What does it mean when God 'hardens' a heart? I love the answer in this question regarding God giving us free will saying :

"..and without choice, there can be no true obedience, or true love, only mindless followers with no will of their own."

And I do believe so. God gives us free will to be able to genuinely love Him, to genuinely obey. but:

Exodus 11: 10 states ".. but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country."

This kinda complicates things, God - loving, kind, and who has given us free will, is the same God who hardens hearts. Another reference is :

Joshua 11: 20 saying "For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses."

This is very clear that the LORD himself hardened their hearts. Is this contradictory to God's claimed character or is there other meaning to it when God 'hardens' a heart? Because by itself it seems as if God is pushing people to wage war, or to do things outside what could have been an individual's free will.

A friend of mine who has been reading a great deal of John Calvin's Institutes said something to me a couple months ago which has been resonating within me ever since. At this point (as of today, that is) I'm beginning to think that what my friend had to say--thanks, in part, to Calvin--is probably closer to the truth than what I believed previously.
What did my friend say? I'm glad you asked that! He said, and I paraphrase:

Unfortunately, many Christians tend to bandy about the words "free will," as if we are somehow on the same level as God in this regard. Now no one would likely even suggest she or he were on the same level as God, but does not attributing "free will" to human beings, simply because they are created in the image of God, imply that? Perhaps a far better expression than "free will" would be "the ability to choose." Now I can live with that!

Having talked with my friend just today, I think he is saying that God has not given an absolutely free will to those He created in His image; rather, He has given them the ability to choose, or to make choices. Only God's will is truly free.
God can do, say, or think virtually anything and everything He wants to do, say, or think. I say virtually, of course, because God cannot lie, He cannot be unfaithful to His holy word and His promises, and most significantly, He cannot think, say, or do anything which is not in keeping with His holy and perfect will, Being, and character. (Oh, and no, He cannot create a rock which is too heavy even for Him to lift, because God does not even entertain a single, solitary, illogical thought, let alone engage in illogical behavior.)
Of the scores of Bible passages I could quote in support of my last paragraph, I will quote but one, and that is 2 Timothy 2:13 NAS:

"[Even] if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

Put differently, God cannot be anything but what He is, and He is perfection personified. The heavenly hosts realize this truth, and that is why they worship God ceaselessly, and will continue doing so through all eternity. Furthermore, God is immutable, unchangeable, and His holiness assures us of His unchangeableness. In this regard, the hymn writer caught some of the transcendence of God when he wrote,

"Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible, hid from our eyes.
Most blessèd, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise. (words by Walter C. Smith, 1824-1908)

All this to say, there are times when God intervenes in the affairs of mere mortals, and for His own purposes and according to His own sovereign will does things which both surprise and mystify us. After all, He alone is God. We are not. God told Isaiah,

"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD.
'For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts'" (55:8-9).

This is not to say, however, that God, as in the account of the hard-hearted Pharaoh of Moses' day, completely bypassed Pharaoh's will. God's will simply trumped Pharaoh's will in the matter. Pharaoh was free to choose to ignore God's word through Moses, but only because it was God's will for Him to do so. Only God's will is free; Pharaoh's will, on the other hand, was constrained and hemmed in by God's sovereign will. Then too, the hardening by God of Pharaoh's heart was at least in part because Pharaoh hardened his heart first. That is at least something to think about.
Does this mean we are not free to choose whether we harden our hearts or not? No, but it does mean our choosing takes place within a larger context; namely, God's ultimate (aka decretive, sovereign, or hidden) will. As one author put it, and I paraphrase for perhaps better clarity,

This understanding of [God's] sovereign will does not imply that God causes everything to happen. Rather, it acknowledges that because He is sovereign, He . . . permits or allows whatever happens to happen. This aspect of God’s will acknowledges that even when God passively--seemingly, to us--permits things to happen, He . . . [in fact] chooses to permit them, because He always has the power and right to intervene. God can always decide either to permit or stop the . . . events of this world. Therefore, [only] in the sense He allows things to happen, has He . . . [willed them to happen] . . ..

God, in other words, can intervene at any time and at His discretion. In doing so, He neither obviates our wills nor makes us choose to do His will; rather, His decretive will trumps our finite human wills. In Jeremiah 18 we read,

"'Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will announce My words to you.'
Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something on the wheel.
But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. 'Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?' declares the LORD. 'Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel'"(vv.2-6).

Apostle Paul mirrors these words in Romans chapter 9, which apropos your question includes a section on God's dealings with Pharaoh:

What shall we say then ? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!   For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."  So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault ? For who resists His will ?"  On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God ? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?  Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

The key verses, above, would seem to be verses 18-20, which I paraphrase as follows:

God chooses either to have mercy upon or to harden whomever He wills. If we say to God, "Well, how can you blame Pharaoh for hardening his heart if You are the One who hardened it? Evidently, no one can resist your will!" By saying that, you miss the point. Who are you, a mere lump of clay in the Master Potter's hands, to question His ways and say "You can't do that, God!"? What hubris!

There is no contest between God's will and ours. God's will always trumps ours, because He will sovereignly bring to pass the plans He formulated within the Godhead from eternity, before time existed. As Paul said in Ephesians, chapter 1:

". . . we [have] been predestinated according to His purpose, who works all things after the counsel of His will" (part of v.11)

In His sovereign will God gives us the ability to choose to obey or choose not to obey His revealed will, whether it be delivered to a stubborn and proud Pharaoh through Aaron and Moses, or to an average Joe or Jill today through His written word, the Scriptures.
In conclusion, until the end of time, I imagine, God's image bearers will never cease trying to reconcile two seemingly irreconcilable, yet inevitably true, biblical statements. I put forward only two such statements:

"'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light'" (Matthew 11:29-30 KJV).

And,

"'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day'" (John 6:44 NASB Updated Version).

What other two seemingly irreconcilable biblical statements can you come up with? I leave it to you.


In any of James's passages, does he agree to the law being cursed and abrogated? From what I understand, early on there was a disagreement between James (who is said to be the brother of Jesus and the leader of the early Christian movement) and Paul, the latter saying that the law was cursed and it is not about works/actions but about faith and redemption.

In a story recounted in Acts 21:17-26, James and the Christian elders in Jerusalem wanted to show other Christians who were converted Jews, and who still observed the Jewish Law, that Paul still believed in observing the Law. They therefore told Paul to go and perform a ritual of purification and sacrifice in the Jewish temple, which he then proceeded to do.

According to James's words or any other scripture, did James eventually change his view of the Law and follow Paul?

Update

In James 2:10 he says:

  For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is
  guilty of breaking all of it.

Your answer has "Catholicism" tag, so I'll try to explain Catholic belief that Paul and James are in perfect harmony, that they say the same, just from two perspectives.

Let's start with James. He wrote in the second chapter of his letter:

  14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have
  faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother
  or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says
  to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about
  their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by
  itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

  18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

  Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my
  deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons
  believe that—and shudder.

  20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds
  is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for
  what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see
  that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith
  was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled
  that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
  righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a
  person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

The kind of deeds James is writing about are helping the needy and other actions that true faith (accompanied with true love) makes absolutely natural. No sacrifice in temple, but serving Christ in the poor, not because law orders to do so, but because you believe and recognize it as God's will.

Abraham is a good example: he has no law to obey, but obeyed God because he believed in him. The sacrifice of Isaac wasn't a work to deserve justification regardless of faith, it was an act of obedience to God's will, or faith in action.

James don't criticize faith, but he criticizes faith that remains theoretical, with no action induced by it, with no fruits of the Spirit. If you don't reflect your faith in your life, it remains just a theory.

Have you ever been to Antarctica? I assume not. Even though you have only testimony of others (through pictures, interviews with travellers, labels saying that penguins in a zoo are from there etc.), you believe the continent exists. But does this belief make you a better person? If you are not an exception who wants to go there and helps others go there too, there's no good fruit of this belief. we don't know what demons know for sure, but there are other things they just believe in, and they believe in them like we believe in Antarctica. And if we believe in God this way, we are neither cold nor hot (see Revelation 2:15), and we can't expect this faith to justify us.

On the other hand, Paul never proposes faith without the kind of deeds James requires. Paul criticizes deeds without true faith, deeds that should merit salvation by themselves. But there are many passages in his letters, where he requires the kind of deeds James writes about. Just as the first example I found in brief search, I picked Ephesians 5:3-9:

  3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or
  of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for
  God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or
  coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For
  of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a
  person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and
  of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of
  such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7
  Therefore do not be partners with them.

  8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live
  as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all
  goodness, righteousness and truth)

"No immoral, impure or greedy person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" - what else should it mean than that it's necessary to live as children of light to be saved? How should faith that won't bear fruits of goodness, rightousness and truth lead to justification? And how one should be good, righteous and truthful if it is not reflected in their everyday life, in their everyday deeds? This is essentially what James wrote.

James focuses on "faith without deeds is dead" and Paul on "deeds without faith are in vain", but both say the same: both is necessary. Both agree that to accept God's grace by faith is first and more important, but this necessarily leads to good deeds, so lack of deeds indicate lack of faith.

This is essentially what Catholic Church teaches. Here is an example of a good article discussing Catholic view on justification in detail.


Are there any surviving Acta Diurna copies mentioning Jesus' trial or other aspects of his life? I recently learned about Acta Diurna, which are official notices created by Roman authorities describing legal proceedings and the outcome of trials. It occurred to me that the trial of Jesus before Pilate, and his later crucifixion, would probably have wound up on Acta Diurna, as well as surrounding events such as Pilate freeing Barabbas (part of a yearly tradition).

The article on Wikipedia (sadly lacking sources) notes that no originals survive, but that scribes sometimes made copies and sent them to provincial governors. Have any copies of these Acta Diurna referring to Jesus' trial or other aspects of his life survived? If not, are there any surviving works that reference such copies?

As there is no positive proof that Acta Diurna relating to the trial of Jesus ever existed, the options are i) we do not know, or ii) they did not exist. The first of these options is generally unhelpful, but I believe I can show that they almost certainly did not exist - bearing in mind that it is considered almost impossible to prove a negative conclusively.

If there were any contemporary Roman record of the trial of Jesus or of any other aspect in his life, we can be sure that this would be carefully preserved, to become one of the best known and most cited record in the Christian faith. Of course, to the Romans, Jesus would have been a minor criminal on the fringe of empire and it would be hardly worth making records of his life and crucifixion. We ought not be surprised that Roman records do not exist, and their absence proves nothing about the historicity of Jesus.

The best proof that Roman records of Jesus did not exist is the pseudepigraphical Acts of Pilate, written in the second century, allegedly providing a report of the Roman procurator concerning Jesus. Had a true record existed at that time, then the Acts of Pilate would probably not have been written. Further evidence is that Justin Martyr cited the Acts of Pilate, the only 'Roman record' known to him. The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius is another pseudepigraphical document found in the Greek Acts of Peter and Paul and as an appendix to the Gospel of Nicodemus in Latin. The Report of Pilate would appear to be older than the documents into which it had been inserted and is evidence that a true record did not then exist.

As a protege of Emperor Flavius, the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus had access to Roman records and would surely have mentioned the life and crucifixion of Jesus if Jesus had a momentous impact on Jewish society, since he reported on several other revolutionaries and false messiahs who preceded Jesus.  Josephus does mention Jesus in two passages, but only in regard to Christian beliefs about Jesus. Because of these two passages, which provided a tenuous link back to Jesus, the works of Josephus were preserved, although not in autograph.

Bishop John Shelby Spong researched the gospel account of Barabbas and says, in Jesus for the NonReligious, at page 168, that has he been able to find no evidence that there was a custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover.

No Roman record of Jesus is known to have existed; the evidence of history is that such a record probably did not exist.


What is meant by, "mild drinks" in D&C section 89? 17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89:17)

What mild barley drinks is this verse referring to? Does this mean Mormons are encouraged to drink non-alcoholic beer? What were they drinking in Joseph Smith's time that is considered good for man according to the word of wisdom?

The interpretation and implementation of the Word of Wisdom has changed over time, which is why portions of it (like this reference to mild drinks) can be confusing to modern readers. I divide my answer into three portions.

Early Leaders (pre-1900)

As far as I know, there are no statements from early prophets and apostles about their interpretation of the phrase "mild drinks." Historians who do make inferences about their interpretation of the Word of Wisdom do so on the basis of their recorded behavior. Because early leaders of the church drank wine and beer moderately, some infer that they did not consider the moderate consumption of these beverages to be an infraction of the Word of Wisdom. For instance, see this quote from a BYU Master's thesis titled "An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom" on page 26:

  Despite the injunction contained in the revelation discouraging the drinking of wine, (except for sacramental purposes) the casual nature of the allusions to this beverage suggest that many Church Authorities did not consider moderate wine drinking in the same category as the use of strong drinks.

See also this discussion from FAIR, a Mormon apologetics group.

Early 1900s

In the early 1900s, leaders of the church began to enforce the Word of Wisdom as a commandment. Joseph F. Smith describes this shift as follows, from the October 1913 General Conference (see page 14):

  The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given as not by "commandment or restraint" was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law.

At the beginning of this shift, there was some disagreement between leaders of the church over what was or was not allowed by the Word of Wisdom. A paragraph from this article (in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, page 78) helps illuminate the fact that some leaders thought beer was not forbidden under the Word of Wisdom:

  Though it is clear that some church leaders, like Heber J. Grant and Joseph F. Smith, insisted upon complete abstinence from tea, coffee, liquor and tobacco, all General Authorities were not in agreement on all aspects of the Word of Wisdom. During a discussion in 1900 after he became President of the Church, Lorenzo Snow again emphasized the centrality of not eating meat, a point rarely emphasized by others, and in 1901, John Henry Smith and Brigham Young, Jr., of the Twelve both thought that the Church ought not interdict beer, or at least not Danish beer. Other apostles, like Anthon H. Lund and Matthias F. Cowley also enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine. Charles W. Penrose occasionally served wine.

However, this disagreement was overcome, and the Word of Wisdom began to be enforced in its current form.

Today

The church's current enforcement of the Word of Wisdom clearly forbids drinking any alcoholic beverages, the moderate consumption of wine and beer included. But if you still want to quench your thirst for a mild barley-based beverage, you could grab one of these.

Some helpful links, in addition to the ones in this answer:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/History_and_implementation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom#Beer


Does the Bible say anything about what demons *are*? I've thought all my life that demons (and evil spirits) were fallen angels, but I recently encountered the viewpoint that these demons are actually the souls of men who have already died but wouldn't go to Heaven. Hence, what does the Bible say about this?

Specifically, what biblical references speak to whether or not demons originate as human or as another species?

The concept of fallen angels is based on the following scriptures.

  MATTHEW 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
  Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
  devil and his angels:

  Luke 10:17-18 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord,
  even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto
  them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

  Jude 1:6 (KJV) And the angels which kept not their first estate, but
  left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains
  under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

  Revelation 12:8-10 (KJV) And there was war in heaven: Michael and his
  angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his
  angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in
  heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called
  the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Regarding the belief that you become an angel when you die, the following scriptures come to mind.

  Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
  we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
  and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we
  may be also glorified together.

If we are joint heirs with Christ, then one day we shall be like him.

  I John  3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet
  appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we
  shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

After his resurrection He was made "better than the angels". If we are to be like Him, then we also will be "better than the angels".

  HEBREWS 1:4-5 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
  inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which
  of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I
  begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be
  to me a Son?

The idea that we would become angels (either 'good' or 'fallen') when we die originated from a misinterpretation of Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25.

  Matthew 22:30 (KJV) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor
  are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

  MARK 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry,
  nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

The context of these verses is the subject of marriage. Angels do not have wedding ceremonies, and neither will we in heaven. Using these verses as the basis for the belief that we will one day be angels is a bit of a stretch.


What is the official Roman Catholic Bible? If I want to buy a copy of the Bible, which version does one buy that would be the official Roman Catholic version?

It seems the Kings James version is the most popular, is that the one?

Will this contain both the New and Old Testament?

The Official Bible is the Vulgate, translated into Latin from (mainly) Greek by St. Jerome in the 4th Century after the canon was finally established.

The Council of Trent's Fourth Session defined the old Vulgate as authentic (source):

  Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

If you're looking for an English translation, any Bible with an imprimatur should be good.  I wrote another answer here a while ago about whether Catholics can read the NIV that might be of use to you.  The point is, Catholics should look to the Church for official interpretation no matter what the translation is.


How do different Protestant denominations view the relationship between Israel and the Church? I know there is some complicated theology, which I am not an expert in, regarding what I am about to ask.  I honestly don't even know the technical terms for what I am trying to describe.  I would like an overview of how different Protestant Christians understand this relationship, explaining the different bases for the following possibilities:

The belief that Israel "became" the Church
The belief that the Israel is still important and hasn't been entirely replaced by the Church

It sounds like you are wondering about the debate between covenant theology and dispensationalism.  These are big questions, and only a very high-level summary can be provided here.

Covenant theology holds that there is one people of God, and that the saved from both Israel and the Christian church are members of that people.  Thus, God's promises to Israel in the Old Testament apply to the Christian church as well.

Dispensationalism sees Israel and the Christian church as distinct groups, and that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament generally do not apply to the Christian church.

Take note too that there are many other categories besides these two frameworks.  Ideas like dual-covenant theology and supersessionism ("replacement theology") are sometimes seen to be more extreme forms of dispensationalism and covenant theology, while frameworks like New Covenant Theology are seen to be somewhere in the middle.

Regarding denominations, remember that there are thousands of Protestant denominations, so the best we can do on a site like this is a high-level summary.  That said, Reformed and Presbyterian denominations tend to be adherents of covenant theology.  Baptist denominations and especially "non-denominational" churches tend to be dispensational.  But most denominations do not take an official stance, or their stance is general enough that it allows for friendly disagreement within their churches.


How to answer: "If God is omnipotent, can he create an object he cannot move?" Some people think that God cannot exist because he would be paradoxical, for example "If God is omnipotent, can he create an object he cannot move?" How should this question be answered? Thanks.

The question is based on a false premise, that omnipotence means the ability to do anything.  Rather omnipotence means posessing infinite power:

  almighty or infinite in power, as God.
  having very great or unlimited authority or power.
  source

Having infinite power does not give one the ability to do anything. It only gives them the ability to do anything which is possible by force.  No amount of power allows one to do the logically impossible: Draw a spherical square, or create an object so large it cannot be moved, sing the color purple, or any other logical impossibility.

See my answer on Philosophy.SE to a simliar question (which was originally here, but migrated).


Is Catholicism the only religion to uphold the indissolubility of marriage? Is Catholicism the only religion to uphold the indissolubility of marriage? If not, which others do?

I feel that this question can be answered without a list. Honestly I learned throughout many leadership courses in the Navy that the only foolish question is the one that remains unasked. Therefore I feel that at least a Scriptural answer to this question may be appropriate. In our culture today many see divorce as a positive solution to a troubled marriage. But Harvard sociologist Armand Nicholi III concluded, "Divorce is not a solution, but an exchange of problems." In a more personal way, novelist Pat Conroy said of his own marriage break-up, "Each divorce is the death of a small civilization."

Malachi 2:16 states: "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit that you do not deal treacherously. And why does He hate divorce? One reason is that marriage is meant to be a special covenant between a man, a woman, and their God.
Any covenant—including the marriage covenant—is a binding, weighty obligation.

In Proverbs 20:25 we read, "It is a trap for a man to dedicate something rashly and only later to consider his vows" (NIV).
Deuteronomy 23:23 says, "You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised."
Jesus said that "every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment" (Matthew 12:36).

Another reason God hates divorce is because it tears at the very heart of God's redemptive plan for the world. It is interesting to note the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9.

When the Pharisees ask, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?'' Jesus answers by pointing them to God's purposes for marriage:

  "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

One of God's major purposes for marriage is to mirror His image. After God created the earth and the animals, He said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." The account continues, "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:26–27).

References

Halley, H. (1927). Halley's Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing.
Jackson, W. (2014, March 15).
Marriage: As Designed by God. Retrieved from The Christian Courier
The Holy Bible: New American Standard Version. (1971). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing.


Have sons of Orthodox priests often taken over their fathers' ministries? Orthodox priests are in some circumstances allowed to be married and have children. Many sons of priests presumably become priests themselves. Have local priests often been succeeded in the job by their own sons? What factors have made this kind of transition more or less likely?

Kislova's "Latin" and "Slavonic" Education in the Primary Classes of Russian Seminaries in the 18th Century cites Matison to say:

  The parish was, de facto, a hereditary holding; therefore, the education of future priests became the responsibility of their fathers.

Bremer's Cross and Kremlin: A Brief History of the Orthodox Church in Russia, pp. 78, contributes:

  De facto, parishes could be inherited, a practice in Russian (but not Ukranian territories), supported by the hierarchy until the second half of the nineteenth century. It led to the creation of something like a "caste of priests", a social class that frequently had little connection with the rest of society and whose social mobility was extremely limited.... After a reform of seminaries in 1867, sons of priests had an opportunity to choose other professions.

So the answer seems to be, parish inheritance was common at least in Imperial Russia.


What explanations have scholars proposed for the rejection of the Didache from the Canon? The Didache (full text) is an early Christian document giving advice on various "practical matters" such as how to baptize, when to fast, how to celebrate the Lord's Supper, etc.   It's hard to date, but generally scholars think it was contemporary with at least parts of the NT.  And it claimed apostolic authority.

Although the Didache enjoyed high status in the second-century church, the document ultimately did not make the Canon of the New Testament.  There doesn't seem to be a documented reason for the exclusion in the writings of the Church Fathers, so I imagine it is mostly speculation on what caused its decline in popularity and ultimate failure to make the canon.   Nonetheless, what reasons have scholars cited as possible reasons for its exclusion?

(Although I do consider "the Holy Spirit didn't guide believers to preserve it" a valid reason for exclusion, that isn't what I am looking for here.)

Lee McDonald says in The Biblical Canon that the most common criteria in identifying what was and wasn't canonical for the early church was apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and use, and adaptability and inspiration were also used to a lesser extent.

David King, a UMC pastor, utilized McDonald's categories in a 2012 paper on the pericanonicity of the Didache written for a Master's-level course at Iliff School of Theology. King says that the early church would have identified shortcomings in the Didache's apostolicity, antiquity, and inspiration, and that these shortcomings were enough to exclude it from the canon:

  We can relate all of these to Didache's dependence on Matthew and Luke. If Didache is dependent on the synoptics, then it is later than they are. If it comments upon them, then it is derivative. Being also anonymous, Didache fails the test of apostolicity. It represents the work of someone just outside the apostolic age. It thus also fails the test of antiquity, though just barely. No doubt, Didache is old, probably older than some texts in the canon. Still, it represents an adaptation of and commentary on the gospels. For this very reason, one might question its inspiration. All these factors may have led to Didache being placed outside, but just outside, the canon.


According to Catholic law and rules, is postponing of the Rite of Acceptance OK? This is a follow-up question for Are those instructed before baptism considered catechumens before entering the catechumenate formally?

In Czech Republic the pre-baptismal formation is often called "preparation for baptism" or something like this, but not "catechumenate" - the Rite of Acceptance or the start of catechumenate start near the end of this period, even as late as the first sunday of Lent, when the Rite of Election should take place. In the light of Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, this practice seems to be a misunderstanding of how the Christian initiation should be performed.

While this practice may be fine for those hesitating, why should those desiring to be baptised wait months or even years until they will be allowed to express this desire publicly? Why do they have to be called "inquirers" and denied of catechumens' rights, while they are effectively catechumens except for that they are not recognized as such? I understand there are some practical reasons for this, but I feel some important aspect of Christian intiation is missing in those "preparation for baptism" groups.

My question is: is there any canon law/ liturgical rule saying that postponing the Rite of Acceptance when the inquirer is determined they want to be baptised is OK/ forbidded/ tolerated, but discouraged? And why?

It appears that the difference between the usage in English speaking countries of "Chatechumenate", is the same as the Czech phrase "preparation for Baptism". I note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says

  1247 Since the beginning of the Church, adult Baptism is the common practice where the proclamation of the Gospel is still new. The catechumenate (preparation for Baptism) therefore occupies an important place. This initiation into Christian faith and life should dispose the catechumen to receive the gift of God in Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.

So, I would say the answer to your question about a about a liturgical rule delaying baptism is a modified "yes". The need for an adult candidate for Baptism to be properly prepared for the Sacrament, and understand what it means to him, and requires from him, in most cases necessitates a delay to permit that to occur. But it also appears from the Catechism that there is an expectation that the delay be as short as possible, and I understand that it can be waived in some circumstances, for example, in the case of a person who is very near to death who has not been, and desires to be baptized.


Did Martin Luther ever admit that his approval of Philip's bigamy was wrong? I recently learned that in 1540, Martin Luther secretly approved of the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse.  Philip had married for political purposes, and then fell in love with someone else.  Philip appealed to the example of the Old Testament patriarchs, and apparently his wife did not object to his marrying again, so Philip turned to several theologians, including Luther, as Woodbridge and James write:

  Philip sought out Luther, as well as Melanchthon and Martin Bucer, as to the permissibility of a bigamous marriage.  Luther had argued years earlier, regarding Henry VIII and Queen Catherine of Aragon, that bigamy was preferable to divorce. Luther fatefully approved the bigamous marriage, partly out of concern for Philip's troubled conscience and partly out of political expediency.  It was a decision that would cost many lives and nearly destroy Lutheranism itself. (Church History, II, 3.IV.A)

Naturally the secret got out and the resulting controversy seriously weakened Philip and, by extension, Lutheranism.  Luther died six years later, so he would have seen some of the results of his approval.

I'd like to know if Luther repented or otherwise expressed that it was morally wrong for him to have approved of this bigamy.  I distinguish that from a mere admission that the approval was inexpedient or unwise, but if only the latter is available, that would be interesting to see as well.

Luther did not recant.

From: John Alfred Faulkner, "Luther and the Bigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse, The American Journal of Theology Vol. 17, No. 2 (Apr., 1913), pp. 206-231 (on pp. 228-9) -

  Whatever occasional regret on account of the scandal Luther may have felt, he never wavered as to the essential right of his course with Philip. In June, 1540, in a letter to his electoral prince
  (first printed in 1872) he gives his own philosophy of the matter, and before I close the reader ought to see the important parts of
  this statement:

    ..."    If such a matter as this of Philip's came before
    me today, I would advise as I have already advised. I am not ashamed of
    such a counsel, even if it should come before all the world...."


Origin and details of -10 to +10 model of becoming a Christian I've heard of a model for showing how a person can become a Christian: they start at -10 (as far away from God as possible) and gradually work their way to 0 (becoming a Christian) and then, potentially, up to +10 (a fully committed believer).

I'm trying to find more information, specifically:

How this model originated and
If there is any further explanation of the scale, eg "at -8 a person is typically..."

So far all I have found is this page: The Bible For Students which states that the model comes from the Navigators.

It is the Engel Scale. Originally it went from -8 "Awareness of supreme being, no knowledge of Gospel" to +5 "Stewardship" but now it is often shown as going from -10 to +10 (see eg Bill Hybel's Just Walk Across The Room).

A quick Google search will reveal multiple variations, see eg this YWAM variant:


Are questions that begin "Is it ok to ___" of primary theological importance? Questions that begin "Is it ok to _" are often asked and I believe it is helpful to ask "how now shall we live?".  However, from a theological standpoint are these questions of primary importance when considering the whole of and heart of Christian doctrine?

We ask "is it okay to _" because many Christians were raised on moral religiosity instead of principles of Christian decision making.  Based on the second greatest commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), Jesus calls everyone to love every human being they come into contact with (including themselves).  And to love means to seek what is best for myself and to ask what is best for the other, and to be honest if we are lying to ourselves about what we say is "best", while not being intellectually lazy and not examining from as many angles as is possible what is best in any given situation.

And no, these ethical questions may not be the most important because they may be more founded in "how far can I go in this one act before GOD is angry/disappointed?". But the truth is that GOD is not offended by anything that doesn't first hurt us, and that if we really allow a pure love of GOD, self and neighbor to be our new ethic then we might be closer to actually living how we were supposed to.

For a really good discussion of this read Thomas aquinas' summa theogica or kierkegaard's works of love (where he contrasts doing works of the law with doing works of love) or even augustine's comments on how Christians ought to live by the spirit and not by the letter.


Why did Jesus commit Mary into the care of the beloved disciple, not James, who is known as his brother? According to John's Gospel Jesus on the cross committed his mother to the care of the Beloved Disciple, not to his brother, James. Admittedly James was not there. However, I wonder if this indicates that Mary was Joseph's second wife (as some have said) and that James was the Son of Joseph but not of Mary and Jesus was her only child. I know there are differences among churches about the duration of Mary's virginity, and proposals that Joseph also was a lifelong virgin, but I am looking for opinions that do not rely on dogma.

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
(Matthew 12:46-50)
Because John the beloved does the will of Jesus' Father in heaven. That is why Jesus made John His brother (as Mary's son).
So, this was the reason why John (the beloved) became Jesus' brother (or Mary's son) and his mother Mary. The crowd knew Jesus' brothers, and so they are his biological brothers including James (Matthew 13:55).


Does the Bible ever mention class systems? Does the Bible ever talk about class systems? If so what does it say about them? Does it give a recommended class hierarchy at any point? Would a classless society be allowed?

See also this question at politics se (there are links to more questions at other religious sites there).

There are no requirements in the New Testament for the establishment of or abolishment of socio-economic classes, so to the most basic aspect of your question, they can exist or not.

There are a few issues to address however.  To begin, consider that elements of redistribution are seen directly in Acts:

  32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.
  33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
  34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold
  35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
  36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus,
  37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. - Acts 4:32-37 ESV

This redistribution of goods comes with 2 notable caveats however:

It was entirely willful, and not a requirement placed on anyone.
It was limited to the body of believers.

In addition to giving within the church, Christians are also commanded by Christ to love our fellow man and to give freely to those in need, but again, it cannot be compulsory to be an act of faith.  As Paul writes to the church in Corinth:

  Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. - 2 Corinthians 9:7 ESV

A classless society can exist within Christianity and it fact, it could be argued that no government is necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity, as Christians are expected to submit to governing authority provided that such authority does not directly contradict what we are otherwise commanded by God to do:

  1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
  2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
  3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
  4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
  5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
  6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
  7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. - Romans 13:1-7 ESV

But remember:

  27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them,
  28 saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
  29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:27-29 ESV

So, to summarize, Christianity exists independent of government and socio-economic structure and takes primacy to both, without placing restrictions on either.


In which Christian groups is "prosperity theology" derogatory? What Christian denomination(s) believe(s) that "prosperity theology" is derogatory, and why? What are the justifications against prosperity theology?

I know that some neo-Pentecostal churches preach prosperity theology, and they preach it, considering the socioeconomic status of their members, providing social services and stuff like that. Doesn't Jesus want Christians to be happy and healthy?

I'm sure there are several denominations that do not believe in a Prosperity Theology. I can speak from a Baptist perspective. The primary reason to disagree is the idea of following a prescribed set of rules leads to automatic financial blessing from God. I have heard this described as a "vending machine" concept of God - if I put certain things in, God will give me other things in return.

But God works his will, not ours. If our will is in alignment with His, then we are in the best place we can be, but that is not a guarantee of any particular type of blessing. The only blessing that can be guaranteed is salvation to those who believe.

Many of the patriarchs were wealthy, but many of the disciples were not. Are we to believe that they were unfaithful?


What is Messianic Judaism? What are the main differences between Messianic Judaism and Christianity?  How does the idea of the Trinity differ?

Hopefully this can be answered by someone who considers themselves to be Messianic Jewish.

The short answer is that because the early Jewish converts to Christianity (the original Messianic Jews) maintained their Jewish identity after conversion (at least initially, if not for a considerable time), modern Messianic Jews also seek to worship Christ while maintaining a Jewish cultural identity as a continuation of this historical precedent.

Shmuel Wolkenfeld, a Messianic Rabbi, has a much longer essay — “What Are Messianic Jews?”.

Note: As DJClayworth says in the comments, the doctrine of the Trinity is fully accepted by most Messianic Jews.


What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception? According to Catholic Doctrine, the Immaculate Conception refers to the teaching that Mary's own conception (not that of Jesus) was without the stain of original sin.

What is the biblical basis for this? And if this is true, did Mary not need to be saved from her sin? Was she also sinless? If she were sinless, then why would she have suffered the consequences of sin--that of death?

Q. Biblical Basis for Biblical literalists:

A. None.

Catholics believe that Mary is a type prefigured in the Old Testament of the Ark of the Covenant.  The basis for this belief is rooted in scripture as firmly as Mary is rooted in scripture.  God created His mother, and in so doing He created His mother as a fit dwelling place, like the Holy of Holies.  And like the Holy of Holies the dwelling place would bear the effects of the perfect priest, the perfect prophet and the perfect king. That is why the ark contained Aaron's Rod, Manna from Heaven and the Ten Commandments. That is why Jesus is priest prophet and king.

Q. Did Mary need to be redeemed?

A. Yes

But her redemption was pre-conception.

Q. Was she sinless?

A. Yes

Through a singular grace, she was able to avoid sin.  In a way she lived on earth as we will live in Heaven.  Furthermore she experienced Christ as fully as any human is able to this side of the grave.

Q. Did she suffer the consequences of sin?

A. No

It was not as a consequence of sin. She chose death (or dormition as it's called in the East) in imitation of Jesus and was subsequently assumed body and soul into Heaven.

I'll leave you with one piece of Biblical basis for Mary being sanctified. Used in the dogmatic text defining the Assumption

  Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified

(Old Translation of Psalm 131(132):8)

More Info


Why do Mormon missionaries travel in pairs? Why do Mormons travel in pairs (husband and wife, two young women, or two young men) instead of a group? Does a pair that consists of a brother and a sister ever go on a missionary trip together?

There are many reasons why we send our missionaries out "two by two".
First of all it was given by way of revelation to Joseph Smith that he should send out missionaries in this matter.

  Doctrine & Covenants 42:6 And ye shall go forth in the power of my
  Spirit, preaching my gospel, two by two, in my name, lifting up your
  voices as with the sound of a trump, declaring my word like unto
  angels of God.

This command was also given by the Saviour himself when he sent forth his apostles "two by two" proclaiming his gospel to the people.

  Mark 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them
  forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

It is not always done two by two. If an odd number of missionaries are in a certain area, a group of 3 may be organized though not common. Fulltime missionaries will often invite regular members to come along with them on their visits. Fulltime missionaries are never permitted to evangelize by them selves. There are also many practical reasons for this. Safety being first and foremost.


Why was heliocentrism such a threat to Roman Catholic leaders that their proponents were threatened to be burnt at the stake? Truth-seekers on a mission of scientific inquiry who turned out to be right were threatened to be burnt to the stake by Roman Catholic leaders in Medieval Europe. Why should a difference in opinion amount to such a huge threat to the all-powerful religious figures then?

Why were the theories of scientists such as Galileo and Giordano Bruno about the nature of the Sun and Earth such a threat to Medieval Roman Catholic leaders that they were forced to recant or burnt at the stake? After all, scientists do not bear arms.

Summary:

The answer boils down to a matter of whether the Catholic Church should retain the power to dictate what is "truth" or not.

Longer answer:

The Catholic Church was used to have a monopoly on the interpretation of the Bible, and since God was the ultimate authority and truth, in practice the church had the monopoly on all kinds of truths in Western Europe.

This did not in itself mean that there was no intellectual discourse, it was just that it was held within the church. Before the renaissance, if you were an intellectual, you were generally a monk or a priest. As such Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa published radical cosmologies that removed Earth from the centre of the universe, and made it a star, like other stars (remember that the planets then was thought to be stars). He did this in the 15th century completely without being threatened by burning.

You could get executed as a heretic at this time even if you were clergy, of course, but to do so you generally would have to either subscribe to a theological opinion that had been deemed a heresy, or otherwise challenge church authority.

But in the early 16th century things changed with the rise of protestantism, which denied the Pope and the Catholic Church’s ultimate authority to decide which interpretation of the Bible was true.

At the same time the Renaissance meant that many intellectuals now were not monks or priests, and therefore philosophical/scientific claims were increasingly being made by people who were not a part of the church. This also challenged the church's monopoly on truth.

In 1543 Copernicus book placing the sun in the centre of the universe was published. Copernicus himself avoided problems by dying before his book was published, but the book sparked discussion within the church. Although Giordano Bruno held several heretical views and was burned at the stake it's unclear if his cosmological views had anything to do with that. He seems to have based himself more on Cusa than on Copernicus, and as such his cosmology was not a direct challenge on the church authority. But it may have contributed to the discussion about cosmology within the church, a discussion that ended the 24th of February 1616 when a commission of theologians decided that the heliocentric view "explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture" and hence was a heresy.

As a result of that decision Galileo Galilei was asked to stop teaching Heliocentrism, and when he didn't he was put to trial, where he recanted his views completely to avoid execution.

In the centre of the commisions decision of 1616 is the question of what should be the ultimate truth, reality or the church. And the Catholic Church unsurprisingly decided that it should remain the church. The unstated reason for this is that they were worried that accepting a heliocentric view would make the whole theology crumble.

And although the catholic church has only slowly accepted the otherwise more common consensus, that science gets to look for earthly truths and the church takes care of the heavenly, I can't find any references to the church actually threatening to execute scientists after Galileo. They did continue to add scientific books to the list of forbidden books though.

In the end no-one was ever burned for being a scientist, but the Catholic Church attitude to science and the trials of Galileo did put the Catholic Church on a collision course with science that didn't really end until John Paul II, who admitted that Evolution was not just a hypothesis and Vindicated Galileo.


Does Catholicism allow rebaptism? I'm Catholic and have made all my sacraments.  I'm going to Israel and am interested in being baptized in the Jordan River.  Is this allowed?

No, you cannot be baptized twice.  The sacrament is unique and irremovable, and there is therefore no need for a second baptism.  According to the Code of Canon Law only unbaptized individuals are eligible for baptism:

  Can. 864 Every unbaptised person, and only such a person, can be baptised.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also quotes this canon directly:

  1246 "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized."46

If it is uncertain whether someone was baptized the Church may perform what is called a "conditional baptism," but this is very different from a second baptism such as you desire.


Why do Catholics observe Eucharist every Sunday? Many Protestant churches observe the Lord's Supper once a month and some do it very rarely. If I'm not mistaken, the Catholics celebrate Eucharist every Sunday.

Why is Eucharist observed in Catholic parishes every Sunday?
Do they observe on other days too?
Are Catholics obligated to attend the mass every Sunday?

Do they observe (mass) on other days too?

Yes. Each and every day except on Good Friday and holy Saturday (excluding Easter vigil). And btw Catholics don't observe mass like a show, they participate in it.

Why is Eucharist observed in Catholic parishes every Sunday?

Just to help Catholics attend mass on Sundays. Why on Sunday? Because it is the day of the Resurrection: the new creation.

Are Catholics obligated to attend the mass every Sunday?

Yes they are. To be precise, they have to attend mass on all Holy days of obligation, in which all Sundays of the year are included.


Why does Jesus have to be fully God and fully man? Is it not sufficient to be the son of God and fully man? This is a follow on from the question
Why does the Messiah have to be God?

Fully Man: I agree that Jesus had to become man, I believe this is VERY well supported in the bible. Hebrews 2:17-18, Hebrews 4:14-15 and much more.

Fully God? I know that Jesus himself claimed deity, (See all the references here: Moody Global Ministries).

Question: What is the Biblical basis for saying that  Jesus must be fully God and fully man? Why does Jesus have to be God himself?

Is it not sufficient that he is the son of God? The son of God can still save, the son of God can still be our intercessor, the son of God can still have fully God attributes (because he is the only son of God), the son of God can still exist from before there was time. So back to the question, WHY does Jesus have to be God?

Your question is whether God could, or perhaps should, have chosen to save us other than by becoming incarnate himself.
To begin with, the Incarnation is an act of grace. From the teaching we have received in the sacred scriptures, we know that the coming of God into the world, in the person of Jesus Christ, was a free and unmerited gift of God's love.

God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (John 3:16)
God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

There are many more passages I could have quoted. But my point here is that God was in no sense obliged to dwell among us. His sacrifice of himself was freely given, as the ultimate act of love.
The Biblical testimony does show that, in the way it did happen, the joining of human and divine natures in the person of Christ was capable of bringing about our reconciliation with God.

If while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:10-11)

Might this have been possible if Jesus was not fully God - but only a lesser divinity? The letter to the Hebrews, which you cite, says in chapter 1 that the son of God is more than a mere angel; he is "the exact imprint of God's very being" (v3), temporarily made "lower than the angels" (2:9) in order to be the direct link between God and ourselves. He is more than a servant of God, more than an ordinary prophet or priest or king. This is the free gift of God: he did not send the messenger we asked for, but came himself (9:11ff).
It is this teaching that Leo I expressed in his Tome, famously received by the Council of Chalcedon with the acclamation, "This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles." With more than an echo of Philippians 2, he wrote:

The proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours.

The theology of this letter was also influenced by Augustine, who wrote in De Trinitate 13.13:

Those then who say, What, had God no other way by which He might free men from the misery of this mortality, that He should will the only-begotten Son, God co-eternal with Himself, to become man, by putting on a human soul and flesh, and being made mortal to endure death? - these, I say, it is not enough so to refute, as to assert that that mode by which God deigns to free us through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, is good and suitable to the dignity of God; but we must show also, not indeed that no other mode was possible to God, to whose power all things are equally subject, but that there neither was nor need have been any other mode more appropriate for curing our misery. For what was so necessary for the building up of our hope, and for the freeing the minds of mortals cast down by the condition of mortality itself, from despair of immortality, than that it should be demonstrated to us at how great a price God rated us, and how greatly He loved us?

In this way, Augustine asserts God's sovereign capacity to find some other means for our salvation, but also the fact that the Incarnation was the best possible means - the one most expressive of God's love. Thomas Aquinas, citing these and other authorities (Summa 3.1.2), finds additional reasons, including the idea that the union of natures is essential to lift us above the dominion of evil spirits and the slavery of sin. This is only an elaboration of the fundamental Biblical doctrine of Christ's sacrifice being the supreme act of love, because of his full divinity. A lesser sacrifice would be a lesser expression of the love and grace of God.


Where are heaven and hell located? According to Christianity, where are heaven and hell located?

It used to be believed (and is generally depicted) that hell was below ground and heaven is above the clouds (as in you assend to heaven much like a dove) and you go down to hell. The angels fly down from heaven with their wings.
In many cathederals angels and heaven are depicted in the clouds.

Likewise hell is thought of as the underworld much like Hades of Greek mythology.

What is the general belief now that we know the Earth is a globe travelling through space. Do Christians still believe that hell is located underground. Maybe in a hollowed out area near the lava that makes up the center of the Earth?

Or alternatively is Heaven and hell located in a parallel dimension, sort of super-imposed on top of this one. In that case would Heaven be located in the clouds and Hell underground but we couldn't see it because it was in a parallel dimension? In other words that dead people could walk around the real world like ghosts but nobody could see them?

Or would they be in an entirely different Universe? If so, would Heaven and Hell be located both in the same Universe or separate Universe?

I suppose the last possibility is that Heaven and Hell are located completely in the imagination of an omnipotent being, much like a computer running a vast simulation.

For people who believe in heaven and hell, what can you say about their location?

I know many Evangelical Christians believe that heaven and hell is not a physical place and doesn't have a specific location.

However, I believe something different, I believe hell is literally beneath us and heaven above us, because (as I understand,) the bible says so:

  Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11 KJV)

  For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40 KJV)

Some Christians say the Great Rift (milky way) is a crack in the barrier between heaven and our universe, caused by either the flood or a war between satan and God. This would mean heaven is outside our universe.

  And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. (Isaiah 34:4 KJV)


Do Lutherans have a rebuttal for the Jesus > Religion argument I hear it a lot in Christian rock and this youtube video articulates the idea that somehow we'd be better off following Jesus and not following the Church He started.

As a Catholic that's about as high as it gets on my poppycock meter, but what would a Lutheran who attends services and practices their faith according to their traditions say to a man who thinks that organized religion is unnecessary. The fellow in the linked video is basing his argument in the Gospel and definitely appealing to emotions. But emotion aside, is there a Lutheran response to the argument against organized religion?

I don't really label myself to a certain sect, though I do go to a baptist church, and this is my rebuttal:

We're supposed to worship collectively and hear teachings from God's appointed leaders. Jesus wants us to break bread, together, in remembrance of Him (not just in practice, but in worship also). We are the body of Christ, brothers and sisters in Jesus, and being a member of the body, we need to incorporate ourselves with other members and become part of the family; not cut ourselves off. When one part of the body isn't getting it right, you can't blame the entire body. But it is our job to set them straight. We need to be there for each other to build each other up in love, faith, motive, knowledge/wisdom/understanding of God's Word, etc., and this is done within the church. People use the word "religion" to define such things..

When the guy in that video talks about religion, he seems to be referring to people who practice over worship, and have motives of self interest, and that is what he should say. He shouldn't refer to it as "religion". There is much Christian religion out there that are 100% in it for Christ, and this guy doesn't acknowledge that and makes religion as a whole look foolish.

Here is a cool rebuttal video from a Lutheran guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbsadOQK_6A


Why are there people in Protestant countries with the last name "Pope"? The last name "Pope" is prevalent in places such as England and the USA. Are we to assume that all such people are Catholic? If not i.e. if they are Protestant, is this simply the result of lineage dating back to before the Reformation, or is there another reason entirely?

According to
Pope (disambiguation) - Wikipedia,

Pope is a Scottish surname meaning father.

It has nothing to do with the Roman church.


Is physical presence in the church necessary to fulfill the Sunday mass obligation? I was checking out the website of a rural parish in Ireland and I noticed that the main parish has many small churches in the surrounding villages. The small churches don't necessarily have a priest and the priest from the main village has to come down to the smaller ones. On the parish website it indicates that you can listen to the Mass on the radio and on the TV.

If you were in the little villages with no priest can you fulfill your obligation by watching the Mass on TV or by listening to the radio? The main village is a 20 minute bus ride from the smaller ones so it's not like it would be impossible to attend.

The short answer is that yes, physical presence is necessary in order to fulfill the Sunday obligation. Watching Mass on T.V. or listening to it on the radio does not fulfill obligation.

Canon 1248 of the Code of Canon Law states the following:

  A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

“Assistance” here means physical presence—hence not T.V. or radio.

However, those who are unable to make to Mass are, of course, excused from the obligation.

One reason that justifies being “unable” to make it is that the nearest Mass is far away.

Exactly how far away the Mass needs to be is difficult to determine. Of course, it is not really in the spirit of things to be looking for excuses not to go to Mass, so I would tend to err on the side of caution. Clearly, if attending Mass requires a two-hour commute in both directions, then the faithful are excused, especially the old and infirm.

However, I would say that 20 minutes is well within range, for just about anyone, except those with the usual “grave” causes (illness, obligation to care for the sick, etc.).


Why did Judas need to identify Jesus? Annas, Caiaphas and all other important people of synagogue knew the identity of Jesus and how he looks. So why was the kiss necessary?

In Gethsemane garden Jesus was only with 11 disciples. The Mob who came to arrest Jesus knew who he was, so why did they accept Judas' statement that "the person who I kiss is the one who you are looking for."

Please don't say that there was dim light in the garden so Judas helped them to find Jesus. I've thought about that angle also. The mob came with torches. And I know they can't arrest Jesus in a large crowd because there would be huge riot.

I think it's necessary to separate this question into two parts:

Why did Judas need to lead the mob to Jesus? and
Why did Judas need to kiss Jesus to identify him?

I will attempt to answer the first question. Some possible explanations for the second question can be found here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16864/why-did-judas-betray-jesus-with-a-kiss

So, why did Judas need to lead the mob to Jesus?

Jesus and the 12 often retreated to Gethsemane at the Mount of Olives (presumably for solitude, prayer, and rest), as indicated in Luke 22:39, "Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him."

Having just shared the Passover feast with Jesus and the rest of the 12, Judas certainly would have been made privy to where Jesus was going after the meal: a place that Judas knew well from his previous visits with Jesus and the rest of the 12 (John 18:2).

We know from Luke 22:6 that Judas "...watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present." I would conjecture that Judas found this to be the best opportunity to arrest Jesus because of a number of favorable conditions:

Jesus was (mostly) alone. Jesus was in a secluded place outside of the city with only his 11 closest disciples. No crowds of listeners. Should there be any resistance, the cohort that came to arrest Jesus would have no problem overpowering the 11 disciples.
It was late. According to chapter 9 of the Pesachim in the Babylonian Talmud, it was Jewish tradition to spend the night in Jerusalem during the Passover (http://juchre.org/talmud/pesachim/pesachim4.htm#95b). Therefore, it is safe to make the assumption that those celebrating the Passover turned in for the night after the feast. It would have been highly unlikely for there to have been any Jewish citizens and travelers outside. This was particularly important because other followers of Jesus would not find out about the arrest, so there was no reason to worry about retaliation. Remember, those seeking to kill Jesus feared his large following and saw the crowds as a real threat (Mark 12:12).
It was dark. The enemies of Jesus were most concerned with transporting him to the Sanhedrin as quickly as possible where he could be tried and charged for blasphemy (a capital crime) in the middle of the night. The darkness provided enough stealth to capture Jesus without drawing the attention of onlookers. The goal was to create as little commotion as possible, and the darkness helped hide what was happening.

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.1 says that capital cases (that is, crimes punishable by the death penalty) cannot be tried at night (http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.4.1-5?lang=en&layout=lines&sidebarLang=all). The accusers of Jesus knew the law, so trying him at night ensured that they could control the trial (witnesses and verdict) without interference from others who may have otherwise defended the innocence of Jesus.

Judas recognized that the conditions were perfect for Jesus to be arrested, transported, and tried. I would guess that after the Passover meal, Judas went to the Chief Priests and convinced them that it was an ideal time to arrest Jesus. Of course, only Judas knew exactly where Jesus was in Gethsemane, so he naturally had to be the one to lead the cohort. Judas was the key the Chief Priests needed to arrest Jesus.


Is the Pope Emeritus infallible? Currently the Catholic Church has a Pope Emeritus (Benedict XVI). This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time that such position has existed. There have been and still are plenty of bishop emeritus elsewhere, but this is the first time it happens in the diocese of Rome. Is he infallible?

This is more of an hypothetical question, as it seems unlikely Benedict XVI will ever attempt to speak about moral or faith issues ex cathedra. So far, he has rather kept a very low public profile. If he ever tries to, it will probably be with the consent (and perhaps sponsorship, if not directly under the name) of the Pope.

My guess is that he is not. In my view, the Chair of St. Peter is occupied by Pope Francis and not by Benedict XVI, so he has lost the infallible protection the Holy Spirit gives to the occupier of that Chair. But maybe I'm wrong. Any ideas?

No, a retired pope is not infallible because that guarantee is not a personal quality; it is attached to the office that he no longer holds. This is true in terms of the pope’s extraordinary teaching authority, which Pope Pius XII used in his 1950 definition of Mary’s assumption into heaven. He acknowledged consulting the world’s bishops prior to that decision.
Benedict XVI remains a member of the college of bishops—though obviously a unique member. When that group collectively teaches something as essential to the Catholic faith (for example, the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, or the Incarnation), it teaches infallibly. The college of bishops has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff” (Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 22).
Infallibility is a guarantee that the Church cannot lead Catholics into definitive error on a matter essential for their salvation.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has chosen a hidden life of prayer as his new ministry within the Church. Less than 12 hours before he resigned on February 28, he publicly pledged to the College of Cardinals that he would accept and obey whomever they elect as his successor.
Theoretically, a retired pope could become a point of division within the Catholic Church; Benedict XVI has promised not to cooperate with any such attempt.

Taken from Ask a Franciscan.


What did Jesus mean by seventy times seven? We hear Jesus telling Peter at Matthew 18:22 :“I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven " when Peter asks for the  maximum number of times he is expected to forgive his brother or sister.
 One is prompted to think that the numbers seven and seventy have some deeper connotations when they refer to repeated occurrence  of something. In other words, Jesus may  not have meant 70X7 i.e. 490 while answering Peter's query. I have heard some say that Jesus in deed said "7 raised to 70 " , which would make a big number.  Before, accepting that argument, I would like to know if any denomination including Catholicism has any official teaching on this ?

In my experience, Jesus is generally understood to have used “seventy times seven” in poetic opposition to a small number: “seventy times seven” means “an impossibly large number”.
Matthew 18:21-22 is referenced at three places in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in each place it supports this view (I've emphasised the relevant parts). The Church teaches that forgiveness should be limitless, and "seventy times seven" effectively means "infinity".

982. There is no offence, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.527 Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.528
2227.  Children in turn contribute to the growth in holiness of their parents.36 Each and everyone should be generous and tireless in forgiving one another for offences, quarrels, injustices, and neglect. Mutual affection suggests this. the charity of Christ demands it.37
2845. There is no limit or measure to this essentially divine forgiveness,146 whether one speaks of "sins" as in Luke (11:4), "debts" as in Matthew (6:12). We are always debtors: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another."147 The communion of the Holy Trinity is the source and criterion of truth in every relationship. It is lived out in prayer, above all in the Eucharist.148

This is a theme Pope Francis took up with the Bull of Indiction for the Jubilee Year of Mercy, in which he exhorts the faithful to be merciful and forgiving. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" which has a parallel in the Lord's Prayer itself, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." If we are to trust in the limitless forgiveness of God, we must emulate that ourselves.

In the parables devoted to mercy, Jesus reveals the nature of God as that of a Father who never gives up until he has forgiven the wrong and overcome rejection with compassion and mercy. ... Jesus affirms that mercy is not only an action of the Father, it becomes a criterion for ascertaining who his true children are. In short, we are called to show mercy because mercy has first been shown to us. Pardoning offences becomes the clearest expression of merciful love, and for us Christians it is an imperative from which we cannot excuse ourselves. At times how hard it seems to forgive! And yet pardon is the instrument placed into our fragile hands to attain serenity of heart. To let go of anger, wrath, violence, and revenge are necessary conditions to living joyfully. Let us therefore heed the Apostle’s exhortation: “Do not let the sun go down on your anger” (Eph 4:26). Above all, let us listen to the words of Jesus who made mercy an ideal of life and a criterion for the credibility of our faith: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Mt 5:7): the beatitude to which we should particularly aspire in this Holy Year.A

36 Gaudium et Spes 48 #4
37 Cf. Mt 18:21-22; Lk 17:4
146 Cf. Mt 18:21-22; Lk 17:3-4
147 Rom 13:8
148 Cf. Mt 5:23-24; 1 Jn 3:19-24
527 Roman Catechism I, 11, 5 (Catechism of Trent)
528 Cf. Mt 18:21-22
A Misericordiae Vultus 9


Is it true that Luther claimed Popes and priests commonly practiced sodomy? This is a simple historical Q & A question regarding the rumor that Luther made this fairly inflammatory accusation.  The question is simple. Is there any solid proof that Luther really thought this and made this incredible accusation?

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

Actually, surprisingly,  Luther did think this and did make this accusation.  Luther made John the Baptist's accusation against Herod's adultery seem trivial compared to the corruption of the Roman clergy. Clearly he accused the Roman clergy of practicing sodomy:

I am not lying to you. Whoever has been in Rome knows that conditions are unfortunately worse there than anyone can say or believe. When the last Lateran council was to be concluded in Rome under Pope Leo, among other articles it was decreed that one must believe the soul to be immortal. From this one may gather that they make eternal life an object of sheer mockery and contempt. In this way they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life, but that they now wish to proclaim this by means of a bull. More remarkable yet, in the same bull they decided that a cardinal should not keep as many boys in the future. However, Pope Leo commanded that this be deleted; otherwise it would have been spread throughout the whole world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy. I do not wish to mention the pope, but since the knaves will not repent, but condemn the gospel, blaspheme and revile God’s word, and excuse their vices, they, in turn, will have to take a whiff of their own terrible filth. This vice is so prevalent among them that recently a pope caused his own death by means of this sin and vice.In fact, he died on the spot. All right now, you popes, cardinals, papists, spiritual lords, keep on persecuting God’s word and defending your doctrine and your churches!
No pope, cardinal, bishop, doctor, priest, monk, or nun will condemn such an obviously disgraceful life; rather they laugh about it, excuse it, and gloss over it. They incite kings, princes, country, and people to defend such knaves with life and property, with land and people, and faithfully to protect them so that such vices might not be repented of and reformed, but rather strengthened, sanctioned, and approved. Now you are to hazard blood, body, and life just for the sake of Saddling your neck and conscience with this. I could easily mention more examples of such abominations, but it is too shameful; I fear that our German soil would have to tremble before it. But if an impudent popish ass should come along and dispute this, he will find me ready to do him battle, and it will be quite a battle!  (Luther's Works Volume 47, P38)

It appears that he thought this practice was related to the forced abstinence that the priests and Pope had to bear:

There Is Danger in Avoiding Marriage May 29, 1539
Thereupon there was conversation about the delightful institution of marriage. [Martin Luther said,] “Through the papists Satan so defiled it that in his little book on the celibacy of priests Cyprian wrote, ‘If you hear a woman speak, flee from her as if she were a hissing snake.’ That’s the way it is. When one is afraid of whores one must fall into Sodomite depravity, as almost happened to St. Jerome.   ( Luther's Works Volume 54, P357)


Identity of Christ's Bride I've always believed (like Christians around me) that Christ's Bride is the church. However, I recently met two guys that claimed that the Bride is actually the new Jerusalem that comes down from Heaven in Revelation (3:12, 21:2, 21:10). What is the Biblical support for these two viewpoints?

The new Jerusalem that comes from heaven in Rev 19 is "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." (emphasis added) However, I would understand why some might think that Jerusalem is Christ's bride. In the Old Testament, Israel (or Judah or Jerusalem) is described as God's wife:

  For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and
  thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall
  he be called. For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and
  grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith
  thy God.
  Isa. 54:5-6

  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto
  you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I
  will bring you to Zion:
  Jeremiah 3:14

This comparison is the whole purpose of the book of Haggai as well. It's a beautiful way to render God's relationship with his people.

Contrastingly, the imagery that we have with Christ and His Bride is that of a coming Bridegroom and a bride in preparation. As the angel shouts in Revelation 19:7

  "Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of
  the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready."

Paul strengthens this image when he says in II Corinthians 11:2

  ...I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
  to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

The two metaphors are not contradictory. Jesus uses many contrasting "I ams:" Jesus is the Lamb, the Door, The Good Shepherd, etc. All of them are helpful, but they are only pictures. HOWEVER, this imagery of Christ and His bride persists through all the New Testament, especially in the Revelation. It is meant to typify how an engaged virgin would wait for her promised husband to come for her. That is what Christians are doing today. God was never married to a city. Jesus is not coming back for a city. The city always was a symbol for the collective people of the city, and the Bride is a metaphor for all the Christ's body.


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

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

Yes, God did say something like that after the flood. You can find this in Genesis, however the reference is specifically to destruction by flood (emphasis added):

  Genesis 9:8-17 (ESV)
  Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

There will be a time when the earth is destroyed again, this time by fire. You can find one (of many) references to this in the New Testament (emphasis added):

  2nd Peter 3:4-10 (ESV)
  They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.


Is it possible for a married Catholic to be invincibly ignorant that adultery is gravely wrong? Is it possible for a married Catholic to be invincibly ignorant that adultery is gravely wrong? I am interested in an answer from the Catholic viewpoint.

A (validly) married Catholic cannot be invincibly ignorant of the sinfulness of adultery because marriage consent, "the efficient cause of matrimony" (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 45 a. 1), is consent to "the union of persons directed to one purpose" (ibid. ad 2; cf. q. 44 a. 1), or as Canon Law expresses it:

1917 CIC 1081 (1983 CIC 1057)

Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts perpetual and exclusive rights to the body, for those actions that are of themselves suitable for the generation of children.

Regarding ignorance:

1917 CIC 1082 (1983 CIC 1096)

In order that matrimonial consent be considered [valid], it is necessary that the contractants at least not be ignorant that marriage is a permanent society between a man and woman for the procreation of children.

This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

cf. Summa Theologica II-II q. 154 a. 2 "Whether simple fornication is a mortal sin?"


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

Anything can be harmful.  If you're going to talk about something being harmful, you have to keep this in mind and ask whether it is more harmful or less harmful than the alternatives.

If you actually study the Mosaic laws on the subject of slavery, a couple things become apparent.

First, that indentured servitude under the Law was a contract that a person could enter into voluntarily in order to work off debts that they could not pay.  (What are the alternatives?  Take a look at the rest of the world.  Depending on where and when you look at, they tend to involve prison, extreme physical punishments up to and including death, exceptionally harsh and inhumane consequences for one's family, or some form of slavery.)  The evils of slave capturing and slave trading were completely absent from the law.

Second, the bulk of the laws regarding slavery were on one point: defining and protecting the rights of such a servant.  For example, it was not legal to separate a slave from their family (unlike in the American South,) nor was it legal to physically abuse a slave. The punishment for doing so was for the slave to be immediately freed, which was equivalent to the debt being annulled.  As the primary reason for the use of slave labor has always been economic in nature, (you don't go buying slaves just because you wake up one day, give your mustache a good twirl, and get the urge to go out and oppress someone) this legal protection provided quite a strong deterrent!

Our brains operate on association and analogy.  When we see things that are similar, we tend to lump them together by nature.  It works really well, right up until we run into things that look superficially similar but are in reality completely different.  And the indentured servitude in the Old Testament was completely different from the horrific evils perpetrated by slave holders in the American South or by human traffickers today.  Trying to equate the two is a mistake.


Who is being referred to in [Numbers 24:9]? Some translations say [Israel], while majority of the others say [you].

[New International Version]
Like a lion they crouch and lie down, like a lioness--who dares to rouse them? "May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed!"

[New Living Translation]
Like a lion, Israel crouches and lies down; like a lioness, who dares to arouse her? Blessed is everyone who blesses you, O Israel , and cursed is everyone who curses you.”

Other translations
https://biblehub.com/numbers/24-9.htm

A previous verse (24:5) speaks of Jacob in most translations, but atleast two translations omit Jacob,

[New International Version]
"How beautiful are your tents, Jacob , your dwelling places, Israel!

[New Living Translation]
How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob ; how lovely are your homes, O Israel!

[Contemporary English Version] [no Jacob]
"People of Israel, your camp is lovely.

[Good News Translation] [no Jacob]
The tents of Israel are beautiful

Other translations
https://biblehub.com/numbers/24-5.htm

[Genesis 27:29] shows a similar verse to [Numbers 24:9], but the former is of Isaac speaking of Jacob,

[New International Version]
May nations serve you and peoples bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you. May those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed ."

Other translations seem identical,
https://biblehub.com/genesis/27-29.htm

Who is being referred to in Numbers 24:9, and what is the reason for the differences (if any)?

The word "Israel" is not found in Numbers 24:9 in the Masoretic Text (Hebrew), the Septuagint (Greek), or the Vulgate (Latin), which is why most translations do not include it in this verse.  But, as you noted, the beginning of the chapter makes it clear that the prophecy/message is about the people of Israel.  Jacob is another name for Israel, and both names are used in verse 5.

Balaam is delivering this message in the presence of Balak, king of Moab.  If you only look at the second half of verse 9 and you read "May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed!", you might think that he is blessing Balak.  However, it is clear from the entire message that "you" refers to the people of Israel, not to Balak.  Balak understood this, because he gets angry with Balaam in verse 10.

Presumably to avoid confusion, the New Living Translation decided to explicitly clarify that "you" in verse 9 still refers to Israel.