Does the Bible support slavery and (white) superiority in the context of American slavery? Slavery existed as a fact of life in the ancient world, and the Bible mentions slavery in many places.

When the Bible speaks of slavery, is it supporting it, or merely describing it? Does the Bible encourage slavery, merely condone it, or is it actively against it?
What Scripture addresses the treatment of slaves, and how does this compare with how other nations in the same time period addressed their slaves?
Along these same lines, what was the role of Christians in the slavery debate? Since the status of Africans was in many ways the philosophical underpinning of their servitude, were there any particular denominations that were distinguished in their rejection of this prevailing attitude.

Put another way, are passages about slavery in the Bible prescriptive or descriptive in their treatment, and did the Bible have any discernible impact on the actual practices of Christians?

As stated, slavery was a fact of the Ancient World, and so when the Bible addresses the topic, it should not be compared against the sensibilities of the modern world, but rather against the sensibilities of the ones to whom the Bible was addressed.

It is an anchronism to apply questions of, for example, feminism or communism, to the Scriptures, because the original audience would have had no means of apprehending it as such.  It would have made no sense, for example, to put an apologetic against evolution into Genesis,  because until the 1860s, no one had ever conceived of the notion. Likewise, to rail against the evils of slavery would not have made sense to the original audience.

What was the status Quo on Slavery?

As Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary puts it:

  People could become slaves in several ways. The poor who were unable to pay their debts could offer themselves as slaves (Ex. 21:2–6; Neh. 5:1–5). A thief who could not repay what he had stolen could also be sold as a slave. Children born of slave parents became “house-born slaves” (Gen. 15:3; 17:12–13). Sometimes children would be taken as slaves in payment for debts (2 Kin. 4:1–7).

What did the Bible teach?

That said, when Scripture is compared to prevailing attitudes, Scripture is remarkably anti-Slavery in comparison.

The laws concerning the treatment of slaves were remarkably liberal:

a.  Israel was instructed by the law not to rule over a fellow Israelite harshly (Lev. 25:39; Deut. 15:14).
b. If a master beat a slave or harmed him, the law provided that the slave could go free (Ex. 21:26–27); and the killing of a slave called for a penalty (Ex. 21:20).
c. Slaves were allowed to secure their freedom. Under the law, no Hebrew was to be the permanent slave of another Hebrew. After six years of service, a slave was to be released (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
d. In the Year of JUBILEE, no matter how long a slave had served, he was to be released (Lev. 25:37–43). If a slave desired to continue with his master, he would have a mark made in the ear; this mark would signify that he had chosen to remain a slave (Ex. 21:5–6).
e.A slave could also buy his freedom, or another person could buy his freedom for him (Lev. 25:47–49).

N.B. In fairness, there is no evidence that the Hebrews ever actually did the Jubilee, but it is instructive that the concept was embedded both in the Law and the Prophets. Additionally, the fact that it was never practiced shows how radically out of step with the time it was.
The prophets are remarkably on the side of the slave and against the master.

  The Bible contains warnings about the practice of slavery. The prophet Amos spoke woe to Gaza and Tyre for their practices of slave-trading entire populations (Amos 1:6–9). The Book of Revelation declares that disaster awaits those who sell slaves (Rev.18:13). ...  Paul appealed to Philemon to receive back Onesimus, a runaway slave who was now a Christian and therefore a brother (Philem. 1:16). Elsewhere Paul counseled believing slaves to seek freedom if they could (1 Cor. 7:21). Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery. But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery.

Additionally, Paul is as clear as you can get that there should be no difference between slave and free:
Galatians 3:28 says:

  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The Good News of the Kingdom of God in Isaiah is that Jubilee (Lev 25:37) would actually come about. Mary is also equally clear that she thinks the tables are going to be turned, and the "oppressed" would be free.

What was actual practice?

I'm not going sugar-coat Christian history. Whites treated Blacks horrendously.  The AME Church was founded by a black minister who was savagely beaten at the altar of St. George's Church. Slave masters often tried to stress the value of obedience amongst slaves.  Theological cases (like Ham in Genesis 10) were often made to to try to say that the white man was superior.

But interestingly, it was still within the church that opposition to slavery was at its greatest.

William Wilberforce and John Newton are widely credited with the abolition of slavery in Great Britain, and the ban in 1808 on the trading of slaves. Both unashamedly said their opposition to slavery was born out of their understanding of Christianity.
The Quakers were remarkably opposed to the subjugation of people - their refusal to simply take land from the Indians to their united opposition to slavery was a constant force in the abolitionist movement.
Finally, from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to even the Reverend Jesse Jackson - most of the stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement were leaders in the Christian Church.

What did the rest of the world believe?

In contrast,

Hinduism explicitly teaches that you should remain in your caste
Buddhism explicitly teaches that if you are a slave it is because you deserve It
Islam explicitly teaches that masters are better people than their slaves

While slavery was practiced worldwide, the Christian church was the first to react heavily against it. It was the Christian church that first abolished and then "forced" that view on many of what I freely admit were its subjugated colonies.  Still, the point is this - it is not natural to set your property free.  It takes something engrained in a society to make it change, a "religion" of freedom, and Christianity seems that most likely force.


How do you define a Christian or a brother in Christ? How do you define a Christian? How do you define what kind of person is your brother in Christ and what kind of person is not?

1 Corinthians 5:11  But now I have written unto you not to keep
  company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
  covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
  extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

If someone professes faith in Christ AND is aligning their behavior with the Bible, they are my brother. As the verse indicates, they have to both be called a Christian and behave like one.


Have Jehovah's Witnesses cancelled the 2020 Memorial on April 7? Recently I was looking at the statistics in the latest Yearbook for Jehovah's Witnesses and noted that the Worldwide Memorial Attendance in 2019 was 20,919,041. In the USA it was 2,416,752 and in the UK it was 222,033.  This year the memorial is scheduled for Tuesday 7 April at sundown.
The Memorial of Christ's death is the most important annual event for Jehovah's Witnesses.  Those who belong to the "anointed remnant" - those with a heavenly hope - partake of the bread and the wine.  The last statistic I have for memorial partakers is 2018 when 19,521 Witnesses ate the bread and drank the wine. Witnesses do not use the expression "communion", but I've had to use that tag because it's the only one I could find that is relevant to taking the bread and wine.
I have statistics for memorial partakers going back to 1935 (when 52,465 partook of the emblems) and, as far as I am aware, the only year when there were no statistics for memorial partakers was in 1937. If that is not the case, I would appreciate being corrected.
Given the current pandemic with most of Europe and the U.S.A. in a virtual lockdown, and public gatherings of more than 10 people banned in the U.S.A. (more than 2 in the U.K.), how are Jehovah's Witnesses going to commemorate the death of Christ this year?  This is of particular importance to those who belong to the 144,000, the "anointed remnant".
I would ask my local friendly Witnesses, but they can no longer display their literature in the town square and their Kingdom Hall is closed.  Neither have they posted a memorial invitation through my letterbox.  I've been told that the Governing Body has issued a video telling all Witnesses to follow the directions of government authorities, but also to obey Jesus’ command (in Luke 22:18) to celebrate the Lord’s evening meal.
Has the memorial been cancelled this year?  If not, how will it take place and how will the statistics be recorded?
EDIT to provide updated information on the 2020 Memorial Service from the official Jehovah's Witness website: https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=2020+Service+Year+Report
The 2020 Memorial Service took place worldwide in spite of Covid restrictions.  Here are a few important statistics and a comparison with 2019 statistics:
2020 Grand Totals: Memorial Attendance: 17,844,773  (2019 was 20,919,014 attendance)
Memorial Partakers: 21,182 (No figures for 2019)
Average Monthly Publishers: 8,424,185   (2019 was 8,471,008 publishers)
Total Number Baptized *: 241,994    (2019 was 303,866 baptized)
Percentage Decrease Over 2019: 0.6% (2019 was Percentage Increase of 1.3%)

It has not been canceled. Many congregations will be using videoconferencing, but if someone would like to attend and they aren't in contact with a congregation, there is also the option to view a pre-recorded Memorial talk on jw.org. To check what the congregations are doing in your local area, check this Memorial meeting search.

For the bread and wine, each congregation is making arrangements so that each person can have the emblems. (Though if a person is not anointed, they do not need to go through extraordinary measures to obtain the emblems.) There's also the video, "How To Make Memorial Bread."

For counting attendance and the number of partakers, the elders will likely just ask ones how many people attended from their home and how many partook. The pre-recorded Memorial talk on jw.org will likely also keep count of how many people view the video.


Why is Jesus the Son called the Father in Isaiah 9:6? In providing this answer with respect to recognizing the Trinity in the Old Testament, I noticed that Jesus is called the Father which could be confusing when trying to understand the Trinity. In what sense is Jesus the Father but certainly not the Father?

  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (NIV Isaiah 9:6)

Please do not answer unless your answers uphold the doctrine of the Trinity. I do not want the debate about the trinity to confuse the question. The answer must assume the Trinity is true, that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal yet different persons that share the same single divine nature and therefore are called the One and true God.

And why is he called Counselor? These are adjectives used to describe/praise him. These are metaphorical descriptions.

He is also a brother and a son -

  Mat 12:48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49
  Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my
  brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my
  brother and sister and mother.”

He is both, the son of David and Lord of David -

  Mat 22:42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The
  son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that
  David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The
  Lord said to my Lord:“Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies
  under your feet.”’

I think His description as an everlasting father is supposed to illustrate a point that He will watch over and protect His disciples whom he considers as His own children -

  John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Edit:
I would like to make an addition.

This question reveals one of the mistakes that non-trinitarians make. Attempting to define God in human terms and concepts.

The concept of father, mother, brother, sister did not exist before God invented the family unit. It would've been meaningless to call someone your brother before Adam and Eve had sons.

God who created these concepts, is not defined/limited by these. He is above these concepts and yet he is the perfect fulfillment of them. He is not the brother of anyone. Yet he is the perfect model/example of a good brother.

I am a sister. I had no choice, I was given this role. But He voluntarily takes upon these roles for our sakes, becoming our friend, counselor, brother, father, shepherd, and everything else it takes for the expression of His love towards us.


What is the Biblical backing for the perspective that our actions affect who makes it to heaven? Some members of my church believe that through our actions, people who would not otherwise have been saved will be saved. I want to know what the Biblical backing for this doctrine is. If you want a little more detail on what this viewpoint is exactly, read on...

It is often stated in terms of motivating people toward evangelism. I have heard positive vision: "If you tell your coworker about Christ, maybe he will come to know God!" I have heard negative vision: "If we don't tell people about Christ then we are condemning them to hell by our inaction." And I have heard it used in positive encouragement: "Isn't it great that you got up the courage to tell your Dad about Christ? If you hadn't done that, he might never have come to know God!"

Very rarely I have heard it used in admonition: "By you refusing to share the gospel, people in your family might never come to know God!"

So here's my concern. This viewpoint has periodically reduced me to a nervous wreck, constantly feeling like every person I pass on the street might die and go to hell if I don't stop them and immediately do everything in my power to convince them of Christ's reality. I am generally told to chill out when I get this way.

The way this is usually put is that our actions are necessary but not sufficient. God still has to convict them and they still have to decide to accept Christ, but without our action as believers they will surely/most likely be damned.

I get that not all denominations believe this so I would like scriptural backing from either someone who does or someone who is conversant with this viewpoint. Comments about how this is not true are not helpful to me at this time.

A key Bible passage some Christians use for teaching that believers have at least SOME responsibility to bear witness to the truth in Christ is Ezekiel, chapter 3:

  16 At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: 17 “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman 23  for the house of Israel. [The literal role of a watchman is described in 2 Sam 18:24; 2 Kgs 9:17].Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you must give them a warning from me. 3:18 When I say to the wicked, “You will certainly die,” 24  and you do not warn him – you do not speak out to warn the wicked to turn from his wicked deed and wicked lifestyle so that he may live – that wicked person will die for his iniquity, 25  but I will hold you accountable for his death. 26  3:19 But as for you, if you warn the wicked and he does not turn from his wicked deed and from his wicked lifestyle, he will die for his iniquity but you will have saved your own life.

  3:20 “When a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I set an obstacle 28  before him, he will die. If you have not warned him, he will die for his sin. The righteous deeds he performed will not be considered, but I will hold you accountable for his death. 3:21 However, if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he 29  does not sin, he will certainly live because he was warned, and you will have saved your own life.”

If we miss the metaphorical import of this passage, we may be in danger of becoming neurotic in our attitude toward unbelievers and BELIEVERS alike ("This viewpoint has periodically reduced me to a nervous wreck"--your words).

As a watchman for Israel, Ezekiel was accountable to warn both the unrighteous and the righteous--unbelievers and believers alike. For Ezekiel to shirk his duty as God's mouthpiece (which is what a prophet is, in essence) would be to fall down on the job to which God called him.

Ezekiel did not fall down on the job, however. He was faithful in warning the unrighteous and righteous of the punishment which awaited them if they never initially repented of their sin or if they had repented at one time but "backslid" into their old way of life.

The application of this passage to Christians today is pretty clear: We, too, are watchmen and watchwomen. We have been saved from wrath through Christ and his cross-death. Out of gratitude for God's gracious and loving salvation, we are to be Christ's witnesses in the world (a witness is analogous to being a watchman who warns people of approaching danger).

  Jesus:  ". . . but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth" (Acts 1:8 NAS ).

Does this mean that we as Christ's witnesses should go around in a continual state of anxiety if we fail to witness to every person with whom we come in contact? Of course not.

  "Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything with prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God which is beyond human understanding will be like a garrison of soldiers, keeping your heart and mind in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:6-7, rhetorician's version).

We Christians are witnesses, to be sure. We are also ambassadors for Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:20). When we think of witnesses today, we automatically think of witnesses in a court of law. Witnesses are to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God." Outside the context of a court of law, however, there is another way of witnessing to the truth, and that is by living a life which is worthy of Christ, being light and salt in a corrupt and dark world, shining forth as lights (see Philippians 2:15).

Going back to Ezekiel, we see that Zeke was responsible to warn both unbelievers and believers alike. The same is true of us. The way to go about doing so is by witnessing by both life and lip, but leading with our life. A saying I grew up with, which I learned probably from a Roy Rogers(!) song (Rogers was a television- and movie star in Westerns, mostly, who was also an outspoken Christian), and the song was probably based on the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson:

  "What you are speaks so loud, that the world can't hear what you say!"

Does this mean we don't have to open our mouths and bear witness to the truth as we've found it in Jesus? No, but it's not a matter of either/or, but both/and. We are to live exemplary lives--even if it means suffering for righteousness' sake, and we are also to open our mouths and tell people of what we have found to be true. The truth, of course, is contained in the Bible. John 3:16 is as good a place to start as any, I suppose.

Too often, some Christians are so eager to "share" their faith that they lose all perspective and make a mess of being Christ's witnesses. They witness out of guilt. They witness without love, tact, and gentleness. They witness without sensitivity to the Spirit and to the needs, questions, and hang-ups of the people to whom they witness. They mean well, but they are poor ambassadors who perhaps do more harm than good! They need to take to heart 1 Peter 3:14-17:

  For who is going to harm you if you are devoted to what is good? 14 But in fact, if you happen to suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. But do not be terrified of them or be shaken. 15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. 16 Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if God wills it, than for doing evil [my italics].

Notice how Peter tells us to be "ready to give an answer." That means we are to wait until people question us, and not vice versa. When they ask us about why we seem to be at peace, why we live by a higher standard than many people, why we seem to care about people, and so on, we then are free to "give an answer" to them. Giving an answer, by the way, means literally "to make a defense," which of course is the art of apologetics. That, however, is a subject for a different question!

In conclusion, I think we need to take a cue from our Lord's approach to people, in that very frequently he asked leading questions and comments--you know, the open-ended kind  which need to be answered with more than just a yes or no (see John 3 and 4, in his interaction with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well). That approach, especially when it is preceded by prayerful dependence on the Lord to give us the right words and attitudes, goes a long way toward fulfilling our obligation as "watchmen" for God.


Is the Catholic teaching regarding the definition of mortal sin de fide? The Catholic definition of mortal sin:

  Its subject matter must be grave.
  It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.
  It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent

Is this definition De Fide (dogma)? Or are Catholics permitted to hold to a different definition of mortal sin, for example the Eastern Orthodox (and potentially Eastern Catholic) definition which states that a mortal sin is "any sin for which you do not repent"?

I don't know if there has been a solemn definition of the doctrine by a pope or council, but this definition is part of the deposit of faith. It is defined exactly as you state in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in point 1857, and the distinction between venial and mortal sin is also defined in point 1854.

Point 1854 states:
"Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience."

This point states that the doctrine is present in Scripture and is part of the tradition of the Church.

If we understand dogma to be "a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful." Then yes, this definition of mortal sin is dogmatic.

If by dogma we mean a solemn declaration from the Church, I would still argue that yes it is dogmatic since it is defined in the CCC which is the product of a Council.

The Council of Trent also discusses mortal sin, but I haven't been able to find a definition in it. Perhaps one of the earlier councils has a definition.


According to Catholicism, does God want everyone to be Catholic? According to Catholicism, does God want all humans to be Catholic?  And if everyone became Catholic, would Satan be abolished? Is this acknowledged in the Bible or elsewhere?

Does God desire that all men be Catholic?

The answer to the O.P. is fundamentally “yes:” the Church teaches that it is the Catholic Church—that is, the universal Church—and hence that God calls all people to be members.

Lumen Gentium [LG], Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, puts it as follows:

  All men are called to belong to the new people of God [i.e., the Church]. Wherefore this people, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and must exist in all ages, so that the decree of God's will may be fulfilled…. It follows that though there are many nations there is but one people of God, which takes its citizens from every race, making them citizens of a kingdom which is of a heavenly rather than of an earthly nature…. All men are called to be part of this catholic [i.e., universal] unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it (LG 13).

By stating this, the Catholic Church does not intend in any way to belittle the authentic goodness in persons who are not fully in communion with the Church—that is, non-Catholic Christians, and even the non-baptized who seek the truth sincerely.

Briefly, fully-fledged members of the Catholic Church have access to all of the means of salvation that Christ gave to his Church:

  They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops (LG 14).

However, other Christians enjoy a certain communion with the Catholic Church:

  For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect (Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, 3).

Moreover, the Church recognizes a certain unity with those non-baptized persons who nevertheless believe in God (especially the Jewish People, as well as Muslims), and even with members of other religious who nevertheless seek the truth. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], Nos. 839-845.)

Even so, all men are ordered to the Catholic faith:

  And there belong to or are related to (ordinantur)* it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation (LG 15).

It is certainly the design of the Creator that all men should be members of his Church, while on earth; in any event, all men who are saved will be members of that Church in Heaven. (See CCC 954.)

Will Satan be banish once that is accomplished

As far as the other parts of the O.P.’s question, Satan will not be definitively “banished” or defeated until the end of the world, because, of course, the Evil One is still able to tempt even the followers of Jesus while they are on earth. This idea is expressed, for example, in Revelation 20:10:

  and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever (ESV).

(Note that this defeat takes place immediately after the Millennium, which, according to most Catholic exegetes, refers to the age of the Church; i.e., the age we are in now, between the First and Second Coming of Christ.)

Some Biblical texts to support the Catholic view

Regarding the Biblical basis for God’s desire that all men be Catholic, there are a number of passages that could be recalled. For example, there is Acts 2:47:

  And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The Church considers itself to be in historic continuity with the Church of the Apostles. This passage shows that God considers membership in the Church as necessary for salvation.**

If we then consider 1 Timothy 2:4, we see that God desires that all men be saved:

  [God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (ESV).

It follows that God wants all men to have access to the means of salvation, which is the Church.

In a similar vein, we have Romans 8:30:

  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (ESV).

In Catholic thought, “predestination” is precisely the ordering by God of His creatures to Himself (i.e. His desire that we be saved).*** St. Paul affirms that being predestined also entails being called (ἐκάλεσεν), which is precisely what it means to be a member of the Church (ἐκκλησία, which even comes from the same root as “to call” in Greek).

* The official translation reads “related to,” as can be seen, but “ordered to” (that is, directed toward) would better represent the original Latin ordinantur.

** It is important, however, not to understand the Catholic Church’s necessity for salvation so extremely as to fall into rigorism. The Church does indeed teach that “outside the Church there is no salvation” (see CCC 846), but the Church also insists that those who are outside the visible confines of the Church through no fault of their own still have the opportunity for salvation.

*** Generally, however, in Catholic theology—which, at least in the West, follows St. Augustine’s terminology—the “predestined” refers to those whom God, in his omniscience, knows will be saved, whereas the “reprobate” refers to those will not be saved. This should not be taken to mean that God forces people to be saved or condemned; God always respects our freedom. The Calvinistic idea that God predestines people to Hell is quite foreign to Catholic teaching.


Did the Emperor Constantine ever present explanations for putting off his baptism? The Emperor Constantine who favored Christianity as early as 312, and convened the Council of Nicæa in 325, postponed baptism till 337. Did he provide any reasons for doing so?

I do not think anyone knows as there is huge speculation on the subject.

Basically some see it as his cowardice to confess his faith, others see it as a prudent measure to keep his influence of power until the risk of his own execution for becoming a Christian had passed. He himself does not seem to say. I do not even believe we can prove He was a Christian. Maybe he was? God only knows.

It does seem though the God used Him to end so much Christian persecution, and it does seem that in some ways, at least initially, Christ overthrew the Gentile world by turning his heart in favor of His people. Quite soon after his death, Christ's kingdom grew like a mustard seed.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Jesus' words in Matthew 24:1–34, about the generation that would not pass away before great tribulation? Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the last days started in 1914 because that was the year that the world changed from the start of WW1. The drastic changes from 1914 onward are the sign of the Lord's presence. Those who saw the sign starting in 1914 were the first of a generation that would not pass away before the last days ended. How do JWs define the term "generation" as used here?

The following is found on the JW.org website. It is from 2014. Prior  to this it was taught that some of the group of Christians who were old enough in 1914 to comprehend the significance of the events that proved the messiah's second presence (parousia) had begun in that year would still be alive when the great tribulation starts.
The material below is quoted from the 2014 Watchtower article, "'Let Your Kingdom Come'—But When?"

In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.—Rom. 8:14-17.
The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 give us confidence that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation. This should add to our conviction that little time remains before the King of God’s Kingdom acts to destroy the wicked and usher in a righteous new world.—2 Pet. 3:13.


What biblical passage(s) reveal(s) what God says was the fallen angels' sin? From this question: Does the Bible provide any passages that might help in understanding how Satan became sinful?, answers have attempted to find from a biblical-basis, how Satan became sinful.

This question is asking what God himself says was the sin of the fallen angels. The earlier question deals with how, this one: According to God, what was the sin of the fallen angels?

God's message to King Saul through prophet Samuel, after Saul disobeys God, is:

  1 Samuel 15:22-23
  (RSVCE)
  22 And Samuel said,   “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt
  offerings and sacrifices,
      as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
      and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
      and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
      he has also rejected you from being king.”[a]

Footnotes:
a. 15.22-23 Samuel does not condemn sacrifices but says obedience is better.

  The Jerusalem Bible | Popular Edition has for v. 23: "Rebellion is a sin of sorcery,  presumption a crime of the teraphim."[b]

Footnotes:
b. 15.23 'False gods': teraphim - people kept these things in their houses?! Scarey! - were household idols.

It is assumed that the readers of this answer know the connection between divination, idolatry, sorcery, idols, and demons/fallen angels.

Another revealing is the passage is John 8:39-47 (RSVCE): Jesus and Abraham in which Jesus contrasts children of the devil with children of Abraham. Thus Abraham did the opposite of what the devil did. Abraham listened to God, obeyed, trusted, and had faith in God.

Recalling Jesus saying, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments." [John 14:15 (RSVCE)] and our first parents fell by failing to keep the one commandment God enjoined on them, and Abraham passing the obedience test, and the passage quoted in 1 Samuel above, loving God means keeping his commandments and obeying him especially when he directly commands.

Combining this with the passages from 1 Samuel 15 and John 8 above, the sin of the fallen angels was that of disobedience.


Any philosphers arguing that the Christian worldview is the most rational? I have seen life at either extreme, first as a Hindu, with a sort of blind faith in general religiosity, and later as an atheist, with a blind faith in knowledge obtained through the senses alone. I have now been a Christian for 2 years, and I find that it resonates with my life experiences, and I am wiser and more balanced in living my life. Christianity seems to be the most rational of all worldviews I have experienced, if we define rationality not solely at an intellectual level, but at a level which takes into account the human experience. In fact, since we are embodied beings, and not merely thinking agents(or philosophers), I would suggest that the very definition of rationality of a worldview needs to take this "experiential" reality into account. To try and put things another way, Christianity seems rational at a holistic and integrative level -- one involving faith, reason, emotion, intellect and experience -- a level that transcends pure reason alone.

I would like to know if any Christian philosophers or apologists have made a case for Christianity from this sort of definition of what it means to be rational.

I would like to add the excerpt below, taken from Wikipedia, as a guide to the notion of rationality that I refer to.

  In philosophy, rationality is the characteristic of any action,
  belief, or desire, that makes their choice optimal under a set of
  constraints.

You are not the first person in history to make such observations. One person who articulated it well is the late Clive Staples:

  "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -- C.S. Lewis

Another man, circa the same erra and place, who argued emphatically that Christianity is the only view that makes sense of the world we live in is G.K. Chesterton. I emphatically disagree with the man on many points of theology, but he does hold an interesting place in literature -- commanding respect from people on both sides of theological divides for his articulation of ideas.

While not his greatest treaties on philosophy, my favorite work of his is The Ball and the Cross. Throughout the story, a wide variety of philosophical ideas are aired in the context of two men debating whether atheism or Christianity is a more rational position.

It is difficult to convey the context of the statements he makes without the whole story, but let me set the stage with this quote:

  "Well, we won't quarrel about a word," said the other, pleasantly. "Why on earth not?" said MacIan, with a sudden asperity. "Why shouldn't we quarrel about a word? What is the good of words if they aren't important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn't any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only things worth fighting about.

In the end, these two parties agree to carry on an extended debate (played out dramatically with an ongoing duel) about the rationality of their respective views. In the dialogue that develops, Chesterton forwards many ideas about the nature of Christianity and it's relation to reason.

  Christianity is always out of fashion because it is always sane; and all fashions are mild insanities.

This thought gets considerably more developement, although this quote will not do it justice:

  The Church always seems to be behind the times, when it is really beyond the times; it is waiting till the last fad shall have seen its last summer. It keeps the key of a permanent virtue.

In parting, he poses many questions about sanity vs. madness in relation to Christianity vs. the humanism -- questions I think men would do well to continue wrestling with.

  In the long run, which is most mad--the Church or the world? Which is madder, the Spanish priest who permitted tyranny, or the Prussian sophist who admired it? Which is madder, the Russian priest who discourages righteous rebellion, or the Russian novelist who forbids it? That is the final and blasting test. The world left to itself grows wilder than any creed.

In another place:

  That is the only real question-- whether the Church is really madder than the world. Let the rationalists run their own race, and let us see where they end.

In a round* about way, Chesterton argues that it is only rational to understand the world through the lens of the cross:

  Turnbull, we cannot trust the ball to be always a ball; we cannot trust reason to be reasonable. In the end the great terrestrial globe will go quite lop-sided, and only the cross will stand upright.

Chesterton takes a much more conventional approach to reason in his book Orthodoxy.

  Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true.

Here he also makes a few lucid observations about the nature of religious vs irreligious world views:

  Neither modern science nor ancient religion believes in complete free thought. Theology rebukes certain thoughts by calling them blasphemous. Science rebukes certain thoughts by calling them morbid.

Chesterton highlights many of the ways in which reason runs aground when not grounded on Christian doctrine:

  Only the Christian Church can offer any rational objection to a complete confidence in the rich. For she has maintained from the beginning that the danger was not in man's environment, but in man.

While I disagree with Chesterton's view of free will, still the call he places on us to not just see the world in light of the only thing that makes it all make sense but to do something about that view is indeed part of orthodox Christian thought.

  The vast and shallow philosophies, the huge syntheses of humbug, all talk about ages and evolution and ultimate developments. The true philosophy is concerned with the instant. Will a man take this road?

* Excuse the puns!


Is choosing to commit sin a possibility in Heaven? According to the Bible 'sin' by definition is anything that is against God! Which is why God cannot commit sin [Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2], not that He doesn't choose to commit sin. This is because God cannot do anything against Himself [2Tim.2:13]. In other words, it is impossible for God to sin.
However, when we think of the creation we sin because we have the freedom to choose between good and bad. Adam and Eve committed sin because of that freedom. If we assume that they sinned because of the tempter then this is not the case when Satan sinned while being in the very presence of God! Therefore, a free being/entity can commit sin even when that being/entity has no sinful  nature internally or a sinful tempter externally.
All those who enter into Heaven or the presence of God and enjoy eternal life will have free-will. But the question is what makes them not to sin again like Satan or other angels that were sent out from God's presence because of their sin?

Is choosing to commit sin a possibility in Heaven?
The short answer is no.
There is no possibility of sinning in Heaven and thus offending Our Creator further. All will desire to do what is pleasing to God. The desire to sin will no longer exist in heart of the elect.

Will we be free to sin in heaven?
Here is another dilemma. If we answer no, we seem to lack something: free will. If we answer yes, we lack something else: moral perfection. The Heavenly question thus lands us squarely into an earthly and present issue concerning the nature of freedom and of morality and may help us to puncture one of modernity's most pervasive and destructive illusions: the association of freedom with rebellion and of obedience with unfreedom.
Suppose we change the question so as to avoid the ambiguity of the word freedom. Are we able to sin in Heaven? If not, it seems we are programmed and determined rather than free. If so, if temptation is possible in Heaven, Heavenly security against sin is gone. One of the best things to look forward to at death, say the saints, is that "he who has died is freed from sin". If there is even a possibility of sin in Heaven, that possibility may be actualized, for if the actualization of a possibility is impossible, then it is not a possibility but an impossibility.
How can we preserve both free will and sinlessness in Heaven? Once again, God is our model and solution: we solve this pseudoproblem in the same way God does. He is both free and sinless. How? Let us judge our freedom by His, rather than vice versa.
What do we mean by "freedom"? Sometimes (1) political freedom, freedom from tyranny, oppression, or the denial of our rights; sometimes (2) physical power, ability to act, freedom from hindrance; and sometimes (3) spiritual power to choose ("free will"). Of course we will have all three in Heaven, but why won't we be able to sin, since we will have free will?
Because we will also have a fourth freedom, the most important one of all: freedom from sin, from what makes us not ourselves. We will be free to be the true selves God designed us to be, free to be determined by God. This determination does not remove our freedom but is our freedom, for even now freedom is not simply indetermination; it is freedom to be determined by final causes (purposes) rather than efficient causes (things and events that already exist and act upon us). Our free will means that our present is determined by our future rather than by our past. Final causes are at present only mental pictures and desires. To say we are determined by final causes means that we, like God, create by knowing; that as creative artists our knowledge antecedes and determines the truth of its object, the work of art, rather than conforming to its object, as scientific and empirical knowledge does. But we are objects to God (though subjects to the world); we too, therefore, are true only when we conform to God's knowledge of us, God's artistic plan for our identity. Since our highest freedom means freedom to be ourselves, we are most free when we are most obedient to God's will, which expresses His idea of us. Thus freedom and obedience coincide. To obey God is to be free in the most radical sense: free to be me, free from inauthenticity, free from false being, free from the alien within, not just free from the alien without, the oppressor.
This explains a paradox frequently met in earthly experience: that at the moment of freest choice it feels most like destiny, and at the moment of most destined choice it feels freest. Caesar's crossing the Rubicon, choosing someone to marry, a conversion decision - these all feel both more free and more destined than ordinary choices. C. S. Lewis' explanation of this principle is that it is all of us that chooses; nothing is left over.bTherefore there is nothing in us that opposes the choice; it is certain; it is wholly determined. But it is also wholly free because it is wholly self-determined. The whole self chooses, the divided will is healed.
The answer to our question, then, is that "freedom to sin" is a self-contradictory concept. Sin is inauthenticity and freedom is authenticity; sin is our false self and freedom is our true self Sin is part of Hell and freedom is part of Heaven. The question cannot be resolved, only dissolved, because it confuses Hell with Heaven.

Once in Heaven, our will desires only to do the greater glory in His Presence.
Scripture teaches us that in Heaven no sin is no longer existent.

Rev. 22:4 – “And there shall be no curse any more, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him. And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads.”
I Cor. 13:12 – “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.”
Matt. 5:8 – “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
I John 3:2 – “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” - Source

According to Catholicism, the Blessed in Heaven enjoy the gift of Impeccability.

Impeccability is the absence of sin. Christianity teaches this to be an attribute of God (logically God cannot sin, it would mean that he would act against his own will and nature) and therefore it is also attributed to Christ.
Impeccability and Heaven
Early Christians questioned whether the victorious saints in heaven could sin. The widely influential Eastern Church Father and theologian Origen of Alexandria maintained that they could. Official Roman Catholic doctrine holds that they cannot. Although Catholics believe in the gift of free will, saints in heaven already see God face to face and are incapable of sinning (see Pope Benedict XII and beatific vision), i.e., they will necessarily remain in God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (emphasis added):

1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been "in the nature of sacrament." Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, "the holy city" of God, "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb." She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community. The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion. 1060 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. Then the just will reign with Christ for ever, glorified in body and soul, and the material universe itself will be transformed. God will then be "all in all" (⇒ 1 Cor 15:28), in eternal life.

Impeccability and Purgatory
The 13th-century, Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas taught that souls in Purgatory cannot sin (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 83, Article 11, Reply to Objection 3), let alone the saints in heaven. This is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, although there are different opinions on the reasons for the impossibility to sin.


How did the Virgin Mary's title "Mirror of Justice", used in some Catholic prayers, originate? The Catholic prayer often known as the Litany of Loreto1 contains a number of descriptive titles of Mary, the mother of God—for example, "Mirror of Justice", "Seat of Wisdom", "Star of the Sea". Some of these titles are mentioned in a Wikipedia article entitled "Titles of Mary".

Neither of the linked Wikipedia articles, however, gives much historical information about the origin of the titles. What history has been collected about their origin (presumably prior to their incorporation into the Litany)? In particular I'm interested in the title "Mirror of Justice", as that doesn't immediately seem applicable to Mary in the way that (for example) "Refuge of Sinners" does.

1. cf. The Loreto Litanies - The Rosary - Holy See.

Introductory History of the Litany of Loreto

  The Litany of the Blessed Virgin--also called the Litany of Loreto--is
  one of the many Marian litanies, or praises of Mary, composed during
  the Middle Ages. The place of honor it now holds, in the life of the
  Church, is due its faithful use at the shrine of the Holy House at
  Loreto, which, according to tradition, was the small cottage-like home
  where the Holy Family had lived and which was miraculously transported
  by angels, in 1291, from the Holy Land to its present location in
  Loreto. It was definitely recommended by Pope Clement VII and approved
  by Sixtus V in 1587, and all other Marian litanies were suppressed, at
  least for public use. - Source: The History of the Litany of
  Loreto.

One meaning of the Marian Title Mirror of Justice is found in the Presentation Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mirror of Justice given July 31, 2010 by His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, D.D., J.C.D. at Queen of the Americas Guild Annual Meeting, Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

  The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mirror of Justice

  The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, teaches her children
  obedience to the Church’s discipline. [...]

  One of the titles by which we address Our Blessed Mother in the Litany
  of Loreto is Mirror of Justice, Speculum Iustitiae.  Simply put,
  the title reminds us that we see in Mary the image of how to live in
  obedience to God’s law and so grow in the likeness of Christ, that is,
  grow in the pure and selfless love of God and of our neighbor.  It
  should not surprise us that, when the faithful have a strong devotion
  to the Blessed Virgin Mary, they are also strong in their obedience to
  Christ and to those who act in His person as Head and Shepherd of the
  flock in every time and place, namely, the Holy Father and the Bishops
  in communion with him, together with the priests, their co-workers. -
  Source: Obedience to the Magisterium and the Responsibility of Bishop toward the Laity | Cardinal Burke | Marian Catechist
  Apostolate.

History of the Symbol of Mary Mirror of Justice (Speculum justitiaé)

This article Litany of Loreto | campus.udayton.edu says

  Its origin [of the Litany] is believed to be a medieval rimed litany (see Paris
  manuscript Nat. lat. 5267, fol., 80r) influenced by Eastern Marian
  devotion, in particular by the famous Hymnos Akathistos. Contrasting
  with the older Litany of All Saints, the Loreto Litanies are purely
  ad- or invocational litanies. As can be observed, for example, in the
  so called Officia Mariana, many more Marian litanies were and are in
  use but destined for private devotion.

This mentions when the litany originated and under what influence.

The article continues to explain the structure of the litany and under 4. Symbols of Mary it says:

  We then have thirteen symbolic advocations, mostly taken from the Old
  Testament and applied to Mary which highlight her virtues and her
  eminent role in salvation history:

  (1) Mirror of Justice (Speculum justitiaé)
  [...]

Elsewhere on the website it explains the meaning

  Speculum Justitiae
  Mirror of Justice

  The various symbolic meanings of the mirror highlight: (1) purity of
  the soul, (2) self-knowledge and moral integrity, as well as (3) its
  ability to reflect reality.  Mary's soul is holy and pure.  She
  reflects the Sun of Justice, meaning God's perfection and holiness.
  She is the mirror without blemish of God's majesty (Wisdom 7:26).
  The Sun of Justice is reflected in the image of Mother and Child.  The
  angel with balance and sword, usually a symbol of justice, signifies
  God's perfection.  There is a second and oval mirror whose surface is
  tainted and marred.  In it, three shadowy silhouettes can be barely
  perceived, featuring Adam or sinful humanity between Good and Evil,
  that is Satan, beckoning and tempting, and the guardian angel watching
  over his protégé.  This mirror does not reflect light and perfection
  but darkness and sin, or at least the blurred human vision of God and
  eternity.

  Thus Paul reminds us that "at present we see indistinctly as in a
  mirror, but then face to face" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Further Reading: Litany of Loreto | New Advent and Mirror of Justice | salvemariaregina.info.

Please listen also to: Audio from Advent recollection with Father Austin Dominic Litke, OP.


What is the "Hell's Best Kept Secret" teaching that's circulating in various Evangelical Churches? There's a teaching called "Hell's Best Secret" that's been circulating for several years, originally preached by Ray Comfort, the a New Zealand-born minister, and founder of Living Waters Publications.

Without going into whether or not the teaching is true, what is the primary message of the teaching, the Scriptural basis, and its influence?

The Hell's Best Secret teaching is essentially a denouncement on what Ray Comfort calls "the modern Gospel", and a teaching on what he considers the proper use of Mosaic Law to prepare the heart for the Gospel.

Early on in the message, he speaks of a certain denomination's evangelism efforts during what they called "the decade of Harvest":

  Let me make it more real for you. In 1991, in the first year of the
  decade of harvest, a major denomination in the U.S. was able to obtain
  294,000 decisions for Christ. That is, in one year, this major
  denomination of 11,500 churches was able to obtain 294,000 decisions
  for Christ. Unfortunately, they could only find 14,000 in fellowship,
  which means they couldn’t account for 280,000 of their decisions, and
  this is normal, modern evangelical results

According to Comfort, based on Church records that he's had access to, something like 80%-90% of those who have "been saved" later fall away.  He blames this on the methods used to get people to come to Christ.

The "Modern Gospel" as he calls it, is one of life enhancement.  Sinners are promised that God can heal their broken marriage, fix their drug problems, alcohol problems, and so forth.  The "Modern Gospel" is, according to Comfort, a misguided attempt to make Christianity appealing by showing how much better the Christian life is than that of the unsaved.

He uses an illustration of a man on an airplane, who is given a parachute and is told that it would improve his flight, to illustrate how foolish this is.

Comfort argues:

  Now listen to what the modern gospel says. It says, “Put on the Lord
  Jesus Christ. He’ll give you love, joy, peace, fulfillment, and
  lasting happiness.” In other words, “Jesus will improve your flight.”
  So the sinner responds, and in an experimental fashion, puts on the
  Savior to see if the claims are true. And what does he get? The
  promised temptation, tribulation, and persecution. The other
  passengers mock him. So what does he do? He takes  off the Lord Jesus
  Christ, he’s offended for the word’s sake (Mark 4:17), he’s
  disillusioned and somewhat embittered, and quite rightly so. He was
  promised peace, joy, love, fulfillment, and lasting happiness, and all
  he got were trials and humiliation. His bitterness is directed toward
  those who gave him the so-called “good news”. His  latter end becomes
  worse than the first: another inoculated and bitter backslider.

The rest of the teaching expands on the proper use of the Law, particularly the The pedagogical use (although he doesn't use that term in the teaching), which is to show sinners what sin is, to show them that they are, indeed, sinners, and show them their need of a Savior, and allow repentance.  Without the Law, He argues (as does the Apostle Paul), sinners don't even know what sin is.  How can they repent, if they don't know what sin is?

The teaching contains a section in which he illustrates using the Ten Commandments on an unrepentant sinner to show them their sinful nature in it's true light.

  I say, “Ah, do you think you’ve kept the ten commandments?” He says,
  “Ah, yeah…pretty much.” I say, “Let’s go through them. Ever told a
  lie?” He says, “Ah, yeah…yeah, one or two.” I say, “What does that
  make you?” He says, “A sinner.” I say, “No, no. Specifically, what
  does it make you?” He says, “Well, man, I’m not a liar.”  I say, “How
  many lies, then, do you have to tell to be a liar? Ten and a bell
  rings and ‘ppppbbbbtttt’ across your forehead? Isn’t it true if you
  tell one lie, it makes you a liar?” He says, “Yeah…I guess you’re
  right.” I say, “Have you ever stolen something?” He says, “No.” I say,
  “Come on; you’ve just admitted to me you’re a liar.” I say, “Ever
  stolen something, even if its small?” and he says, “Yeah.” I say,
  “What does that make you?” He says, “A thief.” I say, “Jesus said, ‘If
  you look at a woman and lust after her, you commit adultery with her
  in your heart’ (Mat. 5:28).

  Ever done that?” He says, “Yeah, plenty of times.” “Then from your own
  admission, you’re a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart, and you have
  to face God on judgment day; and we’ve only looked at three of the ten
  commandments. There’s another seven with their cannons pointed at you.
  Have you used God’s name in vain?” “Yeah…I’ve been trying to stop.”
  “You know what you’re doing? Instead of using a four-letter filth word
  beginning with ‘s’ to express disgust, you’re using God’s name in its
  place. That’s called blasphemy; and the Bible says, ‘Every idle word a
  man speaks he’ll give account thereofon the day of judgment’ (Mat.
  12:36). ‘The Lord will not old him guiltless who takes his name in
  vain’ (Ex. 20:7). The Bible says if you hate someone, you are a
  murderer (1 John 3:15).”

The main point of the teaching is that instead of using promises of a better life to lure sinners to accepting Christ, we need to use God's law to show them their need for Christ, and drive them to the Savior.

As for the influence it's had in recent years:

While it's debatable whether Comfort's message is true, and it's not universally accepted, there's no denying that it has been widely accepted, and influential.

I personally first heard of the teaching at a Baptist Church, where a member gave me a cassette version of the audio teaching.  I have since been presented with it from members of Assembly of God, Evangelical Free, and Independent Bible Churches.  It's a teaching that's steadily gaining acceptance in a wide variety of denominations, although I've never seen it endorsed officially by any organization.

A few years back, Kirk Cameron (the actor) joined him in trying to spread the teaching, and as a result of Kirk's celebrity, the teaching has become even more popular.

The teaching has had influence in a number of well-known Christian movies, such as the Left Behind movies, Fireproof, and Courageous.  In each of these movies, at least one character is seen using the same basic "have you ever told a lie" use of the law to speak to an unsaved person.

They've also been both on the radio and on Christian TV - with the Way of the Master radio, and The Way of the Master television show, and I've even heard the message preached on the ultra-conservative VCY America radio.


God created male and female.... What about those who do not fit in the box? Often times I hear the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman, God made them male and female, (adam and eve not adam and steve ..etc).
My question is for those who do not fit into the gender boxes we like people to fit into.
In fact there are many variations of gender between the poles xmale, heterosexual, masculine
and xfemale, heterosexual, feminine.

For the sake of specificness we will drop the heterosexual part and look a little closer at just the gender aspect.

What happens when a physical check shows one sex/gender and a chromosome test shows another?
"it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as female, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and XX people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and XY people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html?em

Stories like Santhi Soundaragjan, who after gender testing failed as a female and was stripped of her Olympic medal. Her condition was possibly "Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). This condition includes the existence of a 'Y' chromosome in phenotypic females (typically only associated with a male genotype) and results in an inability to respond to Androgens. This unresponsiveness leads to a female body without female internal sex organs. Although the body produces testosterone, it does not react to the hormone." from http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/archives/2009/06/11/2003445882 (The failed test even led to a suicide attempt)

There is more...amidst the many varying conditions that fall somewhere inbetween, there are those who are born with both genders, the hermaphrodite.

Where do these people fit into normal Christian male/female scenarios? Do they have room for them?

As with many of these questions, some of the answer is already in the question. You've termed occurrences like this "conditions" - in other words, deviations from the general norm. As with other medical conditions they are a result of The Fall. So the line you quote is correct, God created male and female, very clearly and distinctly.

So, how do people affected by these conditions fit into the "normal Christian scenarios" of male and female? Well firstly there's nothing explicitly Christian about recognising that the norm is to be male or female. Secondly, as we both have already pointed out, these are medical conditions, so I would suggest they warrant expert medical attention. Thirdly my understanding is that in most cases there is a "leaning" towards one gender or the other that can help to establish which gender a person really is.

Finally, your last question, "do they [Christians] have room for them [people with these type of conditions]?" Of course. Anyone and everyone has the potential to become a Christian and should be welcome in Church. There should be a note of caution taken here though. Many people, inside and outside the church, find these issues very confusing and may struggle to react in the way they perhaps should. Some may be overly curious, others may find such a condition distasteful and not want to confront it. Nobody is unwelcome but not everyone will necessarily be able to express that. And that's ok, the church is made up of all kinds of people, not all of whom will see eye to eye all the time.


Why do Anglicans kneel when Catholics would stand? During the liturgy in both churches, there are several times (for example, at the Collect, just before the first reading) when a prayer is introduced by words, "Let us pray." At those times, we Catholics stand up, but I visited an Anglican church recently where they knelt. Is there any reason for that?

I am preferably interested in a theological interpretation or motivation.

Liturgical practice

As regards the Catholic Church, the Mass that is now in common use—the Mass promulgated in 1970, sometimes referred to as the “Ordinary Form”—prescribes kneeling only during the Eucharistic Prayer, during which (in accord with Catholic belief) the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The faithful kneel at the so-called epiclesis (that is, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, asking Him to transform the gifts of bread and wine), and rise just before the priest says Mysterium fidei (“The mystery of faith”).

At the beginning of the Mass, however, the faithful are already standing, and they remain standing until the end of the collect, or opening prayer, at which time they sit to listen to the readings.

All of the instructions can found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). See especially number 43.

Note that in many English-speaking countries, the faithful kneel from the end of the Sanctus (the Holy, Holy Holy), until either the Mysterium fidei or after the great Amen (that is, the end of the Eucharistic Prayer). The edition of the GIRM cited is for the United States and explains this latter practice. In the United States, in most dioceses the faithful also kneel for the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).

(See the GIRM in Latin for the universal norms.)

As regards the Anglican liturgy, it is largely derived from the Catholic Roman Rite, but it developed long before the Mass that was promulgated in 1970, and so retains elements of the pre-1970 Mass (or “Extraordinary Form,” as it is called nowadays). Since the pre-1970 Mass does not prescibe specific liturgical postures for the faithful, those who adapted the Mass for the Anglican Book of Common Prayer made slightly different decisions as to where the kneeling should be. (See, for example, a parish communion guide from 1940.)

Theological meaning

In the Catholic Church (specifically in the Western Church, because the symbolism in the Eastern Churches is different), kneeling represents profound respect and especially adoration. In the context of the liturgy (both the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours) it is limited to the key moments in which God is worshipped; at Mass, the consecration and (in the United States) at the “Lamb of God.” Standing is already a posture of respect and prayer—which is why it prevails during most of the Mass—but kneeling is reserved for the most intense moments of adoration. That is why, for example, kneeling would not be appropriate during the priest’s presidential prayers (of which the opening prayer, or collect, is one). (There is an excellent short overview of the different postures at Mass by Fr. Edward McNamara, L.C.)

Why do the Anglicans kneel during their opening prayer? I expect that there are fundamentally two reasons (although I would invite a member of the Church of England to expand on this answer). One is that, as I mentioned, the Anglican liturgy is adapted largely from the older pre-1970 Mass, in which it was common (but not exactly mandated) for the faithful to kneel during nearly the entire Mass. The other is that those who composed the Book of Common Prayer had mostly a Protestant outlook: specifically, they tended to reject the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, as well as the doctrine of Transubstantiation (the transformation of the bread and wine into Jesus). Hence, it was logical that they should place less emphasis than Catholics do on the consecration of the Eucharist—they simply did not think of the Consecration as a more “intense” moment of adoration, the way Catholics would.


Did reformation leaders throw out the Summa Theologica? St. Thomas Aquinas's seminal work the Summa Theologica was an attempt to catalog all the theological arguments ever conceived.

Much of the reasoning is rooted in the Natural Law and it's what Catholics believe today. It's the reason we've got such strong opinions on abortion, birth control, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" and more even though private interpretation of the Bible could potentially lead one to believe otherwise.

What I wonder, is how much of a common ground is the Natural Law (specifically as it relates to the Summa) and how did the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.) decide whether or not to accept it?

I can only speak for Calvin. AFAIK, he never explicitly interacts with Aquinas or the Summa. In Institutes he does reference "The Schoolmen" many times, but he seems to have in mind mostly later-medieval theologians rather than the angelic doctor himself. That's a shame, because Aquinas would have been a much more worthy opponent.

Protestants in general tend to be skeptical of natural-law arguments. Calvin himself believed that our only reliable knowledge about God comes from special revelation and he is very hard on the "Papists" for making stuff up (i.e., the incredible detail some writers claim to know about the kinds and hierarchies of the angels).

That said, I believe Calvin would have come down on the same side as the Catholic Church on the issues you mentioned. He certainly would have opposed contraception.

Edit

Here are a few google results, suggesting that Calvin probably did not have access to the Summa:

Calvin on Aquinas

Luther, Calvin and Aquinas: On Grace


How can one identify the Anti-Christ; can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20? Will the Anti-Christ come from the Catholic Church?
Perhaps since the Anti-Christ was a real person, is it possible that he is like a Cardinal or Bishop infected by the spirit of Anti-Christ?
According to St. John's epistle (1 John 2:19-20);

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if
they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us, but their
going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Is St. John talking about the future Bishops or presbyters will become the Anti-Christ who belong to the Catholic Church but separated themselves in a form of schism?
Does Catholic Church have a teaching that one of the Bishops or Cardinals will be the Anti-Christ?

How can one identify the Anti-Christ, can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20?
Impossible to say as we do not know who he is as of yet. The Early Church Fathers believe that he would be of Hebrew descent: a Jew. For them it was the only possible way to deceive the Chosen People: a false Messiah.
These type of questions are speculative in nature and the Church never pronounces officially in such matters. Anything is possible.
Prophecy is usually recognized as true while the thing prophesized have run their course. This would apply to the Antichrist also the anti-church and anti-gospel of Pope John Paul II should be seen as something the against the Church and against the Gospels and not as a counterfeit church or a counterfeit gospel, although the Antichrist will no doubt teach a false gospel of sorts.
That said I am sure that one will be able to find a possible interpretation that the Antichrist could be either a bishop or an anti-pope. Do not mean that it is true.
A prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi seems to indicate the that either the Antichrist or one of his satellites could be an anti-pope elected uncanonically. Thus he would be at Last a bishop, if not a cardinal.

Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226): “There will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.).  Some believe this prophecy referred to the controversy surrounding the election of Pope John XXIII and Cardinal Siri.  But it could refer to the next and last pope (Peter the Roman).  The last pope may just cut Catholics loose from unity and the papacy, causing total disruption and confusion. - Malachy's Prophecies - The Last 10 Popes

In fact, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich speaks of such a possibility in her revelations that the Antichrist could be a false pope.

“Last night, from eleven to three, I had a most wonderful vision of two churches and two Popes and a variety of things, ancient and modern. I shall relate, as well as I can, all that I remember of it. My angel guardian came and told me that I must go to Rome and take two things to the Pope, but I cannot now recall what they were— perhaps it is the Will of God that I should forget them. I asked my angel how I could make so long a journey, sick as I was. But when I was told that I should make it without difficulty, I no longer objected. An odd-looking vehicle appeared before me, flat and slight, with only two wheels, the flooring red with white edges. I saw no horses. I was gently lifted and laid on it and, at the same instant, a snow-white, luminous child flew toward me and seated himself at my feet. He reminded me of the Patience child in green, so sweet, so lovely, and perfectly transparent. He was to be my companion, he was to console and take care of me. The wagon was so light and smooth that at first I was afraid of slipping off; but it began to move very gently of itself without horses, and I saw a shining human figure going on ahead.
The journey did not seem long, although we crossed countries, mountains, and great waters. I knew Rome the instant we reached it, and I was soon in the presence of the Pope. I know not now whether he was sleeping or praying, but I had to say two things to him, or give him two things, and I shall have to go to him once again to announce a third. Then I had a wonderful vision. Rome suddenly appeared as in the early ages, and I saw a Pope (Boniface IV) and an emperor whose name I knew not (Phocas). I could not find my way in the city, all was so different, even the sacred ceremonies; but yet I recognized them as Catholic. I saw a great round building like a cupola— it was a pagan temple full of beautiful idols. It had no windows, but in the dome was an opening with a contrivance for keeping out the rain. It seemed as if all the idols that ever existed were gathered together there in every conceivable posture. Many of them were very beautiful, and others exceedingly odd; there were even some of geese which received divine honor. In the center of the building stood a very high pyramid formed entirely of those images. I saw no idolatrous worship at the time of which I speak, although the idols were still carefully preserved. I saw messengers from Pope Boniface going to the emperor and petitioning for the temple to be changed into a Christian church. I heard the latter declaring distinctly that the Pope should allow the ancient statues to remain, though he might erect therein the Cross to which the highest honors should be paid. This proposal, as it seemed to me, was made not wickedly, but in good faith.
I saw the messengers return with the answer and Boniface reflecting as to how he might in some measure conform to the emperor’s will. While he was thus deliberating, I saw a good, pious priest in prayer before the crucifix. He wore a long white robe with a train, and an angel hovered by his side. Suddenly he arose, went straight to Boniface, and told him that he should by no means accede to the emperor’s proposal. Messengers were then dispatched to the emperor, who now consented to the temple’s being entirely cleared. Then I saw his people come and take numbers of the statues to the imperial city; but still many remained in Rome. Then I saw the consecration of the temple, at which ceremony the holy martyrs assisted with Mary at their head. The altar was not in the center of the building, but against the wall. I saw more than thirty wagon-loads of sacred relics brought into the church. Many of them were enclosed in the walls and others could be seen through round openings covered with something like glass.
When I had witnessed this vision even in the smallest details, I saw again the present Pope and the dark church of his time in Rome. It seemed to be a large, old house like a town hall with columns in front. I saw no altar in it, but only benches, and in the middle of it something like a pulpit. They had preaching and singing, but nothing else, and only very few attended it. And lo, a most singular sight! Each member of the congregation drew an idol from his breast, set it up before him, and prayed to it. It was as if each man drew forth his secret thoughts or passions under the appearance of a dark cloud which, once outside, took some definite form. They were precisely such figures as I had seen around the neck of the illicit bride in the Nuptial House, figures of men and animals. The god of one was short and broad with a crisp head and numerous, outstretched arms ready to seize and devour all in its reach; that of another was quite small with miserable, shrunken limbs; another had merely a block of wood upon which he gazed with rolling eyes; this one had a horrible animal; that one, a long pole. The most singular part of it was that the idols filled the place; the church, although the worshippers were so few, was crowded with idols. When the service was over, everyone’s god re-entered into his breast. The whole church was draped in black, and all that took place in it was shrouded in gloom.
Then I saw the connection between the two Popes and the two temples. I am sorry that I have forgotten the numbers, but I was shown how weak the one had been in adherents and human support, but how strong in courage to overturn so many gods (I knew the number) and to unite so many different forms of worship into one; and, on the contrary, how strong in numbers and yet how irresolute in action was the other since, in authorizing the erection of false temples, he had allowed the only true God, the only true religion to be lost among so many false gods and false religions.
It was also shown me that those pagans humbly adored gods other than themselves, and that they would have been willing to admit in all simplicity the only God, the Most Holy Trinity. Their worship was preferable to that of those who adore themselves in a thousand idols to the total exclusion of Our Lord. The picture was favorable to the early ages, for in them idolatry was on the decrease, while in our days it is just the contrary. I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church; I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. 2 I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening.
And now the vision became more extended. I saw in all places Catholics oppressed, annoyed, restricted, and deprived of liberty, churches were closed, and great misery prevailed everywhere with war and bloodshed. I saw rude, ignorant people offering violent resistance, but this state of things lasted not long. Again I saw in vision St. Peter’s undermined according to a plan devised by the secret sect while, at the same time, it was damaged by storms; but it was delivered at the moment of greatest distress. Again I saw the Blessed Virgin extending her mantle over it.
In this last scene, I saw no longer the reigning Pope, but one of his successors, a mild, but very resolute man who knew how to attach his priests to himself and who drove far from him the bad. I saw all things renewed and a church which reached from earth to Heaven. I saw one of the twelve new apostles in the person of the young priest whom the unchaste bride wanted to marry. It was a very comprehensive vision and portrayed anew all that had been previously shown me regarding the Church’s destiny. On another occasion, I had a vision of the Vicar-General’s stanch resistance to secular power in behalf of the interests of the Church. The affair covered him with glory, 3 though upon some other points he was to blame. I was told that I should have to go again to the Pope; but when all this will take place I cannot say.”
Schmoger, Very Rev. K. E.. Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich Volume 2 (with Supplemental Reading: A Brief Life of Christ) [Illustrated] (Kindle Locations 3740-3797). TAN Books. Kindle Edition. - Anne Catherine Emmerich and the Two Popes

Even Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1948) spoke about the possibility of a counterfeit Church:

“[Satan] will set up a counterfeit church which will be the ape of the [Catholic] Church… It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.”
“We are living in the days of the Apocalypse, the last days of our era. The two great forces – the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of the anti-Christ – are beginning to draw battle lines for the catastrophic contest.”
“The False prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit Church.”
“Christ’s Church the Catholic Church will be one; and the false Prophet will create the other.” - Things Accelerate Toward the End – Prophecy of Archbishop Fulton Sheen

True or false time will tell!


Are Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic allowed to break the host? I'd like to know if Eucharistic Ministers are allowed to break a consecrated host?

I witnessed this happening and I didn't think they had the right to do it.

I was searching for the answer but some say yes and another no. Is there any official teaching or how do I find out if it's ok in my parish or diocese?

The official website of the Vatican seems to be silent on this issue. Nevertheless it may be up to the local ordinary to make special norms for the diocese in question!

The following is taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum of the Vatican:

  [160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.


Where does calling Heaven "My True Country" come from? I was reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity yesterday; in the chapter on Hope, Lewis refers to Heaven and his "True Country".  Perhaps it's a coincidence, but there's a Newsboys song with that as a lyric.  Is that a Biblical reference or does it start with C.S. Lewis or is it just a Protestant meme?

I am not sure, but it may be a reference to Hebrews 11:

  13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They
  did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed
  them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and
  strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are
  looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of
  the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.
  16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one.
  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has
  prepared a city for them.

Also, Philippians 3:

  20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior
  from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables
  him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly
  bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

For reference, I believe this is the C. S. Lewis quote you are referring to:

  “The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless
  satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well,
  there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there
  is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such
  a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in
  this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was
  made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it,
  that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly
  pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to
  suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one
  hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly
  blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something
  else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must
  keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not
  find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned
  aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that
  country and to help others to do the same.”


Are Catholics obligated to follow the 4th Commandment in Heaven? "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to The Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days The Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore The Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11 RSV)

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

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

Strictly speaking, Catholics are not 'obligated' to keep the 'Sabbath' (on earth, let alone in heaven):

  2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ: "Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death"106 - Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

  ...

  106. St. Justin, I Apol. 67:PG 6,429 and 432.

For further clarification on the Catholic view of the correct attitude to the moral law (which includes the commandment to observe the Sabbath) refer to the Catechism's teaching on the moral law.

Earthly sabbaths under the Old Covenant were a prefigurement of the true Sabbath rest that we fore-taste upon regeneration and that will be fully manifested in heaven:

  3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

  “As I swore in my wrath,
  ‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

  although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this passage he said,

  “They shall not enter my rest.”

  6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

  “Today, if you hear his voice,
  do not harden your hearts.”

  8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God[a] would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

  11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. - Hebrews 4:3-11 ESV

In heaven, it is arguable that 'obligation' will be an even less appropriate term to be applied to the saints generally as they are made perfect and manifest pure worship in Spirit and Truth - beholding the Lord in beatific vision in perpetual sabbath rest.


Biblical basis for God's egalitarian love What is the biblical basis for the idea that God loves everyone equally? Equally meaning he doesn't love someone more or less than anyone else?

I am not aware of a verse that says explicitly that "God loves everyone equally". In fact, there are some verses to suggest that some are loved more than others, which is not your question so will be neglected1, but there are several that indicate that God indeed loves all people.

The first is probably the most quoted Bible verse of all time:

  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
  John 3:16 (NASB)

That verse stresses that God loved the world, which colloquially means everyone. Additionally, the love is so great that the greatest gift of all, eternal life, is offered to everyone. Now there's not a direct statement of "love equality" in John 3, but there is a good case to be made that God loves everyone greatly.

This thought continues in Romans 5, 1 Timothy, and 2 Peter:

  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
  Romans 5:8 (NASB)

  [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
  1 Timothy 3:9 (NASB)

  The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
  2 Peter 3:9 (NASB)

It seems odd to suggest that God does not love anybody in light of these verses, however, it does not mean there is "love equality", however, when the love of God was the motivation to offer all people eternal life, we are talking about a love in which the minimum level is exceedingly great.

The perspective given on GotQuestions.org makes a distinction between merciful love, which extends to everyone and keeps God from annihilating everyone at the moment of sin, and covenant love, which extends to only Christians and brings the gift of eternal life for the condition of accepting Jesus. I find that the view is common among Christians.

See Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3


Why is acting not a sin? If lying is a sin then why is acting not a sin? By 'acting' I mean intentionally deceiving others.

Example: You meet with someone and act happy, but you are mad at them they now are deceived and think you're happy with them.

It cannot be wrong to be discreet or to present a specific outward appearance to others for Jesus commands his disciples that when they fast they are to anoint themselves with oil and they are not to advertise the fact that they are fasting, Matthew 6:16.

Nor can it be wrong to deliberately adopt an appearance that is anonymous or that is unidentifiable for Jesus did so on the Emmaus road, maintaining that presence for quite some time until the two disciples realised to whom they had spoken, Luke 24:15.

But it is clearly wrong to deliberately put on an act in order to present oneself in a good light to others, deliberately enhancing oneself in order to give a false appearance since Jesus condemns such things as praying long prayers in public and deliberately displaying the physical effects of fasting, calling it 'hypocrisy', Matthew 5 and 6.

We are told to be honest one with another and to speak to anyone who has trespassed, privately, in order to avoid grudges, Matthew 18:15, not to pretend that nothing is wrong, if it is. There is no need to 'act' as if nothing was wrong, if indeed it is.