last-days related scripture, and yet we have nothing on this earth resembling "the garden of Eden".

No doubt this had an initial fulfilment. To what nation did this apply, and did they have Eden-like conditions?


texts: If Jesus is "a god" do Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves to be polytheists?

texts:
Isaiah 44:6, Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And His Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, AND THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME.
Isaiah 44:24, Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things BY MYSELF, And spreading out the heavens BY MYSELF.
Isaiah 45:5, I am the Lord and THERE IS NO OTHER; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD."

Now that it’s established that there is no other God, then why do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" according to their NWT of the Bible at John 1:1? They explain their position here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984647#h=18
So the specific question I'm asking is as follows: is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god?

John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 5:44, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is FROM THE ONLY GOD?"

If there is only one true something, then everything else is false. The Apostle Paul speaks about this at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6:

For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

So in view of the following statement, "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity" "Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. As a spirit creature in heaven, Jesus had a special relationship with Jehovah." "He is called the firstborn of all creation, for he was God's first creation. "This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God.
Again, is this first spirit creature created by God and described as "a god" at John 1:1 a true god or a false god, and what is his nature? Galatians 4:8, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those WHICH BY NATURE ARE NO gods." Some of the information is from the following site.
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/


texts: How far are priests and other religious allowed to go in terms of political endorsements (or non-endorsements)?

texts:
In the USA, I've heard priests say that they can't endorse any candidates but the Bishops put out a fairly unambiguous voters guide every election that clearly says there are non-negotiable issues (mainly concerning life and marriage) which align themselves squarely with the more conservative parties.
But Fr. James Altman of the diocese La Crosse in Wisconsin is of the mind that "You can't be a Catholic and a Democrat. Period" and made it known on a widely circulated youtube video.
Possibly in response to this, a pastor at a local parish posted on Facebook:

The Catholic Church does not endorse a political candidate or a party. This means, that as a priest, I cannot endorse anyone.

and Fr. Altman seems to be in a bit of hot water from his Bishop for his statements.

However, why can't a priest tell a person not to vote for someone.  If a Catholic is running for office who is excommunicated, wouldn't that be a non-endorsement of that person's character by the Church and if a person is running for office who is not excommunicated, but probably deserving of that excommunication, does that mean the Church cannot excommunicate that person for fear of looking like a political endorsement for his or her rival?


texts: What is the biblical basis for it being acceptable to bring doubts to God?

texts: What is the biblical basis for the idea that it's okay to bring any doubts to God in prayer?


texts: Why is it so much easier to sin than follow Jesus?

texts:
How is it possible, that it is harder to follow Jesus, than to sin? I really want to follow Jesus, and I'm trying to. But every day again I fail again, because short term desires which withdraw me from God and Jesus.
How is it possible, that the devil can still catch my attention and make me sin? I pray each day again, and ask for Jesus to lead my way, the Holy Spirit to live in me, and the devil to leave my life.


texts: According to Catholicism, does Matthew 16:18 justify that the Catholic Church is the one true church?

texts: According to Catholicism, does Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.") justify that the Catholic Church is the one true church?


texts: Can a communion host be made differently according to Catholicism?

texts:
The current host is made of wheat and water and baked. Now during the pandemic we are facing new challenges that requires people receive the Eucharist in the hand which creates a high risk of letting the particles fall on the ground or stay on people's hand. This causes a sacrilege.
It seems we will never be able to receive on the tongue. I'm sure this practice will be pushed going forward.
What if we make hosts wrapped in clear edible coating that would prevent crumbling and also people from touching the bread? Many pills are made this way.
What is the Catholic Church teaching on this addition to communion host? There would be zero particles falling on the ground and people could recieve on the hand.


texts: Who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel?

texts:
Catholic teaching is that "Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism. (Sent. certa.)" (Ludwig Ott II ch. 3 §30.2; cf. Matt 18:10: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.").
According to Catholic theologians or mystics, who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel? St. Gabriel the Archangel?


texts: What is the Plan of Salvation in LDS theology?

texts: I know it's different than most Christian faiths' beliefs, and I know the missionaries teach it... I know it's a big part of Mormon curriculum and doctrine, and this site is replete with questions about seemingly every part of it, but would someone connect the dots and piece it together here in an overall summary? Why is it needed in LDS doctrine, what questions does it answer?


texts:
No –

  Luke 4:12 ... Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

Yes –

  Judges 6:39 “Allow me one more test with the fleece, but this time
  make the fleece dry and let the ground be covered with dew.”

No -

  Matthew 12:39 A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous
  sign!

Yes -

  2 Kings 20:8 Meanwhile, Hezekiah had said to Isaiah, "What sign will
  the LORD give to prove that he will heal me and that I will go to the
  Temple of the LORD three days from now?"

No –

  Deuteronomy 6:16  You shall not test the LORD your God, as you tested
  him in Massah.

Yes –

  Genesis 15:8  But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, how can I know that I
  will gain possession of it?


texts: What was the 16th century Catholic doctrine on Greek gods?

texts:
I've long assumed the Catholics have always denied the existence of pagan gods, hence allowed them to be represented in art as a fiction reminiscent of a heroic and remote past. However, the strong wording in an addendum to the imprimatur (image below) for an early 1572 edition of the Portuguese epic Os Lusíadas from author Luiz de Camões states clearly that Greek gods referred to in the text are demons (Demonios).

This choice of words seems very strange to me. So, the question is: how did 16th century man and Catholic doctrine in particular see Greek/Roman gods? Did they acknowledge their existence as true demons who could bring evil or be invoked by a sorcerer? Or only figuratively in that worshiping a false deity would lead to distance from God and so opening space for demons to act?

Source: Os Lusiadas de Luis de Camões by Camões, Luís de, 1524?-1580

The text says: "By mandate of the Holy Inquisition, I have reviewed those ten chants [...] However, since this is a work of poetry and feigning, and the author, as a poet, has no further intentions than to follow the poetic style, we found no issue with the fable of foreign deities being told in this work. We know it as being such, and we always keep the truth of our holy faith, that all Gods of the Gentiles are demons. And so the book seems to me worthy of publishing and the author evinces in it his great genius and much learning in the human sciences. [...]"

Is this truth he alludes to is part of particularly strict contemporary views on mythology or is a point of doctrine?


texts:
Calvin writes in chapter 7 of his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion:'

... But he [Augustine] nowhere insinuates that the authority which we give to the Scriptures depends on the definitions or devices of men. He only brings forward the universal Judgment of the Church, as a point most pertinent to the cause, and one, moreover, in which he had the advantage of his opponents.

In context, he is essentially explaining away Augustine's statement against Manichaeus that, "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 5). Manichaeus simply asserted his authority in his Epistles. St. Augustine rejects this and cites the authority and testimony of the Church as a reason to believe the Gospel, contrary to the irrationality of simply believing on someone's word.

Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me.
(ibid. )

But Calvin says something which seems to evidence a vestigal appeal to the authority and consensus of the Church, something dropped (of necessity) as an epistemological test of orthodoxy during the Reformation. He says Augustine "brings forward the universal Judgment of the Church," in his argument against Manichaeus, as if something which would prove him the orthodox of the two. Indeed, were this a standard of who was right, Calvinism itself would not stand the test of the perennial judgement of the Church throughout the centuries, or in any particular one. And again he says, "a point most pertinent to the cause, and one, moreover, in which he had the advantage of his opponents."
Question
According to Calvin, why is "the universal judgement of the Church" "pertinent" in a dispute with a heretic, if Calvinism itself would not, by anyone's account, withstand this criteria? How does it give Augustine the "advantage?"


texts: Is it permitted for a priest say a Mass of Pope Pius V for new saints while employing the prayers taken from the Mass of Paul VI?

texts:
Is it permissible for a priest say a Mass in the Extraordinary Form for new saints (canonized after 1962) while employing the prayers (Opening Prayer or Collect, Prayer over the Offerings and the Prayer after Communion) taken from the Mass of Paul VI?

It would be so awesome to go to Mass in the Extraordinary Form using the Mass propers of some of the newer saints like St. Maximilian Kolbe.


texts: What is the basis from the Church's Sacred Deposit of the Faith for the concept of "gradualism"?

texts:
During the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family, there has been a reference to the [theological] concept [/law/principle] of "gradualism", mention here and here in the media.

It is also mentioned in the Synod's "Relatio post disceptationem".

What is this "law of gradualness"?

What is its basis in the Catholic Church's Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, with reference to the Church Fathers?

cf. This Article What Should Evangelicals Make of the Rome Synod on the Family? by Russell D Moore, on his take on the concept.
Please see also this report in which Card. Burke is quoted as saying

  The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the
  Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear
  teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one
  Synod Father called “revolutionary,”teaching on marriage and the
  family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles
  which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.


texts: Vain Repetition in Prayers, What Does it mean?

texts:
Matthew 6:7  New Living Translation
  "When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do.
  They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again.

I still find it difficult to explain to myself what this scripture is about.
Is it that when we pray, we should avoid repeating a certain phrase or word or sentence or what ?


texts:
Who were the "Prophets of Zwickau" and what influence did they have on modern Christianity?

I'm interested in their theology, history, and influence on Christianity in their day, and whether or not their influence continues to today.


texts: What biblical/traditional elements lead Catholics to believe that saints can hear our prayers?

texts:
There have been quite a few questions on the 'orthodoxy' of praying to saints, or rather asking them to pray for us1. Also questions on why Protestants don't/should do the same. My question is slightly more practical: leaving aside whether it's 'allowed' or not: what is the basis for Catholics believing that we might even be heard?

God is omnipresent, so being able to pray to him anywhere and any time 'makes sense'. Even if the saints are currently 'alive' (rather than being in limbo awaiting judgement day), what is the 'mechanism' by which they are supposed to be able to 'hear' our requests?

1 I'm not yet convinced that this distinction is really respected in practice.


texts: Are Wednesday church services scriptural? I believe I have seen scriptures that relate to Wednesday services, but I can not remember where.


texts: List of old heresies condemned by the Catholic Church now present in Lutheranism and Calvinism

texts: The title says it all, I'd like a list of all heresies condemned by the Catholic Church before the Reformation. This time specifically those identified in Lutheranism and 5 point Calvinism.


texts:
Question: Can baptized non-Catholics be virtuous?

Does the answer differ for cardinal and theological virtues? Can they be only if they have an at least implicit wish to become catholic, if so, what does this implicit wish consists in?


texts: Given God is genderless, why Jesus (God the Son) assumed a male form?

texts: To best of my knowledge, God has no definite gender, i.e., he's neither male nor female. Still, Jesus, God the Son, assumed a male form during his ministry. Why is that? Clearly, God the Son could have also assumed a female form, or even a genderless form. Given that, why God the Son choose to represent him as a male?


texts: Under what conditions can a re-married Catholic couple receive the sacrament of the eucharist?

texts:
According to familiaris consortio, the only case where a "civilly" re-married Catholic may receive communion, is where they repent and live like brother-sister, so to speak.

Are there other, perhaps special situations, where such a Catholic may be allowed to receive the Eucharist? Is there some applicable canon law, other papal, or something in the catechism that I may not be aware of?

We are assuming that the re-married catholic had a prior valid marriage in Catholic church that has not yet been declared null, and that the second marriage is a civil marriage only.


texts: According to Catholicism, is it possible for the Devil to kill someone?

texts:
We read in the Book of Job that the Devil received permission from God to torment Job, and that God obliged the Devil to spare his life.

  The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life." (Job 2:6)

According to Catholicism is it at all possible for the Devil to kill someone? If yes are there any historical examples of this being done, either directly or indirectly as through an exorcism or diabolic possession?


texts: Is there a unique characteristic for all canonical books?

texts: Is there any one unique characteristic that would be common for all the books of the Bible besides being chosen by the Church to be a part of canon? I am interested here in the main-stream Protestant tradition.


texts: Can theology still be defined "the science of faith"?

texts:
According to Wikipedia, Richard Hooker (March 1554 – 3 November 1600) was an English Anglican priest and an influential theologian. He was one of the most important English theologians of the sixteenth century and defined "theology" in English as "the science of things divine"—i.e., "the science of faith."

Thus, if we suppose Hooker's definition is still acceptable nowadays, as it is among theologians, I would like to know:

Is this truly possible?
Is it not in itself a contradiction?
Is not science perhaps the opposite of faith?
Does not faith cease to be faith when it becomes science?


texts: When was the New Testament divided into sentences and paragraphs?

texts:
I know that the New Testament was given chapter numberings around 1227 AD, and verse numberings in 1555 (Source).

But apparently, the earliest manuscripts didn't have punctuation, spaces, or paragraphs either. They were just an unbroken string of letters.

When was the New Testament first written with spaces, sentences, and paragraphs? Do we know who accomplished this?


texts: What is the specific meaning of "believe" in John 3:16?

texts:
I would like to know the specific meaning of the word "believe" in John 3:16 when it says whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Many people that I know say that they believe in Jesus but they are not Christians but they think that they are going to Heaven because they have a head knowledge or at least believe in a Creator God that created all things. Please tell me what the deeper meaning is of this incredible word. Is there a Hebrew or Greek meaning of this word that differs from what most people are thinking that this word means? The passage in John 3:16 sounds like if you just believe that there is a Jesus that this is all that you need to get to Heaven


texts: Are people possessed by demons today? What is the modern Christian perspective?

texts:
In the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus repeatedly casts out demons, speaks to them, etc. He tells his disciples to do the same. There are so many references it would be difficult to put them all here.

This is not a topic that is very frequently mentioned (if at all) in my experience in the modern church (here in the USA at least). But reading the New Testament it cannot be easily glossed over.

What is the church's view on demonic possession today, especially in light of modern psychology and drug therapy? Where people possessed by demons in ancient times but not today? Are people with certain types of psychological disorders (or in certain times/cases) actually possessed?


texts: Are Many Christians postmodern in their approach to modesty?

texts:
Christians have a wide variety of opinions concerning modesty. Many say that if you believe you should dress a different way than that is fine for you--just don't impose your beliefs on us--because the bible doesn't explicitly define modesty. That seems to be a postmodern way of thinking.

Being a Christian means trying to be more like Christ and incidentally less like the world. Many "Christians" seem more interested in being a close as they can to the world in how they dress. Surely that stance denies the truth that we are to follow Christ as best we can and is therefore "postmodern": If we aren't supposed to follow Christ as best we can, does truth even exist?


texts:
I came across an article on the FAIR Mormon wiki that discusses the prophetic test (Deut. 18). It applies the test on some Biblical prophets, and shows how someone could claim these prophets fail the test.

The one I find interesting is Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh:

  Jonah 3 (ESV)
   1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you." 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in breadth. 4 Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

What did happen was that the people of Nineveh repented and God did not destroy the city:

  10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

I'm interested in the Protestant answers to the following questions:

How does this fit with Deut. 18, where God says that if the word of a prophet doesn't come to pass, it's not from the Lord?
Should the inhabitants of Nineveh have considered Jonah as a false prophet?
Should we consider Jonah as a false prophet?

For reference, the passage from Deuteronomy:

  Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (ESV)
   20  But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' 21 And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'— 22  when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.


texts: What is the Biblical evidence against the day-age theory?

texts: As many of you probably know, the day-age theory is an attempt to reconcile creation and evolution, by turning the days mentioned in Genesis into long periods of time. What is the biblical evidence against this theory? How can I use Scripture to refute such a view?


texts: Reading the genealogy of Adam up to Noah as a sentence in Hebrew

texts:
I found the following theory that I can only trace as far back as to Chuck Missler (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/). It states that the names is the early Genesis genealogy have the following direct translations:

Adam        Man
Seth        Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared       Shall come down
Enoch       Teaching
Methuselah  His death shall bring
Lamech      The despairing
Noah        Rest, or comfort

which forms the following mini-Gospel when read as a sentence:

  Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come
  down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

My question is two-folds. First, is it true that the Hebrew names can be translated as such? Secondly, would the sequence of names form a regular Hebrew sentence (can verbs, a specific tense, a legal sentence structure, or something similar be identified even in the case where some words are lost in translation)?

I am specifically looking for someone with an understanding of Hebrew to answer.