Why do some Christians believe a very young Earth? AFAIK, some Young Earth Creationists (YEC) believe that Earth was created less than 10000 years ago; that is a relatively small interval before the creation of human beings.

However, I also perceive that most creationists do not have a problem with a "huge" (i.e. light-years) Universe since this is in sync with God's attribute of infinity.

I am wondering how can YEC's deal with a very "big" God and space, but restrict the time dimension so much. Intuitively, an infinite God is somehow in contradiction with such small time spans (thousands of years).

Question: Why do some Christians believe in a very young Earth?

Prior to the birth of Christ, most Jewish scholars assumed the genealogies in the Bible were accurate and complete and the account of creation was literal history, hence attributed an age to the earth in the thousands of years.
Jesus, speaking with the authority of God, endorsed the accuracy and divine authority of the Bible. Mark 10:6 says: “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.”
The early church adopted such views, with a few dissenters.
Many Reformation leaders taught that the earth's age could be inferred from Scripture and also taught that its age was in the thousands of years.
The advent of modern science challenged the religious beliefs of millions. Some accepted theories born of this science and rejected the idea of a young earth.
Other people place a higher credence in the words of scripture and reject attempts to import ideas not apparent in the original text based solely on human scientific theories.
As this deepening fissure widened both outside and inside the church, four tendencies arose:

a) Change Biblical hermeneutics to permit an older age for the earth and make the creation story allegorical.

b) Seek scientific evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, evolution, radioactive dating, and related ideas and techniques, as well as explore phenomena indicative of a younger age for the earth.

c) Accept the Bible on faith because of the powerful evidence of its divine nature demonstrated to them by the indwelling Holy Spirit and the miraculous events that He produces in their lives, without making a significant attempt to investigate the scientific ideas and how they are seemingly in conflict with the Biblical account.

d) Reject the Bible and Christianity altogether.

The people who have taken path 7b (the subject of your question) are in the minority. They have credible answers to many of the objections of the scientific community, but the problem posed by our ability to see distant starlight has proven to be the most difficult to answer. Russell Humprehys has a white-hole cosmology, while another has offered the effects of adopting an Anisotropic Synchrony Convention when interpreting General Relativity as a possible answer.


What was the 16th century Catholic doctrine on Greek gods? I've long assumed the Catholics have always denied the existence of pagan gods, hence allowed them to be represented in art as a fiction reminiscent of a heroic and remote past. However, the strong wording in an addendum to the imprimatur (image below) for an early 1572 edition of the Portuguese epic Os Lusíadas from author Luiz de Camões states clearly that Greek gods referred to in the text are demons (Demonios).

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

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

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

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

The words "all Gods of the Gentiles are demons" is a quote from Scripture;

  For all the gods of the heathens are devils, but the Lord made the heavens (Ps. 96:5 LXX/Vul).

It's most likely meaning in Scripture and here is that whereas the heathens think they worship gods, they serve demons in actual fact, either literal individual demons corresponding to the respective false idols/gods, or simply in the fact that they offer sacrifice to not-God (their fictional gods), and take perverted pleasure in such, or can even gain spiritual authority over such who dabble in such.

I think it would first have to be demonstrated (no pun intended) that a change in the perennial view of false gods had taken place in the 1500s (which from this quote alone is not evident), rather than setting about to produce an explicit interpretation of "the gods of Gentiles are devils" by someone in the 1500s wherein they differed therefrom.

Traditionally, the activity of witches etc. qua (as being, or if) actually supernatural, is obviously to be attributed to devils, since it is not God's doing. Does this mean all false gods correspond to an individual fallen angel (devil)?  I don't think so.  However, the early Church Fathers certainly believed that demons were at least the inspiration for the false religions of pagans, especially those in which there are things which seem to plagiarize the Old Testament, or even imitate something specifically Christian (St. Justin Martyr, a mid-second century Christian, would say that the mysteries of Mithras were plagiarized from the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist):

  [The sacrament of the Eucharist] which the wicked devils have
  imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to
  be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain
  incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you
  either know or can learn.

Much to the gratification of liberals and anti-Christians who consider Christianity 'just another pagan religion.'


If God is omniscient how can he "Forget our Sins"? God is all knowing. It says in the bible that God forgets our sins and transgressions. Is this a correct translation? It seems very contradictory.

The Bible uses many images to express the message it want to convey.

In exemple the Bible uses body part to explain the action of God.

  They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. 2 And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, 3 and the people of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger."

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ex 16:1–3). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

  6 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses that the LORD, the God of Israel, had given, and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was on him.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ezr 7:6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

But the Bible maintains that God is a spirit and He does not have body parts like hand in the example above. The is a literary exercise called Anthropomorphism (wiki)

In your question it is the same scheme that is used. The biblical author used and image that we could easily understand "forget" to express that God will not impute the consequences of our sins. Since He decide not to judge us according to our sins it is the same has saying that he does forget them.


What verses focus on the prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus being pierced on the cross? What are the specific versus that support the prophesy of Jesus' side being pierced on the cross?

The usual reference for what we currently have in the Biblical Canon is from Zechariah 12:10.  From the KJV, emphasis added:

  And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.


How do Arminians handle the case of Judas? Unless I'm mis-reading this passage in John, it seems like Judas was predestined to be lost.

  John 17:12 (KJV)
  12  While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

How do those who argue against predestination handle this verse?

"Predestination"
It is not that Arminians argue "against" predestination - that would be silly, since the term comes from Scripture; Arminians would have to cross out a whole bunch of verses in their Bibles if that were the case.  Clearly "predestination" is a reality.
The question is, what does that mean, and how does that work?

In general, Calvinists teach that predestination means that God, in His complete sovereignty (i.e. control over everything), predetermined who would be saved and who would spend eternity in Hell, based solely on His plan which He designed for His glory.  It is not about us, what we do, what we decide (as if we had some autonomous "free-will"); it is about God's plan for Self-glorification.

In general, Arminians teach that predestination means that God, in His complete wisdom and foreknowledge (i.e. awareness of every future event), prepares the future based on His awareness of what men will choose.

Where do Arminians get such strange ideas?  From Scripture!

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined ... and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. -Romans 8:29-30
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those ... who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father -1 Peter 1:1-2

"Ridiculous!"
It is easy to think that the opposing view is ridiculous, but we really need to listen more carefully to what the "other side" is saying; one's "opponents" in this debate are not as ignorant as they might seem.
From a Calvinist perspective, Arminians don't believe God is sovereign, because they don't believe He is ultimately behind every choice that is made.  To them the end result is that Arminians don't believe that God is God.
From an Arminian perspective, Calvinism paints men as mechanical creatures who carry out the actions God programmed them to  carry out, more or less.  The end result is a God who decided that the best possible plan was one where He made billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them in Hell for eternity - all for Self-glorification.  And yet somehow "God is love".
What About Judas?
The story of Judas doesn't catch Arminians off-guard in any way; nor does it pose a challenge.  Judas chose to betray the Lord, and God knew He was going to do so.  Based on His foreknowledge, He arranged history accordingly, foretold it to His prophets, and then pointed to it when it happened.
All of this causes the Arminian to bow in worship to the all-knowing, all-wise Creator and Lord.
Of course, the Arminian would not concede that God wanted Judas to choose evil and inherit eternal torment, but for the Arminian, this is more of a comfort than a concern.  It does not signify that God is not God; only that God is not malicious.


What is Heaven's Mercy Seat? In Revelation Song, Jesus is portrayed as sitting on "Heaven's Mercy Seat" at God's right hand.  I'm trying to get a handle on what that is. (At 1:07, we praise 'Him who sits on Heaven's Mercy Seat"  At 3:22, Jesus is explicitly identified)

My understanding is that the Mercy Seat is where God resides, and I think it might even be the Ark of the Covenant - but if that is the case, it seems as though it should be associated more with God the Father than God the Son.  Is this just a case of Phillippians 2 (At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow) or is there more? Or, am I just misinterpreting "Him who sits on Heaven's Mercy Seat?"

So, biblically then, what exactly is the Mercy Seat? Where can I read about it, and more importantly, what does it mean for Jesus to be sitting on it?

The mercy seat is an incredibly dense and intertextual image, with a long history in Christian culture. Below is an illustration by Michiel van der Borch from a 1332 copy of the "Rhyme Bible" (which despite the name, does not rhyme and is not a Bible), showing many facets of the concept. 1

Here, God the Father sits on a throne that might look a bit like the Ark of the Covenant; he is holding the crucified Christ in his lap, and the Holy Spirit is also present as a dove. This is actually a fairly common artistic motif for showing the Trinity, often called the "Gnadenstuhl" image (German for "grace stool" or "mercy stool"). Anyone who thinks "oh, now that makes total sense" can stop reading now. For everyone else...
Biblically, the original element is the Ark of the Covenant. From descriptions in the Torah2, we learn that the Ark has a golden lid called the kapporeth (כַּפֹּ֫רֶת). The lid therefore covers the tablets of the Law, kept inside the Ark. It also has two angelic figures mounted upon it, who stretch out their wings above the Ark: this space between the wings was particularly associated with the presence of God, and seen as a sort of earthly shadow of God's heavenly throne (see e.g. 1 Samuel 4:4).
Of course, the whole Ark was meant to be kept in a place of sanctity, the summit of the system of ritual purity. Ultimately, only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies in order to offer a sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur - he would sprinkle the blood of a bull on the kapporeth, as the climax of all ceremonies and observances directed towards the seeking of atonement. The similarity between the words "Kippur" and "kapporeth" is no accident: the concept of "covering" is etymologically and philosophically linked to the idea of having sins "made better". In the Greek Septuagint, the word used is hilasterion (ἱλαστήριον), which more directly means something like "propitiation", "atonement", or "expiation", and appears again in the New Testament. (See: "How should ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) be translated in Romans 3:25?" on BH.SE.)
A very direct connection is made by the author of Hebrews in chapter 9. Verse 5 repeats the idea of the hilasterion. But now Christ is come to be both High Priest and sacrifice.

But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.
Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. (verses 11-12 and 25-26, NRSV)

The mercy seat, which was the sign of God's presence and the place of atonement, is now identified with the ultimate act of atonement performed by Christ, in his own person. If we look back at the illustration above, we can now understand Christ being received as a sacrifice on the throne/altar/Ark. He has replaced the old system of purity under the Law, and is being crucified symbolically "above" the Law.
Moreover, God's presence in the world is now the body of Christ himself - "God with us", the Word made flesh - and for that reason the mercy seat is also sometimes associated with the Eucharist. As Peter Turner points out in a comment above, the Ark may stand for Mary, which is another link to the reality of God's presence due to his Incarnation.
Because the Ark is a sort of earthly throne for God, mirroring the heavenly throne, there is some cross-pollination with other Biblical throne imagery. In Hebrews 4:14-16 is the famous language of the "throne of grace", associated with Christ as High Priest. There is also the throne of Revelation 4. The song lyrics you refer to in the question are clearly drawing partly from this chapter (throne, rainbow, lightning, "Holy, Holy, Holy") as well as the following one. The mercy seat reference is:

Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
Holy, Holy, is He;
Sing a new song to him who sits on
Heaven's mercy seat.

This comes from Revelation 5, where Christ is presented as the slain Lamb:

They sing a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth." [...] "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" (verses 9-10 and 13, NRSV)

So the one who is sitting on the mercy seat, or throne of Heaven, is God (the Father). The slain Lamb, who is God (the Son), is the offering in his own person - this may also be seen as on the mercy seat, and as well, he is "at the right hand of the Father". But in a way, Jesus also is the mercy seat, as in this sixteenth-century exhortation:

Brethren, we haue Iesus Christ the righteous and aduocate with the Father, he is the mercie seate of our sinnes.3

This makes sense if we read the image, in a more general way, as something like "the locus of God's sacrificing presence".
1. Museum Meermanno (Den Haag), MS 10B21, folio 118r. Scanned copy here. The Rijmbijbel was written in 1271 by the Flemish poet Jacob von Maerlant, based on the twelfth-century Historia scholastica Biblical paraphrase of Petrus Comestor.
2. Exodus 25:18-22, 26:34, 30:6, 31:7, 35:12, 37:6-9, 39:35, 40:20; Leviticus 16:2-15; Numbers 7:89.
3. Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, under "Mercy-seat" sense 2a. John Marbeck, A book of notes and common places with their expositions, 1581, p18.


What is the nature of the "Communion of the Saints"? In the Episcopalian Prayers of the People, Rite I, we pray as follows:

  In the communion of [__ and of all the] saints, let
  us commend ourselves, and one another, and all our life, to
  Christ our God.

As such, we have at least one Protestant (sort of) group that acknowledges the concept of the communion of the saints.  That said, there isn't a lot of understanding of that loaded term.

This term, of course, harkens back to the Apostle's Creed which states:

  I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints: the forgiveness of sins, and the life everlasting.

The question, however, is what is the nature of this communion?  Is it a fixed gathering of all believers at one time in one place, or is it like an earthly institution, like say, the Boy Scouts, where the membership changes over time, but there is always a membership.

From a reformed background the communion of the Saints is a mystical union every believer has with one another due to our common union in Christ.  This does not necessarily imply we are actually 'experiencing others' that we have never met.  It means we are all united in Christ as a new creation just as all humanity was once united in Adam.  By being members of the same mystical body, we share the same nature and life, which is communion with God.

  that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  (1 John 1:3, ESV)

Simply put, the communion of the Saints is the church.  Not visible, but invisible.  The invisible church refers to those persons who are redeemed, regenerate and spiritually united with Christ by sincere faith.  It is not dependant upon a denomination, building or sacrament. Faith alone unites a person into Christ as members of his body.

  For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. (Ephesians 2:18-21, ESV)

Of course the church, or Christ's body includes those in heaven and on earth. We are all mystically joined into one body with the same desire, love, hopes etc. by the same Spirit.


What is the Catholic Church's answer to a woman/women claiming that God has called them to the Priesthood? In this answer, we were introduced to the concept and meaning of vocation, a calling from God.

In this article, 'Group Called ‘Roman Catholic Womenpriests’ Say They Are Defying The Church To Answer A Call From God'.

Interiorly, these women 'feel they have been called by God'.

What is the Catholic Church's answer to a woman/women claiming that God has called them to the Priesthood?

Whether the women "heard God correctly" is largely irrelevant. The Church simply doesn't have the authority to ordain women.

For more information, see Women and the Priesthood.

My intuition is that "The Church" wouldn't claim, on any case-by-case basis, whether or how God was speaking to "a woman called to the priesthood." An individual spiritual advisor might suggest they've "misheard." But, "The Church" has a longstanding habit of avoiding official interpretations of individual, private revelation.


Did Origen castrate himself under a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12? I was just reading some history on extreme forms of asceticism and monasticism. In passing the subject of Origen it said he had castrated himself. Is this generally considered true by church historians?

This has been debated, so no one knows for sure. The consensus of the scholars seems to be that this was a malicious rumor about him, possibly started by Demetrios, the Bishop of Alexandria, a prosecutor of Origen.

John McGuckin's Westminster Handbook to Origen states that someone who interpreted the Gospels so allegorically would be unlikely to have interpreted Matthew 19:12 so literally and that in Origen's commentary on Matthew, he himself derides the literal interpretation of the eunuch and says only an idiot would consider that. Origen doesn't use the word "idiot," but you can read his derision for the interpretation in his Commentary on Matthew 15.1-5.

The castration story comes from the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius, the church historian who lived a generation after Origen, devotes nearly all of Book VI of his Ecclesiastical History to the life of Origen. While some scholars have cast doubt on the reliability of this source due to the author's obvious admiration for his subject and the work's loving hagiographical tone, most do not believe these factors are reason for doubting Eusebius' reports. However, why take Eusebius' account over Origen's own words?

A nice account can be found here: http://houseoftheinklings.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-origen.html


When was the name "Easter" first used for the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus? So what I'm trying to find out is who, and what religion, and where was this word "Easter" first used to describe the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

There are a few ways to look at the origin of the word Easter:

That it comes from Eostre, an ancient Germanic goddess
That it comes from Eosturmonath, or "month of beginnings"
That it comes from Anglo-Saxon eastre, meaning dawn

Bede
The primary historical account of the origin of Easter comes from Bede's De temporum ratione (The Reckoning of Time, AD 725).  He presents the first view mentioned above, that the word comes from Eostre, the name of an ancient Germanic goddess.  He writes that this goddess had a month of celebration devoted to her, and that Anglo-Saxon Christians in early Medieval England appropriated that name for their celebration of the resurrection:

Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.  Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honored name of the old observance. (chapter 15)

Alternative interpretations
Bede's account seems straightforward, but many scholars doubt his analysis of the origin of the word Easter.  Ronald Hutton, in Stations of the Sun, accepts that a predecessor of the word was used in association with Christian resurrection festivals in the 8th and 9th centuries.  But he points to research that indicates less than perfect accuracy in Bede's explanations of this type, and summarizes:

It falls into that category of interpretations which Bede admitted to be his own, rather than generally agreed or proven fact.

Hutton also writes that the Anglo-Saxon eastre was associated with Indo-European words "signifying dawn and also goddesses who personified that event."  Thus, he proposes two possible solutions that are "equally valid," both of which ultimately point back to dawn:

That Bede's goddess Eostre was a Germanic dawn-deity who was indeed venerated by Anglo-Saxon pagans in the Spring
That Bede mistakenly associated Eosturmonath with a non-existent deity, or one simply associated with dawn and not directly with springtime, and that the word actually meant, simply, "month of beginnings" or "month of openings," referring to the opening of buds in the Spring

Summary
The best we can say with some certainty is that Easter ultimately originates in Indo-European words meaning dawn.  The exact connection between the concept of dawn and the Easter celebration is less certain: perhaps simply an analogy between the dawning of a day and the arrival of springtime (and therefore Passover), or perhaps via the early Spring veneration of a dawn-goddess.
That said, scholars don't cast significant doubt on Bede's timeline: that by the 8th century, Christian celebrations of the resurrection were associated with a forerunner of the word Easter.


Why is God asking questions or appearing uncertain in the Bible if He's omniscient? Is God omniscient? lists all the passages were it is written that God is omniscient.

Reading other passages, I found a few things that seemingly contradict this:

In Genesis 3:8-13 God asks Adam and Eve where they are and if they have eaten from the tree
In Genesis 18:20-21 he apparently does not know what they have done

  20Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

In Genesis 32:22-30 God wrestles in his bodily form with Jacob, but asks Him about His name
In Numbers 22:9 He asks “Who are these men with you?”
In Deuteronomy 8:1-2 and other instances, God tests people, but wouldn't He know beforehand what they would do?

Gaining information is not the only reason for asking questions.  Asking questions is a very powerful teaching device--not because the teacher does not know the answer, but because in the answering of the questions the students learn.

Adam was hiding from an omniscient God.  He had never felt the need to hide from God before.  The question helped Adam understand and confess what he had done.  "I'm hiding... I've never hid before... this is the consequences of my sinful choice..."  Adam even had a choice of whether to answer or not.

In response to the question of whether he had eaten of the fruit, Adam blames Eve and even tries to implicate God in it, since He brought her to him.  He had a chance to take responsibility, but he failed in that and reverted to the blame game.

God also asks rhetorical questions, as He did to Job.  "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

So, the fact that God asks questions does not mean He lacks knowledge or information and must gain it from the minds of men.  He asks questions for other reasons, just like you and I do in our conversations with other people.

For the question about when God wasn't asking questions (2 and 5)...

God doesn't say He doesn't know what's going in in Sodom.  He just says that He is going to go there to observe it.  He doesn't just observe either--He also takes Lot out of the city.

Testing is another issue.  Like questions, God is not gaining information by it.  It actually does a lot for us, as we build up a history of learning from both the right and wrong decisions we make.  If we are tested and fail, we deal with the guilt and the understanding of what we ought to have done.  If we are tested and succeed, we set a pattern for future testings.


What Bible principles and scriptures apply to a situation where self-defense results in the death of the attacker? Related but not answered:
When do we as Christians draw the line on self-defense?

Context:
South Africa has a rather high rate of crime, far, far, far higher than America, Canada, or Europe. Please leave these references in as they are important for where I am coming from with this question.

If a Christian believes in self defense and kills an unbeliever who is breaking the law by committing a crime and about to rape or kill themselves or a family member or friend, is the burden of that person going to hell on the Christian?

Should the Christian have at least tried to present the gospel to the person - as ridiculous as that sounds?

Should the Christian let the unbeliever kill or rape their family or children (read the news in South Africa ) knowing that their family is born again and will be face to face with Jesus when they die? What about God's plans for their family's lives? What about God's plan for that unbelieving criminal's life?

I understand that we as Christians are responsible TO people, and not FOR people, but I don't know how that applies in this area please.

There is an Old Testament principle that applies in the case of defending ones property: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2–3).

In the case of a night-time attack, the Law granted the homeowner the benefit of the doubt that, apart from the darkness and confusion of the attack, he would not intentionally use lethal force against a thief. Even in the case of self-defense against a thief, a godly person was expected to try to restrain the assailant rather than immediately resort to killing him.

The Old Testament makes it clear that the life (of humans and animals) is in the blood (Leviticus 17:14; Deuteronomy 12:23) and under the Mosaic Law the punishment for taking the life of a human being is death (Leviticus 24:17).

Under the Mosaic Law an individual who committed manslaughter, or the unintentional and accidental killing of a person, could find sanctuary in any of the six designated cities of refuge throughout the land of Israel (Numbers 35:10–15, 22–25; Deuteronomy 19:4–6; Joshua 20:1–6). But the person guilty of shedding the blood of another was himself at risk of being avenged should he leave the city of refuge.  Even manslaughter (unintentional and accidental killing) breaks God’s laws.

The principle is clear - no one should be too quick to use deadly force against another, even someone who means to do him (or his family) harm.

In the situation you describe the person who takes the life of another will be judged by God, just as the person who commits rape or murder will be judged by God.  Regardless of right and wrong, any person who takes the life of another person has sinned and will answer to God for what they have done.

With regard to who bears the responsibility of sending someone to hell, people go to hell because of their own sin, which they freely choose.  James 1:14-15 speaks of pre-meditated sin: “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

  John 3:18 explains in the simplest terms who will go to heaven and who will go to hell: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” So, those who go to hell are specifically those who do not believe in Jesus’ name.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-hell.html

As Christians we all have a responsibility to share the gospel with others – the great commission is not an option!  In a crisis situation, such as you describe, prayer in the powerful name of Jesus may be a deterrent.  Indeed, miracles have been known to happen where the hand of an assailant has been stayed by divine intervention.  The burden of who goes to hell rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual.  Only remember that the shedding of blood breaks God’s commandments, even if done in self-defense.


How does Christianity define idolatry? How does Christianity define idolatry which is prohibited in the 2nd of the ten commandments? Is there any general consensus among the different branches or are there different opinions? What are the earliest positions/opinions of Christianity on this subject?

1Sa 15:23  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

  Strong's Hebrew word translated Idolatry

  H8655

  תּרפים

  terâphı̂ym

  ter-aw-feme'

  Plural perhaps from H7495; a healer; Teraphim (singular or plural) a family idol: - idols (-atry), images, teraphim.

  Strong's Hebrew word translated iniquity

  H205

  און

  'âven

  aw'-ven

  From an unused root perhaps meaning properly to pant (hence to exert oneself, usually in vain; to come to naught); strictly nothingness; also trouble, vanity, wickedness; specifically an idol: - affliction, evil, false, idol, iniquity, mischief, mourners (-ing), naught, sorrow, unjust, unrighteous, vain, vanity, wicked (-ness.) Compare H369.

  Gen 31:34  Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not.

  2Ki 23:24  Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.
  2Ki 23:25  And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word for idolatry is translated often as image. The images are of false gods, busts, images of ancestors or sometimes of things shown to Moses from Heaven.  It is important to remember the lesson from 1 Samuel 15:23 that stubbornness, idolatry and iniquity are all related. Stubbornness is universally understood but iniquity might cause some hindrance so I included its Strong's definition as well.

The earliest instance of idolatry in Christianity is the time Rebecka stole the idols of her father Laban. Various scholars disagree on why she stole them:

Pulpit Commentary

  (Virg., 'AEn.,' 3. 148-150). Rachel's motive for abstracting her father's teraphim has been variously ascribed to a desire to prevent her father from discovering, by inquiring at his gods, the direction of their flight (Aben Ezra, Rosenmüller), to protect herself, in case, of being overtaken, by an appeal to her father s gods (Josephus), to draw her father from the practice of idolatry (Bazil, Gregory, Nazisnzen, Theodoret), to obtain children for herself through their assistance (Lengerke, Gerlach), to preserve a memorial of her ancestors, whose pictures these teraphim were (Lightfoot); but was probably due to avarice, if the images were made of precious metals (Pererius), or to a taint of superstition which still adhered to her otherwise religious nature (Chrysostom, Calvin, 'Speaker's Commentary ), causing her to look to these idols for protection (Kalisch, Murphy) or consultation (Wordsworth) on her journey.

New Testament View

  Act 17:16  Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

  Strong's Greek Word for Idolatry from Acts 17:16

  G2712

  κατείδωλος

  kateidōlos

  kat-i'-do-los

  From G2596 (intensive) and G1497; utterly idolatrous: - wholly given to idolatry.

  G1497

  εἴδωλον

  eidōlon

  i'-do-lon

  From G1491; an image (that is, for worship); by implication a heathen god, or (plural) the worship of such: - idol.

  1Co 10:14  Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

  Strong's Greek Word for Idolatry from 1Co 10:14

  G1495

  εἰδωλολατρεία

  eidōlolatreia

  i-do-lol-at-ri'-ah

  From G1497 and G2999; image worship (literally or figuratively): - idolatry.

The New Testament also takes a similar approach defining idolatry as image/statue/anything physical worship.

Most modern Christians myself included believe you can make an idol out of anything which you prize more than God. Including a house, a dog, a car, a person, a grown up toy and etc anything which attempts to take your worship which should be directed at God can be an idol.


Do Preterists observe "the Eucharist"? Since Preterism teaches that the son of man has already come is it safe to infer that they also consider "the Lord's Supper" to be obsolete as well?:

  [1Co 11:26 CSB] 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

No, it is not obsolete because Christ instituted it as a memorial of His sacrifice.

"18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."  (Luke 22:18-20, KJV)

We still remember the sacrifice He paid, the gift of His life for ours every first day of the week.  Although we do not use the word "Eucharist" - from the Greek eucharistia meaning "thanksgiving" - because of the Catholic ritual belief of transubstantiation.  It is most often referred to as Communion, or the Lord's Supper, and is a symbolic representation.
It is very interesting that Christ told them He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom came.  As the kingdom was fully established - or came - at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70; and as the wedding feast for the marriage of the Lamb to His bride, the church took place immediately after the city was burned (Matt 22:1-14), then Christ drank the wine at the wedding feast in AD 70....in heaven.


According to the Methodist Church, is white grape juice an acceptable alternative in communion? A Methodist Church has changed from regular grape juice to white grape juice to keep stains from the carpet. Is this a valid Methodist traditional usage? Are there any historical sources explaining this usage?

Methodist Churches enjoy a great deal of flexibility when it comes to when and how they conduct their services, and this is illustrated by the freedom they have to use grape juice (red or white, it matters not) and bread that doesn’t contain gluten. Their attitude can be summed up thus:

In the essentials – unity
In non-essentials – liberty
In all things – charity

Below are links to a couple of articles about the history behind the use of grape juice within Methodist Churches:

In 1864, the General Conference of The Methodist Episcopal Church entered the conversation [about non-alcoholic grape juice] when they approved a report from the Temperance Committee that recommended “the pure juice of the grape be used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper.”
In 1869, he [Dr. Thomas B. Welch] perfected a juice pasteurization process in his kitchen and began selling “Dr. Welch’s Unfermented Wine” to churches preferring an alcohol-free substitute for Communion.  Unfortunately, the idea didn’t take off.  After four years, Welch gave up this side business.  Two years later, his son Charles convinced him to produce unfermented wine again. Charles offered free samples of the sacramental wine substitute to churches.

Source: http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/methodist-history-controversy-communion-and-welchs-grape-juice
See also: http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/why-do-most-methodist-churches-serve-grape-juice-instead-of-wine
Removing stains from red wine or red grape juice is problematic.  And a large area of carpet could cost thousands of pounds/dollars to replace.  Prevention is always preferable to cure.


Why are the men of Genesis so old? Were the dating systems just different? Are all of these old ages supposed to have symbolic meaning? Genesis 5:3-32 ESV spends a great deal of time describing the age of the men in Adam's lineage through Seth.  Why are the men of Genesis so old? Were the dating systems just different? Are all of these old ages supposed to have symbolic meaning? Why does the Bible focus on the age at which they had one child in particular, and then how much time passed until each died?

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
"When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh.  Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.  Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.
"When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan.  Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters.  Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.
"When Kenan had lived 70 years, he fathered Mahalalel.  Kenan lived after he fathered Mahalalel 840 years and had other sons and daughters.  Thus all the days of Kenan were 910 years, and he died.
"When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he fathered Jared.  Mahalalel lived after he fathered Jared 830 years and had other sons and daughters.  Thus all the days of Mahalalel were 895 years, and he died.
"When Jared had lived 162 years he fathered Enoch. Jared lived after he fathered Enoch 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Jared were 962 years, and he died.
"When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not,for God took him.
"When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech. Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
"When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died.
"After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth."

This is a great question.  The Bible never provides a direct rationale for the seemingly long ages recorded in the Old Testament.  It just states them as a matter of fact with no apology for them.

As we look more closely at the ages, though, we find some very interesting things.  The ages fall quite dramatically at a very definite point in biblical history and decline quite rapidly to ranges that fit our current experience.  This fall actually corresponds to the flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8.

On a side note, it seems that Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, died in the year of the flood, while his father died some time before the flood.  As Noah's was the righteous line, Methuselah is not thought to have died in the flood, but shortly before the flood.  The name Methuselah actually means "his death shall bring judgment".

There is biblical evidence that this catastrophic event significantly changed the earth's climate in many ways.  Indeed, we are told that prior to the flood, there was no rain, but that a mist arose and watered the earth instead.

  Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.  Genesis 2:5-6 NASB

The flood may have been the first instance of rain at all on the earth.  So, if this is accurate, then the pre-flood climate may have been much much healthier than it was afterward.  Plants would have grown much more quickly and been much more fruitful as well, and this would have been able to provide a plentiful food supply for larger animals.

If that is so, then that would explain many things that we find today:

Wooly mammoths frozen with fresh grass still in their mouths
tropical plants buried beneath many layers of ice in arctic regions
skeletons of mankind that are enormous (giants mentioned in Genesis)
Cave drawings and other depictions of dinosaurs, all created by mankind.

After the flood, as I mentioned before, we find lifespans plummeting to ranges within what we would expect today.

Prior to the flood, the wickedness of man had apparently risen to such a high degree that the only way God saw to remedy the situation was to basically start over with just one family.

  Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.  Genesis 6:5-8

Some have suggested that God shortened the lifespans to prevent people from having time to descend to that level of depravity again, and this certainly is consistent with the biblical record.

Conclusion

So, the ages along with other information suggest a pre-flood climate that was extremely healthy and quite different from that post-flood climate.  The ages drop significantly after the flood to levels similar to that of today.


Could a Catholic justify remaining an active member of the Catholic Church if the Pope permits homosexuals to receive Communion? If the current Pope, or perhaps a future Pope, were to permit [active] homosexuals to receive Communion, could a [heterosexual] Catholic legitimately justify his/her remaining an active member of the Catholic Church, since it would seem that such Papal permission would be an act that teaches contrary to the deposit of faith?

I will preface my answer by saying that the situation is unlikely, because, as the original poster says, such a disciplinary decision would imply a tacit recognition on the Church’s part that homosexual actions can be legitimate. (Homosexual tendencies are never at issue, only acting on those tendencies.) That is a matter that touches on the Church’s clear doctrine that such acts cannot be approved. (It is not, however, exactly the same as a magisterial teaching of doctrine—see below.)

Moreover, as a pastoral measure, such a course of action would not (in the Church’s view) be very merciful, because it would tend to prolong situations (e.g., homosexual relationships) that in fact are very damaging for the persons involved. Not only that, but (as St. Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 11:29: “For anyone who eats and drinks [the Body and Blood of Christ] without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself”) receiving the Eucharist while at the same time engaging in actions that are clearly immoral is not beneficial.

Nevertheless, in the hypothetical scenario that a Pope were to authorize Communion for persons habitually acting on their homosexual tendencies, there would still be no reason for the rest of the faithful to leave the Catholic Church. Such a change would undoubtedly be an error, from a pastoral point of view (for the reasons explained above), but it is not precisely an error in teaching.

According to the Church’s teaching, the Church in general (and the Pope, when acting in the name of the Church—i.e., ex cathedra) is infallible when it proclaims doctrine (whether that be in matters of faith or in matters of morality). However, it only teaches infallibly when it intends to do so: when the pastors of the Church (the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or, sometimes, the Bishop of Rome acting in the name of the whole Church) declare something as part of the deposit of faith. This is done in different ways, the most solemn of which are the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils (and on occasion of the Pope himself).

However, in a change in discipline of this kind—however flawed and not recommendable it may be—the Pope does not have the intention to teach doctrine, much less do so infallibly.

The faithful have a duty to pray for their pastors—the Pope included—and even to let him know, respectfully, if one of their disciplinary decisions is not a good idea. However, such a situation would not be the occasion for leaving the Church; rather, for seeking to reform it (always in charity, and in accordance with the Gospel) from within.


What's the position of main Christian churches about brothers of Jesus? In this article about visit of Jerusalem's Orthodox Patriarch to Moscow, it is said (in Russian) "Первым епископом стал брат Господень по плоти Иаков" "The first bishop [of the Jerusalem Church] became the Lord's brother by blood, Jacob".

I looked in the Wikipedia and it says that Christian churches do not recognize that Jesus had biological brothers: Mary remained virgin throughout her life, and Joseph was not a biological father of Jesus.

Does this difference in opinion indicate that there is a significant point of view in the clergy that in fact Josephus was the real biological father of Jesus or that Mary had sexual relations with Josephus after the birth of Jesus?

Most non-Catholic denominations do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and fully accept the idea of Jesus having biological half-brothers.  (Only He has God for a Father.)

From a perspective of Sola Scriptura, there's no support for the idea that Mary remained a virgin through life, and there is Biblical evidence that Jesus had brothers.

*Please do not take the following quote as me endorsing a view that rejects or accepts the perpetual virginity of Mary.  I'm including it to support the paragraph above.

From http://www.gotquestions.org/perpetual-virginity-Mary.html

  So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary?
  Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can
  see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible.
  Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she
  bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual
  relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The
  meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not
  have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB
  declares, "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary
  and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters
  all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for
  "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and
  female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters.
  However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be
  Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph,
  Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered
  sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning
  of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or
  "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father.

However, there are Protestant denominations that still accept the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

The view on whether Jesus had biological brothers is, therefore, varied, and the view hinges on whether or not you accept that doctrine.

For more on Protestant views on the doctrine of perpetual virginity, see What do Protestants say was the source for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?


What would be a typical Christian Pacifist response to 'rampant evil' - say in the form of large scale terrorism? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Do Christian Pacifists tend to argue against the sense of Burke's famous quote by affirming God's Sovereignty and trusting that He will not allow evil to flourish unchecked regardless of the actions of 'good men'? or Do Christian Pacifists expect specific non-violent action to be effective in halting the advance of those committed to achieving their aims by violence without regard to the restraints of the rule of law or basic human compassion such as terrorist groups?

What are some of the important doctrines of Christian Pacifism that speak to these issues and how might they be applied to real world examples such as the Jewish Holocaust of the second world war and the current regime of the Islamic State?

I spent most of my formative years in a Mennonite church, and identify with the Mennonite concept of pacifism.  So I will attempt to answer from a Mennonite Pacifist perspective, based primarily on my understanding, as taught to me by Mennonites, of this view (as opposed to my personal opinion on this view, which does vary slightly on a few points), and when possible, will provide references.

First, one must define what is meant by pacifism (and in this case, specifically, Mennonite Pacifism).  First, one thing that pacifism is not.

Pacifism is not a "passive" approach to aggression

While "pacifism" bears a resemblance to the often confused concept "passivism", they are not the least bit related.  The root of the word "pacifist" is the same as to "pacify" or "peace," whereas the root to the word "passivism" is "passive".

While few people go so far as to claim that "pacifism" comes from the same root as the word "passive" (although I have seen this argued before!), there is still an underlying concept in pacifist critique, that pacifists are, by and large, weak cowards who run from a fight and are, indeed, "passive" when faced with the threat of violence.

Pacifists, especially Mennonite pacifists, are anything but passive! They are generally very active, and even offensive, in their pacifist activism!

An article in The Mennonite magazine describes pacifism as:

  [P]acifism focuses on living without harming others at the minimum and as much as possible loving enemies and doing good to those who harm you.

Notice that this doesn't say anything about passively taking a beating from an aggressor!

What is Pacifism then?

If Pacifism is not responding to aggression with violence, and pacifism is not being passive, what is it?

Pacifism is the pro-active non-violent response to aggression. It can take many forms.  Some simple examples:

Non-violent protests
Smuggling of unjustly persecuted people (such as Jews during the Holocaust, or blacks in the US underground railroad) to hide them from a violent/oppressive regime
Civil disobedience
Voting
Speaking against acts of violence
Countless others

Naturally, most of these activities attract a lot of negative attention, especially from those who are in favor of a violent response to an aggressor or threat.

What guides a Christian Pacifist?

A Christian Pacifist holds a few Biblical principles in very high esteem.  I will spell these out, then help show how they can be applied to a 'rampant evil' situation, such as WWII.

Love your enemy.

  love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you Matthew 5:44 NIV

This is probably the key verse for Christian pacifists.  If we take this commandment from the Sermon on the Mount to heart, it becomes practically impossible to kill our enemy (unless we can somehow justify a mercy killing, but that's ruled out by the next point, which is... )
You shall not murder.

  You shall not murder. Exodus 20:13 NIV

Turn the other cheek

  You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.‘ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Matthew 5:38-39 NIV

Here Christ tells us directly do not resist an evil person. This is surely applicable to 'rampant evil', as much as it is to a rude friend who slaps you in the face. Not only are we told not to resist, we are told to make ourselves even more vulnerable to them!
Violence is for God, not man.

  Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. Romans 12:19 NIV

This won't always apply to war situations, but when you consider those who are most quick to criticize pacifists in times of war, it is those who are motivated by a drive for vengeance.

These verses, and others, when considered together in the context of the Bible, and especially the new testament, are taken to paint a picture of non-violent resistance to oppression and aggression. Christ himself lived under an oppressive regime, and among would-be violent revolutionaries (many whom did become violent after Christ's ascension), who even asked him to legitimize their fight against Rome, and Christ responded by saying "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"--hardly fighting words!

So both the commandments given by Christ, especially the one about loving one's enemy, and his actions in light of his oppressive situation, suggest to Christian Pacifists that non-violence is the model we are intended to follow.

Now finally to the core of your question...

How does a Pacifist respond to 'rampant evil?'

Quoting the article from The Mennonite again (emphasis mine):

  Pacifism assumes that punishment and retribution do little to bring about change and tend to escalate the cycle of violence. It is not moral or even possible to “kill all the bad guys.” It is only possible to identify and address factors leading to violence in the environment, such as unemployment. As a pacifist there are causes for which I am prepared to die but none I can imagine that would lead me to kill.

The four principle verses mentioned above suggest directly that a Christian's response to aggression and evil ought to not be violent, and they imply (and it is elsewhere in scripture spelled out) that they ought to trust in God for liberation from evil.

A Christian Pacifist will be willing to die for a cause, but not be willing to kill for a cause.

But does it work?

This is a common criticism... "But if the US had responded with pacifism to Hitler... we'd all be speaking German now!"

We have no way of knowing that, because we did not have a large-scale pacifist response to Hitler.  If we had, the world today would undoubtedly be much different.  Would we all be speaking German?  Probably not.  But even if we were, according to a Christian Pacifist, we might be living under oppression, but we would be living free from the guilt of murdering hundreds of thousands of Nazi and Japanese soldiers in the 1940s, and hundreds of thousands of civilian bystanders.

A Christian Pacifist may "lose" in the eyes of the world, and be conquered, but they will uphold a higher standard, and will have won in the eyes of God.  "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Even though the Christian Pacifist will say that "even in military defeat we have won", this does not mean that pacifism doesn't work in the world's eyes, as well. There are many examples where it clearly has worked.  Look at the independence of India, led by Gandhi, after WWII.  A few Indians lost their lives in some peaceful protests, where the British responded with overwhelming violence.  But without a doubt, fewer Indians (to say nothing of the British!) died as the result of a non-violent revolution than would have died if the Indians had taken up arms against their oppressors.


What is the King James only movement? I'm a non-native English speaker living in Europe myself, so I honestly couldn't read the KJV as my primary Bible and all I know about its popularity in the USA is hearsay. I'd like to know more about the different levels of KJV advocacy.

I've heard that some Christians consider the KJV the only correct English translation of the Bible. From what I read on Wikipedia about "King James only movement", I gather there are varying degrees of this. However, the article doesn't tell me very much. I'd like to know:

What different KJV-advocating views are there?
What are they based on?
How common are they?

I personally hold the KJV in high esteem because of its beautiful, poetic language, but it's still in a foreign language to me. I also occasionally read ESV, NASB, NIV and NLTse; I mostly check them when I want to check the translation of a specific passage and versions in my own language disagree.

I don't mean to insult anyone, so please edit if some of the terms that I use are inappropriate.

As a KJV Onlyer I guess I can at least answer what my view is. I go a little stronger than the only English translation. I believe it is the Word of God for this generation. To try to concisely answer the reasons for that view:

Psalm 12:6-7 says that God has promised to preserve His Word unto all generations.
Inspiration without preservation doesn't make sense
If God promised to preserve it to all generations, then at any generation in time there is a place you can turn to get God's Word. In the days of Moses and the Prophets it was in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the days of the Apostles and Acts it was in Greek. In the time of the early church it was in Syriac, etc.
Based on the method of translation, the manuscripts that went into the translation, how God used the translation, the fact that God has allowed English to be a major language across the world today, etc, I believe that English is the language in which you find the pure Word of God today and that it is found in the King James Bible.

EDIT:
I didn't answer the question of how common these views are. That I think is hard to say. It is a popular belief amongst the churches and pastors I fellowship the most with. It is by no means held by everyone I fellowship with. Having said that, I am sure it is a minority view in what in general is referred to as "Christianity" today (just take a look at any "Christian" bookstores Bible section, the KJV is one of the smallest and generally not prominently displayed.)

Another KJO view (the one you mention) is that the King James is the Bible in English (I would say that this is not really KJO but KJO-In-English). I believe that most who hold that view, hold it because of the manuscripts that were used for the translation (the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text), since all other modern English translations use a different text.


Why did God spare Abraham's child but not Jephthah's? I am confused why God stopped Abraham from murdering his son in Genesis 22 but not Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11 - 12.

I also find it especially weird because in the KJV, Jephthah made the vow while under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord in verse 29 to 30 (I assume it is the Holy Spirit?).

Why would Jephthah be allowed to sacrifice his child when human sacrifices were banned ever since Leviticus?

Jewish and Christian scholars alike present many opinions and interpretations of the story of Jephthah and his daughter.  The ambiguity of the text and the fact that her sacrifice is not described in detail have led to much debate.  Some believe that she was literally sacrificed; some maintain that she was dedicated as a living sacrifice to God.  Some believe that the vow was valid and Jephthah was bound to it; some believe that it was fallible and therefore had no credibility.  Some believe that the vow was righteous; some believe that Jephthah sinned in upholding it.  The tragedy of Jephthah's vow and the sacrifice of his daughter is a highly debated topic among religious scholars.
 Early Jewish scholars unanimously agreed that Jephthah had literally offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice.  This view was not challenged until the middle ages, when a number of Rabbis including David Kimhi "endeavoured to establish the view, that Jephthah merely dedicated his daughter to the service of the sanctuary of Jehovah in a lifelong virginity." (C.F. Keil & F. Delitzch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 388)  Jephthah's mourning is then explained by the fact that "her father's race perished with her"  (G.A Cooke, Judges, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: University Press, 1918), 124) when she eventually died, because she was a virgin.  In this interpretation, it is the hope of succession within his household which becomes the ultimate sacrifice rather than the child herself.  This view is challenged by those who point out that in the same way Isaac was referred to as the yehid (only son) of Abraham, so too is Jephthah's daughter the yehidah (only daughter) of Jephthah.  Thus, she was not necessarily the only child born to him, for Abraham also had a son named Ishmael, but she was his favorite or beloved, as Isaac was to Abraham.
The girl's retreat to the mountains poses a number of questions that pertain to the meaning of the vow.  It would seem to those who do not take the sacrifice to be literal that if she had been facing a sacrificial death, it would have been contrary to human nature and to custom that she should go up into the mountains to bewail her virginity for two months.  She would rather have wanted to spend time with her father.  Moreover, "to mourn one's virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin." (Keil & Delitzch, 392)  However, those who take the vow literally contend that if she was only intended to live a life of celibacy, she would not have needed a period of two months to mourn her virginity; she would have plenty of time to mourn her virginity throughout the rest of her life.  A unique interpretation is presented by Gustav Baström.  Since, he suggests, one only bewails that which one has lost or is about to lose, the fact that the girl went up into the mountains to bewail her virginity suggests that she was to be dedicated as a sacred prostitute. (Boström, Gustav. Proverbiastudien (DATE): 116;  quoted in David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow, (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986), 31, n. 7)  Also unique, interpretation presented in the Mishnah suggests that the daughter did not go up to the "mountains," but rather to the elders "in the hope that they would absolve her father from his vow." (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 3, Exodus, trans. S. M. Lehrman (New York: Soncino Press, 1983), 163)
Whether literally sacrificed as a burnt offering or only dedicated, the intensity of the vow is made clear by Jephthah's reaction as he realizes his daughter is to be the offering.  Such reaction leads the reader to wonder if he had considered the possibility that his daughter would be the one to greet him.  However, the language of his vow reveals that it was not flippantly made.  It would seem that Jephthah intended to offer a human sacrifice for "beasts do not dwell in houses." (W.B. Riley, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist, vol. 4 (Cleveland, OH: Union Gospel Press, 1927), 261)  Augustine points out that "it is not, and was not, a customary thing for sheep to come out to meet a victorious general returning from the war.  Nor did he say, I will offer as a
holocaust whatever shall come out of the doors of my house" (Augustine, quoted in C.F. Keil & F. Delitzch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.Keil & Delitzch)385, n. 50) but rather whoever comes out.  The grammatical structure of the oath suggests that he had at least considered the possibility that a human being would come to meet him, and likely assumed it probable.  J.H.A. Bomberger maintains, however, that it was a two-part vow made by Jephthah: if a human being should come out of the house, it would be the Lord's, and if an animal came to meet him, it would be offered as a burnt offering.  This interpretation may seem favorable, but is not supported by other scholars.  The majority hold that "the two clauses . . . cannot be taken disjunctively . . . but the second clause simply contains a more precise definition of the first,-- Jephthah must at the very outset have contemplated the possibility of a human sacrifice." (Keil & Delitzch, 389)
In Eerdmans commentary, Dunn poses that the vow made by Jephthah was an attempt at manipulating Jehovah, so as to secure an insurance policy for the battle.  Thus the sacrifice of his daughter is a "severe lesson" towards "one who has tried to manipulate Yahweh, pinning the Deity down by the oath." (James D.G. Dunn & John W. Rogerson, Judges Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 197)  However, while Jephthah sees the desired result in his battle with the Ammonites, the cost is so great that the whole progress of events is seen in a tragic, negative light.  Another suggestion has been made by Bomberger:

"The vow itself is an expression of his burning zeal to save Israel.  He wishes to thank God with all his heart . . .  If, then, his vow brings a great sorrow upon Jephthah, God no doubt wishes to inculcate some great principle . . . In his zeal . . . Jephthah cannot remember any particular object sufficiently valuable to dedicate unto God.  He therefore
leaves it to God to point out the sacrifice.  He vows with all his heart; God accepts the vow, and suffers it to be realized in a manner which went beyond the expectations of Jephthah." (J.H.A. Bomberger, ed., "Jephthah," The Protestant Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia: A Condensed Translation of Herzog's Real Encyclopedia, vol 2 (Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1860), 696)

Jephthah's zeal does not negate the fact that the vow included possibilities, in fact, probabilities, that were contrary to the law.  Even if he had not considered that his daughter should come to meet him, the vow was unfitting for "had a camel or an ass or a dog come forth, [Jephthah] wouldst have offered it up for a burnt offering! [The Lord therefore] answered Jephthah unfittingly and prepared his daughter for him." (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 2, Genesis, trans. S. M. Lehrman (New York: Soncino Press, 1983), 527)  Can it be said, then, that Yahweh required a human sacrifice?  Most scholars agree that Jephthah's vow was voluntary on his part and not by the initiative of God; it was neither demanded by God, nor did He delight in it.  Unlike the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, "the deity never called out or spoke to [Jephthah].  He received no direction from the deity, [and] without direct communication to the contrary, Jephthah believed his vow to have been legitimate, successful, and, therefore, one that must be fulfilled." (Tammi J. Schneider, Judges, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 178)
Assuming, as most scholars do, that human sacrifice was abhorrent to Israel, a vow to make a human sacrifice would surely have been against the law.  The vow is therefore sometimes approached as fallible and not binding.  The Midrash states clearly that Jephthah was a fool who did not know how to distinguish between the different kinds of vows, else he would have been able to determine that his vow was invalid. (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 8, Ecclesiastes, trans. S. M. Lehrman (New York: Soncino Press, 1983), 126)  However, "the Bible seems not to fault him for honoring [the vow] once it was uttered." (Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 16)  One might expect some condemnation of Jephthah in the text after he put his daughter to death if he had done so in disobedience to the law.  Instead, he is listed in Hebrews 11:32 among the saints.  This tension has raised a need for some scholars to legitimate his vow as valid rather than fallible, for any dispute of the legitimacy of his vow causes a contention with the Hebrews scripture. (Schneider, 179)  Jephthah and his daughter understood the oath as an obligation that could not be nullified.  In their obedience to this belief and their surety that God had acknowledged the vow when he gave a decisive victory to the Israelites, they showed obedience, ultimate commitment, firmness and determination, all of which may be seen as positive attributes for those who are in the service of Jehovah.
It is possible that if the vow was valid, God had provided a method by which Jephthah could both fulfil his vow and save his daughter - a method which Jephthah either knew nothing about, chose not to apply, or believed could not be applied.  According to the book of Leviticus, the price of a female's life had already been established at 30 shekels of silver to be given to the Sanctuary (Lev 27:4).  Having just won this great battle, Jephthah could have easily afforded the required 30 shekels of silver.  It is a tragedy, then, that he did not know the Word of the Lord well enough to recognize this.  Jephthah is therefore "a man who had saved his country by loyalty to the Lord, and knew not how to save himself, in his ignorance of His Word." (Riley, 265)  It is further suggested by another Rabbi that even her "monetary consecration" was not required, "for we learned: If one declared of an unclean animal or an animal with a blemish: 'Behold, let these be burnt-offerings,' his declaration is completely null." (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 2, Genesis, 527)  According to this belief, Jephthah should have sold the unacceptable sacrifice of his daughter and bought with the money a proper burnt offering.
It is possible that Jephthah could have considered it impossible to redeem his daughter.  In his translation of The Works of Josephus, Whitson points out in a footnote that things devoted to destruction could not be redeemed. (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, in The Works of Josephus trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 144.  The reference is to Lev. 27:29)  If Jephthah had considered his daughter to be within this category, he could not have purchased her redemption.  Whitson states, however, that she ought not to have been placed in this category because God had not devoted her, rather her father had vowed her for sacrifice.  Like the firstborn children were redeemed by animal sacrifices, so should she have been redeemed.
Another possibility is suggested in the Midrash, which points out that his vow could have been annulled by the High Priest Phinehas.  Commentary suggests that it was pride that kept the vow from being annulled:
"But Jephthah remarked, 'Shall I, a chieftain and ruler in Israel, go to Phinehas!' and Phinehas remarked, 'Shall I, the High Priest and the son of a High Priest, go to an ignorant person!'  Between the two of them the poor girl perished and they were both condemned for her blood.  Jephthah's punishment was that limb after limb fell away from his body and was buried . . . [and] the Holy Spirit departed from [Phinehas] for two hundred years." (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 8, Ecclesiastes, 275)
Whatever his reason for not redeeming her, if Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering, most scholars agree that this was neither conformable to the law nor acceptable to God.  His fulfillment of the vow is therefore sinful.  Keil and Delitzch point out that the sin involved may have made the vow impossible to carry out.  In order to fulfil the vow, Jephthah would have had to go to the Levitical priests in order to have his daughter offered on at the tabernacle or before the Ark of the Covenant since this was the only place in which burnt offerings were made.  Keil and Delitzch suggest that the Levitical priests, who knew the law, would not have sinned in this way.  Alternatively, if Jephthah had attempted to sacrifice her upon some secret alter without mediation from the priest, "such an act would not have been described by the prophetic historian as a fulfillment of the vow that he would offer a burnt-offering to the Lord, simply because it would not have been a sacrifice offered to Jehovah at all, but a sacrifice slaughtered to Moloch." (Keil & Delitzch, 394)
That Jephthah offered his daughter as a sacrifice to Molech has been posed, but rejected by most scholars.  It is true that Jephthah was likely influenced by pagan religions.  He was the son of a harlot, cast out of his father's house on account of his birth, who became the leader of a renegade, "bandit band" (Riley, 258) of presumably pagan men.  It would also seem that "the form taken by Jephthah's vow is reminiscent of his half-heathen background" (Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F. Harrison, Judges, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 255) as the Bible holds no other instance of an Israelite making or carrying out such a vow to Jehovah.  It would seem, then, that human sacrifice was not offered to Jehovah, but to the pagan god Molech who was known to require it.  However, "it is inconceivable, with the diametrical opposition between the worship of Jehovah and the worship of Moloch, that God should have chosen a worshipper of Moloch to carry out His work." (Keil & Delitzch, 391)  The Spirit of God came upon Jephthah in order that he would win the battle for the children of Israel.  Such an endowment of God's power is never seen upon a worshipper of Molech.
A possible reckoning could be found in the consideration that Jephthah may have only believed himself to be worshipping Jehovah.  The Book of Judges is noted for being a time in which "every man did what was right in his own eyes" (Judg. 21:25).  Perhaps in the same way that the children of Israel worshipped the Lord in a way that was not in accordance with His will when they set a golden calf to symbolize and personify Him, so did Jephthah worship in a way that seemed right to him but was infuriating to Jehovah.  If human sacrifice was viewed as an act of worship to Jehovah Jephthah's time, and continuing for centuries after his death, it would explain why "later prophets were forced to wage war against child sacrifice." (David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986), 46)  If the practice was not widely accepted, it would not have needed such attention.  This is not to suggest that this form of worship was ever approved of or accepted by Jehovah, only that Israelite culture, having been influenced by surrounding religions, practiced it.  This explanation does not address, however, why one does not see human sacrifice performed more often if it was believed to be a form of worship.
If child sacrifice to Yahweh was practiced, this may be why, as the Talmud points out, the scripture Jeremiah 19:5 addresses three specific instances of human sacrifice:  "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind."  The Talmud suggests that God commanded not the sacrifice of the son of Mesha in II Kings 3:27, he spoke not of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, neither came it into the mind of God that Abraham's son Isaac would be sacrificed. (The Babylonian Talmud, trans. J. Rabbinowitz (New York: Rebecca Bennet Publications, 1959), 11)  Clearly human sacrifice is not encouraged by God, but it is significant to note that at least two of these instances - Jephthah and Abraham - clearly intended for their sacrifice to be offered to Jehovah.  Levenson contends that Mesha also sacrificed his son to Jehovah, only because he did not have the proper lamb available to him.  Jehovah then gave him the victory in battle.  Levenson does not, however, address why God would so honor any sacrifice of a Moabite king, and moreover why he would give him victory over the children of Israel.  Burney qualifies this divine intervention as being from the god Chemosh, not Jehovah.
Contrary to the majority belief that human sacrifice is, in fact, an abomination to God, some scholars point out that in the text itself there is not "any indication that child sacrifice . . . was inappropriate from God's standpoint.  [It is clear that he assumed she] could literally be sacrificed as a burnt offering to YHWH.  Had she not been fit to sacrifice, the vow would have been unfulfillable, which he obviously wishes were the case." (Levenson, 14)  Levenson suggests that child sacrifice was neither unheard of, nor forbidden in early stages of the Israelite religion.  He suggests that Jeremiah was the first to brand child sacrifice as idolatrous, implying that he did so because he disagreed with it.  Previous to the writing of the Book of Jeremiah, then, human sacrifice was not considered sinful.  Recent excavation of sacrificial ashes in Carthage suggests that while a child could be redeemed by a sheep, this redemption was neither required nor always practiced.  While this cemetery was in a Cannanite region, "the substitution of a lamb or kid for a child has a familiar ring [considering] YHWH's claim upon the first-born son in the Hebrew Bible." (Levenson, 21)  Levenson goes on to point out that although a ram was provided for sacrifice, Abraham was not commanded to sacrifice it instead of the child, only allowed to do so.  In fact, scripture found in the Book of Exodus (Ex. 20:22-23:33) "seems expressly to contemplate that the normal fate of a firstborn son is that he should be sacrificed to Yahweh." (C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970), 329)  Burney considers it significant that Exodus 22:29b does not qualify the statement "the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give to me.'"  A minority of scholars therefore believe that no sin was committed by Jephthah, but that he was fulfilling a vow to God that was not in discord with the law.
While some opinions clearly have more weight and basis in scripture than others, and certain beliefs support the majority opinion, it must be recognized that very few points are agreed upon concerning the vow that Jepthah made.  Scholars hold many different opinions on how, why, and on account of whom the vow was carried out.  With few contentions, most scholars agree that Jephthah intended to make a human sacrifice when he made the vow.  Many have reached a consensus that the daughter's fate cannot be determined with any finality.  All that is for certain is that this vow was made and carried out during a time when every man did what was right in his own eyes - the time of the Book of Judges.

REFERENCES:
St. Augustine.  Quoted in C.F. Keil & F. Delitzch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 385, n. 50. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

The Babylonian Talmud. Translated by J. Rabbinowitz. New York: Rebecca Bennet Publications, 1959.

Berlin, Adele, Brettler, Marc Zvi, & Fishbane, Michael, ed.  The Jewish Study Bible: featuring the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bomberger, J.H.A., ed. "Jephthah."  The Protestant Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia: A Condensed Translation of Herzog's Real Encyclopedia. Vol 2. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1860. 695-697.

Boström, Gustav. Proverbiastudien: 116.  Quoted in David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow, 31, n. 7.  Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986.

Burney, C.F. The Book of Judges.  New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970.

Cooke, G.A. Judges.  Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.  Cambridge: University Press, 1918.

Dunn, James D.G. & Rogerson, John W.  Judges.  Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Josephus, Flavius.  Antiquities, in The Works of Josephus.  Translated by William Whiston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Keil, C.F. & Delitzch, F. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament.  Translated by James Martin.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Levenson, Jon D. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity  New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Marcus, David.  Jephthah and His Vow.  Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986.

Midrash Rabbah, vol. 2, Genesis. Translated by S. M. Lehrman.  New York: Soncino Press, 1983.

Midrash Rabbah, vol. 3, Exodus. Translated by S. M. Lehrman.  New York: Soncino Press, 1983.

Midrash Rabbah, vol. 8, Ecclesiastes.  Translated by S. M. Lehrman.  New York: Soncino Press, 1983.

Origen.  On First Principles.  Book I, Preface, Section 8. Translated by G. W. Butterworth.  Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. & Harrison, Everett F. Judges.  The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.  Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Riley, W.B. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist. Vol. 4. Cleveland, OH: Union Gospel Press, 1927

Schneider, Tammi J. Judges.  Berit Olam.  Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.


Do any major Christian traditions have documented ways of dealing with religious doubt? Many religions claim to be the only true religion, including most branches of Christianity. Among the major Christian traditions, are there any documented statements of faith that include the possibility that their own beliefs might not be the "one true religion"?  In other words, is there any literature treating religious doubt accepted in the tradition as part of the tradition, and not examples of individual cases of religious doubt?

If there is such literature, and if this point is covered within it, how do these major traditions view themselves in light of the "risk" involved if they were wrong in the claim to exclusive truth?

Many religions claim to be the only true religion, including most
  branches of Christianity. Among the major Christian traditions, are
  there any documented statements of faith that include the possibility
  that their own beliefs might not be the "one true religion"? In other
  words, is there any literature treating religious doubt accepted in
  the tradition as part of the tradition, and not examples of individual
  cases of religious doubt?

I think what is important to clarify is the difference between these two sentences above, which I will highlight by proposing two statements below:

"We, as a faith community, include doubting we are correct in our belief as an official part of our belief, and so we announce these doubts in [doubt literature x]."
"We, as a faith community, understand that doubt is a normal human experience and that our adherents will likely, on occasion, doubt some or all of the tenets of our faith, and so we address this experience in [doubt literature x]."

I am not aware of any "major Christian tradition" that has an accepted literature of the first type; that kind of institutionalized doubt is really not the purview of any religion, but is perhaps more the territory of scientists and skeptics.  It is unlikely religions would succeed as social phenomena if they made it clear in their official PR that "hey, we could be wrong on all this."* And in this I agree with Steve's answer below.

(*Though, humans being as strange as they are, it would be fascinating to be shown that I am wrong and that there are such traditions and statements.)

At best, some Christians may acknowledge that, while they are not wrong, other religions are "as correct as they are" in that they are all paths to the same union with the divine. I think Fr. Thomas Keating, for one, may be amenable to this, though he is not representative of the entirety of Catholicism by any means.

As regards statement (2), though:  In the Catholic tradition, there is something of a literature in this regards, yes.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, allows some leeway for a distinction they make between voluntary doubt and involuntary doubt:

  Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true
  what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary
  doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming
  objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its
  obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual
  blindness. (CCC 2088)

Also, within the Catholic tradition there is also treatment of periods of spiritual torpor or feeling a lack of God's presence--sometimes referred to as "spiritual dryness" or also "acedia", and that may include doubts.  One often refers to St. John of the Cross's poem, The Dark Night of the Soul as a Catholic touchstone on this issue and that title has come to refer to the phenomenon itself.  In addition to St. John of the Cross, notable Catholic figures like Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, and Mother Theresa of Calcutta, who, it was found, claimed to have suffered from it for just over 50 years.

  If there is such literature, and if this point is covered within it,
  how do these major traditions view themselves in light of the "risk"
  involved if they were wrong in the claim to exclusive truth?

I am not aware of much in this regard, other than perhaps Pascal's Wager, which has been incorporated into the literature of various Christian apologists, in which he argues that the "risk" is something like finite inconvenience (as compared to the risk of infinite suffering).

Again, as Steve essentially pointed out, trying to promote religion by calling attention to the "what if we're wrong?" issue is sort of like trying to sell used cars by pointing out the puddles of transmission fluid all over the lot.


How do Catholics explain that the fighting leaders of the Hebrews were old men? In the books of Joshua and Judges the leaders of the Hebrews are old men like Joshua himself or Judah. In particular the following verse made me wonder something:

Judges 1:3 (ESV):

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have a specifically Catholic perspective but by the time of the events in the book of Joshua, the physical people Judah, Simeon, and the other 10 patriarchs that the tribes of Israel were named after were long dead.

Here's what's going on:

The 12 tribes of Israel were named after the sons of Jacob (their births in Genesis 30). One of those sons, Joseph, ended up in a high position in Egypt despite a lot of extremely unfortunate events and invites his family to live with him to save them from drought and live prosperously in Egypt (Genesis 46). Generations pass (meaning all those patriarchs have died), a new pharaoh takes over who hates the Israelites, and the stage is set for Moses's story (Exodus 1). Exodus 1:6 specifically says that Joseph and all his brothers had died.

By the time of the events in Joshua, Moses has already led these people out slavery in Egypt, is dead, and the descendants of the 12 sons of Jacob have inhabited the land God promised them - more or less (lots of wrestling over the land is happening at this point). The region is eventually won by the Israelites and divided into 12 territories, one for each tribe that traces its lineage back to a son of Jacob (Joshua 14).

So...

Long story short, by the events you're referencing in Judges 1, Judah and Simeon have been dead for a long time. The name "Judah" at this point refers to the descendants of Judah, and "Simeon" refers to the descendants of Simeon. Referring to the group of people by the name of their well-known ancestor was common at the time.


Canon law - vows, acquired rights meaning problem I have a problem with meaning of dispensation from vow restrictions (canon law 1196). I have read that dispensation must not injured rights acquired by others (i have read that it's regards lawfully rights). Question is: I vowed only to God (none hear that) to won't do action to my brother which is also a lawfully right acquired by him before my vow to God. And now I don't know if dispensation from my vow injured his acquired rights or not?
Problem is in meaning acquired rights - acquired at all (in lifetime) or only by vow?
Please respond and sorry for my language. Regards.

Acquired rights are refered to several times in the Canon Law. The concept of acquired rights is common in many legal systems, including International Law.

An acquired right differs from a natural right or a general legal right. A person may have an acquired right because of something that has happened to him, or more usually something he has done. It is not a right everybody has.

A country might decide nobody can be a doctor unless he can pass an exam in Portuguese. But people who are already doctors have an acquired right to continue being doctors. Also medical students who have begun training may  have an acquired right to continue, and to qualify as doctors, without learning Portuguese.

An acquired right is not absolute. The country could make a law that any doctor who does not pass a Portugese exam by a certain date is no longer a doctor.

Another example is a man who owns a field and asks for Planning Permission to put up a tall fence round it. Permission may be granted on condition it does not injure the acquired rights of another person. Somebody may have used the field as a path for so long that he has acquired a right to continue using it. Or somebody may have paid for the right to keep sheep in it. The Planning Authority does not know what acquired rights there may be. But it could grant permission provided it does not injure any rights there may be.

Alternatively permsssion could be granted despite certain rights, thus overriding the rights, either specific rights stated, or any rights at all, known and unknown.

In the case of Dispensation from a Vow the Dispensation must not injure the acquired rights of another person. The rights are   those acquired by any means up to the date of the dispensation.

A private vow, known to a third person who stands to benefit from it, could give rise to a right. For example, a vow to fund somebody's education.

A private vow, known only to the person making the vow and to God, cannot of itself confer a legal right on anybody. The dispensation from the vow cannot therefore alter the rights of another party.

If OP's brother already had a legal right before the vow and he still retains that right now,then neither the vow nor the dispensation has had any affect on his rights.

There may be other moral issues though, which is why if at all possible, it may be best to seek the advice of a priest who will seek to understand the full picture of the situation and advise accordingly.