Is there any Biblical answers to what condition our bodies will be in after the resurrection? I hear a lot of people claiming that our bodies will return to the state where we were at our best. Like for example, a woman with bruises from abuse won't have her bruises. Is there a Biblical basis for this, or is this just a common 'misconception?'

The scriptures tell us that in the resurrection we will be "changed" to be "like the angels" with spiritual bodies that are imperishable and powerful:

Luke 20:34-36 NIV

  34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:35-58 NIV

  The Resurrection Body

  35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

  42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

  If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

  50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

  55
  “Where, O death, is your victory?
      Where, O death, is your sting?”

  56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

  58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

From this, it seems that our bodies will not be merely returned to the state when we were at our best, but will become something qualitatively better.


What constitutes consent to marriage? Expanding on this question I asked what constitutes consent of a party to marriage in the Catholic view?
Imagine a man who was to be married but fell ill on the day of the wedding.
Unable to speak perhaps able to slightly squeeze a hand in response to verbal prompting.  Can a marriage occur with the bride affirming the groom consented to marriage by a squeeze of her hand?
Would this pass muster in the Catholic Church?

What constitutes consent to marriage?
So there is no doubt about this issue concerning your example: The Marriage would not be considered valid. I am including the whole revenant material from the Code of Canon Law on this subject:

6III. Matrimonial Consent*
1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

not being under constraint;

not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."125 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.
1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."126 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."127
1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.128 No human power can substitute for this consent.129 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.
1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.130 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.131
1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. the presence of the Church's minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.
1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:132

Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children; - Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);

the public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

1632 So that the "I do" of the spouses may be a free and responsible act and so that the marriage covenant may have solid and lasting human and Christian foundations, preparation for marriage is of prime importance.
The example and teaching given by parents and families remain the special form of this preparation.
The role of pastors and of the Christian community as the "family of God" is indispensable for the transmission of the human and Christian values of marriage and family,133 and much more so in our era when many young people experience broken homes which no longer sufficiently assure this initiation:
It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love, its role and its exercise, so that, having learned the value of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon a marriage of their own.134
Mixed marriages and disparity of cult
1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a nonbaptized person) requires even greater circumspection.
1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. the spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. the temptation to religious indifference can then arise.
1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.135 In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.136 This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.137
1636 Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.
1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."138 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.139 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

To be crystal clear, the above case would be considered invalid because a marriage tribunal would question the validity of the consent. The Church must be absolutely sure that consent was giving. One can not prove without a shadow of a doubt that your above example was done according to Canon Law.
Some unconscious persons may retain their faculties of reason, while others do not. This poses a hug obstacle in establishing whether or not real consent was actually been established.
Was the consent truly giving? Was the squeezing of the hand really done by way of consent or merely a physical reaction. Thus Rome would not recognize this as a means of valid consent. The dubia is to great.
Another problem is that the unconscious person could not sign his writ of consent, as is mandated by many civil courts. It would not be recognized by the law of the country where they reside.
The above scenario lacks a serious norm of ecclesiastical form from it’s very concept.


How many Christian missionaries are sent by the "global South"? I understand from this answer that the number of Christians in Latin America, Africa, and Asia has grown dramatically in comparison to North America and Europe.  My question is, has this shift in Christian populations to the "global South" resulted in a shift in where Christian missionaries come from?

That is, how many Christian missionaries today are sent from countries in the global South?  How has that number changed recently?  Ideally, I'd like data by major faith traditions, like Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Other/Non-Nicene (for example).

For the purposes of this question, we can define "global South" as Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

The best data on this topic that I'm aware of comes from the Atlas of Global Christianity, which describes how Christian missions has changed between 1910 and 2010 (unfortunately, if it does include tradition-level data, I don't have access to it).  An overview report summarizes its findings:

  The growth in missionary sending from the Global South is apparent in these pages but lags behind the demographics of church membership.1

By continent, we see both the raw number of missionaries sent, as well as the number per million church members, in both 1910 and 2010:1

                          1910             |             2010
                   #Sent       #/mil.      |       #Sent      #/mil.
Africa               350          30       |      20,700         44
Asia                 300          12       |      47,100        135
Europe            39,950          99       |     132,800        237
Latin America        400           5       |      58,400        107
North America     20,400         223       |     135,000        596
Oceania              600         106       |       6,000        255
Total             62,000         101       |     400,000        184

Thus, we can clearly see that Asia, Latin America, and Africa have all jumped dramatically over the last 100 years in the raw number of sent missionaries.  Asia and Latin America in particular now send much higher numbers of missionaries compared to their number of church members.

That said, the global South still lags in the latter metric, compared to the global North: North America still sends, by far, the most missionaries per church member. Still, we see evidence of a diminishing gap in that nine of the top 20 countries sending Christian missionaries are in the global South.  Brazil (2), South Korea (5), and India (9) are in the top 10, and South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, China, Colombia, and Nigeria in the next group of 10.2

The report concludes:

  Over the past 100 years, as global Christianity has been shifting gradually to the South, the number of foreign missionaries sent from the South has been increasing. In 1910 the vast majority of missionaries were sent from Europe and Northern America to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In 2010 the sending of foreign missionaries is more even across continents, although Europe and Northern America still have much higher per-capita sending rates than most countries of the Global South.1

References:

"Christianity 2010: A View from the New Atlas of Global Christianity." International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 34, No. 1.
Atlas of Global Christianity, cited in Christianity in its Global Context, page 76.


What was the point of the third article of Remonstrance? The other four points of the Remonstrants seem to articulate significant departures from Calvin's soteriology, but not this one:

  THIRD ARTICLE.
  Saving Faith.—Man in his fallen state is unable to accomplish any thing really and truly good, and therefore also unable to attain to saving faith, unless he be regenerated and renewed by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit (John xv. 5).

Was it merely an attempt to lay a more secure foundation for:

  FOURTH ARTICLE.
  Resistible Grace.—Grace is the beginning, continuation, and end of our spiritual life, so that man can neither think nor do any good or resist sin without prevening, co-operating, and assisting grace. But as for the manner of co-operation, this grace is not irresistible, for many resist the Holy Ghost (Acts vii.)

Or is there a substantive difference between the Calvinist and Remonstrant positions on total depravity that I'm missing?

This question is highly related to this one (but I just can't seem to puzzle out a specific answer to my question from it), and somewhat related to this.

When I first read your question my immediate thought was it is not what is said here that shows the conflict with Calvinism but what is 'not said'.  Interestingly enough I was trying to find proof of this impression and found the very same observation made my a modern Remonstrant with respect to the seventh article of the Methodist church.

  Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually. (VII Article, Methodist Church)

What may not first be obvious on the Methodist article is that the 'inclination to evil' is not an actual sinful depravity and personal wickedness at birth but more like a severe weakness that will result in sin, while still maintaining innocence until a sin is actually committed by free will.  The Arminian John Miley in his book Systematic Theology attempts to explain this point regarding article VII, lest we confuse the idea with Calvinism:

  There is not one word about a sharing of the race in the sin of Adam, or about the corruption of human nature as a judicial infliction on the ground of a common Adamic guilt. Nor is there one word which expresses or even implies an intrinsic sinfulness and damnableness of this inherited corruption of nature. Therefore we could controvert these special elements of the Augustinian doctrine, as we have done, without the slightest departure from our own doctrine as formulated in this article. (John Miley's Systematic Theology, p523)

Note: I am not sure Miley truly represents original Methodist though under John Wesley, but am pretty sure is he correctly representing original Remonstrant beliefs, which seem to also be his own.

This fully confirmed by own understanding of the difference.  Therefore to answer the question: In simple terms the remonstrants replace Augustinian/Calvinistic election with freedom of will. Therefore a person was not born guilty with a sinful nature but born innocent.  Being born innocent does not mean that a person can do good but just means they are not personally guilty and made sinful by participating in Adam's sin and punishment for it.

The third article regarding saving faith is simply to say without faith one can't be saved or do good.  What is NOT said is that humans can't do good because before they were born they were damned into an actual wicked nature and that as soon as their souls ate capable of expressing the slightest of moral inclination or choice they will sin accordingly.

The fourth article just assigns grace as the procuring cause of anything that a man can be enabled to do that is good. Then it is affirmed that grace is not provided to the elect but that all men are provided grace so that they can receive or not receive Christ.  The directive of both articles is to establish two things that lay the foundation of all Arminian thought.

Faith and grace are not denied when departing from traditional  Augustinian/Calvinistic views of original sin.
Human freedom, guilt and moral depravity
can only be counted from one's own choice and not imputed from Adam in the form of personal guilt and corresponding actual perverseness in birth.

Arminian doctrine as defined by Arminias is largely defined by how it disagrees with Calvinism and these two articles establish this position by showing what they retain and what they do not say.

Reference

One book that deals heavily with the difference between Airman concepts of original sin and Calvinist concepts is from John Owen entitled 'A display of Arminianism' in the Works of John Owen Volume VII.

Owen begins by charging Arminians with overthrowing all traditional beliefs on the subject. (Roman Catholic dogma on this area is actually very close to Calvin as well by the way at least compared to Arminian).

  My purpose for the present is not to allege any testimonies of this kind; but, holding myself close to my first intention, to show how far in this article, as well as others, the Arminians have apostated from the pure doctrine of the word of God, the consent of orthodox divines, and the confession of this church of England.
  In the ninth article of our church, which is concerning original sin, I observe especially four things:—First, That it is an inherent evil, the fault and corruption of the nature of every man. Secondly, That it is a thing not subject or conformable to the law of God, but hath in itself, even after baptism, the nature of sin. Thirdly, That by it we are averse from God, and inclined to all manner of evil. Fourthly, That it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. All which are frequently and evidently taught in the word of God, and every one denied by the Arminians, as it may appear by these instances, in some of them:—
  First, That it is an inherent sin and pollution of nature, having a proper guilt of its own, making us responsible to the wrath of God, and not a bare imputation of another’s fault to us his posterity: which, because it would reflect upon us all with a charge of a native imbecility and insufficiency to good, is by these self-idolizers quite exploded.
  1“Infants are simply in that estate in which Adam was before his fall,” saith Venator.2 “Neither is it at all considerable whether they be the children of believers or of heathens and infidels; for infants, as infants, have all the same innocency,” say they jointly, in their Apology: nay, more plainly,3 “It can be no fault wherewith we are born.” In which last expression these bold innovators, with one dash of their pens, have quite overthrown a sacred verity, an apostolic, catholic, fundamental article of Christian religion. (Works of John Owen Volume VII)

After mentioning various proofs of the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, Owen goes on to explain how Adam's sin imputed to human nature is not just a bare imputation of another’s fault, but an intrinsically inner corruption of our nature and shared guilt. That is to say that we are guilty of sin before we are born and we crave sin as soon as we are possible to crave moral things. Then he explains that Arminian thoughts that oppose this traditional concept:

  The Arminians deny all such imputation, as too heavy a charge for the pure, unblamable condition wherein they are brought into this world. They deny, I say, that they are guilty of Adam’s sin, as sinning in him, or that his sin is any way imputed unto us; which is their second assault upon the truth of this article of faith.
  1“Adam sinned in his own proper person, and there is no reason why God should impute that sin of his unto infants,” saith Boræus. The nature of the first covenant, the right and power d God, the comparison instituted by the apostle between Adam and Christ, the divine constitution, whereby Adam was appointed to be the head, fountain, and origin of all human kind, are with him no reasons at all to persuade it.2 “For it is against equity,” saith their Apology, “that one should be accounted guilty for a sin that is not his own,—that he should be reputed nocent who, in regard of his own will, is truly innocent.” And here, Christian reader, behold plain Pelagianism obtruded on us without either welt3 or guard; men on sudden made pure and truly innocent, notwithstanding all that natural pollution and corruption the Scripture everywhere proclaims then to be replenished withal. Neither is the reason they intimate of any value, that their wills assented not to it, and which a little before they plainly urge. “It is,” say they,1 “against the nature of sin that that should be counted a sin to any by whose own proper will it was not committed:” which being all they have to say, they repeat it over and over in this case,—“It must be voluntary, or it is no sin.” But I say this is of no force at all; for,—first, St John, in his most exact definition of sin, requires not voluntariness to the nature of it, but only an obliquity, a deviation from the rule. It is an anomy,—a discrepancy from the law, which whether voluntary or no it skills not much; but sure enough there is in our nature such a repugnancy to the law of God. So that, secondly, if originally we are free from a voluntary actual transgression, yet we are not from an habitual voluntary digression and exorbitancy from the law. But, thirdly, in respect of our wills, we are not thus innocent neither; for we all sinned in Adam, as the apostle affirmeth. Now, all sin is voluntary, say the Remonstrants, and therefore Adam’s transgression was our voluntary sin also, and that in divers respects..... (Works of John Owen Volume VII)


What is Ultramontanism & Neo-ultramontanism? ...The accusations stem from two Italian left-wing Ultramontanists...
...But now that Pope Francis has opened up new spaces, liberals, too, have to learn how to be critically obedient without giving in to the neo-Ultramontanist silencing of those who are disobedient...

Read Wikipedia and Catholic Encyclopedia. But none of them made much sense to me.

Can anyone explain it simply - What is Ultramontanism &
Neo-ultramontanism?

The term is derived from Latin - Ultra Montes which means Beyond
The Mountains. What is it its relation with these concepts?

The English word "overseas" is used to refer generally to other countries, or parts of the world. This stems from the fact that historically the majority of English speakers, when going to another country,  travelled over the sea.  In Italy, and other parts of Continental Europe, the way to other countries was more often over the mountains than across the sea.  The word  ultramontes, over the mountains,  was thus originally  etymologically equivalent to overseas, as a way of referring to abroad, or foreign.

In the Eleventh Century there was a series of disputes between the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, in Germany,  and Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), in Rome. This was partly about who should appoint bishops, the Investiture Controversy. Henry declared the Pope deposed, something his father had succeeded in doing to a previous pope, but Hildebrand did not accept his deposition and retaliated by declaring Henry deposed.  Not everybody in Germany sided with Henry, and those who did not were called ultramontanists - their loyalty was to a foreigner (beyond the mountains) rather than to their own country.  That was the insinuation.

The word came  to be used at various periods of history to refer to a strong belief in, or respect for,  Papal authority, often beyond that actually claimed or exercised by the pope himself, and often in contrast to local  or national authorities, or to dispersed authority. It is typically, but not always,  used in a somewhat derogatory sense.  This can be seen in the Catholic Encyclopaedia article, written in the years before the First World War,  which, on the one hand, asserts that all Roman Catholics are ultramontanists, in the sense they accept Papal authority,   yet goes on to say that the adversaries of Catholicism accuse them of ultramontanism but are in reality anti-Catholic even if they claim to be only  anti-ultramontanist.

The Reformation depended on anti-ultramontanist principles, that, as Church of England Article 37 says,  the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm. The ultramontanist position would be that he should have at least some level of jurisdiction.

During the so-called culture wars, the Kulturkampf, in nineteenth century Germany, the Roman Catholic position was accused of being ultramontanist. This was particularly following German Unification in 1870 which brought many Catholic states under the control of Protestant and somewhat liberal Prussia. Schools were brought under government control and were told to teach what the government and Kaiser said, not what the Church and Pope said. Prussia was no longer officially Protestant, as it had been up to 1848, and as England is, but this had made little difference in practice to Protestant  domination, and Prussia, thanks to the exclusion of Austria, was  dominant in the new German Empire.

Within Roman Catholicism the word is sometimes used in contrast to Conciliarism.  Conciliarists believed that General Councils were of higher authority than the Pope, those who disagreed were called Ultramontanist and their position was the one endorsed at the First Vatican Council, which asserted papal infallibility.

Ultramontanism is not necessarily a consistent  set of beliefs on all matters, nor is it a movement or grouping. It is a tendency to support, defend  or extend papal authority, but a person might be ultramontanist in regard to doctrine but not administration, or to spiritual but not temporal affairs, or in everything. It is very context-dependent.

Those who opposed the Unification of Italy, preferring that the Pope retain authority in the Papal States, were called ultramontanists, as were those who  subsequently argued for the creation of the Vatican State.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia says

  It is altogether false to attribute to the Church either political aims of temporal dominion among the nations or the pretence that the pope can at his own pleasure depose sovereigns that the Catholic must, even in purely civil matters, subordinate his obedience towards his own sovereign to that which he owes to the pope, that the true fatherland of the Catholic is Rome, and so forth. These are either pure inventions or malicious travesties.

Here the Encyclopaedia is distancing the Church from the more extreme versions of ultramontanism. It also quotes a Catholic Professor as saying ultramontanists substitute the pope for the church, believe the power of the keys (the pope's authority) should  include temporal jurisdiction, that religious conviction can be imposed by  force and that the plain teaching of one's own conscience should be sacrificed to external authority. Again this is an extreme form, not one necessarily endorsed by the Church.

Opposition to the freedom exercised by some national or regional bishops conferences, by those who feel everyone should follow directly the pope's line on every issue may be called ultramontanist. (This would be an example of being more ultramontanist than the Pope, who of course authorises the conferences.)  Those siding with the Roman Catholic Church against the State, or in opposition to pluralist,  liberal, Protestant or other agendas,  in whatever place or time, may be called ultramontanist.

In OPs quote

  But now that Pope Francis has opened up new spaces, liberals, too, have to learn how to be critically obedient without giving in to the neo-Ultramontanist silencing of those who are disobedient...

the idea that people who disobey the Pope should be "silenced" is described as neo-Ultramontanist. This means either modern day Ultramontanist or extreme ultramontanist. An Ultramontanist might feel that nobody should be allowed to disagree with the pope, perhaps even if the pope has called for open discussion. The writer is alleging ultramontanism, and probably means it in a derogatory way, as implying excessive and undue submission.

Pope Boniface VIII is 1302 said

  We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This is rather an ultramontanist  position to take.

The Latin word mundus means the world, mankind, the universe. Though it has no connection with the word ultramontanist it works as a pun in the sense that an extreme ultramontanist position would be that the pope should be over and above  the whole  world.

So, although in general we can define ultramontanism as a very high view of Papal authority, its meaning in any given case can only really be understood in context.


What arguments have been advanced against "Angel Therapy"? From AngelTherapy.com, I found this short description:

Angel Therapy is a non-denominational spiritual healing method that involves working with a person's guardian angels and archangels, to heal and harmonize every aspect of life. Angel Therapy also helps you to more clearly receive Divine Guidance from the Creator and angels.
Everyone has guardian angels, and these angels perform God's will of peace for us all. When we open ourselves to hear our angels' messages, every aspect of our lives become more peaceful.

I have a (non-Christian) friend who is an "Angel Therapist," and after talking to her, it sounds like she's acting simply as a medium/fortune teller, and using Christian-sounding terms to white-wash it.  Have any Christian groups officially condemned "Angel Therapy" and if so what are their arguments against it.

You are right to be very skeptical:

This section contains a list of Certified Mediums who have completed the Mediumship Mentorship Program facilitated by Doreen Virtue.

See what Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says about mediums. The Catholic Church has a document on "New Age" that talks about exactly this phenomenon:

2.2. What does the New Age claim to offer?
2.2.1. Enchantment: There Must be an Angel
One of the most common elements in New Age “spirituality” is a fascination with extraordinary manifestations, and in particular with paranormal entities. People recognised as “mediums” claim that their personality is taken over by another entity during trances in a New Age phenomenon known as “channeling”, during which the medium may lose control over his or her body and faculties. Some people who have witnessed these events would willingly acknowledge that the manifestations are indeed spiritual, but are not from God, despite the language of love and light which is almost always used.... It is probably more correct to refer to this as a contemporary form of spiritualism, rather than spirituality in a strict sense. Other friends and counsellors from the spirit world are angels (which have become the centre of a new industry of books and paintings). Those who refer to angels in the New Age do so in an unsystematic way; in fact, distinctions in this area are sometimes described as unhelpful if they are too precise, since “there are many levels of guides, entities, energies, and beings in every octave of the universe... They are all there to pick and choose from in relation to your own attraction/repulsion mechanisms”.(22) These spiritual entities are often invoked 'non-religiously' to help in relaxation aimed at better decision-making and control of one's life and career. Fusion with some spirits who teach through particular people is another New Age experience claimed by people who refer to themselves as 'mystics'. Some nature spirits are described as powerful energies existing in the natural world and also on the “inner planes”: i.e. those which are accessible by the use of rituals, drugs and other techniques for reaching altered states of consciousness. It is clear that, in theory at least, the New Age often recognizes no spiritual authority higher than personal inner experience.

I'd guess that other churches would have a similar view. If you're interested, you can read through more of the document or have a look at the table of contents (see the list of Resources and the General bibliography).

Of course, Doreen gives all credit to God and the angels.

"Of course". I wonder where all the money goes.


What is the Catholic understanding of omnipotence? Castiel wanted to ask this question from a biblical basis:

  Can God kill himself ? I mean, if he can kill himself, he isn't
  immortal and if he can't, he have not unlimited power...

The question here is, what is the Catholic understanding of omnipotence? How do Catholics address the apparent contradiction that God cannot be omnipotent if he cannot kill himself and he cannot be immortal if he can kill himself?

St. Thomas Aquinas holds that God can do anything except whatever implies a contradiction.

Treating "Whether God is omnipotent?," he writes:

  [T]his phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

and

  [N]othing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.

Essentially, God cannot do "whatever implies contradiction" not because God lacks omnipotence but because a contradiction, itself, is no thing; it lacks being; it's unintelligible.


Do any denominations besides the United Church of God commemorate Jesus' death on a Wednesday? Other questions and answers have established that Jesus may have actually died on a Wednesday rather than a Friday.

Have any Christians other than the United Church of God reached the Wednesday conclusion, so to speak?

The Bible does not say on which day of the week Jesus was crucified. There are therefore  three views  of crucifixion day held currently: Wednesday, Thursday and Friday with Friday being the most commonly held view. Some Christians believe Wednesday was the day of Jesus crucifixion , and a few held the Thursday view.

That said, beside United Church of GodIA, the Restored Church of God also denies the 'Good Friday-Easter Sunday' chronology along with other Christian scholars of note (and presumably their followers) among whom are: Grady Daniel, and a Baptist deacon; late Charles Halff, a Messianic; and Roy A. Reinhold. This site gives an elaborate and informitive support of Wednesday conclution.


What is the basis for the Christadelphian belief that Satan is not a personal being? The Christadelphians teach that the devil/Satan is not a personal being but an analogy for describing sin.

What is their Biblical defense for such a theology?

The following paragraphs are copied from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_delp.htm which in turn cited the page titled "What Christadelphians believe about the Devil" at the Christadelphians's official website (http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/wcb/devil.html)

The Devil is not viewed by Christadelphians as a quasi-deity with magical powers who travels the Earth trying to lure people into sin --as is believed by most conservative Christian groups. Based on Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 7:21-28, Matthew 15:19, James 1:13-15, and other passages, they stress that "Temptation and hence sin, comes from inside the person, not outside." Satan is viewed as the principle of evil which resides in people and motivates them to sin and rebel against God.
They point out that the words "devil" does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). In the New Testament, these terms are sometimes used to translate the Greek word "diabolos" which  means a human slanderer or false accuser. Examples are John 6:70, 1 Timothy 3:11, 2 Timothy 3:1-3 and Titus 2:3.
"Satan" in Hebrew and "satanas" in Greek means an opponent or adversary. Examples are: Matthew 16:23 when Peter was considered an adversary because he opposed what Jesus wanted to do at the time. In Acts 5, Sapphira was an adversary.


What is "Christ Consciousness"? I have heard this term used and would like more info about this idea. It really sounds like a hippie thing...

"Christ Consciousness" is a neo-pagan term used by those who don't believe that Jesus was the Christ but who attack Christianity with the purpose of diluting the word Christ through misuse, claiming that we all have a "Christ Consciousness" and that religious gurus of all religions have had this "Christ Consciousness" in some measure beyond normal people.  In other words, there is absolutely nothing Christian about the phrase "Christ Consciousness."


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

The difference is that, in the pigs story, Jesus was asked to leave the region:

  Then all the people of the region of the Gerasenes asked Jesus to leave them, because they were overcome with fear. So he got into the boat and left.

Luke 8:37

So the formerly demon possessed man was possibly the only witness / preacher / disciple Jesus had in the region.

In other cases, Jesus' popularity has prevented Him preaching (Mark1:44-45) and even eating (Mark 6:31)! So He often told people not to tell others about the miracles.


Does the great great grandmother in George MacDonalds Princess and the Goblin represent a Catholic conception of God? I just finished reading the Princess and the Goblin and the Princess and Curdie written by George MacDonald, a prolific author of Childrens books and a congregationalist minister (albeit not one enamored with Calvinism) whose writing greatly influenced Chesterton and the works of Tolkien.

In reading the Princess and Curdie, and to a lesser extent, the Princess and the Goblin,  I got the feeling that the Great Huge Grandma in the Princess and Curdie was a lot like a precursor to Lewis' Aslan as used as allegory.  The Old Princess shows up in unexpected forms, sends help from above, changes bad into good with fire etc..

My question is, however regarding MacDonald, is there anything in his use of allegory that is contrary to Catholic doctrine?  I could always pick the good parts and avoid the bad parts, but I'd rather take the whole thing.  I'm reading the books to my kids right now and have just left them as books (which I believe to be the proper thing to do, just plant the seed of goodness in them through allegory).  But if there are any themes to revisit in the future, I'd like to know.

Is it OK, in allegory to make God an old woman (even a very strong old woman)?
Does an allegory of God require a death and resurrection, ala Stone Table (and not just a coming and going of old age)?

Well, I'm a reformed guy, so I can't give the Roman Catholic view but I'll try to give a catholic one.

I didn't take the Great Grandmother as a God-character so much, but rather as Lady Wisdom, who instructs and guides. This is a theme MacDonald employs in a number of his other short stories as well, such as The Lost Princess or The Wise Woman, At the Back of the North Wind, and The Golden Key. I have found his fairy tales and Unspoken Sermons very helpful, though I don't agree with all of his theology (most notably his universalism). As with anything man-made, it must be compared to scripture to see where it matches and where it diverges. It's work, but it's worth it.

God portrayed as a woman

As far as I can tell, scripture nowhere casts God in the feminine. God is masculine - the creator, the initiator. The creation (and most specifically the church) is feminine - the suitable helper, the receiver. God is the Father, the Elder Brother, The Son. The Church is the Daughter, the Sister, the Bride.

Death and Resurrection

Death and resurrection plays a hugely important part in scripture. There is almost no story in scripture that doesn't have some kind of death and resurrection theme. Adam is put into a death sleep and his bride is built from his side. Israel is in slavery to death and is brought out as a new nation, and so on.

I see the Grandmother guiding the children through this as Lady Wisdom. Curdie is brave but foolish, immature at first. He must be tried, worked over, before he is willing and able to cling to wisdom. When Grandmother sends Curdie through the fire, this can be seen as a death and resurrection. The old man is put to death, and he receives a glorified fire-body (fire-hands anyway).


How is excommunication handled during the interregnum? Not that I'm plotting anything heinous, but can one be excommunicated or have excommunication lifted during the interregnum?

I think, but I'm not positive, that some offenses that carry excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope.  So, in the absence of a Holy Father, who can lift excommunication or does someone just have to wait for a new Pope, even on the verge of death?

On the flip side, it would seem to be an offense against charity to deliver Latae Sententiae excommunication without a possibility of repentance.

In cases where excommunication is "reserved to the Apostolic See" (this includes most but not all cases of Latae Sententiae excommunication), a specific Cardinal, the Major Penitentiary, is able to lift excommunication even when there is no Pope.
From an EWTN article:

What happens to those in Office in the Roman Curia when the Pope dies?
Since supreme teaching, legislating and judicial authority rests with the Pope, all but the most ordinary business of the Holy See comes to a stop. The highest office holders, such as the Cardinals who are Prefects of Congregations and Presidents of Pontifical Councils and Commissions, all lose their offices with the death of the Pope.
There are two exceptions 1) the Cardinal who is Camerlengo or Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church, an office which deals primarily with the period of the Papal Interregnum or Vacancy, and 2) the Cardinal who is the Major Penitentiary, and responsible for matters concerning the internal forum of conscience (e.g. absolution from excommunications reserved to the Holy See).


Do any Christian groups sell all their possessions as it seems the Early Church did? In Luke 12:33 (NIV) Jesus says:

  Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

He doesn't say "all" possessions here, but that seems to be what he told the rich ruler in Luke 18:22 (NIV):

  When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

In Acts 4:32-35 (NIV) it looks like that's what the Early Church did as well:

  All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Are there any denominations or other groups in the world where the congregation (not monks, nuns etc.) actually does this? If so, can you please give some details on how the practical aspects work (sharing homes etc.).

I don't know if there are any denominational-scale organizations that practice this, but there are certainly churches and other Christian organizations that practice this.

The Bruderhof may be a good example of this. My family lived in a Bruderhof community for a few months when I was growing up, as my father was doing some work (writing a book) for them.

Later, a Mennonite church I used to attend had previously lived like this, in community, requiring all members to donate all of their earnings to the church, which in turn provided the bare essentials for living (home, groceries, etc), and gave the rest away.

They eventually gave up that practice for legal and tax reasons, and reverted to individual ownership, but with a spirit of giving.

In both cases, the church/community owned shared property, and was responsible for providing for the needs of the church members. In the case of the Bruderhof, the church also owned land for growing crops, a furniture factory, and perhaps other businesses, which were then used to sell goods to the general public, and provide for the needs of the community.

I think it won't be hard to find examples of Christian communes living in a spirit of "complete giving" in various parts of the world.

A google search for "Intentional Christian Community" finds various resources on this type of living, and may help you further in your search.


Confession and Penance in the Catholic church Why must Catholics go to a priest to confess, and then do "penance"? I don't see it anywhere in the Bible. The Bible is THE authority on God"s requirents of His people.

The reason you don't see "penance" in the Bible is because of a difference in translation:

Matthew 3:2 in the English Standard Version, popular among protestants, says: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Matthew 3:2 in the Douay-Rheims, an English translation of the Latin Vulgate and primarily used by Catholics, says: "Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

The ESV is translating the Greek word metanoeó which means, "to change one's mind or purpose."  The Vulgate translated the same Greek word into Latin as paenitentiam agite (indicating doing or performing repentance or penitence), and the Douay Rheims translates that as "do penance."  The Catholic practice of penance grew from this, and can be supported from other passages in the Bible, as seen in the accepted answer to a similar question.

Obviously, the Reformers rejected this practice based on their interpretation of the relevant texts, but ultimately, whether the word "penance" is "in the bible" comes down to interpretation.


What is the Catholic Church's position on a divorced man attending services I would like to join a Catholic church with my 13 year old son. I am a 47 year old man that was divorced in 2006. If I’m able to, I would like to find a Catholic church for my son and to attend services, take communion, and be able to confess. I would also like to attend a Sunday type school or bible study with my son to get him up to speed on his faith. Am I able to accomplish this as a divorced man in this day and age?

By "divorce" I assume you mean separation from your wife. This is not necessarily a sin; what lead to it might be, which is why you should consult a priest and confess your sins to him. To "remarry" another woman while your wife is still alive is the serious sin of adultery.

Any Catholic can and should confess his sins to a priest in the sacrament of confession. All that's required for a Catholic to worthily receive Holy Communion is to be in the state of grace (no mortal sin on your soul) and to have fasted at least an hour before.


What is the status of "The Will to Believe" among contemporary philosophers? My own conversion experience agrees with William James' "Will to Believe" philosophy. To put it briefly, here's a snippet from Wikipedia:

  ""The Will to Believe" is a lecture by William James, first published
  in 1896,[1] which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief
  without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James is concerned
  in this lecture about defending the rationality of religious faith
  even lacking sufficient evidence of religious truth.

  James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea
  that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are
  true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without
  evidence. As an example, James argues that it can be rational to have
  unsupported faith in one's own ability to accomplish tasks that
  require confidence. Importantly, James points out that this is the
  case even for pursuing scientific inquiry. James then argues that like
  belief in one's own ability to accomplish a difficult task, religious
  faith can also be rational even if one at the time lacks evidence for
  the truth of one's religious belief."

This also seems to go hand-in-hand with Jesus' parable about the mustard seed.

I would like to know if any contemporary Christian philosophers have expounded on this idea. Thank you.

I am unsure whether other Christian philospohers have taken this farther, but I have heard several preachers say something of similar effect when talking about faith and believing.
They say that we don't understand then believe, we believe then we begin to understand.

  Pro 9:10  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

"James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence."

This is seen in scripture When God speaks to Moses

  Exo 3:12  And He said, I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you that I have sent you, when you bring out the people from Egypt: You shall serve God on this mountain.

The sign that it was indeed Him was the accomplished task. Moses had to believe then see.
Echoed in Romans 12

  Rom 12:2  And be not conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, in order to prove by you what is the good and pleasing and perfect will of God.

Your transformation proves the will of God.

All that to say there is more in scripture if you are looking to research that idea more.
Also you could look into Bill Johnson at Bethel in Redding CA.
Possibly Kris Vallotton from same.
I believe they were some that I heard speak on this idea.


"Let this cup pass from me" - What is the cup? Matthew 26:39 (KJV)
  And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

What did Christ mean by "the cup"? Was it

Death on the cross
The intense suffering He endured
God's wrath
His taking the sins of the world upon Himself
All of these, the whole process
Something else?

It's the Cup of God's Wrath

Isaiah 51:17+ NIV
The Cup of the LORD’s Wrath
17 Awake, awake!     Rise up, Jerusalem,  you who have drunk from the
hand of the LORD     the cup of his wrath,  you who have drained to
its dregs     the goblet that makes people stagger.
21 Therefore hear this, you afflicted one,     made drunk, but not
with wine.  22 This is what your Sovereign LORD says,     your God,
who defends his people:  “See, I have taken out of your hand     the
cup that made you stagger;  from that cup, the goblet of my wrath,
you will never drink again.  23 I will put it into the hands of your
tormentors,     who said to you,     ‘Fall prostrate that we may walk
on you.’  And you made your back like the ground,     like a street to
be walked on.”

Again in Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 25+ NIV
The Cup of God’s Wrath
15 This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from
my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the
nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 When they drink it, they will
stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them.”
...
7 “Then tell them, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel,
says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of
the sword I will send among you.’ 28 But if they refuse to take the
cup from your hand and drink, tell them, ‘This is what the LORD
Almighty says: You must drink it! 29 See, I am beginning to bring
disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go
unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword
on all who live on the earth, declares the LORD Almighty.’

It goes on and on in Jeremiah. Of course, Revelation makes the last mention.

Revelation 14:10  (NIV)
10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured
full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with
burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.
Revelation 16:19 (NIV)
19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the
nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the
cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

Edit
Your condemnation was to suffer God's wrath in hell for all of eternity. Jesus took your law place and was subjected to God's wrath on your behalf. There's nothing else in all of existence that God the Son would have so much stress over that He would sweat blood.


Is it possible to be both a humanist and a Christian? The following definition of a humanist was given by Andrew Copson

As a humanist I try:
• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe
• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality
• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect
• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.
Even the last point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical.  When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this.  (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)
In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.
The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?

I think the incompatibility between the two philosophies is obvious from their names:

Human-ism
Christ-ianity

Each tells us right in its name the value it considers most central and important.
However, looking at the list, I think there is enough common ground for someone to be a Christian Humanist (just as some claim to be Christian Pacifists or Christian Hedonists).  A Christian would insist that Christ is central and of ultimate importance, but still hold the Humanist values with minor modifications:

As a Christian humanist I try:

To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe
To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare second only to loving God
To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect
To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'd certainly want to expand and clarify these points, but only the second (on ethics) requires a change to shift the center from humanity to God.  As a practical matter, Jesus calls us to love him by loving each other:

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’—Matthew 25:34-40 (ESV)

Wikipedia suggests:

Christian humanism may have begun as early as the 2nd century, with the writings of St. Justin Martyr, an early theologian-apologist of the early Christian Church. While far from radical, Justin suggested a value in the achievements of Classical culture in his Apology.  Influential letters by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa confirmed the commitment to using pre-Christian knowledge, particularly as it touched the material world. Already the formal aspects of Greek philosophy, namely syllogistic reasoning, arose in both the Byzantine Empire and Western European circles in the eleventh century to inform the process of theology. However, the Byzantine hierarchy during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) convicted several thinkers of applying "human" logic to "divine" matters. Peter Abelard's work encountered similar ecclesiastical resistance in the West in the same period. Petrarch (1304–1374) is also considered a father of humanism. The traditional teaching that humans are made in the image of God, or in Latin the Imago Dei, also supports individual worth and personal dignity.

So there is some reason to say that the two views are not entirely incompatible, but not in a state of peace either.  Christian thinkers have long struggled with the integration of their faith with the society at large.


In Christian mortalism, what sets apart people who have lived from people who didn't live? According to Wikipedia, "christian mortalism" describes the idea that the soul is not immortal, but dies together with the body and rises in the resurrection. Proponents of this are Jehovahs Witnesses, some Lutherans, Seventh-Day adventists and some others. Since the soul is dead or dissolved after death, that means God recreates it for the resurrection, as a body that is dissolved would need to be recreated.
Since God is omniscient, not only does he know how each person would behave before they are born, this arguably also means that he knows how any potential person would have behaved if given the chance.
Then, what is the difference between someone actually having gone through life, now no longer existing after death except for in the mind of God, to a person never having existed except for in the mind of God?
In a sense this is asking what value the life-on-earth has, but I want to expand it in this sense to add the notion of how could God not grant resurrection to a person never having existed when that person is not fundamentally different from a person who has lived (both just existing in the mind of God after the latter person has died).

My answer comes with a caveat:
I have struggled to grasp the meaning of this question, and have been confused by that Wikipedia article on what it calls “Christian Mortalism”.  I have therefore decided to put that to one side and simply address the following questions:
What sets apart people who have lived from people who didn't live?
My understanding is that people who have lived were born of a woman and received the “breath of life”.  On the other hand, “people who have not lived” were never born with a human body.  Perhaps that would apply to a foetus that died while in the womb – a still-birth – and therefore never received “the breath of life”.
This is the only difference I can think of that would set apart a person who lived from one who did not live.  From the moment fertilization takes place, the child’s genetic makeup is already complete. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning human being is the time to grow and develop.  Human life begins at conception and the unborn child is already known by God:

My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place [the womb].  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:15-16; Jeremiah 1:5).

The foreknowledge of God is far more than His ability to “see the future”; His foreknowledge is a true “knowing” of what will come to pass, based on His free choice.  He decrees what will come to pass.  In other words, foreknowledge is not just intellectual; it is personal and relational. Foreknowledge is equivalent to foreordination in that God ordains, or orders, all that will be.  https://www.gotquestions.org/foreknowledge.html

How could God not grant resurrection to a person never having existed?
Working on the basis that you are enquiring about an unborn child that never had an opportunity to draw its first breath, are you really asking whether an unborn child will be resurrected by God?  The Bible does not say, but we know that God is merciful as well as just; He is a God of goodness and mercy; He is gracious in all His works.  While the Bible does not teach universal salvation, we know that Jesus died “for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).
Will the body/soul of an unborn child be resurrected?
Only God knows, but we can be confident that His steadfast love endures forever (Psalm136) and He is righteous in all His ways (Psalm 145:17).
For all Christians who understand that the soul continues to exist after the body dies, they can draw comfort from knowing that the soul will be clothed in a resurrection body at God’s appointed time.  Our God knows the beginning from the end – He is Alpha and Omega – He is the Sovereign Ruler.
P.S. If I have misunderstood your question, please forgive me.


Is there a Christian equivalent to the Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies'? It is known that Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies' are the types of people who self-identify as "Wiccans" but really don't go anywhere beyond self-identification and using stereotypical associations of Wicca. They have been criticized for not being true adherents of Wicca, merely treating Wicca as a fad, instead of taking the religion seriously and researching what Wicca actually stands for. In essence, they are people who just don't do their research and wish to remain ignorant, refusing to think and critique their own faith. Is there a Christian equivalent to the Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies'?

  ..."fluffy bunny" or the "old lady brigade" have been used in the
  Wiccan and Neo-Pagan community to describe adherents that they view as
  superficial or faddish. Common descriptions given by people
  using the term include elements such as the practitioner deliberately
  choosing to emphasize goodness, light, eclecticism and elements taken
  from the New Age movement over elements seen as too dark, as well as
  the practitioner appearing to follow the religion as a fad.
  The term "fluffy bunny" became more prevalent in the 1990s after it
  was used to describe a depiction of the Wiccan religion in the
  television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show, which featured a
  Wiccan coven, raised ire from practitioners of Wicca who believe that
  the coven in the show reinforced stereotypes.

For Catholics, there's the concept of "Sunday Catholics" - people who go to Mass on Sundays but don't do anything else, who don't really think about their religion outside of Mass.

I'm sure I've heard another simple term for this, but Sunday Catholics was the only one I could find right now.  Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article "Lapsed Catholic" reminded me of a more specialized term I've heard once or twice: "CEO" referring to someone who attends on C hristmas and E aster O nly.


Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Has this matter been considered in Christianity? I believe there could be only two possible options here: "Yes, he was" and "No, he wasn't". But what main supporting points have been put forth for either of these doctrines?

First, we must understand that only God is inherently immortal. The apostle Paulos states that God "alone has immortality" (ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν) (1 Tim. 6:16), for He alone is uncreated. Everything else that is not God is a creature, and thus, not inherently immortal. Now, although many creatures are not inherently immortal, God gives them immortality as He wills. This includes angels and Christians (John 10:28). (However, just as He gives immortality, He could also (potentially) take it away.)
As for Adam, we know for a fact that he was not inherently immortal, since only God is. Thus, the question we must ask is whether God ever gave immortality to Adam, before or after his transgression.
When Yahveh breathed into Adam's nostrils the "breath of life" (נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים), "Adam became a living creature" (וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה) (Gen. 2:7). However, we do not know whether Adam was immortal or mortal at this point. Some time thereafter, Adam partook of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:6). Afterwards, Yahveh declared (Gen. 3:22), "Behold, Adam became like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
To "live forever" is undoubtedly synonymous with "be immortal." But, the scripture is clear that Adam would only live forever (be immortal) if he partook from the tree of life. The logical consequence is that Adam was not immortal - at least not after the fall - because he never partook from the tree of life. Yahveh obstructed Adam's access to the tree of life and banished him from Paradise (Gen. 3:24). Again, this only proves that Adam was not immortal after the fall.
However, there is a possibility, as Brilliant noted, that Adam was immortal prior to his fall, being made so by Yahveh. Then, by partaking of the fruit, he lost this immortality, and Yahveh prohibited Adam from regaining this immortality by impeding access to the tree of life.
But, we should note that, in his original state, Yahveh made trees in the garden that were "good for food" (טוֹב לְמַאֲכָל) (Gen. 2:9). While one may argue that the trees could have provided food for animals rather than Adam, Yahveh indeed informed Adam that he could eat from the trees (Gen. 2:16). Now, Jesus himself ate food after his resurrection (Luke 24:30; 24:43) despite having an incorruptible and immortal body. Therefore, the argument could be made that such trees in the garden, despite being "good for food," do not necessarily indicate that Adam required sustinence from the trees, just as Jesus did not necessarily require sustinence from the food he ate after his resurrection in his incorruptible and immortal body.
All that being said, I believe the apostle Paulos provides a definite answer in his first epistle to the Corinthians. In discussing the resurrection of the dead, he wrote,

1 Cor. 15:44-45

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 Likewise it is written, the first man "Adam became a living creature" (*or soul). The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.
44 σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν καὶ ἔστιν σῶμα πνευματικόν 45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

Now, it is important to note that in v. 44, the apostle Paulos is contrasting two bodies: the "natural body" (lit. "soulish body": σῶμα ψυχικόν) and the "spiritual body" (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Then in the very next verse, saying "likewise it is written," he establishes the proof of these two bodies, using as examples "the first man Adam" who "became a living soul" and "the last Adam," Jesus Christ, who became "a life-giving spirit."
By this, we can establish that Adam possessed the "natural body" (σῶμα ψυχικόν) at the very moment he "became a living soul." Since he became a living soul (Gen. 2:7) prior to his transgression and fall, then we could ascribe all the properties the apostle Paulos attributes to the "natural body" in 1 Cor. 15 to Adam himself prior to his fall. These would include:

corruption (φθορά) (1 Cor. 15:42)
dishonor (ἀτιμία) (1 Cor. 15:43)
weakness (ἀσθένεια) (1 Cor. 15:43)

More importantly, it would include mortality and corruptibility (1 Cor. 15:53-54). On the other hand, Jesus who became a life-giving spirit possessed the spiritual body with the attributes of immortality and incorruptibility.


According to Mormons, how did the unclean spirits sin by "not keeping the first estate"? The top-rated answer to this question refers to the Mormon thought on pre-existence as it says:

  All men and women lived with God as his spirit children before coming
  to the earth as mortal beings.

and

  Unclean spirits are those spirit children of God who kept not their
  first estate, which refers to the life before earth life.

According to the LDS faith, our spirits existed in heaven (referred to as the first estate) before we were born here on earth.

Since all humans have, according to LDS faith, left the first estate in order to be born as humans, how did the unclean spirits sin by not keeping their first estate?

Leaving the "first estate" is not the same as not keeping it.

The confusion may come from the Bible in the Book of Jude:

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

But we get greater clarity from Abraham 3, where it says:

  24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

  25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

  26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

  27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

  28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

So those who "kept not their first estate" are those who followed Lucifer and did not obtain physical bodies. The sin that they committed in the antemortal existence was to rebel against God. Merely leaving God's presence and coming to Earth is not itself a sin (although it is a kind of death, since it is separation from God; see the doctrine on the Fall for more about this).


Is 'pure' monotheism of more primitiveness and innateness than the Trinity is? I know that it is shocking for Trinitarians to ask this question, but it seems to me that monotheism, pure monotheism is more primitive. While Trinity is of less primitiveness and of less common sense.

Primitive and common sense means near to the pure heart or near to the original state or pureness or innocence or innateness.

So, the question is: is pure monotheism of less primitiveness and of less innateness than Trinity or Tritheism?.

It must first be stated that Trinitarianism is in fact monotheism. In Trinitarian belief there is only one God. However the nature of that one God is that he exists in three persons. But it is one of the fundamental doctrines of the Trinity that Trinitarianism believes in a single God.

Monotheism is not more primitive than polytheism.

It is a matter of historical record that ancient religions had many gods, and that monotheism exists only among more recent religions.

Is non-Trinitarian monotheism more "common sense" than the Trinity?

It depends what you mean by common-sense, but possibly. The concept of the Trinity is difficult to understand, and it appears to contradict our normal understanding of things.

However being less "common-sense" does not make it untrue. Many things in our world are not very "common-sense". It defies common sense that something can be both a wave and a particle, or that it can have an undefined position. Yet quantum physics tells us unquestionably that both are true. Quantum physics is less "common sense" than classical physics, but it is true.

Likewise it defies common-sense that something may get heavier as it goes faster, or that time moves at different rates for different things. Yet Relativity tells us that both are true. Relativity is less common-sense than Newtonian physics, but it is true.


What happens to Hell after Revelation 21:1? This question popped into my head after reading this question.

God states, quite specifically, in v.5 that He would make everything new, "for the old order of things has passed away". Which leads to the question -

If everything were created new, starting from scratch so to speak, what would happen to Hell? I'm aware of Annihilationism (I think I spelled that right), but I think the question is a little more particular than that.

If everything is created anew, with no death and sickness and disease, etc - would Hell be gone too? We know the Devil, his angels, and the wicked cast into the pit are said to be there "forever and ever", but if time was recreated in this creation, the old time would end - thus Hell not existing because it's "forever and ever" would have passed, right?

I'm more interested in the Catholic stance on this, seeing as how (at least to my observation) they seem to have more in terms of Heaven/Hell doctrine. I'll take non-Catholic responses too, but a official Catholic source will be selected as the answer so long as it has some reference material for me to check out.

If the question appears too broad, suggest some edits for me. I tried making it easy to understand.

Approaching it from this angle:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So hell is not part of the original creation.

We also know that [Now] war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

It is after this that the eternal fire [was] prepared for the devil and his angels, which is hell.

Hell was not part of God's original plan for his creation.

From Jesus' words and from the Book of Revelation, the lake of fire has been prepared but Satan has not yet been cast into it as yet. It appears that he is held in a prison and whenever he is allowed to roam about, he carries his fire with him, as the New Advent article says.

It is the teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." [Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG § 12.] [cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1035]

The renewal is of heaven and earth not hell. Heaven has been rid of the dragon [devil] and his angels and God's will is done there [cf. The Our Father]. But is appears that even it is still not as God intended it to be - heaven [is] missing [some] angel[s]. The state of the earth is plain to us: sin, death, devils roaming around, the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain[.] The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers [fallen angels] take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, [cf. Ps 2] etc.

Hell is also the outer darkness [cf. Mt 25:30]. Think of one coming to their house and finding it infested with vermin and thoroughly gathering up all the vermin, ridding the house of them for ever, and say, destroying the vermin by burning them, so that they never ever again return.

Heaven and earth are then renewed and they and their inhabitants proceed as God intended for all eternity, free from the fear of their happiness ever being alloyed again even by a tiny bit.

Please see also Why will the sea be no more? Revelation 21:1 [closed]

Overcoming the difficulty as to why evil is not part of ALL:

In the beginning [there] ... was God. cf. Jn 1:1.

God is Love, Goodness, Truth, Thrice Holy, Beauty, etc. cf. The Nature and Attributes of God and what Scripture says of God.

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. cf. Gn 1:31.

Therefore before creation there is Goodness, Beauty, Love, Holiness, Light, etc., this is what IS. At the conclusion of the sixth day, God says of his creation that it is very good.

Evil enters creation with free creatures, freely doing their will vs. God's, i.e. disobeying God: the angels first, then man.

Rather than see evil as something, evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe. cf. Evil | New Advent.

So evil is opposite, the absence of the Good (=God), and very good of creation at the beginning.

In the end God renews  creation to the original very good, and then some.

To advance the time,  Catholics' prayer to the Holy Spirit has send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. And you shall renew the face of the earth.

From a philosophical perceptive, it is wrong to consider evil as something, evil is [a] nothing, the absence of good/the Good; therefore does not belong to the ALL that is renewed. In fact, the renewal cannot be accomplished unless evil is forever banished.

A human example: when a person is restored to health, only he is restored and not the sickness (= absence of health). The sickness is banished from him, for him to be restored to health.

  “Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of
  misery are no longer able to infect it, or else, for ever and ever,
  the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject
  for themselves.”  ― C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce


Nakedness in the Bible When Adam and Eve first eat the forbidden fruit, they put clothes on to hide their nakedness, indicating man was meant to be naked. However, angels show up in the Bible "dressed in white garments".

Why would angels wear clothes when they are holy?

Both nakedness (and the awareness of that nakedness) and white garments are symbols (this does not mean we are not talking about real things, just that they are also symbolic).

White is a symbol of purity. For example, Revelations 3:5

  5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment;
  and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will
  confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Here, the saints are given white garments to symbolize that their sins are taken away and that they are pure. Similarly, white garments symbolize purity and holiness when seen on the angels.

Next, the clothes of Adam and Eve. God created them naked, so there can't be anything wrong with that, really.

Genesis 2:25

  25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not
  ashamed.

Note the addition "they were not ashamed".

Next, when they eat the fruit:

Genesis 3:7

  7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they
  were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves
  caprons.

And then they hide themselves. In that moment, they did something wrong and they are

aware of being in sin
aware that they are "naked" before the Lord, in other words, he knows what they did. They try to hide their sins from him. Nakedness could also be a symbol of the sinfulness itself (although that doesn't make sense since they were created naked), but important is that it is only a symbol of something happening in Adam and Eve. Before sinning, they are also naked, but not ashamed, because there is nothing to be ashamed of. After sinning, that nakedness is a problem for them.

Adam hides, is called out and has to take responsibility. And then, God does the following:

  21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of
  skins, and clothed them.

In the end, God covers their nakedness. Much symbolism and promise in that action, if we take nakedness to symbolize sin. A foreshadow of Revelation 3:5, if you are with me. Either way, God makes clothes for them, so we shouldn't say that clothes themselves are something bad, unwanted, or sinful (or symbolizing sin).


What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Liturgical POV) I've already asked this to get a non-liturgical point of view and now I would like to see an answer from a liturgical Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox view.

Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, goes into great detail about the specific ways of doing certain worship-related things. For example, The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.

However, it has been argued that these external forms have passed away and that all (or nearly all) that remains is the inward truth. Given the fact that Christ has come to fulfill the law (Mt 5:17) and that He has brought an end to the sacrificial system as it was (Hbr 9:23ff arguably implying an end to all the surrounding ritual as well), what biblical basis is there for keeping ceremony and ritual? This would apply both in the worship service and outside, for things like weddings and the like.

I would suggest that all ritual in general did not pass away simply because the edicts of the old law was fulfilled. There is a lot that Tradition speaks to in terms of ritual use within the context of the Church as evidenced by what we know early Christians did, however, since you asked for a biblical reason, I might point you to the passages surrounding the Last Supper as it is the basis for the very essence of almost all liturgy in all catholic rites (whether Roman Catholic or Orthodox). In particular, we see Jesus not only institute this, but actually issue a command to observe this ritual in Luke 22:17-20.

We have to be careful not to dillute the religion of Christianity into a philosophy by only looking at the acceptance of particular truths. In the scriptures, Jesus establishes a church, practices and commands particular ritual, and gives truths. If we ignore the first two facts of the previous sentence, then we fundamentally change Christianity into something that it's really not.

For a more in-depth liturgical POV (Roman Catholic), the following link might provide to be useful:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html


Did John the Evangelist make a mistake in counting the post-resurrection apparitions of Jesus? We see Jesus making his post-resurrection apparition before the disciples on various occasions: first, to the disciples on their way to Emmaus (Lk 24: 13-35), second, to the disciples in the absence of Thomas (Jn 20:19) then in the presence of Thomas (Jn 20:26) followed by the apparition at Tiberius (Jn 21:1). John specifies the Tiberius apparition as the third one (Jn 21:14), whereas it should have stood at 4th place, counting from the Emmaus apparition.
My question therefore is: Did John the Evangelist make a mistake in counting in order, the post-resurrection apparitions of Jesus? What does the Catholic Church say about such a prospect?

I am unaware of any specific statement by the Catholic Church on this question.
It's possible that this could be interpreted as a mistake, but I think there's a simpler solution:
What is the inner circle of Jesus' closest disciples called?

In the Synoptics they are usually "the twelve"
Luke 6:13 is likely the earliest reference indicating that the twelve were also called "apostles"
John calls them "disciples"

So applying John's terminology consistently, I see John 21:14 calling out that this was the third appearance to the apostles as a group.
John himself acknowledges this wasn't the third appearance in the absolute sense--he records the appearance to Mary Magdalene, who certainly was a disciple in the general sense of the word; just not an apostle.
Putting the Gospels together, we have appearances to:

Mary Magdalene
Mary the mother of James & Joses, Joanna, Salome (and possibly others)
Peter
Cleopas and his companion (could be before #3)
10 of the original apostles (Thomas absent, Judas absent and possibly dead), plus possibly others
11 of the original apostles (Thomas now present, Judas absent and probably dead)
The appearance at the Sea of Tiberius

(The timing of the appearance to James (aka James the Just) is unknown; this theory would suggest that the appearance to 500+ (as recorded by Paul in 1 Cor 15) probably happened after the appearance at the Sea of Tiberius)
I've bolded the appearances to the apostles as a group, and the Sea of Tiberius is indeed #3 on the list.


How is 1 Corinthians 9:27 reconciled with the teaching that losing salvation is impossible? This question is aimed at those Christians who believe that someone saved can't become "unsaved" later.

At least in 1 Corinthians 9:27 apostle Paul says he is not sure whether he will be saved or not (AFAIK there are other verses like this, and of course other places where Paul expresses his hope he will be saved). Here it is:

  27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have
  preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV–1984)

Question is simple: how do those Christians interpret this?

Related:

Can a Christian walk away from their salvation?
Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?
Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? [closed]
How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

It's clear from your question that you are assuming "the prize" to be salvation, and that you believe that this verse speaks of our works earning our salvation, or at least our bad works possibly leading to the loss of our salvation.

However, to most reformed theologians, this is not the case. A deeper study of the original Greek, as well as application of sound principles of interpretation clears this up.

First, the principles of Biblical interpretation include the fact that Scripture cannot contradict itself. Paul is on record all throughout the New Testament as stating that salvation is by faith through grace, apart from any works or worthiness of man. It would make no sense for him to be saying so here, so we need to dig deeper.

Taking a look at the various commentaries on this verse, most are in agreement that the prize is not salvation.   For example:

From Scofield Reference Notes

  1 castaway

  Gr. adokimos, "disapproved." Dokimos, without the private a, is
  translated "approved" in Rom 14:18 16:10 1Cor 11:19 2Cor 10:18 2Tim
  2:15 Jas 1:12, by the word "tried." The prefix simply changes the word
  to a negative, i.e. not approved, or, disapproved. The apostle is
  writing of service, not of salvation. He is not expressing fear that
  he may fail of salvation but of his crown. See "Rewards" Dan 12:3 1Cor
  3:14.

Another view from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible hints that the prize is simply faithfulness and remaining a faithful servant so that he can achieve the ultimate prize of expanding Christ's kingdom - avoiding becoming a "useless preacher".

  I myself should be a castaway, or rejected, or disapproved of; that is,
  by men: the apostle's concern is, lest he should do anything that
  might bring a reproach on the Gospel; lest some corruption of his
  nature or other should break out, and thereby his ministry be justly
  blamed, and be brought under contempt; and so he be rejected and
  disapproved of by men, and become useless as a preacher: not that he
  feared he should become a reprobate, as the word is opposed to an
  elect person; or that he should be a castaway eternally, or be
  everlastingly damned; for he knew in whom he had believed, and was
  persuaded of his interest in the love of God, and that he was a chosen
  vessel of salvation, that could not be eternally lost: though
  supposing that this is his sense, and these his fears and concern, it
  follows not as neither that he was, so neither that he could be a lost
  and damned person: the fears of the saints, their godly jealousies of
  themselves, and pious care that they be not lost, are not at all
  inconsistent with the firmness of their election, their security in
  Christ, and the impossibility of their final and total falling away;
  but on the contrary are overruled, and made use of by the Spirit of
  God, for their final perseverance in grace and holiness.

Calvin put the same thought this way:

  Accordingly, I strive to conduct myself in such a manner, that my
  character and conduct may not be inconsistent with my doctrine, and
  that thus I may not, with great disgrace to myself, and a grievous
  occasion of offense to my brethren, neglect those things which I
  require from others.

Finally, if you're interested, there's no shortage of commentaries from the great thinkers here: http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_corinthians_927_commentary.htm