Is the definition of "sin" subjective? Of whom's morals is it based on? Whenever I try to determine what is a sin and what isn't I get very confused... I read things by Paul and sins seem to become very subjective...

_____ is a sin if you make it a sin through belief that it isn't acceptable due to your obeying of the law (the old law, before Jesus came)

then I read the old testament which makes it much more objective...

_____ is a sin because it is immoral (Referring to God's morals)

If the first is true than couldn't anything be justified as not-sin simply by a choice in a state of mind and what you believe your morals are (if that's the case why would you need Jesus for salvation, you are already free of "sin"... so that obviously isn't the case)

If the second is true than how do we ever know what is sin and what isn't? (The spirit that is given to us.)

Okay, but what about before the spirit came (personally and historically), how could anyone interpret wether or not they are sinning? I know the law was given but surely the law couldn't cover everything?

Is it all just a matter of the heart? I read about "sexual immorality" but what is that even referring to, immoral things in your conscience and the culture you live in or immoral as a definition of a standard of God that was never given to man... I see people who look at everything sexual as a biological process so of course they never feel guilt or remorse and it would seem almost unjust to classify their actions as sin. I see others who see it as something where ____ is culturally acceptable but ____ is not and is therefor sin.

How does one define sin? I know it seems like a broad question but I can't simplify it any further than what I've typed above.

Sin is absolutely objective but in its application in our lives has a subjective element.  The particular case that you mention is where Paul is saying if a person thinks something is a sin (even though it is not) then it is a sin to that person if they run about doing what their conscience condemns.  This is because anything done without faith is a sin:

  But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23, ESV)

In other words if you truly thought that wearing a purple shirt was a sin, you should not wear a purple shirt.

However the reverse is not true. Anything that is objectively a sin, like blasphemy, murder, sexual perversion, etc. even if you think it is not a sin, is still a sin. Sin is anything that is done not derived from pure love to God. This means we all sin daily as none perfectly loves God.

To answer your question: sin is objective (it is not loving God perfectly) but one objective sin is doing things you incorrectly consider as sin due to want of knowledge or wisdom. This is a sin because it shows lack of respect to God when you ignore your own conscience, even when it is confused on neutral matters.


What makes someone an antipope? Rather straight forward question. There have been multiple men declared antipopes. Is it different each time, or generally the same set of circumstances that causes this?

Frank K. Flinn's Encyclopedia of Catholicism defines an antipope as "a person who lays claim to the office of bishop of Rome and tries to act as head of the Roman Catholic Church, in opposition to the person duly holding that ecclesiastical office in the eyes of the church as a whole."  Flinn points out that there have been 39 antipopes in the history of the Catholic Church and that the criteria for papal validity as well as the correct electoral body for the popes has evolved over time.

The first person declared an antipope was St. Hippolytus of Rome (r. 217-35) for his challenging of Pope Callistus (r. 217-222).  The best known antipopes are those from the Babylonian Captivity when the seat of the papacy was moved in 1309 from Rome to Avignon, France where it remained until 1377--these popes were known as antipopes by the Holy See in Rome and a valid pope was elected by that body.

For further reading, you can refer to:
Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 2000)
Daniel MacCarron, The Great Schism: Antipopes Who Split The Church (Dublin: D.M.C. Universal, 1982).

I hope that helps answer your question some!

All information in this reply came from:
Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Frank K. Flinn. New York: Facts on File, 2007. 33-34.

Full Disclosure:  I am an MSIS student at the University of Texas' School of Information and am answering this for a class on reference.  I found this source through the Gale Virtual Reference Library.


Reading NIV bible for AR points I am noticing that my child may earn Accelerated Reader
points for reading sections of the Student NIV Bible. We are Catholic. Is it appropriate for my child to read the Student NIV version of the Bible?

The NIV Bible does not contain the Deuterocanonical Books, which for study purposes should do no harm. It also does not contain Catholic material such as Additions to Esther and Daniel, and these differences could cause some confusion. Finally, all translations involve 'interpretation', although a young child is unlikely to notice the occasional subtle differences in interpretation.

In the end, Bibles say the same thing so, subject to the above comments, you could allow your child to participate in this program, with a clear conscience.


What is the difference between mind and soul (if any) For reference, this question asks whether there is a difference between the soul and spirit.

Assuming that there is a difference between the two (i.e., that man's nature is tripartite), and that your spirit is the heavenly nature of man, is the soul the same thing as mind, as in personality, temperance, intelligence, conciseness, etc.?

If you do an in depth study of the the Greek on 'soul' and 'spirit' they are essentially the same thing. However they are different is that one is viewed heavenward, and one earthward. The soul is the essential life of man ‘looking earthward’ and the ‘spirit’ that same principle of life breathed (like wind) into man from God, that can look towards and experience God.   I say 'can look' because the whole spirit/soul, including mind, emotions and will, the higher, as well as lower powers of our nature, are the seat and subject of original sin. The 'natural man' is thereby disabled and made opposite to all spiritual good. Consequently the conflict of which the Scriptures speak between the higher and lower powers of nature,—is between nature and what is not nature, between the old and new man. The new principle is something supernatural communicated by the Spirit of God. The new man is called spiritual rather than soul-ual, because it is the essential nature of man looking heaven ward called 'spirit'.

You can see these ideas at work in this passage.  Just as the soul 'thinks' so the spirit 'thinks'. That is, mind is both representative of the soul and the spirit as part of our essential life.  The spirit is not of a different nature of the soul, the are the same, only under a different perspective.  Only your spirit/soul knows your thoughts. Also receiving the Spirit of Christ is the same as receiving the mind of Christ:

  For who knows a person 's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
   The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “ For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:11-16, ESV)

For a deeper analysis of the subject one can refer to trichotomous versus dichotomous views of man.


According to Catholics were Adam and Eve aware that they possessed immortal souls before Satan told Eve that she would not die? Eve's comment to Satan in Eden seems to indicate that she and Adam believed that eating of the forbidden tree would result in absolute death.
They likely had witnessed the death of animals and would have understood what death was like.
Catholics subscribe to the belief that the physical body is all that dies and the soul continues alive. This sounds very much like what Satan told Eve: "Thou shall certainly not die" (Genesis 3:4).
Do Catholics believe that Satan lied to Eve or that he revealed to her that she had an immortal soul that until then she was unaware of?

Adam and Eve in the state of original innocence possessed preternatural gifts: "bodily immortality, infused knowledge, and immunity from concupiscence."¹

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question "Whether the first man knew all things?,"² saying:

  …the first man was established by God in such a manner as to have knowledge of all those things for which man has a natural aptitude.

and

  The first man had knowledge of all things by divinely infused species.

Thus, Adam knew his soul was immortal.

Also, Pope Leo X (1513-1521) wrote in his bull Regiminis, Session VIII, Dec. 19, 1513, of the 5th Lateran Council that:

  …we condemn and reject all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal…

I understand Flimzy's objection in the comments below that "'all those things for which man has a natural aptitude' is a far cry from 'everything naturally knowable'" to mean that although Adam may have been potentially able to know all things naturally knowable, whether he actually did is unknown. Regarding this, St. Thomas, before the passage I quoted above, wrote:²In the natural order, perfection comes before imperfection, as actuality precedes potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality is made actual only by something actual. And since God created things not only for their own existence, but also that they might be the principles of other things; so creatures were produced in their perfect state to be the principles as regards others. Now man can be the principle of another man, not only by generation of the body, but also by instruction and government. Hence, as the first man was produced in his perfect state, as regards his body, for the work of generation, so also was his soul established in a perfect state to instruct and govern others.Thus, Adam had actual knowledge of "all those things for which man has a natural aptitude."
References

Parente, Pietro, Antonio Piolanti, and Salvatore Garofalo. Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1951. p. 228.
Summa Theologica I q. 94 a. 3 c. & ad 1


Where can I find a simple but complete taxonomy of churches? I'm looking for a simple but complete taxonomy of churches.

I'd like something that is more detailed than this one I found on Wikipedia (in particular showing the branches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy):

But less detailed/messy than this one, which goes into rather too much detail for the Protestant churches, while perhaps neglecting some of the other churches.

Perhaps too detailed for your needs but this one is amazing:

The full-quality version loads dynamically here.


How many died because of immorality in the wilderness? Why does 1 Corinthians 10:8 say that 23,000 Israelites fell in one day for committing fornication, while Numbers 25:9 gives the figure as 24,000?

1 Cor 10:8 NWT

  Neither let us practice sexual immorality, as some of them committed sexual immorality, only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day.

Num 25:9 NWT

  Those who died from the scourge amounted to 24,000.

1) It is possible, that those that died that very day amounted to 23000 and those that died in the following day(s) added 1000 more.

2) It could have been Paul not remembering the exact number.

Because of my belief in the inspiration and inerrancy, I believe the 1st.


Why doesn't the Catholic Bible include all books from Septuagint? The Catholic Bible (as opposed to the Protestant Bible) includes the so-called deuterocanonical books. It's commonly simply stated that the books in Septuagint are included in the Catholic canon. However, some parts are not:

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Psalm 151
Prayer of Manasseh

I used the list of books in Septuagint from Wikipedia. Many of these are included in the Orthodox canons.

Why were these books of the Septuagint omitted from the Catholic Bible?

One of the great things about the Roman Catholic Church is that they document everything, including decisions made 1,600 years ago. So we actually do know what happened to each book.

The early Christian Church used the Septuagint as the principle work to use because it was considered to be based off of older Hebrew texts, and thus more accurate to the original Hebrew. However, over time that view fell out of favor from both Jews and the Church.

When St. Jerome first compiled the Vulgate in the 5th century, he compared the Septuagint to other Hebrew translations and found the Hebrew translations to be more accurate. As far as I understand, in the intervening years, the Jews came to the same conclusion independently.

So when the first Vulgate in 405 was compiled, decisions were made as to what was accurate and what wasn't. Works that had some basis in the Hebrew translations available at the time were kept, and others that were called into doubt were dropped.

In this respect, it's no different than the Protestant omissions a thousand years later: when new information comes to light that substantively challenges the authenticity of the work, they're removed.

However, the Eastern Orthodox Churchs continue to rely on the Septuagint as the main translation, in contrast with Jerome and the editions that came thereafter in the Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths.

To the specific works:

1 and 2 Esdras

These two are easy. The Roman Catholic Church calls these books Ezra and Nehemiah and they are part of canon, appearing after 2 Chronicles and before Tobit. As far as I understand, the principle differences between the two are that 1 and 2 Esdras contain a fair amount of restructuring and reordering from the original work (the Jewish single volume Ezra) and are from the Septuagint, whereas Ezra and Nehemiah are from the Hebrew tranlsation.

3 and 4 Maccabees

These were never considered to have any claim to canonicity, and have never appeared in any Roman Catholic canon. The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

  III Mach. is the story of a persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 B. C.), and therefore has no right to its title. Though the work contains much that is historical, the story is a fiction. IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is religious principles, over the passions. The martyrdom of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (2 Maccabees 6:18-7) is introduced to illustrate the author's thesis. Neither book has any claim to canonicity, though the first for a while received favourable consideration in some Churches.

Psalm 151

Psalm 151 isn't part for the Roman Catholic (or Protestant or Jewish) canon because most scholars of those faiths believe it to have been written after the rest of the Psalter, making it not part of the original work. It didn't make it into the original Vulgate.

Prayer of Manasseh

For the Prayer of Manasseh, it was relegated to the Appendix of the Roman Catholic Bible (until recently, the Clementine Vulgate) in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII after appearing in the original Vulgate. Originally, it appeared at the end of 2 Chronicles.

However, at the time, most people, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, viewed the Prayer as apocryphal, namely because there were no reliable Greek or Hebrew translations (a fact overlooked in 405, where an Old Latin translation was added). However, because it's appeared in the Bible for so long, it was relegated to the appendix as a means to preserve it without having it disappear entirely.


Does the Catholic Church believe prostitution should be legalized? Aquinas and Augustine seem to put prostitution in the same category as fornication or pre-marital sex:

  the state should allow fornication and prostitution to exist for the
  sake of the common good. Relying on the well-known passage from
  Augustine's De ordine, Aquinas advocates tolerance of prostitution by
  noting: "Accordingly in human government also, those who are in
  authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost,
  or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De ordine 2.4]: If
  you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.'"51
  If these social practices were to be suppressed, the public reaction
  might be such as to threaten the peace of society. (Aquinas on the
  Practice of Prostitution, by Vincent M. Dever)

I think this may extend to pornography.

Does the Catholic Church believe that states should permit prostitution or pornography?

I suspect this may not be the case as either may become a harmful industry in the way some drugs are.

If yes, what does the Church consider the responsibilities of the state in such matters (eg sex education or something)?

If no, to what extent does the Church expect states to handle prostitution or pornography?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a paragraph on each of pornography and prostitution. I've emphasised a couple of passages which indicate an opinion that neither should be legalised:

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. the one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

This is part of the theology of the body which was particularly beloved of Pope St John Paul II, who wrote in Evangelium vitae (my emphases again):

The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".

It is not difficult to add pornography to the list as insulting human dignity. The quote contained in this excerpt is from the Council's Apostolic Constitution Gaudium et Spes 27.

However, in saying that prostitution is a social scourge and an act of violence, the Church also recognises that it has causes which are not simply and easily dealt with in making it illegal. Because it should be illegal (and is, in many countries), compassion needs to be shown to those who are forced into it by circumstance; equally, those circumstances need be fixed.
If it were not illegal, then it would be easy [or easier, perhaps] to argue that none of its causation is unjust.

Prostitution is a form of modern day slavery

It is important to recognize that sexual exploitation, prostitution and trafficking of human beings are all acts of violence against women and as such constitute an offence to the dignity of women and are a grave violation of basic human rights. The number of women of the street has increased dramatically throughout the world for a variety of complex economic, social and cultural reasons. In some cases the women involved have experienced pathological violence or sexual abuse since childhood. Others have been driven into prostitution in order to have sufficient means of living for themselves or their families. Some search for a father figure or a loving relationship with a man. Others are trying to pay off unreasonable debts. Some leave situations of poverty in their country of origin, believing that the job being offered overseas will change their lives. It is clear that the sexual exploitation of women that pervades the world’s social fabric is a consequence of many unjust systems.
Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People: 1st International Meeting of Pastoral Care for the Liberation of Women of the Street


Is the Russian Orthodox Church pressing the government of Russia to ban Jehovah's Witnesses? As early as today (April 7 2017) the Supreme Court of Russia may ban the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This would make it a criminal offense for Jehovah's Witnesses even to meet together to pray.

Additionally all of their properties will be seized by the Government.

It is suggested that behind the scenes and even openly the Russian Orthodox Church is responsible for inciting this crack down on freedom of religion in Russia.
An article in Christianity Today stated in part :

  “A ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses is just the beginning in a series of repressions. Society needs an internal enemy to which the government can point in full cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church,” Cherenkov said. “The silence of Protestants with regard to repressions against Jehovah’s Witnesses will merely unleash a new wave of restrictions and repressions.

Additionally see the article from Forbes entitled "An Un-Holy Alliance"

(Un)Holy Alliance: Vladimir Putin, The Russian Orthodox Church And Russian Exceptionalism

Is the Russian Orthodox Church actually encouraging such intolerance?

Update Russian government has banned Jehovah's Witnesses as an extremist group. (April 20,2017)

See:
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN17M1ZT

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Jehovah's Witnesses have not published any comment on a particular religious organization being behind the court cases. They are much more concerned about the outcome of the cases happening at present. Religious persecution is not new, and is rather seen as a sign of the Great Tribulation.
There have been many interviews with non-JW experts at court cases over the years, and these experts indicate that the source of claims against Jehovah's Witnesses most often comes from people with a personal agenda against Jehovah's Witnesses.
Since the majority of people in Russia are Russian Orthodox, it's more likely that these individuals come from that religion, but I don't know of any evidence of the Russian Orthodox Church itself encouraging these specific court actions. It is more of a debate of how much control the Church has over the Russian Federation in general.
Here are quotes from experts which mentioned the Russian Orthodox Church in their interviews:

“For 25 years, there have been different legal, political, and intellectual conditions in Russia and Ukraine. I am told, though, that impartial theological expertise has virtually ceased to exist in Russia. The experts—as a rule, scholars—do not have the same status and are not protected by any special legislation. It is biased people who are denomination-oriented, usually toward the Orthodox religion, who are drawn to expert examination. Being Orthodox, they cannot analyze any other way of worship in a neutral and unbiased manner. Perceiving any other religion as not true, they, in their ‘righteous indignation for the purity of their faith,’ emotionally and aggressively brand all others as extremists.”
—Dr. Liudmyla Fylypovych, professor, head, History of Religions and Practical Religious Studies Department, Philosophy Institute of the National Academy of Sciences; vice president, Ukrainian Association of Researchers of Religion, Ukraine

“Elements within the Russian Orthodox Church connive with the forces of order to promote their own interests and to suppress any perceived competition.”
—Dr. Jim Beckford, fellow of the British Academy

“Basically, the law is overbroad. The language of the law can be used by law enforcement to arrest or threaten individuals with religious views that are unpopular or the government simply doesn’t like. Common examples include arrests of Jehovah’s Witnesses, other minority groups, and even atheists. The law has essentially been used to protect the Orthodox viewpoints that are supported by the government, and to punish viewpoints that are perceived as alternative to or threatening to this Orthodoxy.”
—Ms. Melissa Hooper, lawyer, director, International Law Scholarship Project/Pillar Project, Human Rights First; formerly regional director for American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative in Moscow, United States

“A true Russian, if Christian, is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Russians belonging to the ‘wrong’ religious organization are isolated and excluded from society. Therefore, the civil rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses are being grossly violated.”
—Dr. Gerhard Besier, professor emeritus, European studies, Technische Universität Dresden; lecturer, Stanford University; director, Sigmund Neumann Institute for the Research on Freedom and Democracy, Germany

All of these quotes were supplementary to a 3-Part Article published by Jehovah's Witnesses:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3


In what manner does the LDS believe we may become like God? Possible Duplicate:
What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god?

Lorenzo Snow, a prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stated:

As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.

I realize that there is a lot of deep theology bound up in that statement (some of which is detailed in this question), however none of the answers to that question really answered my fairly simple question in regards to the quote above.
In what manner may we become like God?
In all manners? Will we be omniscient, omnipotent? Since we are made in God's image, we are already in several ways "like God" (e.g. our ability to create, we have free-will, a conscience, and as the serpent tempted Eve in the garden we have become like God in our knowledge of good and evil).
Is the converse the same? (i.e. the manner in which we may become like God is the same manner that God was once like man?)
Edit:
As a clarification, I have the image of a worthy individual becoming a god and setting out on his own ("Go west young man!"). What I'm wondering is, if it the more correct understanding is that we become "one in purpose" with the Godhead?

The issue here is that your trying to find something that's not there.

The doctrine is simple and plainly stated by the prophet just as you quoted:

  As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.

That's it, there is nothing else to it.

If you want a scriptural reference from the New Testament:

  Romans 8:16-17, 16) The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17) 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. [bold mine]

That is the basis of the entire belief for Latter-Day-Saints. We are children of our Heavenly Father and eventually we may become like Him, in ALL His glory.


How to define an independent interference by God? The most clear evidence when people state their belief is experience.
The reasons vary:

logical expressions of belief is somewhat inverted (read this paragraph)
experience is connected to intimate feelings and thus valued over analog reasoning
maybe others...?

During my studies of calculations in probability at the university, I had to be very careful to distinguish events and their relative dependance on each other.
If you do not rightly separate events from their dependencies -  the calculated results can be very surprising because intuition can be misleading. If you are not very familiar with this, there exists a very basic problem that illustrates a simple example: Monty Hall problem
"Two Events are independent...
...when they have no connexion one with the other, and that the happening of one neither forwards nor obstructs the happening of the other.”
I have strong problems of regarding so called personal experiences of god as true evidence of his interference in life because they are not independent. They cannot be verified as being divine in any way.
Usually, the experience...

...can be explained to be a rather unlikely event, but that does not make it divine.
...is only real to the witness. (narrator; one person)

In the last case the experience is not an independent event to a third person like me. The experience is always connected to the witness.
What would true independent divine interference 'look' like?
How can you define divine interference?

Your question makes the assumption that some good things occur as the result of divine interference, and that others occur by way of chance.  This is a faulty assumption.

  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. - James 1:17 NIV

So in answer to your question, what would true independent divine interference 'look' like?:

It would look like a good and perfect gift.

Now I know your question isn't asking specifically about "good things," but more generally about determining whether "personal experiences" are divine.  I think the same litmus test can be used, though.

Was the personal experience a "good and perfect gift?" If so, it came from God.

Any genuine personal experience with God also won't contradict any other part of scripture.

I believe most protestants (and possibly other groups) value personal experience, but always in light of scripture.  Personal experience is considered a very real, and valuable thing, but without an ironclad standard (God's word), it is too easy for it to contradict reality (and even for one experience to contradict a later one, experienced by the same person).


Why does the Episcopal Church take votes on moral questions? I read in the news today that the Episcopal Church is going to vote on same-sex 'marriage'.  As a Catholic who looks to the Pope to issue statements on matters of faith and morals, and trusts the Holy Spirit to guide him,  what sort of weight do Episcopalians and Anglicans put on votes on matters of faith and morals; do they believe the vote is guided by the Holy Spirit? (or is this not even considered a matter of faith and morals any more, just "equality"?)  The same thing I believe happened in the early 20th century with the Lambeth conference concerning birth control and happened recently with allowing women to hold higher positions in the church (although that might have been more of an equal rights sort of deal, I'd see it as a matter of faith)

Please don't discuss current events, unless very applicable.  And, if it offends you, please excuse the quotes around the word 'marriage'. Because of my deeply held convictions, I will never be able to in good conscience call it marriage.

Why? Because the Episcopal Church (in the United States) is governed by a legislative body and a constitution. It is a democracy.

You can blame the founding fathers and the American revolution, probably. Though not written by the same people as the U.S. Constitution (as is commonly held) the men who first wrote the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church desired to

  replace hierarchical rule with egalitarian, democratic government (1)

Here is Article I, Section I of the aforementioned Constitution (emphases mine):

  There shall be a General Convention of this Church, consisting of the
  House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, which Houses shall sit and
  deliberate separately; and in all deliberations freedom of debate
  shall be allowed. Either House may originate and propose legislation,
  and all acts of the Convention shall be adopted and be authenticated
  by both Houses

Though probably not as much a "matter of faith and morals" than it is simple democratic governance, the General Convention is likely as much guided by the Holy Spirit as is the Pope.

EDIT: As concerns comment toward the word "likely" and to further improve this answer in response to improving the question, here's this from the House of Deputies.

  Deputies and bishops cannot be instructed to vote one way or another
  by their diocese. They agree to come to Convention with an open heart
  so that they can prayerfully listen to others and be led by the Holy
  Spirit. And, they cannot refuse to vote on an issue.

And this, from The Anglican Understanding of the Church: An Introduction by Paul Avi. (The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion.)

  Anglicans maintain that the doctrine, worship, ministry, sacraments
  and government of their Churches are those of the Church of Christ and
  that they are owned and blessed by the Holy Spirit.

And this delightful passage from The Journal of the 38th Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Southern Ohio (1912)

  And now, with all my confidence in your right-mindedness as a body, I
  still feel bound to remind you at least of the spirit in which you
  ought to enter into such an election, of the utter conscientiousness,
  of the utter independence of judgment and action, and of the utter
  dependence upon the leading of the Holy Spirit with which you ought to
  vote.

And, you know, we're Christians. We trust God. We pray all the time. For guidance, strength and wisdom. Especially when making tough decisions.

God has made a promise to us:

  I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will
  counsel you with My eye upon you (Psalm 32:8)


Why is the Lord's Prayer different in the NIV and KJV? Why is Matthew 6:13 different in the NIV that some other translations?

NIV (the latest version, I think is 2010)

  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

KJV

  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

I checked the Chinese translation it also has the equivalent of "For yours is the kingdom and power and glory, for ever. Amen."

So is the NIV different?

There are two differences here:

"from evil" (KJV) versus "from the evil one" (NIV)
"for thine is the kingdom..." in the KJV but not the NIV.

The first difference reflects an alternative translation choice for the Greek word "πονηροῦ". This might be in the masculine or the neuter gender - the word forms are the same. But there is a difference in meaning: if it's masculine, then it's referring to a specific individual who is evil, "the evil one", but if it's neuter, then it means non-personified "evil" in general. In the absence of any immediate grammatical clue, it's a matter of judgement which reading to choose. The NIV translators simply made a different call from those who translated the KJV.

The second difference reflects the fact that not all early source texts include this bit of the Lord's Prayer. In fact, there is a denominational distinction as well: the standard Catholic  version of the Lord's Prayer does not include it, but most Protestants do put it in. It is not present in the oldest manuscripts of Matthew, but there are versions that include it, so again it is a matter of judgement between the two sets of translators as to which text version is "better".


What person(s) of the Trinity were the people of the Old Testament interacting with? When a someone or groups of people were interacting with God, as recorded in the Old Testament, in general were they simply interacting with person of 'God the Father' within the Trinity? Or were they interacting with the 3 in one at the same time? Or where they sometimes speaking with the 3 in one, and sometimes God the father?

Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding what the Trinity is, but the reason I am asking I because I am wondering if the second and third person of the Trinity ever interacted with humanity prior to the incarnation of Christ?

John 6:46
  οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα τις ἑώρακέν εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα

  Not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; this [one] has seen the Father.

Nobody has ever seen the Father.

If they saw God in the Tanakh (and, they did), then it was not the Father.

Conundrum?

No. I can quote many Early Church Fathers who insist that they saw pre-incarnate Christ. But, hey, let's dig a little deeper, shall we?

  John 12:41
  Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory and spoke about him.

  Isaiah 6:1
  In the year that king Uzziah died, I also saw Adonai sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

So, they saw the pre-incarnate Son of God. If you read the targumim (Aramaic translation/ interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh), you will see that in many places where it says that YHVH is interacting with His creation, the targumim say that it is the Meimra d'YHVH (Word of YHVH) interacting with the creation.

Quite phenomenal if you ask me. =)


Is there a Biblical basis for not believing that Global Warming is occurring? This is something that has confused me over the years. It appears that many Christians stand against the belief that global warming or climate change is occurring. But I have yet to hear any biblical reasoning. What is the biblical basis, if any, that some Christians claim that there is no (potentially devastating) climate change? Furthermore, how does this affect how a Christian should believe and act regarding this issue?

No.  The Bible says nothing about global warming either way. Any attempt to twist any scripture to support or deny global warming is pure speculation.

Global warming is something that is squarely within the realm of science to support or disprove. We have facts, evidence, and trustworthy (if contradictory) data.  It's a matter for scientific inquiry not Christianity.

Global warming does not predict the end of the world, a repeat of a global flood that would wipe out all mankind, or anything else that would contradict Scripture. Global warming is irrelevant to Scripture and vice-versa. It does predict flooding, but not at the scale necessary to conflict with God's promise to Noah. In short it predicts hardship, not total destruction.

As for how global warming should affect Christian worldviews (and vice-versa) the two are completely unrelated, and should affect each other no more than Brittney Spears' favorite color should affect what I want to eat for breakfast. (which is bacon and eggs.)

We're already supposed to be good stewards of the world God gave us. The truth or falseness of global warming does not change the fact of our responsibility.


What denominations don't believe in fasting? And Why? There is a question on here about the importance of  fasting.
But this is different because I want to know what denominations don't believe in fasting and why they think that its not important. I personally have great faith in fasting and in the power of fasting such as found in Mark and Matt, when the 12 have tried to cast out a devil but failed.

Mark 9:28-29, 28, (end of verse)...Why could not we cast him out?
29, And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
Matt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting.

Which is a clear example of where the disciples could not do something unless they fasted and prayed for the power to do it first.
Edit:
Changed as per the comments.

Who fasts and who doesn't?
Do, and its important

Both the Eastern Orthdox and Roman Catholic churches have required fasting periods for their members, as shown by the links.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are encouraged to fast for the first Sunday of every month, which they call their fast and testimony meeting. Instead of speakers, members come up to the microphone and bear their testimony about the truthfulness of their experiences in the Gospel [per Gilbert LeBlanc]

Encourage, but in practice don't

Episcopalians are supposed to fast on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and on "lesser fasts", but I've never heard it preached from the pulpit in the five years I've been one. Pancake Tuesday? Sure.  Fasting the next day, not so much.

Baptists practice fasting as a private discipline but have no agreed upon days on which fasting is to occur. (Baptists can't even agree on a lectionary, so if you think you'd be able to pry the fried chicken out of my cold dead hands, think again! When I was ordained as a Baptist minister, I explained to my ordination committee that Baptists only believe in three sacraments - marriage, communion, and potluck.  They agreed.)

Methodists encourage fasting but offer no official guidelines on when to do it, since it is a "private matter"

Presbyterians, per the Westminster Confession of faith encourage fasting on Sundays, but do so with the admonition of Matt 6:17, in which believers are encouraged not to brag about how spiritual they are.

Lutherans encourage fasting but do not require it.

Why don't many Protestants fast?
Most Protestants don't fast - not because they think fasting is wrong, but because there is nothing compelling to make them think that it is important. Very few Protestants I know would say fasting is wrong, but in practice, it just isn't important*. (See note on "Papistry" below, however.)
For most evangelicals at least, and many protestants in particular, the emphasis on grace is such that anything that smacks of "works" is relegated to the "nice, but optional" category. Puritans would call some of the spiritual disciplines "superciliousness" - an over attention to the perfection that leads to pride. Additionally, many older Protestants view fasting as an artifact of Catholicism. This isn't accurate, but for many centuries, anything that smacked of "Papistry" was viewed with suspicion.
All of these basically leads to a culture in which many spiritual disciplines are just not part of the culture. Kids don't grow up thinking you do it, so they don't, and in turn, their kids perpetuate the cycle.
After attending a spiritual disciplines seminar or after reading Foster's Celebration of Discipline or anything by Dallas Willard, they tend to learn, but the point is that the culture of Protestant churches (and I am generalizing a bit there) simply doesn't emphasize it.
Finally, if you ask me, "why don't I fast?" It's really just laziness.  I know it would be good, and I have done it from time to time, but in my personal experience it hasn't done a lot. I suspect I'm not alone in thinking that.  It doesn't justify it, it just explains it.

Excursis on the textual evidence for fasting
For example, while I wouldn't argue this, the verse you reference in Mark is considered by many scholars to be a minor variant inserted after the original manuscripts.  I won't argue it either way, but it just doesn't rise to "really important" for a lot of Protestants.
From the Net Bible's footnote on Mark 9:29:

38 tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (Ì45vid א2 A C D L W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nhsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (א* B), as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.

Matthew 17:21 is often ommitted (NIV, NRSV, ESV, Net Bible, HCSB, for example) for the same reason:

tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

Just as a translation of some of those symbols, א is the Codex Sinaiticus (aka the Tischendorf's stolen manuscript) and  B is Codex Vaticanus, two of the most important manuscripts available.


Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as consecrated Bishop during Apostolic times? St. Paul the Apostles admitted that Christ did not sent him to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent words of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1Corinthian1:17)
In the Catholic Church, a bishop is an ordained minister who holds the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders and is responsible for teaching doctrine, governing Catholics in his jurisdiction, sanctifying the world and representing the Church. Catholics trace the origins of the office of bishop to the apostles, who it is believed were endowed with a special charism by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Catholics believe this special charism has been transmitted through an unbroken succession of bishops by the laying on of hands in the sacrament of holy orders. - Bishop in the Catholic Church

In Catholicism the priest has the faculties to administer Sacraments of Baptism, Penance and Matrimony but the Sacrament of Confirmation is only for the consecrated  Bishop.
If St. Paul was not sent to baptize although the scriptures showed St. Paul had the faculties to baptize if he wants too. It would mean St. Paul lacks the faculties to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation unlike the rest of the Apostles who were present at the Upper Room and had received the Holy Spirit.

1299 In the Roman Rite the bishop extends his hands over the whole group of the confirmands. Since the time of the apostles this gesture has signified the gift of the Spirit. The bishop invokes the outpouring of the Spirit in these words:
All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by water and the Holy Spirit
you freed your sons and daughters from sin
and gave them new life.
Send your Holy Spirit upon them
to be their helper and guide.
Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of right judgment and courage,
the spirit of knowledge and reverence.
Fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.113

Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as a consecrated bishop during Apostolic times?

Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as consecrated Bishop during Apostolic times?

The short answer is yes.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Paul actually consecrated Timothy a Bishop by St. Paul himself thus St. Paul had to have been a bishop.

  From Scripture we learn that the Apostles appointed others by an external rite (imposition of hands), conferring inward grace. The fact that grace is ascribed immediately to the external rite, shows that Christ must have thus ordained. The fact that cheirontonein, cheirotonia, which meant electing by show of hands, had acquired the technical meaning of ordination by imposition of hands before the middle of the third century, shows that appointment to the various orders was made by that external rite. We read of the deacons, how the Apostles "praying, imposed hands upon them" (Acts 6:6). In 2 Timothy 1:6 St. Paul reminds Timothy that he was made a bishop by the imposition of St. Paul's hands (cf. 1 Timothy 4:4), and Timothy is exhorted to appoint presbyters by the same rite (1 Timothy 5:22; cf. Acts 13:3; 14:22). In the Third Clementine Homily (73), we read of the appointment of Zachæus as bishop by the imposition of Peter's hands. The word is used in its technical meaning by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VI.13, 106; cf. Apostolic Consitutions II.32). "A priest lays on hands, but does not ordain" (cheirothetei ou cheirotonei) "Didasc. Syr.", IV; III, 10, 11, 20; Cornelius, "Ad Fabianum" in Eusebius, Church History VI.43.

  The ordinary minister of the sacrament [of holy orders] is the bishop, who alone has this power in virtue of his ordination. Holy Scripture attributed the power to the Apostles and their successors (Acts 6:6; 16:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5), and the Fathers and councils ascribe the power to the bishop exclusively. First Council of Nicaea (Canon 4) and Apostolic Constitutions VIII.28 — "A bishop lays on hands, ordains. . .a presbyter lays on hands, but does not ordain." - Holy Orders

To see more that the  Church believes that St. Paul was a bishop can be seen in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII) that St. Paul is believed to have ordained several men.

  Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?

  XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:— James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Timothy 4:21 and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Timothy 1:5 and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Colossæ, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20 - Enumeration Ordained by Apostles


Do angels pray for us? I was reading about henotheism and it hinted at the fact that some Christians believe that angels are intercessors.

Quite simply, do angels pray for us?  Can we ask angels for intercession?

I agree with Wayne Grudem who cites 1 Tim. 2:5 in answering this question.

  For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men,
  the man Christ Jesus,

  The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Ti 2:5). Wheaton:
  Standard Bible Society.

Based on this we see clearly that Christ is the only mediator between Christians and God the Father. Additionally, Paul calls out the worship of angels as false doctrine in Col. 2:18. While praying to angels arguably may not be worship, in my mind the line is far too fine to mess around with.


Why did Jesus use bread to turn into His body? In the Catholic church you have communion, in which you receive the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.  Why do bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, rather than other elements?

One aspect I don't see addressed in other posts is the significance of bread and wine. Yes, it's because that's what Jesus said to do, but he did not merely pick to random substances to represent himself.

Although I would argue that John 6 does not have sacramental overtones in mind per se, we do see Jesus using bread to represent himself. A couple of observations from that chapter:

"Bread" is used as shorthand for the manna given in the wilderness (see v31), as pointed out by the people. Jesus uses this to show them that bread in general, and specifically the True Bread, is given by God
Bread was the main sustenance of the day. Food in general is that without which you die. Yet the food itself is a living thing, so either it dies, or you do. In other words, bread in general and the True Bread must give up its life for you to have life
Jesus uses bread to contrast something that must be done repeatedly (eating daily), with partaking in him, which is done once (v35). He pushes the metaphor then away from simply eating to security as children of God. Bread is taken repeatedly and still does not prevent death. Likewise, the Jews sacrifices were performed repeatedly, but do not ultimately remove sin. But with Jesus, his one act is sufficient to secure one's place in heaven with him by faith. (see, e.g., v39)


Wouldn't the "spirit of Jesus" [mentioned in Acts 16:7] challenge the idea of the Trinity? As seen here: http://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/16-7.html

  ...and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;

If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the Godhead, how is it that we read here "the Spirit of Jesus" and yet in other places "the Holy Spirit" (Acts 16:6) and not come to the conclusion that, at the very least, Jesus is the Holy Spirit?

PROLEGOMENA

Luke, the writer of the words you quoted from Acts 16, had evidently learned well via the Eleven that the Holy Spirit, while not Jesus, was indeed the Spirit of Jesus within the lives of believers after Jesus had ascended to the Father. During Passion Week, Jesus in John 14 had taught his disciples about the person whom he identified by several names and functions, including

  another helper (or comforter), or simply the helper
  the Spirit of truth
  the Holy Spirit
  the one sent by the Father
  the one who would teach Jesus’ followers and bring to remembrance (after Jesus’ ascension) what he had said while with them for three short years

To speak of the Spirit of Jesus, then, is to speak of the Holy Spirit, and vice versa. Jesus’ teaching on the Holy Spirit made one thing perfectly clear: While he—Jesus—would no longer be with his disciples for a time, they could with full assurance know that 1) Jesus would be coming back again, so that where he was, there they would also be (John 14:3); and 2) the Holy Spirit would be, as it were, Jesus’ surrogate presence with them until they were reunited with Jesus in the Father’s house (John 14:2).

Since there is perfect equality within the Godhead, the Bible frequently alludes to this equality in various ways. For example, "I and the Father are one," Jesus said (John 10:30), by which he meant they were of one divine essence. In Acts chapter 5, Peter accused Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit (v.3), and in the next verse he told Ananias that he had lied to God. Clearly, Peter equated the Holy Spirit with God.

Each person of the trinity is fully God, with all the attributes of deity. I say this notwithstanding that Jesus, on more than one occasion, seemed to defer to the Father, as when he said, for example,

  My Father, who hath given [my sheep] unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand (John 10:29 ASV).

On another occasion Jesus also said to his disciples,

  You heard that I said to you, “I will go away, and I will come [back] to you.” If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I (John 14:28).

Jesus' attribution to the Father being "greater than all" does not mean Jesus was or even thought himself to be inferior to the Father in power or in any other way. The point Jesus was making in John 10 was that true believers (i.e., the sheep in Jesus' metaphor) are safely ensconced in the hands of both the Son and the Father. Moreover, both Jesus and the Father are in one accord regarding their plans and purposes for the human race; namely, to call to themselves a people who will be with them forever in heaven and who forever will bear the image of God's only beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased (see Romans 8:29; Matthew 3:17 and 17:5).

According to the Bible, from eternity past, each person in the Godhead has assumed a role, as it were, within the Godhead. Each role is both unique and complementary in the ongoing purposes of all three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, there is unanimity of purpose. Each person will forever be in one accord with the other members of the trinity as to their ongoing, divine motives, intentions, attitudes and actions. Much more could be said about this, but perhaps an illustration might prove helpful.

Just as a baby born into a family begins very early to intuit that each parent is a bit different from the other (if only in their appearance and the sound of their voices), so also in that same family the child will eventually learn that despite the parents having different roles within the family unit, the family is still a unit composed of three equal persons (though very early in life the baby thinks he or she is the center of the universe).

While the father may assume a role which the mother does not assume, the child still intuits that both parents are still parents. At the same time, however, the child relates to each parent in a slightly different way, and vice versa. In a multiple-child family, the same can be said of each child. The parent-child relationship, though it will evolve over time, will always be a human-to-human, parent-child relationship, even if the adult develops dementia and the roles seem to be reversed.

So it is within the Godhead, but on a divine level. Each person—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has a role to play, but each person retains his deity and equality within the Godhead. Even when Jesus became a human being via his immaculate and divine conception, his deity was at no time compromised. To be sure, for a time he emptied himself of some of his divine prerogatives, or to put it differently, he veiled his divine nature and attributes, all for the suffering of death (see Philippians 2). At no time, however, did he cease being God.

After Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic (whom he also healed), even some of Jesus’ detractors were correct when they remarked in Jesus’ presence,

  Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? (Luke 5:21; Mark 2:7).

Even though Jesus humbled himself by “taking the form of a bond-servant, and [by] being made in the likeness of men,” he still retained the prerogative of God to forgive sins, not to mention perform miracles, which included raising people from the dead! Moreover—and perhaps more importantly, by being the Lamb of God who became “obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,” Jesus made the forgiveness of sins possible through his shed blood at Calvary (again, see Philippians 2:7-8).

The doctrine of the trinity is perhaps the most difficult-to-understand doctrine in all of Scripture. Christians may sound as if they are copping out when they say it’s a mystery, but it is, in fact, quite mysterious. How can a God who is described as One Lord in one place (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4) have in another place a “doubting Thomas” say, without being reproved by Jesus for saying it,

  ”My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)?

In conclusion, each person in the Godhead, though singularly unique, is in perfect synchronicity with each other person in the Godhead. This fact has been a cornerstone of the Christian faith for centuries, and the teaching was codified in one of Christianity’s most significant creeds, the Athanasian Creed (named after, but likely not written by, Athanasius, the fourth century Bishop of Alexandria), which reads in part,

  [W]e worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

  For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

  Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
  The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

  As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

  So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.


What determines the denominational "value" of a given Bible translation? In related form to a previous question, what makes a given translation (or translational family) more likely to be promulgated by a given denomination over others?

For example, the New American Bible is [almost] exclusively used by the Roman Catholic Church.

Whereas the English Standard Version is generally favored by conservative Protestant churches.

The New International Version and New Living Translation tend to be used heavily by middle-of-the-road and/or liberal denominations more than the New American Standard or New King James, which again tend to be used by more conservative congregations.

What about a given translation makes it more apt to be utilized by a given denomination and/or be discouraged/banned by a denomination?

Below is a list of some widely used translations that were funded by particular denominations. This list does not imply that they were originally (or currently) intended to be utilized only by their parent denomination (with the exception of the New World Translation).

Catholic

Douai-Rheims

Confraternity Bible

Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition

Jerusalem Bible

New Jerusalem Bible

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

New American Bible

Anglican – King James Version (KJV)

Christian Reformed Church – New International Version (NIV)

Lutheran – God’s Word Bible

Southern Baptist – Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

Jehovah’s Witnesses – New World Translation (NWT)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM

The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) is the only English text currently approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for use in the United States.  It is the text found in all  current Lectionaries in the U.S. The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language,  where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. "brothers and sisters", instead of the older "brethren"), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.

USCCB states:

  Since May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American
  Bible is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass
  in the dioceses of the United States, except for the current
  Lectionary for Masses with Children which remains in use.

  The 1970 edition of the New American Bible is used in the Scripture
  readings and canticles of the Liturgy of the Hours (except the
  Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc dimittis.)

It should be noted that the USCCB approves of other translations for personal devotion and study.

See APPROVED TRANSLATIONS

PROTESTANTISM

Considering the fact that there are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations and sects currently in existence, it is practically impossible to narrow down the answer to your question with specific accuracy. We can, perhaps, pin things down into 4 main reasons.

Tradition – This especially applies to the King James Version.  The KJV was the only English translation accepted by Protestants for almost 400 years.  Virtually the entire North East United States was founded by settlers carrying the KJV under their arms. Children were educated and sermons were preached almost exclusively from the KJV for the first 200 years of settlement in New England. The tradition of using the KJV translation trickled down through the various branches of Protestantism from generation to generation as denominationalism exponentially flourished.  Most conservative Protestant Christians today tend to be raised with a more “traditional” disposition and are taught from a young age that the KJV is the only orthodox translation.  “If it’s good enough for Grandfather, then it’s good enough for me.”
Understandability – The main reason why newer translations (i. e. NIV, NKJV, HCSB) came into existence was to replace Early Modern English with today’s English, replacing “thou at saved” with “you are saved.” The King James Version was produced in the Elizabethan period of Early Modern English, and so it uses forms of the verbs and pronouns that were characteristic of that period. The newer translations make it easier to read and understand, especially for younger generations. This can easily be demonstrated by having a 13 year old read a chapter of Leviticus in front of a congregation using a KJV Bible.
Inclusiveness – Translations that employ inclusive language use language that avoids the use of certain expressions or words that might be considered to exclude particular groups of people, especially gender-specific words, such as "man,""mankind," and masculine pronouns, the use of which might be considered to exclude women.
Private interpretation – There is one overarching characteristic of all translations that determines whether or not it is to be utilized or shunned. It is the fact that no translation contains any passages to be translated that remotely resembles any sort of commanding directive as to which translation should be utilized or shunned. The Bible doesn't explicitly dictate how it should be translated. Although certain denominations strongly suggest the use of a particular translation, it is not left to the denominational leadership to decide. The Bible is the final authority within Protestantism. Therefore, in a world of private interpretation, it is ultimately the subjective opinion of the individual that decides which translation should be used.


According to Catholicism, why are some demons more difficult to cast out than others? In the gospels we often read about Jesus casting out demons. But there is one episode, where the disciples were unable to cast out a demon (Mark 9: 27-28).

27 And when he was come into the house, his disciples secretly asked him: Why could not we cast him out?
28 And he said to them: This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Some time ago, I was reading an article stating that Pope John Paul II was unable to liberate an Italian teenager from a demon during an exorcism!
My question is this: according to Catholic teaching, why are some demons harder to cast out than others?

It is because there are different levels or hierarchies of angels, demons being fallen angels. If one gets possessed/oppressed by a more malignant demon, its exorcism would be more difficult because such a demon is more disobedient to God.

Listen to the talks here by a Catholic priest who is an expert in demonology and exorcism, e.g. the

ones listed under the heading "Angels and Demons"
"TU Newman Center Conference on Exorcism" talk
"Interview on Exorcism, Reason in Society, Philosophy and Theology"


Is the enemy a creator relatively the same as God and creator of what? To what degree and in what manner is the enemy a creator (extent/limitations) and how can we defeat him in this life - during our everyday routines?

.

Here are a few relevant things I have found so far:

  Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a
  roaring lion looking for someone to devour. - 1 Peter 5:8

Also appears to have made a come back in the Vatican  :

A modern pope gets old school on the Devil:

  “Pope Francis never stops talking about the Devil; it’s constant,”
  said one senior bishop in Vatican City who spoke on the condition of
  anonymity in order to speak freely. “Had Pope Benedict done this, the
  media would have clobbered him.”

Pope Francis issues dire warning to followers at Vatican Mass: Satan is real:

  “Look out because the devil is present! The devil is here...” the Pope
  said

Psalms 33;6

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

There is only one creator, God.

I Peter 5;8

Be sober, be vigilant; because your advesary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

In your own strength, you cannot defeat the devil.  You must be born again as Nicodemus.

John 3;5

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of  the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 6;11

Put  on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

To what degree and what manner is the enemy a creator?

Ezekiel 28;15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

The angel, Lucifer, is a creature and has no power to create.

How can we defeat him in this life?

I John 5;18  We know that whoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The enemy only has power over the  unbeliever.

II Thessalonians 2;8,9,10

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

It is impossible for man, on his own, to defeat the devil. Man must be born again.

John 12;31 Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.


Can a woman cut her hair and not cover her head? NIV 1 Corinthians 11:6 - For if a woman does not cover her head, she might
  as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to
  have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her
  head.

With reference to the context of this verse,

Can a woman cut her hair (not shave her head) and not cover her head?

As she has two options, to cut her hair or shave her head. In verses, or is used as below:

  her hair cut off or her head shaved

She can opt any one of them(her hair cut off or head shaved), right?

No, the context does not state any such alternative that if she wishes to keep her hair uncovered then she may do that by keeping them short or shaving completely.  He is not suggesting an alternative between cutting hair or shaving bald; he says that for a woman to cut her hair short, or to shave bald, is very disgraceful.  Having short hair or shaved hair are both disgraceful  among Israelites of that period, although that is less disgraceful than displaying uncovered hair.

Frederick Louis Godet's commentary says

  To impress the revolting character of such a course, the
  apostle supposes it pushed to extremity. There is something of
  indignation in his words: “If this woman has effrontery enough to do
  the first of these acts, well and good, better also do the second!”
  The repulsive character of the one should make that of the other felt.
  The word ξυρασθαι is usually accented, as if it were the present
  infinitive passive of ξυράω (ξυρᾶσθαι). But why should it not be
  regarded as the aorist infinitive middle, like κείρασθαι, of the form
  ξύρω (ξύρασθαι)? See Passow. There is a gradation from the one of
  these verbs to the other: To cut the hair or even to shave the head.
  The word αἰσχρόν, shameful, includes the two notions of physical
  ugliness and moral indecency. (italics added)

Charles Ellicott's commentary says

  (6) Let her also be shorn. —The force of this argument depends on the
  fact that a woman’s head being uncovered would be regarded by others
  as implying the same shame as was indicated by a woman’s hair being
  cut short (i.e., shorn), or altogether removed (i.e., shaven). It is
  as if the Apostle said —If a woman insists on her right to pray and
  speak in an assembly with uncovered head, let her carry out this
  principle to its logical result; let her insist on her right to have
  her hair cut short, so as to show her equality with man —and what would
  be thought of her then! No woman with a spark of shame in her would
  think of doing that. Accordingly you admit that this principle of
  sexual equality does not apply in all such matters; and it is
  illogical to argue in favour of any general principle as if it were of
  universal obligation, when you yourselves admit that it is not
  applicable in some cases.


Do we have to tithe our time as well? Some preachers teach that Tithing does not only mean material things, but it also means giving 10% of your time as well. Some even say 10% of your everything, like your thoughts, your desires, your food, etc.

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

It's a good teaching anyway.

1  I can't find any direct reference

The tithe is seen by many to be an Old Testament law for people in the covenant and not binding on New Testament Christians.  That being said, the tithe is also seen as a good principle to start from.

I personally try to give more than 10% and hope to increase the percentage over time.  (However, the government keeps taking more of my money, which makes this more difficult.)   R. G. Letourneau actually gave 90% of his income away to various Christian ministries.

It seems a proper Christian attitude is not to give the bare minimal to the work of Christ and indulge the flesh with the rest of it, but to glorify God with 100% of our income, and to not store up for ourselves treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19-21).

The same principle should be applied to our time as well as our talents, opportunities, relationships, and everything else.  Paul gave us this instruction:

  So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.  1 Corinthians 10:31 ESV

So, "all" is not 10%, but 100%.


How does the Catholic Church choose the patron saint of a parish church? I’m Catholic, and have been since birth.  I attend parish of St. Francis in Bakersfield, California. I have noticed recently, that all Catholic Churches, for the most part are named after a Saint, i.e. Saint Francis, Saint Phillip, Saint Anne, Saint Stephen etc.

I’ve always wondered, how to they pick which Saint?

Is their a list of names to choose from or are they just chosen at random?

The naming of a patron saint of a parish church must be chosen by the clergy and the faithful of the area in union with their local ordinary (bishop) and then approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Often the faithful of a specific region will hold a particular devotion to a particular saint, thus making the choice more easy. The bishop can not name the patron saint of a church without the aid and inspiration of local clergy and the faithful.

  As an intercessor or advocate before God, the patron is a created person, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Angels, a Saint or Blessed. For the same reason, the Most Holy Trinity and the divine Persons are always excluded as patrons.
  A patron must be chosen by the clergy and the faithful, whose choice must be approved by the competent ecclesiastical authority. In order that they may carry liturgical effect, the choice and approbation require the confirmation of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which is granted by decree of this same Dicastery.
  The patron of a place is distinguished from the title of a given church; they may be the same but are not necessarily so.
  When a new parish has been erected in place of several suppressed parishes, the new parish may have its own church, which, unless it is a new building, retains its existing title. Further, churches of suppressed parishes, whenever such parishes are considered as ‘co-parishes,’ retain their own proper titles. - Patron Saints of Churches

Ultimately it is up to the local clergy and the faithful to propose the patron saint of a parish church to the bishop, who will give his approval to the motion

Nota Bene: Number 8 simply means that the title of a church may be of the Most Holy Trinity or one of the divine Persons; but since they are not Saints, Blesseds or Angels they are always excluded from being the patron saint of a church. In this case we refer to the parish as being associated with a particular divine mystery and the parish’s feast day will occur on the feast when the Church celebrates that particular divine mystery.


Why do Catholics baptize children? My reading of the Bible indicates that when a person is about be baptized, he/she is confirming that he/she believes that Jesus is the son of God and believes in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But children don't know all this, so without their consciousness it seems inappropriate to baptize them.  Why, then, do Catholics baptize children?

The New Testament indicates that the Apostoles baptized all members of some families, and we can assume in a family, there are kids :

"And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." (1 Corinthians 1, 16)
(About Lydia) : "And when she was baptized, and her household" (Actes of the apostles 15, 16)
(Paul, to the keeper of the prison) : "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" ... "And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately." (Actes of the apostles 15, 31.33)

Baptism is indeed sequel to conversion and faith (cf. Mark 16, 16; etc.) but as you see in the examples above, kids have been baptized on the basis of the faith of one parent. In the Catholic Church, for an infant to be baptized licitly, "there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason" (canon 868 §2).
Baptism brings other graces that it is worth children benefit :

it makes them enter the Church
it ereases original sin
"According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him (Romans 6,3-4 cf. Colossians 2,12). [...] The baptized have "put on Christ" (Galatians 3,27). Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies (1 Corinthians 6,11 12,13)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1227)

Baptizing children is clearly letting them come to Christ. Let's not forbid them :

"And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10, 13-14)


Ignatius of Antioch: Christophoros or Theophorus? I have recently being reading into some history of early Christians. I came across a reference to Ignatius of Antioch in the book "Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation" by Elaine Pagels:

  The first person we know who aggressively called himself "a Christian" to distinguish himself from Jews was the Syrian convert Ignatius of Antioch. Converted to Paul's message perhaps around 80 or 90 CE, twenty years after "the great apostle" first preached in his home city, Ignatius so zealously took this message to heart that he took Paul as the model for his own life. Calling himself Christophoros, "Christ bearer", this strong-minded believer travelled through Asia Minor about fifteen years after John [of Patmos] had been there and like John, wrote letters to seven churches near the coast, including three to groups of Jesus's followers in Ephesus, Smyrna and Philadelphia - the same cities that John had addressed. —p65, Penguin Books Edition, 2013

My own name is the Anglicised version of Christophoros, so I found this interesting. I was name this way by my devoted Christian parents, and they explained to me from a young age why they chose this name, "Christ bearer". I had previously been vaguely aware of a Saint Christopher and had assumed he was the origin of my name.

However, doing further reading into Ignatius, I found his wikipedia article which states that he named himself Theophorus "God Bearer".

Elaine Pagels is Professor of Religion at Princeton University and her books are extremely well referenced throughout in true scholarly fashion, but there is no reference for this particular piece of information. Wikipedia also does not back up its claim with a reference.

I suppose this could be a translation artifact but I find this unlikely as I feel early Christians in any language would have had a clear distinction between Christ the Son and God the Father.

Which of these was the assumed name of Ignatius? Or are both correct?

(I've just ordered a copy of Ignatius' letters, which I believe are the only real source of information about him, so the answer may well lie within, but it will take a few days to arrive, especially at this time of year!)

Ignatius called himself Theophorus, that is, God-bearer.  All seven of his letters begin this way:

  Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus... (Epistle to the Ephesians, cf. to Magnesians, to Trallians, etc.)

Some scholarly analysis of this title is available in Srawley's translation of the epistles, page 41.

But there's at least one sense in which Pagels is correct – Ignatius considers his audience (and presumably all Christians) to be "Christ-bearers," as he writes in Epistle to the Ephesians, IX:

  Ye, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, in whom also I exult that I have been thought worthy, by means of this Epistle, to converse and rejoice with you, because with respect to your Christian life ye love nothing but God only.

The word here is χριστοφόροι (per the Greek text), which is transliterated christophoros.

So if this was indeed an oversight on Pagels's part, it so happens that she is still correct – he did (indirectly) call himself a Christ-bearer.


Is the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" the same as the "tree of life"? Is there one off-limits tree in the Garden of Eden or two? Genesis speaks of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17) and then later talks of the tree of life (Genesis 3:22). Are they the same tree or two different trees?

No. These are two different trees.

  The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:9)

At first, only one was made off limits to humans.

  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. (Gen 2:17)

Then, after humans disobeyed, God made the other tree off limits, as well.

  And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. (Gen 3:22)

But now... it is under guard.

  After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen 3:24)

In summary: There are two trees (among many) in this story, the fruit of one was forbidden, humans disobeyed God. Now we are locked out of the other tree (from which the humans were allowed to eat in the first place.)


What is an overview of the schools of thought regarding the soteriological status of alien life forms? What is an overview of the various opinions on whether alien life forms are saved and can go to heaven?

I would accept the idea that this has not been substantially discussed as an answer if that is the case. However I have found that there is some opinion on this within the Jehovah's witness community and there is evidence that the Pope would baptise aliens suggesting that the Catholic church must have some view on the matter.

The question is purely hypothetical, and would seem to fall under Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 1:4 to avoid "...attention to fables..., which cause debates rather than godly edifying, which is in faith."

As of now--April 12, 2020--there is no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe.

There is an abundance of astro-biologists and other scientists that insist there "must be" extra-terrestrial life; however, I think intellectual honesty would conclude such a claim is a matter of faith.
Establishing whether there is alien life will be more difficult than examining whether they can be saved and go to heaven.

If such life exists; and, if that life is intelligent enough to comprehend the Gospel; and, if we can communicate back and forth with that life within a reasonable amount of time; then, your question will take on greater urgency and significance.


Are there any Christian traditions that say anything about feminism? I'm wondering if the topic of feminism is ever discussed or approached with critical, religious perspective within any Christian tradition.

Are there any Christian traditions that say anything about feminism? Under the old traditions women where held to a strict standard. Some could view these standards as a form of oppression. Jesus came to set free the oppressed. Feminism by definition is considered by Webster as "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities". He has said "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?" (Isaiah 58:6)

I'm wondering if the topic of feminism is ever discussed or approached with critical, religious perspective within any Christian tradition. Yes it has. For example we can strive for equality, but specific situations may not be received equally. The giving of flowers for example, if a man gives flowers to his wife, this is a gift that is approved of, and if he gives flowers to another mans wife then this action has condemned him. Equally this was the same action. How the action was received however is of opposite values. Or think of the value of a woman giving her man flowers? Does he receive this gesture with the same value as the woman receives this gesture. For me no. I do not receive this gesture the same as the woman, so again an unbalance occurs.

These are special situations in the larger scope, so these specific situations where talked over and a standard way of handling things can be considered agreeable to both sides. Now making offerings are a display of love so a man should not ask for an offering from another mans wife when her husband is present (1 Cor 11:4). For the offering decided by the wife could cause jealousy or envy to her husband. And likewise a wife shouldn't ask another man for an offering when her husband is with her, for isn't that display of Love best to be reserved for the husband to display to his wife? Is it not better that she ask of her husband, then it be for him to ask? So that he is the one that presents it to her? (1 Cor 11:5). Therefore if the woman refuses her husband this glory she causes disgrace to herself (1 Cor 11:6). Also a man should not have his wife ask for the offering, for God finds Glory in offering to the man (1 Cor 11:7). Now we find that it is good for the woman to have the power of choice, since in the days of old the angels took advantage of the woman and had them as wives (Gen 6:4, 1 Cor 11:10). The needs of husband and the wife should be considered the same (1 Cor 11:11-12).

It is true that under the old law. That the husband was to rule over his wife (Genesis 3:16). Under the new covenant however, the least will be the greatest (Luke 9:48) negating the power of the authority given to man, for if in service grace is to be given, then the man and the woman serve each other in unity.

In the Gospel of Thomas it states:
"Jesus saw some little ones nursing. He said to his disciples, "These little ones who are nursing resemble is those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "So shall we enter the kingdom by being little ones?" Jesus said to them, "When you (plur.) make the two one and make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside and the above like the below, and that you might make the male and the female be one and the same, so that the male might not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye and a hand in place of a hand and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image - then you will enter [the kingdom]." (Gospel of Thomas Saying 22)

"Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (Gospel of Thomas Saying 114)


All is vanity in the Book of Ecclesiastes If Solomon claimed that All is vanity in this earth in the Book of Ecclesiastes, what's our purpose of living our lives on this earth?

If Solomon claimed that All is vanity in this earth in the Book of Ecclesiastes, what's our purpose of living our lives on this earth?

That's what he tells you at the end of the book:

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NKJV

  13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:

    Fear God and keep His commandments,
    For this is man’s all.
    14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
    Including every secret thing,
    Whether good or evil.

The idea in Ecclesiastes is that Solomon, being the richest man on earth at the time, tried every pursuit that people might seek for happiness and contentment in and found them all lacking, all vanity, all worthless, except for serving God.


Do any theologians argue that in the Fall, Adam sacrificed himself out of love for Eve? I've heard a few Christians say, perhaps half-jokingly, that Adam only ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden because he realized that it was the only way for him to stay with Eve.  By this they seem to suggest that Adam only sinned out of a sense of altruism, sacrifice, and love.

I don't find the biblical evidence for this view convincing, but when researching the origin of it, I stumbled across John Milton's Paradise Lost.  In the following lines, Eve is responding to Adam's choice to eat the forbidden fruit despite the threat of death:

  Tenderly wept, much won that he his Love
  Had so enobl'd, as of choice to incurr
  Divine displeasure for her sake, or Death.
  (Book 9, lines 991–93)

Thus, I wonder:

Is Paradise Lost actually the origin of this theory?
Have any Christian theologians/commentators in church history (before or after Milton) argued for this interpretation of the Fall? Or is this simply an example of pure poetic license that has infiltrated Christian thought?

Augustine's concept of defining all sin in terms of disordered love is certainly applicable:

  for Augustine, rightly ordered love was virtue (City of God 15. 22) and disordered love was vice... the depravity created by disordered love was so deep that no one could extricate or heal him or herself from it.  - David K. Naugle, source

He applies this concept directly to Adam's fall:

  ...it was that sin that happened at the moment Adam, with a misguided will, took pleasure in something inferior, rather than rejoicing in the power of God. - source

In the City of God (14.13), Augustine more directly suggests that Adam was motivated by a desire to not be parted from his wife:

  This falling away is spontaneous; for if the will had remained steadfast [...] the woman would not have believed the serpent spoke the truth, nor would the man have [...] supposed that it was a venial trangression to cleave to the partner of his life even in a partnership of sin. - source

But Augustine uses the clearest language in De Genesi ad Litteram1 (11.42), as one commentator summarizes,

  ...Adam sinned on account of his love for Eve... - source

In book IX of this work, amongst other things, Augustine explains "Why Adam was lead in to sin by Eve, not also by the serpent". He likens Adam to the example of Solomon who was "...unable to resist the love of women dragging him into this evil...", he then proceeds thus:

  In the same way Adam too was unwilling to cross the woman who had taken a bite from the forbidden tree after being led astray, and had given some to him so that they might eat together; he believed that she might easily pine away without him to comfort her, if she found herself estranged from his way of thinking, and might quite simply perish from that conflict. So what led to his downfall was not any lust of the flesh, which he had not yet felt in the law in the members fighting back against the law of the mind (Rom 7:23), but a kind of loving concern for their mutual friendship, which often leads to God being offended, in case friends should turn unfriendly. That Adam should not have done this he was shown clearly by the result - the just sentence passed on him by God. - On Genesis, book IX, page 463

It is certainly arguable that this does not explicitly reference 'sacrifice', but Augustine's argument coupled with the sense of 1 Timothy 2:14 – which asserts that Adam was not deceived in acting the way he did – gives the implication that he acted with deliberate intent after he had been warned that the consequences were death and did so because of (disordered) love – which could fairly be summarized as 'sacrifice'.

On Genesis / The Literal Meaning of Genesis, St. Augustine of Hippo; translated by Edmund Hill, New City Press (reference courtesy of Mr. Bultitude)