Can seeking arguments against Christianity strengthen Christianity? Some take the position that some knowledge is the work of Satan.  Some take the position that critical analysis can strengthen good ideas and weaken bad ones.  Should Christians seek out information that is antithetical to their faith?

If I may, here is my idea of the scientific view: yes, it can. If you look for arguments against Christianity, thinking that you may find some, but you don't find any, this is evidence in favor of Christianity.

Evidence, you see, is all about correlation. Whether or not your shoes are untied is strongly correlated to whether or not they appear to be untied. So, when you see that your shoes appear to be untied, you can conclude, with great certainty, that they actually are untied.

Likewise, Christianity is correlated with arguments. Whether or not Christianity is true is correlated with whether or not there are good arguments against it. If there are good arguments against it, this is evidence that it is false; if there are not good arguments against it, this is evidence that it is true.


What is the physical evidence for a global flood? Young Earth Creationists believe in a young earth, followed by a literal global flood based on the belief that Scripture is written as history.  Often, in comments, discussion forums, and discussions in general, they will refer to "overwhelming physical evidence" that backs up their theological belief.

What phsyical evidence do they teach or believe can be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?

The Answers in Genesis website has an article that covers historical records of the flood -
Comparison of secular historical records, where they look at 200 flood traditions from across the world.  95% of the traditions had common elements with the Genesis account and described a worldwide flood.

Answers in Genesis also provides a number of articles describing geological evidence for a worldwide flood: Geological Links


What topic in Theology does Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone" fit under? Context:

I recently read Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone." I'm searching for similar material.

Now, it's clear that it does not fit under "pre-destination" or "trinity".

The closest thing I can think of "preservation of the saints" -- but even that is not quite right -- the focus seems to focus more on "solitude."

Question:

Is there some word, on the calibre of christology, eschatology, soteriology -- that describes the type of issues Tozer addresses?
If not, what general "Christian Topic" does Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone" fall under?

Tozer often preaches very insightfully about sanctification by discarding many superficial views that causes us to make Christianity fake and hypocritical.  A man who is truly vexed by the sin of the world, and truly despised by it, can't help but feel lonely.

Jesus was a man of sorrow:

  He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces
  he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. (NIV Isaiah 53:3)

Paul had sorrows from his faith:

  I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. (NIV Romans 9:1-2)

Jesus said that those who enter into mourning for sin, theirs and the world's would be blessed (in a happy state)

  Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. (NIV Matthew 5:4)

These any many similar subjects about picking up our cross, counting the cost, suffering persecution, being lonely on account of it, mourning for sin, striving in prayer, etc. These can  probably all be classified under sanctification and practical Christian practice or experience.

 Tozer almost exclusively preaches and writes on this subject.


How do Protestants who do not hold Communion/Eucharist every week interpret Acts 2:42? Acts 2:40-42 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. 41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.
42 And they were persevering in the teaching of the apostles, and in coming together, and the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The "breaking of bread" was an early, primitive way of referring to the Eucharist (both come from the Last Supper or Institution, where Christ "broke bread" and "gave thanks" - Gk. eucharistesas Lk. 22:19).
Many modern Protestant denominations don't hold Eucharist more than about once a year. How do such denominations or groups defend their stance, based on Acts 2:42, which seems to imply a perseverance and regular celebration thereof?
Thanks in advance.

The simple answers is that Acts is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Like all the narrative books it gives us wisdom and informs our decisions, but out relationship to a narrative text is different to our relationship to a text of commands (although those can be embedded within a narrative, as they are in the Pentateuch.)

Now there is one command that speaks of the frequency of communion, 1 Corinthians 11:25-26; you should have asked about that instead.

  1 Cor 11:25-26 (ESV): In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

One command directly from the mouth of Jesus, and one explanation from Paul. But it's far from clear that Jesus's words require this act to become a formal ritual for the church. As Acts records, sharing meals together, in remembrance of the death of Christ, was a common activity for the early Church. I think the common practice of giving thanks to God before a meal is a faithful way to obey Jesus's command.

There are many ways that churches have interpreted these verses. Many, taking note of "as often" have communion every week. Some Anglican churches actually have it every day. Some churches, rather than a token bite sized piece of bread and sip of a cup, have a full celebratory meal, like we imagine the early church doing. And in some Catholic churches the laity sometimes receive only the bread and not the wine, even though it was specifically about the wine which Jesus said "as often as you drink it."

But Paul gives us more than just this quote from Jesus, he gives us principles by which to decide how to implement this sacrament. The Corinthian church, by the time Paul was writing, had settled on a full celebratory banquet. The way they celebrated this banquet was deeply problematic however. Rather than sharing, some got drunk while others went hungry (1 Cor 11:21). Some may also have started eating before others even arrived, so Paul says to eat for the purpose of sating hunger at home, before you gather together (1 Cor 11:33-34). Paul says that we are to examine ourselves and others in the body to ensure we are worthy to eat this meal in remembrance of Jesus Christ.

I think this goal of serious remembrance of the sacrificial work of Jesus on the Cross can be achieved through different practices and frequencies of communion. For the churches which have it weekly (or daily) they want to ensure that the cross of Christ is never take for granted. By having communion this frequently they ensure that no matter what songs are sung, no matter what the topic of the sermon, the death of Christ is explicitly spoken of and deliberately remembered in every meeting.

For churches that have it less frequently, I have often heard the concern that weekly communion can become a motion you go through rather than a heartfelt act. I'm sure there have been church leaders who have felt at times that they've had to rush through communion because the preacher went overtime. While it is ultimately the individual church member's responsibility to take communion seriously rather than just as a habit to keep, the leaders of churches that have it monthly or quarterly hope this will help their congregants to not take it for granted but to be in the right mindset each time. When it is done monthly or quarterly, it can be something you set aside time for, you can include time for reflection in the service, you can choose particularly cross-centred hymns.

Personally I see merits in both weekly and monthly communion. I remember times when I was in a church that had it weekly that sometimes I treated it as just a motion to go through, and when I was in a church that had it monthly that if I missed the week it was on that I could almost forget it was something the church even did. I wouldn't want it to be less frequent than monthly however.


How should a Christian object to those who say Paradise may be a little boring? From time to time while reading fiction or poetry or whatever I stumble on a certain kind of, so to say, 'satire' of the Paradise the main point of which is that the everlasting live would be meaningless and boring.
For example

a) we would pursue the same pleasures again and again and this would lead to a comic effect. (see Julian Barnes 'The History of the World in 9 1/2 Chapters')

b) other people in Paradise may tend to alienate a certain person, as well, as angels may tend to look down upon ordinary people and thus suffering would not end. (See Tiger Lillies  'Heaven to Hell' song from 'Brothel to the Cemetary' album)

c) We can be separated with our closest relatives as they can be sent to Hell instead (see Mark Twain 'Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven')

How do I object?

If we could envision exactly what Heaven is going to be like, it wouldn't be Heaven, just as if we could comprehend God, He wouldn't be God.

Just as man should not create (in their own minds) a God made in their image, but understand that man was made in God's image.  So too we must not make Heaven in the image of the earth, but understand that earth reflects in part the image of Heaven.

When we think of playing a harp on a cloud in heaven and singing for eternity, I admit that it doesn't really sound like heaven--even though I love to sing and I think harps are really awesome.

Let me address your three points:

a) experience the same pleasures over and over again:  This is an earthly perspective.  There is no indication that we will be bound to pleasures that will lose their impact and result in boredom.  Rather, God being God certainly would have the capacity to give us eternal joy.  In fact, if God is infinite, it will take an eternity to get to know Him fully.

b) Looking down on others in Heaven:  Angels certainly have a special place in Heaven, having never known sin.  However, we have a special place as well, for we are the only ones for whom God the Son died.  God never became an angel, but He did become a man.  God's glory will be sufficiently wonderful to drown out all sin.  There will be no jealousy as we will all be overflowing with joy.

c) Separation from people we love:  Wherever you go in the world, it becomes evident that we were created for relationships.  However, we were not ultimately created for relationships just with each other, but for the ultimate relationship with the Ultimate Being.  So, our relationships with others are only shadows of the greater relationship we will experience.  Our joy of union with God will be far greater than all other unions.

God created us for Himself, and He will not merely satisfy us, but will give us abundant joy for eternity.  God is infinitely able to do immeasurably more than we ask or imagine.


Why do Christians thank God for specific things? Ideally this question is addressed to non-Calvinists...to those who believe in free will and that much of what is wrong with the world (e.g. genetically unhealthy infants) is due to the existence of sin and evil.

Why do Christians thank God for having a health baby? For scoring a touchdown? For anything good in life?

On the one hand we have nothing without God. But why be so specific, since it seems that he doesn't control EVERYTHING because of free will and unless you take the Calvinist route, there is a great deal of fuzziness about how much control God wants to have over such things.

I am looking less for an abstract answer than for a simple answer a child could understand. Though BOTH would be nice. Thanks!

I don't know if this is a constructive question per the site's definition.  It is right on the line between being a "Pastoral Advice" question and something that can be answered doctrinally,  but since it can be answered partly based on Scripture (and partly based on subjective reasons) and the fact that these principles are generally applicable and agreed upon my Christians of all walks, I'll give it a shot.

The most probable reason is also the most subjective:  Because we are appreciative and thankful for specific things.

Addressing your request that is simple enough for a child to understand, the above is probably simple enough for a child under the age of five or so.  The rest is probably too much for that age, but may be OK for kids that are older.  It helps if they know the verses, and the rest explains things in more human terms, using the verses as a framework.

It's the same reason my kids thank me when I surprise them with a trip to the park to play, or a trip to the ice cream shop.  It's why I thank my wife when she cleans up a mess the kids made so I don't have to or vice-versa. Because we understand the value of little things, and because we love each other and want each other to know we are appreciated.  If we love God, we'll do the same.  It's just a natural extension of love and a thankful spirit.

As far as reasons that can be backed up Scripturally:  (These Scriptures lay out principles that tie in to the ideas in the more subjective section that follows them.)

  1 Thessalonians 5:18 (King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))

  In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus
  concerning you.

  James 1:17 (King James Version)

  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
  from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither
  shadow of turning.

The meat of your question seems to be in this area: If we believe in free will, how can we think that God gave us each individual specific thing, so I'll address that here.

Note that the belief in free will does not nullify the preceding Scripture.  The belief in free will is one of the foundational beliefs in my perspective, but I still believe all good things come from God.

To those of us that believe that sin and suffering are a  result of man's free will, it doesn't nullify the fact that in order for something "bad" to happen, God has to allow it to happen.  There's a difference between allowing something to happen and causing something to happen.  In His sovereignty, He is certainly capable of intervening to stop a situation, or to manipulate the situation to alter our decisions.

We don't deny His sovereignty. Free will isn't incompatible with the Sovereignty of God from an Arminian perspective.

With this, we also accept that the good things come because He has allowed it, or that He has caused circumstances to be such that that the good things have come from Him.

Getting back to more general reasons we give thanks for every little thing, now that the above portion has been addressed...

  1 Thessalonians 5:17   King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

  Pray without ceasing.

The last one may not be obvious to everyone as far as why it's relevant here, but one of the easiest ways to pray throughout the day is to simply get in the habit of praying a quick prayer of thanks for the little things, like the ones you're asking about.  Getting back to the subjective (but remaining in the realm of common sense that most people would agree with)... This is a wonderful way to keep God in your thoughts, to keep your relationship strong.

It also helps us to cultivate that thankful, loving, and kind spirity that we Christians should have.

More subjective - applied psychology or common sense, take your pick

As a side note, keeping God in our hearts and being thankful is a great way to help us to resist temptation to sin.  If we are constantly thinking of how great God is, and keeping an inventory of the good things He has done for us (great and small), when temptation arises, we should be thinking "If God has done all this for me, how can I possibly want to do this and make Him angry.

This is what we should feel for our employers if we think of stealing from them, or what our kids should think of us before they do something that will make us ashamed of them.  It's simply not wanting to hurt/shame/dishonor someone you love.

Saying constant prayers of thanks helps us to remember that He does do those things for us.  And the more we love and appreciate Him, the less we should want to hurt Him, dishonor Him, or know that He is ashamed of us.

Finally, we shouldn't be just thankful for the "good" things in our lives.  We should be thankful for everything, even those things that we don't think are good right now.

  *Romans 8:28 (KJV) King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)*

  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

If we truly believe that verse, then we will understand that even the painful things that happen to us are in accordance with His will, and that He will use those things for good.  Keeping that in mind helps us to avoid becoming bitter, it helps us to understand our relationship with Him. (He is God, we are merely created beings subject to His will), and it reminds us to trust Him, having Faith that He will keep His word.  Most Christian denominations teach that trials and tribulation purifies us - they make us stronger.  We should be thankful for that, as well.  That's a bit harder to do.


Do Catholics refer to all martyrs as Saints? At first I was thinking the only requirement to be canonized was to be killed for your faith. Is this accurate? How is someone deemed a Saint as opposed to a martyr in Catholicism?

The process is called canonization.  Wikipedia's article on canonization describes the process.  Martyrdom is not a requirement for sainthood, although being martyred does suggest that a person may very well be a saint (think John 15:13, Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.).  Mother Theresa is a great example of a non-martyred saint, canonized because of the great witness of her life of love and compassion for the poor in India.

In summary, a person is recognized by a bishop or other church person with sufficient authority as a possible candidate for sainthood, and an investigation is started.  The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints investigates this information, and eventually may make a recommendation that the pope make a declaration that the Servant of God is 'heroic in virtue'.  At this point, the potential saint becomes known as 'Venerable', meaning that Catholic may encourage veneration of this person, such as prayers for intercession, but the church has made no official statement on whether or not it is believed that the person is in Heaven.

The next step is where martyrdom matters.  If the Pope makes a declaration of martyrdom, then the martyr can be canonized, as the Catholic church teaches that all martyrs go to Heaven, and being in Heaven is the definition of a 'capital-S' Saint.

If the person was not a martyr, then the person is considered a 'confessor', a person who bore witness to Christ (confessed Christ) through the way they lived their life.  A miracle achieved through the intercession of the venerable must be documented before a confessor can be beatified, and can be called "Blessed" (but still not a saint yet!).  There are strict guidelines in evaluating miracles to determine their authenticity.  For a confessor to be canonized, and declared a saint, two miracles are required.

Note that this is a summary, and I am leaving details out - such as requirements for time to pass before canonization.  Also, I am not an expert in Catholic canon law; while the general information is accurate, I could have details wrong.  If you want to hear from an expert, you could go to Catholic Forum's Ask an Apologist subforum and send in your question.


Are we born sinners? We can be quite certain that God didn't originally create us as sinners. Rather Adam and Eve chose sin in the Fall.

The doctrine of original sin is widely held in Christian churches, but those opposing it are not a small minority, either. As original sin means that we inherit our sinfulness from the Fall, I think it might be equivalent to the question asked here: Are we born sinners?

Please provide at least the biblical evidence for an answer -- non-biblical arguments are, of course, welcome as additional information. Also, I might be wrong, and some believers in original sin might not think we're born sinners. If these notions are actually separate, please elaborate in the answers.

Since I had to find relevant Bible verses for another purpose, I'll answer my own question with them. I still expect someone to write a more full answer. This interpretation/selection of passages is close to the Lutheran view.

David does seem to state that we're born sinners:

  Psalm 51:5 (ESV)
  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
  and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Paul also writes to the Romans, saying that "one trespass led to condemnation for all men"

  Romans 5:12-13,18 (ESV)
  12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

  18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

He also makes a similar statement when writing to the Corinthians:

  1 Corinthians 15:22 (ESV)
  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

The Bible does seem to say that we indeed are sinful from birth because of the Fall of Man.


Were there provisions for salvation for non-Hebrews in the OT? One of the significant points of Jesus ministry and the evangelism done by the early apostles seems to be their going to "gentile" nations and preaching that they too were recipients of God's plan of salvation.

Are there any provisions for (or examples of) non-Hebrews in the OT? Was salvation strictly limited to a specific nation and race or was there a way in other than birth?

I think that the main way God used to lead people to himself was to use the people of Israel as an example, to show his glory, power and love through them, so that the surrounding peoples could see and accept that he is the only God.

One thing you could do, as a heathen of that time, was to convert and implant yourself in the state and people of Israel, just like we do today (though we are not referring to the state of Israel per se).

In the Old Testament, there are a number of people that were definitely people of God, although they were not Israelites. Four of them are Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth. Let's examine them, one by one:

Melchizedek was a priest of God and king in the city of Salem. Abra(ha)m was greeted and blessed by Melchizedek when they met. Melchizedek is mentioned in Genesis chapter 14. There is no mentioning of how Melchizedek had heard about God and there are many theories about this.

Jethro is introduced in Exodus 2:16, as a priest in the land of Midian. As far as I know, it is not explicitly stated that he was a priest of God, but in the 18th chapter, we can read that Jethro heard about what God had done for the people of Israel and praised him.

Rahab was a prostitute that lived in the city of Jericho. Before the siege, Joshua sent two spies to the city. For some reason they ended up in Rahab's house and she protected them from their enemies. She believed in God, for she had heard about what God had done for the people of Israel and put her faith in him. She asked the spies to protect her and her family and not let them perish with the rest of the people of Jericho and so they became a part of the Israelites, and Rahab became an ancestor to Jesus, our Savior.

Ruth was married to one of the sons of Naomi, a woman of the Israelites. She is mentioned in the book of Ruth. I think it is fair to assume that she heard about God from her mother- and father-in-law, and her husband. Later, she followed her mother-in-law back to the land of Israel and became a part of the Israelites, and ancestor to Jesus, our Savior, just like Rahab.


How do Jehovah Witnesses support scripturely the idea that humans will live on earth after death? A Jehovah Witness and I spoke the other day and he explained to me that JWs believe that we'll live on earth after we die.

What scripture, if any, do they use to back this belief?

The idea comes from Revelation 21
Revelation 21:1 (NIV)

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

The problem with interpreting Revelation is that there's a lot of debate on what it actually means.
Will we live on a new earth?  Yes in the sense that God will give us a place to live.
Will it be identical to the old earth (with tornadoes, volcanoes, etc)?  Who knows!
The New World Translation of this doesn't really vary.  You can read that if you'd like.


What will be the indication that God accepted Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf In the OT when the high priest exited the holy of holies alive it was an indication that the blood sacrifice on behalf of the sinner had been accepted by God.
What is the indication that God accepted Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf.
Was it after the resurrection when he showed himself to believers or will it be when he shows himself at the second coming?

The answer is found in Acts 17:30-31:

  “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all
  men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He
  will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.
  He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Jesus' resurrection from the dead after dying as a sacrificial lamb is proof that God has accepted Him. Also there is Hebrews 10:12:

  But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat
  down at the right hand of God,

Jesus sitting at God's right hand also vindicates His sacrifice. God has a place for Him right at His side.


Is man born in God's image, or was that just Adam? I have noticed many Christians say 'we were born in God’s image', but the scripture seems to imply that men are 'born in the image of their Father, the Devil?'

For example:

  This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)

Which is it then, is man created in God’s image after the fall, or the Devils, or neither?

All of Humanity is (Individually) Made in God's Image

Genesis does not seem to leave the matter open to much interpretation.

  Genesis 1:26-27 NASB  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Both Adam and Eve were made in his image, and by simple inference, it would seem to extend to all humanity. He later told them to be fruitful and multiply, then repeats the part about dominion, as if to say that their progeny would be like this.

One could perhaps argue that since the fall, man may be fundamentally different in the matter of being made in God's image. I do not think a straightforward reading of the text provides any real grounds for such a conclusion, though.

  Genesis 9:6 NASB  "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

This command to Noah after (sin, death, and) the flood I read to be an affirmation of an enduring unity between "humanity" and the "image of God" that not even the presence of sin can take away. It is as if the image of God is some sort of indelible mark on each human that cannot be marred or lost and whose value is not something we earn or lose. It is who we are. It is perhaps the thing about us that God finds valuable enough to redeem at awful cost.

The question didn't really include anything about the meaning of imaging God, so I won't attempt any discussion on that here, though it might be interesting.

The Image of Other Things

The second piece of the question mentioned being "born into the image of God or the Devil."

One definition of the word for "son" (υιος; 5207) is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower," and this is frequently used when biological sonship/fatherhood is not thought to be possible, "sons of the prophets," "son of hell," "son of the devil," "You are of your father the devil," etc.

Nowhere is there any link made between being a "son of" someone and being born/made "in [his] image." We are all (still) made in God's image, even if we are "sons of the devil," because imaging God is a defining human characteristic and being a son of the devil is a description of our behavior.

EDIT: I forgot about Genesis 5:3, although I would consider that tangential to the point. The question has to do with being a "son of God" or "son of the Devil," and imaging that "father." When these phrases are used in the New Testament, they are referring to behavior. I would consider it dangerous to draw too strong a conclusion from Genesis 5:3 and Genesis 6:2. Seth resembles Adam, though not only in the ways that Adam (or any human) resembles God. The language of Genesis 6 is too "wonderful for me" to speak with certainty as to its precise meaning, but I don't think it's attempting to elucidate the concept of "imaging" in any way.


Do these videos represent JW meetings or do they have other secret/sacred meetings that are not available to public? [Related to this question but that one is about teachings while this one is about meetings in general]

The answer to this other question about Mormon meetings says about meetings at Mormon temples:

  Temples are very special and sacred places that are only available to
  members of the church in good standing. The worship ceremonies that
  are performed inside are not often discussed outside of the temple,
  not because they're secret, but because they're sacred.

I wanted to ask a similar question about Jehovah's Witnesses as there's this "Theocratic Meetings" YouTube channel that seems to have video feeds of Jehovah's Witnesses meetings. This channel has videos of two types of meetings: "Midweek Meetings" and "Weekend Meetings". The videos for both meeting types are about 1 hr 40 minutes long.

Do JWs have meetings or ceremonies that are not included on this
channel because they are "for members only"?
Are these videos actual and complete Jehovah's Witness meetings or
are there ceremonies that are done in these meetings but not shown
publicly?

Editor's note on November 1, 2019: the linked YouTube channel has no public content and neither YouTube video is publicly visible. They were present at the time of this question, however.

The YouTube link you referred to is not the official channel of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  It is a private account posted by an individual who was obviously present or received a recording of some meetings or convention programs. (I did not watch the entire videos, but At a glance it looks just like one)

ALL OF OUR MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, they are not secret, but our meetings are generally not posted online.  This link from the official website gives a thourough overview of what to expect when attending one of our meetings anywhere around the globe...

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#en/mediaitems/MeetingsConventions/pub-whkh_x_VIDEO

Besides the regular weekly meetings held at local Kingdom Halls, there are special conventions & assemblies, missionary graduations (Gilead School), Annual Meeting, etc., held at various locations around the globe.  All of these meetings are open to the public with a few exceptions due to seating limitations (such as Gilead School graduating class and the Annual Meeting) However, thanks to modern technology, those events are now either streamed live to the congregations or posted online at JW BROADCASTING (link follows)

https://tv.jw.org/#en/categories/VODProgramsEvents

There are no secret ceremonies.

What happens at a Kingdom Hall


Does the Russian Orthodox Church venerate the saints of the Orthodox Church in America? After the Russian Revolution, the Orthodox Church in America became nominally independent of the mother church. The OCA has since canonized saints who lived in Russian America such as German and Petr (the former was also reportedly "venerated" by Patriarch Alexy II). Do these saints enjoy any formal status in the Russian church, or are they only of interest to Orthodox belivers in America?

The process, if one can term it that, by which Orthodox recognize certain people as "saints" is radically different from the practice followed in the Roman Catholic Church.

Recognition of saints among the Orthodox begins first with the local faithful who recognize that person who has reposed as someone who had cooperated with God's grace to the extent that his or her holiness is beyond doubt.  As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware writes:

  In private an Orthodox Christian is free to ask for the prayers of any
  member of the Church, whether canonized or not. It would be perfectly
  normal for an Orthodox child, if orphaned, to end his evening prayers
  by asking for the intercessions not only of the Mother of God and the
  saints, but of his own mother and father. In its public worship,
  however, the Church usually asks the prayers only of those whom it has
  officially proclaimed as saints;

  The Orthodox Church, p. 256

The Orthodoxwiki website describes how a saint is usually "canonized" within a given jurisdiction:

  Today, as more clergy and faithful recognize and honor that one
  amongst them had led a virtuous life of obvious holiness this
  veneration becomes widely recognized, and the manner of recognition is
  formalized. This leads to requests, usually through the diocesan
  bishop, for the Church to recognize that person as a saint. Then,
  usually an investigative committee is formed to review the life of the
  person who is being considered for glorification. When the committee
  is assured that the person has led a virtuous and God centered life, a
  process that may take an extended period of time, a report is
  submitted to the Holy Synod of the local Church stating the reasons
  why the person should or should not be recognized as a saint.

  After receiving and considering the report, the Holy Synod decides
  whether or not to number that person among the saints. If the bishops
  agree they then have icons painted and liturgical services composed
  for the glorification of the new saint. If the bishops do not agree,
  the life of the person may again be considered at a future time after
  further study.

  The formal Rite of Glorification begins with a memorial service for
  the person about to be glorified, after which Vespers and Matins are
  chanted with special hymns to the saint, and the icon for the saint is
  unveiled. The feast date for the commemoration of the new saint is
  established, and the life of the saint is published. Finally, the
  glorification of the new saint is made known to the other Orthodox
  Churches so that they can place the name of the new saint on their
  calendars.

As the article indicates, once a particular jurisdiction within the Eastern Orthodox Church formally recognizes a saint, recognition is also extended by all other jurisdictions.  Hence, Sts. Herman of Alaska and Peter the Aleut - which you mentioned in your question - are venerated as saints in Russia, Greece, Georgia, Romania, etc.


When and how did the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament start in the Catholic Church? In some Christian Churches, there is according to Wikipedia, a devotional ceremony known as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

The question is when and how did this ceremony arise within the Catholic Church and what is the theological basis for it?

The Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is the result of a confluence of two separate traditions dating back to the thirteenth century. Exposing the Blessed Sacrament for veneration in a monstrance grew out of special value being placed upon the act of looking at the elevation of the Eucharist at mass, probably as a form of protest against the theological views of Peter the Chanter. The second tradition, an evening devotion consisting of the singing of certain hymns, litanies, or canticles before the Blessed Sacrament developed from the many confraternities and guilds that sang canticles in the evening before a statue of "Our Lady".

Summarized from the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament entry in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia


According to Catholicism, if someone receives last rites, is everything forgiven? So you've killed dozens of people, cheated on wife, destroyed families blah blah. Then before dying the priest administers you the last rites. Is everything forgiven? Will you go to heaven because you confessed?

I'm confused at this; what's the incentive to be good throughout life?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent on Extreme Unction quotes St. James 5:14-15:

Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Describing the effects of Extreme Unction, the Catechism says:

this Sacrament is imparted grace that remits sins, and especially lighter, or as they are commonly called, venial sins; for mortal sins are removed by the Sacrament of Penance. Extreme Unction was not instituted primarily for the remission of grave offences; only Baptism and Penance accomplish this directly.
Another advantage of the Sacred Unction is that it liberates the soul from the languor and infirmity which it contracted from sins, and from all the other remains of sin. The time most opportune for this cure is when we are afflicted with severe illness and danger to life impends, for it has been implanted in man by nature to dread no human visitation so much as death

See also the 14th session of the Council of Trent on the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction.


For Biblical Unitarians, are there divine attributes that the Father has but the Son doesn't? I've seen multiple times (biblical) unitarians claim that being divine does not imply being God, and that we can view Jesus as divine (i.e. as having divine attributes) without being "God" with a capital G. This makes me wonder: for biblical unitarians, are there divine attributes that only the Father has but Jesus doesn't?

A suggestion: for a very complete answer, I would suggest something like a comparison table with 3 columns: "Divine Attribute", "Father" and "Son". Under "Divine Attribute" I would list several divine attributes, such as "eternal", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnipresent", etc. And under "Father" and "Son" I would list biblical passages that give evidence of whether the Father and the Son possess/lack these divine attributes, respectively. But this is just a suggestion, so feel free to answer as you see fit.

Divine attributes that only the Father has but Jesus doesn't.
That might take a lot of space to answer. Equally relevant is, what 'divine attributes' does Jesus have.
Jesus has been clear on numerous occasions to state the relationship he has with God and his Father.
Several NT writers have also shown the differences between God and Jesus. It seems necessary to state the obvious; Jesus has a God (Note 1). God does not have a God. From that basis it would seem ridiculous to think Jesus is somehow God too. Based on the numerous texts we have, this is not a logical or well-founded construct.
If we refer to extra-biblical creeds to understand the nature of God then we are ignoring the bible's clear revelations because the two do not agree.
The definition of divine I'm using is as an adjective. Being divine doesn't make one God, but simply has some of the characteristics of God. Specifically, Jesus was divine because he was holy and without sin. This makes him like God or Godlike, but by no means God. We will also share in God's divine nature.

Through these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world on account of lust. 2 Pet 1:4

Attributes of Jesus v/s God
Jesus is holy and without sin. That's just like God - but doesn't make him God.
Jesus on earth in the flesh was the 'image of God' and had the 'form of God' - neither make him God, but make him like God.
Jesus could be tempted - that's not like God. God cannot be tempted. James 1:13
Jesus could die - that's not like God, He is immortal.
Jesus could sin - that's not like God, He cannot sin. Heb 5:7
Jesus doesn't know everything - God does. Matt 24:36
Jesus said he is not a spirit - God is Spirit. Luke 24:39 John 4:24
Jesus said he was a man (still is) - God is not a man. Num 23:19 Hos 11:9 John 8:40
Jesus had a beginning ~4BC - God has no beginning.
Jesus was made Lord - no one makes God anything! Acts 2:36
Jesus was sanctified by God - God does not need to be sanctified.  John 10:36
We only need Jesus to fall short by ONE divine attribute that God the Father has to show Jesus is not God.
Either Jesus is God or he is not, He cannot be God for some things and not God for other.
How can he be God (because some say he has to be God to pay for all sin) and still die? Oh, only the humanity of Jesus died apparently, while God the Son lives on. This two-faced nature of Jesus/the Son is not found in scripture.
He cannot be immortal and mortal. We know he was mortal in the flesh until he was raised in the spirit. 1 Pet 3:18, Rom 6:9 He is mortal no longer. So by those texts, he was not God.
If the bible was supposed to explain who God is and who Jesus is and they are both God - it is doing a really lousy job. So to make Jesus God is to ignore all the verses that say he isn't.
It is pointless to grasp at the few 'proof-texts' like John 20:28, 10:30 or Is 9:6 etc. When read incorrectly or out of context they may seem useful to the 'Jesus is God' set. But even then, they are still insufficient to alter the substantial, consistent body of evidence for a human Jesus who is not God, but the son of God who gave his life in humble sacrifice for his Father's creation. Having accomplished this momentous task, he is rightly made heir to this creation. And now rules with his Father and God and is mediator between God and men.
Even Satan knew who Jesus was - he knew he wasn't God, but the son of God.
When the biblical evidence is understood and accepted, these 'proof-texts' regain their true meaning highlighting the magnificent plan God put in place in ages past.
This summary answer has been drawn from one main source and assoc. pages - https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses
Note 1 https://onegodworship.com/jesus-has-a-god/ - sample of verses where Jesus has a God


Am I considered to be Catholic? I noticed with surprise the following in a previous question :

  Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion,

I was baptised (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) at the age of five (I can vividly remember it to this day, sixty-three years later) by a Presbyterian minister of the Church of Scotland.

At the age of fifteen I left the C of S and, for only a short time, joined with the Scottish Baptist movement and was baptised as an adult.

I subsequently was dissatisfied with the state of religion in Scotland and I moved to England, at the age of eighteen, to be under the ministry and guidance of someone I perceived as a genuine Minister of Jesus Christ and I continued with him for twenty five years. He did not think it necessary to baptise me again and he accepted my baptism and received me into fellowship with his congregation.

I was married, now I am celibate. I no longer drink alcohol and I don't do drugs. I earn a living and I do not steal. I last told a lie (that I can remember) in 2011, of which I am ashamed, although it was not a matter of criminality. The last time I remember taking the name of God or the Lord in vain (as a curse or as an expletive) was when I was fourteen years old.

So, am I accepted as Catholic or would I have to do anything further to be accepted as a Christian among Catholic persons ?

Are you considered to be Catholic?

The short answer is no.

  Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability, without prejudice to the right in special cases of persons, communities or areas, to have recourse to the Apostolic See, which, as the supreme judge of interchurch relations, will, acting itself or through other authorities, meet the needs of the occasion in an ecumenical spirit, by the issuance of opportune directives, decrees or rescripts. -  Orientalium Ecclesiarum

According to the above statement you have not entered into full communion with the Catholic Church.

In order for that to happen several thing must happen first.

Validly baptized non-Catholics who desire to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church must complete an RCIA course which explains the basic beliefs professed in Catholicism, prior to making a profession of faith in the Catholic Church.

  The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), or Ordo Initiationis Christianae Adultorum   (OICA) is a process developed by the Catholic Church for prospective converts to Catholicism who are above the age of infant baptism. Candidates are gradually introduced to aspects of Catholic beliefs and practices. The basic process applies to adults and older children, with younger children initiated through an adapted version sometimes incorrectly referred to as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Children (RCIC). - Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults


Was there a time when bishops were not appointed to other sees and did not generally ever relocate? Today it is common for bishops to relocate to another (probably more prestigious) episcopal see. For example Rainer Wölki was first titular Bishop of Scampa, then Archbishop of Berlin and is now archbishop of Cologne. Similarly the current pope was first titular Bishop of Auca, then Archbishop of Buenos Aires and later Bishop of Rome (pope).

A similar case could be found with the apostle Peter who, by church tradition, was first the  Bishop of Antioch and later Bishop of Rome.

On the converse I heard that there were times where bishops were considered to be "married to their respective churches" and thus never relocated to another see.

My question is: Is it correct that there was a time during which bishops were generally not appointed to other episcopal sees and did not relocate otherwise. If this is the case then I would like to hear the resoning for this custom as well as the reason for the development to the current way of handling this.

Was there a time when bishops were not appointed to other sees and did not generally ever relocate?

The simple answer is yes.

In the Early Church, the bishop of a diocese was chosen by the local clergy and not appointed to the diocese by the pope. Thus transfers to other articles sees was extremely rare, if not non-existent.

It was however not unheard of as we see the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter becoming the Bishop of Rome. Since the Prince of the Apostles, under Divine inspiration, decided to move his see to Rome, it was necessary for him to appoint St. Evodius as his successor of the Diocese of Antioch. The Apostolic Church was simply growing that fast.

  Early Church

  It's unclear when the notion of a monarchial bishop emerged, but it is clear that by 200 AD a single bishop in charge of a metropolitan area became a universal norm without much controversy. Initially, bishops were chosen by the local clergy with approval from nearby bishops. "A newly elected bishop was installed in office and given his authority [...] by the bishops who supervised the election and performed the ordination."

  Examples of episcopal election in the early church include such notable figures as Ambrose of Milan. Episcopal election was so taken for granted that by the time of the Council of Nicaea, it is mentioned as the normative method for selecting bishops, with approval of local metropolitans.

  The bishops of the most important sees sought acceptance from Rome. Some early church fathers attest to the fact that the Church of Rome - in effect its diocese - was the central point of authority. They attest to the Church's reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch (ca 1st century) does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus (ca 2nd century) explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is full communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) puts it, Rome is "the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source." Most of these references were to the entire Church of Rome as such, not necessarily to the Bishop of Rome in his person, but after the role of the pope emerged, the church and its bishop became interpreted in a synonymous way. - Appointment of Catholic bishops

In 325 AD, the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea forbid bishops from being transferred to another see:

  Canon 15 - Neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon shall be transferred from city to city. But they shall be sent back should they attempt to do so, to the Churches in which they were ordained.

Slowly, but surely the Sovereign Pontiff took more control over the appointments of bishops and the establishments of dooceses.

  By the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the metropolitan bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome had a role of the greatest importance in the selection. Canon 6 of the Council acknowledged and codified an ancient custom giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Nicaea decreed that the consent of the metropolitan bishop was normally required:

  Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. - Appointment of Catholic bishops

In the 11th century the pope reserved to himself the creation of new dioceses.

  We have noticed above that after the eleventh century the sovereign pontiff reserved to himself the creation of dioceses. In the actual discipline, as already stated, all that touches the diocese is a causa major, i.e. one of those important matters in which the bishop possesses no authority whatever and which the pope reserves exclusively to himself. Since the episcopate is of Divine institution, the pope is obliged to establish dioceses in the Catholic Church, but he remains sole judge of the time and manner, and alone determines what flock shall be entrusted to each bishop. - Diocese (Catholic Encyclopedia)

However it was not until the the 19th century that the Holy See took control over the nominations of bishops and the possibility of episcopal jurisdiction transfer of a bishop from one diocese to another.

  Centralization of papal power

  In the early 19th century, state involvement in episcopal appointment was still so normal that, in spite of the opposition of the Church in Ireland to the proposed royal veto of the appointment of bishops, the Holy See was prepared to grant it to the British king. As late as the 20th century, Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary exercised a power of Jus exclusivae to veto the election of Mariano Rampolla as pope during the 1903 papal conclave. After Rampolla was vetoed, the conclave elected Pope Pius X.

  It was in 1871 that a radical shift in law and practice began to take place. In that year the Law of guarantees gave the pope the right to choose the bishops of the Kingdom of Italy, all 237 of them, appointments that through the unification of Italy had fallen into the hands of King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy. Although the pope denounced the law, he nevertheless profited by it to appoint, within the first seven months that followed, 102 new Italian bishops. Before the unification of Italy the various rulers made the appointments, with the pope doing so only for the Papal States. The 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State had a similar effect for appointing bishops in the territories ruled by France. In the early 20th century papal appointment of Catholic bishops was an almost universal practice except where, in virtue of the Spanish patronato real and the Portuguese padroado, the appointment of Catholic bishops remained in the hands of the civil authorities.

  Thus the 1917 Code of Canon Law was able to finally affirm that, in the Latin Church, the decision rests with the pope. In the course of the 20th century, remaining privileges enjoyed by secular authorities gradually diminished, especially since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), which declared that the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority and requested the civil authorities who still had rights and privileges in this field to renounce them voluntarily. - Appointment of Catholic bishops

As a general rule, since Vatican II, archbishops are always chosen from diocesan bishops of the country in question or ecclesiastical region. I can recall, when Bishop Exner was appointed Archbishop of Vancouver and everyone thought it amazing that I predicted his appoint to this see. The fact was much more simple. I followed the logical conclusion that Rome might make. It is not magic, but simply logic that made the intuition possible.

Bishops are still considered to be married to their diocese that is the Church which is the Bride of Christ mystically speaking. Some rules for bishops point this out:

  Must live in the diocese for most of the year, unless on official business in Rome or when attending a Church Council.

  Has a serious duty to be present at his cathedral during the seasons of Lent and Advent, and on the feasts of Easter, Pentecost, Christmas and Corpus Christi.

  Every five years a bishop must send a report to Rome.

  Bishops must visit Rome to meet with the Pope at least once every five years and visit the tombs of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

  Bishops must regularly visit each part of their diocese.

  Bishops must attend Synods (meetings of Bishops) when they are called. -  The responsibilities and role of a bishop


What does it mean to comment on scripture with scripture? What does it mean to "comment on a verse with a verse" or "only scripture can explain scripture"? I see these kinds of comments popping up in comment threads that discuss the meaning of a verse.

What exactly does this mean, and how is it useful for resolving disputes? Can you cite examples of this where it makes the difference between two different understandings? Are there times when it is not the best or most relevant method? What is the alternative?

This concept is actually quite simple: other Bible verses are very useful in helping us figure out what a certain passage in the Bible means.  Since the Bible is one complete, coherent, interrelated revelation from God, we can use one part of the Bible to help us understand another.  There are several ways to do this:

Context, context, context! So often the chapter or chapters surrounding a passage will give all kinds of obvious clues as to what that passage means if we just read more and think about it.
Use clear passages to show us the meaning of obscure passages
When trying to understand the meaning of a certain (Greek or Hebrew) word, use other usages that use the very same word (or root word) in an obvious way
Use detailed passages to help explain vague passages
Use actual commentary found in the Bible to explain the original meaning.

(Perhaps there is more that I can't recall right now.  Can anyone think of ways I have missed?)

The last item actually can happen more than you think.  For example, Hebrews 11:17-19 is Paul's commentary; we should rely on it in order to properly understand Genesis 22.

We also have to be careful not to take this too far; for example, a certain word could have had a range of meaning even when used by the same author.  Thus we should not always assume that just because two passages use the same word, that word must necessarily mean the same in both.  The same word used elsewhere is a good clue, not proof-positive of meaning.  (Note that the "center column" bible references in nearly all study Bibles are almost always made of key passages that use the identical words).

Two good books that elaborate on this are Sproul's Knowing Scripture and Fee's How To Read the Bible For All It's Worth.


Are there examples of royal Orthodox saints (not martyrs) who have executed people? Are there any examples of saints (not martyrs) recognized by the Orthodox church that have executed or overseen the execution of people?

I am explicitly ruling out martyrdom because I am interested in cases where the church views these men to have attained theosis but have still seen it to be just and appropriate to render the death penalty.

This question was inspired with a discussion amongst Orthodox friends on whether the death penalty is considered permissible in the Orthodox tradition.

I think most Byzantine emperors oversaw at least some executions as a part of their civil duty. It appears that both Justinian and Constantine ordered executions that are controversial to some and both are saints in the Eastern Orthodox church (however Constantine would have ordered these executions before his baptism). Look at the Wiki pages for each and you will see the executions mentioned.

They were also both commanders of armies that carried out large military campaigns.

The important thing to note here is that the Church didn't command, or participate in the executions and that they were carried out as the business of government. Also, neither were clergy in the Church nor are these executions mentioned in their hagiographies. However, some military accomplishments are.


How do young earth creationists reconcile the age of the universe with the speed of light, and visible distant objects? I am not trying to be argumentative, this is an earnest question, as this question got me in huge trouble when I was growing up attending a southern baptist Christian middle school. This question (and people's reactions to it) is actually one of the things that lead my away from the church as a teenager (which I later came back to).

If the speed of light is constant and we can see distant objects (stars,  galaxies, etc) that are millions or billions of light years away how can we account for a young age of the universe?

My father, at that time, was convinced that the speed of light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe. Although, I have never seen any credible evidence of this, and it would seem that measurements taken at CERN (and elsewhere) would be seriously affected if the speed of light was not a constant.
My 8th grade science teacher said it was because objects used to be closer than they are now, and have moved away from each other over time. However, if the universe was only 10k years old, and two objects started next to each other and traveled away from each other at nearly the speed of light, the most distant objects in the universe would still only appear to be a little less then 10k light years away.
God creating the universe with photons in flight, making the distant universe (and therefore past events) only appear to be taking places (or even existing), is certainly deceptive and I cannot accept it.
Do YEC consider the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth two separate questions?

My question isn't 'how old is the universe?', or 'did the big bang happen?', or 'creation vs evolution'. It is simply this: how do Christians, who are YEC, reconcile this?

Edit

Some have asked, why I cannot accept that God created photons in midflight giving the appearance of age?

In the video series @SeanDowney posted below, the presenter speaking against this argument shows a star that is 150k light years away that we observed blowing up. So, if God created photons in midflight then for 8k years God has been showing us a star that never existed and showed us an event (the start being destroyed) that never took place.
This is a specious argument in general, because I can make the same argument that God created the universe 5 minutes ago and all the evidence to the contrary (physical evidence, our memories of the past, etc.) were all put in place to give the appearance of age.

In both these cases, God making the universe appear to be billions of years old, instead of 5 minutes old, or the universe appearing to be billions of years old instead of 10k years, involves deception on the part of God that I cannot accept God (or my conception of him) would perpetrate.

If you accept that God could create the universe out of nothing and create it any way He desired, then the explanation of God creating the universe with photons in flight has to be taken as a possiblity.  I realize you have discounted it as deceptive and therefore unacceptable, but consider the following...

When God created trees, did He create only seeds that grew into trees or did He create full grown trees complete with rings?  I assume that He created full grown trees that had an apparent age greater than their literal age.

Similarly, was Adam created as a baby (or embryo) or was he created as an adult?  Again, I assume that he was created as an adult with an apparent age greater than his literal age.

In those examples, would anyone assume that God was being deceptive?  Probably not because we are not looking at the apparent age of trees or Adam to determine how long ago God created the universe.

As a YEC, I don't look to my surroundings to guide me in how to make sense of the Bible, I look to the Bible to guide me in how to make sense of my surroundings (to include the entire universe).

I don't think God created the universe with the goal of us being able to examine it to determine how long ago He created it.  I believe it is more accurate to assume He created the universe as huge as it is so that we would be impressed and glorify Him.

I have a MSEE degree, I minored in Physics when I got my BSEE.  I know this answer does not present a scientific view.  Science can neither prove nor disprove God's creation of the universe.  If it could, then there would be less need for faith "and without faith it is impossible to please Him..."


Why did Pope Francis tell atheists "just be good"? “Just do good and we’ll find a meeting point,” The Pope

I don't think just being good gets you in heaven. Is the Pope singling out atheists to rethink how to win them over? Is he waiting for the atheists to come to him? I think he should have said 'repent and attend mass'. I could be wrong. I was hoping he would quote scripture. Did he gave up on the atheists? Did he water down Catholics?

What was TIME's Person of the Year 2013 thinking?

The answer to this question has already been answered by an online Catholic news article, discussing this subject with the exact phrase, "just be good", in it. Upon close examination of the news article, the newswriter/blogger/journalist suggests:

  The Holy Father is full of surprises, born of true and faithful
  humility. On Wednesday he declared that all people, not just
  Catholics, are redeemed through Jesus, even atheists.

  However, he did emphasize there was a catch. Those people must still
  do good. In fact, it is in doing good that they are led to the One who
  is the Source of all that is good. In essence he simply restated the
  hope of the Church that all come to know God, through His Son Jesus
  Christ.

Additionally, it is said in the article that fact that atheists are led to Jesus Christ - the source of all good - is recited during Good Friday in the form of a prayer. So, Pope Francis may not really be adding anything new.

  The disciples, Pope Francis explained, "were a little intolerant,"
  closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that "those
  who do not have the truth, cannot do good." "This was wrong... Jesus
  broadens the horizon." Pope Francis said, "The root of this
  possibility of doing good - that we all have - is in creation."

  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that "Since it rejects
  or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of
  religion but the imputability of the offense can be significantly
  diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances"
  (CCC#2125).

So, although the atheist by that definition has sinned against God by denying or rejecting God, he or she may still perform good deeds in the world, and those good deeds will eventually lead him to Jesus Christ, time not specified. I think it's trying to say that good works and good faith come hand in hand. So, if an atheist expresses good works but claims not to have faith in Jesus Christ or God, then somehow the good works will lead him to faith. Therefore, to answer your question, Pope Francis presumably told atheists to "just be good" as a way to evangelize them and call them to Christ.


How do Arminians understand the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement in a way that does not make God unjust? The doctrine of unlimited atonement teaches that Christ died for all mankind, but only paid for the sins of those who believe in Him.  If this is the case then either Jesus already knew who would believe and paid only for their sins (which sounds like limited atonement), or he paid for everyone's sins, but those people who do not believe are still viewed as guilty before God and are still punished. Hence, their sin receives a double payment. This though would seem to make God unjust (which I know He's not.)

Let me give an example why I say this.  Let's say there was a man who got a speeding ticket and stood before the judge.  The judge tells the man that the fine is $200.00 or one week in jail.  The man says he doesn't have the money, but before the man is escorted to his cell, another man comes forward and pays the $200 instead.  The fine is paid.  Now what if the judge, having accepted the $200, still sent the man to jail.  Wouldn't that make the judge unjust and wouldn't it make the person who paid the $200 feel used?  In short it would mean the judge was demanding double payment for the penalty.

Because unlimited atonement is an Arminian teaching, I would like answers from Arminians.

The Wesleyan Arminians recognised the problem implied by your analogy and resolved it by proffering the Governmental Theory of Atonement.

Applying this resolution to your analogy

Christ has 'made' the payment at the cross - and He can't unmake the payment because the cost to Him was real) - but rather than a completed individual transaction on behalf of each sinner (the penal substitution theory of atonement), it is like setting up a massive trust fund which has enough for all but must be applied effectually for each case.

Analogy as an Answer

The individual application is like writing a check against the trust fund for this amount and presenting this to the individual concerned (i.e. preaching the gospel to them).  They can receive or reject this offer.  Furthermore, after receiving, they can still tear up the check or lose it through negligence (again this is according to Wesleyan Arminianism).  They will receive the check, hang on to it and present it when it falls due if they identify as Christ's (i.e. put their trust in Him, confess Him as Lord and continue to walk in obedience to Him).  Actual payment falls due at the judgment where those found outside of Christ have either rejected their checks, lost them or effectively torn them up through their unbelief.


Are scientific findings a test to Christians' Faith? Science suggests that the earth is millions of years old, and many Christians accept this premise. Instead of accepting that God created everything in six days, they accept the finding of scientists based on "scientific evidence".

I am a literal interpretation Christian, and I have strong faith that God created the world in six days, less than ten thousand years ago. I believe that when Christians accept science, they do not trust God's Word as much as they trust Man's word.

Is it fair to make the statement that scientific findings are a test of faith?

I don't think the world was created in such a complex way that there are always new discoveries to be made just to test our faith.  I would say that God can use scientific discoveries to help us test and fortify our own faith.

I think Proverbs 25:2 can be applied here.  I believe scientific discoveries are really just discovering what God has hidden.

Is it really a surprise that God would create the universe with order in a way that it can be discovered?  While the scientists are undeniably intelligent, God is infinitely more intelligent.  I believe as long as we have this universe there will also be something new to discover, either smaller than the smallest or greater than the greatest.  I'm sure God can create the universe to operate beyond our comprehension.

  Proverbs 25:2 NIV
  2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
      to search out a matter is the glory of kings.


What is the basis for Christian disapproval of creation of artificial life? We can now design bacterial genome from scratch, as mentioned in this thread on skeptics.se, and this opens up new and exciting possibilities for solving many problems the humanity is facing today, from efficient generation of drugs and fuels to pollution and world hunger (although the latter might require more advances before a feasible solution can be engineered). Naturally, most secular thinkers hail this as a dawn of new era for humanity with less suffering and more prosperity for everyone.

Religious figures, on the other hand, almost universally condemn this advance. Why? What is the basis on which Christians dislike the idea of artificially created life forms?

I understand that different branches may have different explanations. Since I'm don't know much of the difference between them, it's OK if in your answers you will concentrate on any one of your choice.

There are a couple of issues here to consider; one is the concept of creating a life form artificially, and the other is how it's being done.

Regarding the concept, there may be a wide variety of viewpoints and several arguments that both support and oppose the concept. These include (not an exhaustive list):

Arguments against:

When God created the world, and all living things in it, what he created was perfect. Therefore to add to that perfect creation would be a move away from perfection, and thus wrong.
Creating life is God's job. By taking on this role we are setting ourselves up as gods, which is a direct violation of some of the key directions that God has given us - most famously, "No other gods, only me" from the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3)

Arguments for:

When God created mankind, he gave us all the knowledge and intellect that we have. (The one piece of knowledge he didn't give us, but we took for ourselves, is the knowledge of good and evil). Thus our ability to artificially create simple "life forms" is not inherently a bad thing. You could liken it to developing breeds of cattle or dogs, or cross-fertilizing plants to create new varieties, and argue it's just an extension of that kind of activity.
God gave mankind dominion over all other life on the Earth, and told us to take charge of and be responsible for all living things. Therefore there's nothing immoral about our creating new forms of life from existing forms of life; God has granted us that right (and also told us to use it responsibly).

Speaking personally I know of very few Christians who object to the concept of creating a living thing artificially.

The practice may throw up some other considerations though, especially if the "raw materials" being used come from human embryos. I'm sure you're already aware of most of the arguments about embryo-related research so I won't repeat them here - particularly as the example you cited in the question doesn't go near human embryos, but is inserting a completely synthetic genome into a bacterium. It's worth noting that the critics in that article were "including some religious groups" - there's nothing to suggest that the views those critics expressed represented all, or even a majority, of Christians.

Some further reading that may be of interest:

Christian Apologist Dissects Ethics Behind 'Artificial Life,' Cloning (Christian Post, 2007)
Creating Life in the Lab - a book that specifically addresses the work of Craig Venter. (This link is to a review of that book).
Artificial life: Ready or not, here it comes - a brief article by the author of the above book
Creating artificial life from a Biblical perspective


Christ and the Believer Icon (Companion Icon) origin? I was in Taize and besides finding it to be a rather interesting place, I found a lot of refreshing symbols there. Particularly the (based on Taize page) Christ and the Believer Icon (or the companion icon translated to my language):

I always found it quite inspiring (and I assumed it was an orthodox icon), but I found it rather hard to find documentation about it. Besides some theological and iconographic debates around it that describes it as being Christ with someone that can be any of us, as the name suggests.
Does anyone know the origin/history of this icon? Or any official source for it?

Christ and the Believer Icon (Companion Icon) origin?

Icon of Friendship as it is commonly called goes by a few similar titles.
This is a 6 century Coptic icon from Bawit, Egypt of Christ and Saint Mina. Its’ author is unknown and is one of the oldest known icons in existence. It can be viewed at the Louvre, where it is now on display.


What is the Biblical basis against Melchizedek being the Holy Spirit? A friend of mine is part of a church that teaches that Hebrews 7 indicates that Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit. What are the arguments against this view?

For reference, here is Hebrews 7:15–21 (NIV):

  Jesus Like Melchizedek

  15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like
  Melchizedek appears,
  16 one who has become a priest not on the basis
  of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an
  indestructible life.
  17 For it is declared:

    “You are a priest forever,
        in the order of Melchizedek.”

  18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
  19 (for the law made nothing
  perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to
  God.

  20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any
  oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

    “The Lord has sworn
        and will not change his mind:
        ‘You are a priest forever.’”

It's also written in Hebrew 7:3 (KJV),

  Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

I am a bit confused here. Anbody?

The Book of Hebrews speaks of Melchisedec 9 times (5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1,10,11,15,17,21) and in each case it is to inform us that Jesus is made a priest in the order of Melchisedec. The theology of Hebrews is strange, but no more so than in its portrayal of Jesus as a priest in the order of Melchisedec. The filioque clause that now forms part of the Nicene Creed, states that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and from the Son [Jesus]. I think this clause requires some serious mental gymnastics to read from Hebrews that Melchisedec is the Holy Spirit.

Melchisedec is first mentioned in Genesis 14:18, where he is the King of Salem and priest of the most high God. Again, it is not traditional to think of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, as merely a priest of God. Melchisedec can not be the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 7:3 speaks of Melchisedec in terms that could at first read like divinity: without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God.  The NAB footnote to this passge explains:

  4 ... this is perhaps a quotation from a hymn about Melchizedek. The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek's ancestry, birth, or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he remains . . . forever.


The history of the Confession sacrament Recently I had a small discussion with some of my catholic friends: some of them refuse the idea that the Confession act, as it is known in present day - as  the acknowledgment of one's sins given in the verbal form towards a priest or a bishop with the subsequent remission (forgiveness) of sins - wasn't present at the Apostolic times (i.e. in the early Christian Church).

I personally think, that even if the form of the confession could be different (like public confession of sins), but as the result it was forgiveness given by bishop/priest, i.e. essentially the same sacramental act.

I wondering, are any:

1) Official Catholic doctrine regarding this subject,

2) Any authoritative historian researches about this subject.

This question is indeed very broad. I'm new over here but I would really want to try and give you some thoughts.

To answer briefly : It is essentially the same Sacramental act

I would begin by saying that as you can see in John 20:21-23, it is said:

  Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” [...] If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”`

The Council of Trent (1551) declares that before the coming of Christ, penance was not a sacrament, nor is it since His coming a sacrament for those who are not baptized. The Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, he breathed upon His disciples saying what is cited here-above. See Fourteenth Session - Chapter V of the Council of Trente

The Council then expresses that Christ left priests, etc. that may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness.

What is important is to note that this power does not belong to the laity. This is evident since the Papal Bull of Martin V Inter cunctas (1418).

This is more however like 'how come the Confession Sacrament is now established?' as it is and might be off-topic.

On the methods of doing it: It doesn't seem to have changed much

You should look at some articles on this old manuscript which is called the Didache. Section 14 of the Didache states:

  On every Lord's Day—his special day—come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.

Which seems to say that the first Christians did indeed confess their sins to the first priests, themselves named from the Apostles.

I would be delighted to enhance this answer if it's not precise enough.


How do Protestant Christians understand the “Sabbath-rest for the people of God” in Hebrews chapter 4? So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. (Hebrews 4:9-10)

What are God’s conditions for entering into this Sabbath rest for His people, since God declared that some shall never enter His rest?

So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ (Psalm 95:7-8)

What does it mean for Protestant Christians to enter into the Sabbath rest for God's people as described in Hebrews chapter 4?

What does it mean for Protestant Christians to enter into the Sabbath rest for God's people as described in Hebrews chapter 4?
Since joining mainstream Protestantism in the 1980s (baptised in a British Baptist church), I soon learned from many a sermon that the idea of this ‘Sabbath rest for God’s people’ has a two-fold aspect.
(1) Resting from their own works by trusting utterly in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Christians do good works but not in order to enter into God’s rest; on the contrary, supposing that one must do things in order to be at peace with God results in distress – ceaseless striving to be good enough, as if what Christ had done was insufficient to bring peace with God. Spiritual ‘resting’ in Christ is the present, on-going ‘rest’ in this world where we can be at peace with God, despite all else going on around us. “O rest in the Lord, wait patiently for him... Wait on the Lord and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land.” (Psalm 37:7 & 34)
(2) In the world to come, it will be the joyous rest of being in Heaven and actually in God’s presence, away from the strife, turmoil and often misunderstood business of just trying to live as a Christian in a largely godless world.
The points made in Hebrews 4 must include chapter 3, which is the foundation for the writer’s conclusion in 4:8-11. The example is drawn of the sin of disbelief by Israel at the borders of Canaan, which prevented them entering into God’s rest back then. Believing, acting faith is key to entering in to rest with God. Disbelief and disobedience denies us the rest God would give us. This link is made in this Protestant book (originally published in 1899; my quote is from the 1978 reprint):

“For faithful though he was, Moses was only a servant within God’s
house, while Jesus was a Son over it… the writer first of all
impresses upon his readers the need of this continued faith and
perseverance (c. iii.7-19), and then shows them that there is still a
true Sabbath-rest after which to strive, of which the rest of Canaan
offered to their fathers had given them the promise (c. iv. 1-13).”
The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews by George Milligan (p 62)

A 2011 Protestant book detailing core doctrines for Christian disciples makes the same point:

“Paul’s legalists had misunderstood the true nature of the law: to
lead us to Christ, not to lead us to self-salvation. The demand for
faith does not turn faith into a work. On the contrary, it is a
command to cease our labors and enter God’s rest (Heb. 4:10). We are
commanded to repent not only of our immoral life that we once approved
but of self-trust, which is the greatest sin of all – the chief form
of idolatry.” (p 267) “The Everlasting Sabbath of the New Heavens and
Earth is the heading on p 452. Pilgrim Theology by Michael Horton,
Zondervan

The Sabbath is a day of rest, and the literal 7th day of the week rest of the old testament becomes, for the Christian, the 7-day-a-week rest of peace with God due to the finished work of Christ on the cross. A Christian who rests in faith while being busy working for the Lord knows this non-legalistic constant rest of faith even now, on earth. Then, in the Everlasting Sabbath to come, the words of Revelation 14:12-13 could not be more inspirational:

“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from
heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the
Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from
their labours; and their works do follow them.”

The condition for entering into that Sabbath rest of Hebrews 4:9-10 is active, believing faith.


Who Wrote the 1981 Introduction to The Book of Mormon? I know that the general answer to this question can be found easily. It was added to the Book in 1981, which is when Spencer W Kimball was the president of the Church. So it could probably be said that it was written under his direction - or something like that. However, I'm interested in more information than that. Also, although he did write at least one book I can think of, at that time President Kimball was having health problems which seem to me may have stopped him from doing much more than just approving writing work.

I'm wondering if there's any specific information about who wrote the Introduction, who supervised the writing of it, or anything like that - or if it was just anonymously produced "by The Church".

This blog says that Bruce R McConkie wrote it, but there is no source to back that up

This Oct 1981 Ensign article published about the new edition to the Book of Mormon says:

  As always, inspired direction came from the Scriptures Publication Committee of the Quorum of the Twelve: Elder Thomas S. Monson, chairman, Elder Boyd K. Packer, and Elder Bruce R. McConkie, with Brother W. James Mortimer serving as executive secretary.

So it is possible that Bruce R McConkie wrote it but it could've been someone else or a collaborative effort.

I believe the best you'll find is that it was written 'by The Church'


What does Matthew mean by "if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out", etc.? What does this verse tell us? It's quite hard to understand.

Matthew 18:9:

  “And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It
  is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be
  thrown into the hell of fire.”

Sin is not something we as Christians should fool around with. The same applies to non-Christians as well, for that matter.  Consequently, we need to get tough with sin and tough with ourselves when it comes to nipping it in the bud.

Of course, a man could avoid lusting after a woman by blinding himself in both eyes, but such an extreme measure, interestingly enough, would not cure lust! I suggest that is why Jesus talked about plucking out one eye, not two.

It's pretty clear, to me at any rate, Jesus is using hyperbole, which is a figure of speech which exaggerates deliberately for best effect. If Jesus had said,

  "If you are aware of what is causing you to sin, you need to have a little conversation with yourself in which you rebuke yourself and promise God you'll not sin again,"

His words would not have had the impact as would His words about eye-gouging. He knew that, of course, and He knew His words would cause His listeners to stop and analyze what they'd just heard, and in doing so they would've gotten the message.  In essence, Jesus was saying

  "Get tough on yourself. Make a clean break with sin and with anything that causes you to sin. What you thereby 'lose' for my kingdom's sake will be rewarded richly in the kingdom to come. If you refuse to make a clean break with sin, you may just find yourself in hell one day because of the very thing you refused to give up!"

Very sobering words, indeed, for believers and unbelievers alike. Sinful, earthly pleasures are but for a season, but at God's right hand in heaven, there are joy and pleasure forevermore (Psalm 16:11). In other words, a little pain now will yield eternal rewards. Our rejection of pain now will yield eternal regret in hell. The choice is ours to make.

Allow me to alter Jim Elliot's famous words ever so slightly:

  "He is no fool who gives [up] what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

Jim Elliot, a missionary who sacrificed his life attempting to bring the gospel to a murderous tribe in the Amazon Rain Forest, was speared to death by the very people he came to serve (the Aucas).  He was an eye gouger.


Does God consider nudity a sin? I just want to ask this question because when God created us we were naked (I assume) and probably there's not even a leaf covering our genitals like how children's books portray it. But then when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they got ashamed of being naked. So does our awareness and concern of being nude came from Satan? Or is it even bad at all that we are concerned about being naked? Because the bible mentioned like it was kind of a big deal that we have discovered that we are naked and we got ashamed of it. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, then maybe we should go to church naked to honor the purity of humans, like what God had intended right? But on the opposite we wear our best clothes to church. So this is kinda ironic to me.. Does God consider naked good or bad? Or does it even matter at all?

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (Genesis
  2:25, NIV)

The first couple were, at first, roaming about without any clothes on. It was as natural as wearing clothes. Wearing or not wearing wouldn't have any difference at all. Sex was already introduced, as God already told them to multiply (Gen 1:28) but nudity and its shame was never felt. Something awful happened after they ate the forbidden fruit; they were now afraid to meet God for the first time.

  But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I
  heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I
  hid.” And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten
  from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (Genesis 3:9-11,
  NIV)

Adam had been naked always, but never felt uncomfortable with it. Something made Adam feel uncomfortable with nudity. From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible,

  This also was not the true reason; he was naked from his creation as
  to his body, and it caused no shame in him, nor any dread to appear
  before God; he conceals the true cause, which was sin, that made the
  nakedness of his body shameful, and had stripped his soul of its
  native clothing, purity and holiness; and therefore it was, he could
  not appear before a pure and holy Being:

After paying heed to the Devil's voice, they are now under sin, of whose origin is the Devil. Their souls are now stripped off of holiness, and as a result, imparted with unholiness. Their mind is now sinful, their heart is now sinful. Before the fall, there was no lust in their heart, but now they are overtaken by lustful thoughts, which made them uncomfortable when naked.

Nudity itself is not a sin, we were created naked. Does it mean we should go to church without clothes? If you can stay with a pure mind and worship God without any hindrances, it's totally fine, but that is not easy. We need to cover ourselves modestly, so that our minds should not be distracted by lustful desires.

It is not the nudity which is sin, but it is our lustful eyes which we cannot control, is sin. Sin starts inwardly from the heart, and if not suppressed, manifested through the body and commits sin outwardly.

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But
  I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
  committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28, NIV)


Who can give the sacrament of confirmation in the Catholic Church? Out of curiosity, when someone plans to recieve the Sacrament of Confirmation, do they have to recieve this Sacrament from a bishop or cardinal, or can any ordained minister give this Sacrament?

A bishop has the power to confirm, but this power can be delegated to a priest.

See the Catechism of the Council of Trent's section on Confirmation:

  Minister of Confirmation

  Pastors should also teach to whom especially has been committed the
  administration of this Sacrament; for as, according to the Prophet,
  there are many who run without being sent, it is necessary to teach
  who are its true and legitimate ministers, in order that the faithful
  may be enabled to receive the Sacrament and grace of Confirmation.

  Now the Holy Scriptures show that the Bishop alone is the ordinary
  minister of this Sacrament, because we read in the Acts of the
  Apostles that when Samaria had received the Word of God, Peter and
  John were sent to them, who prayed for them that they might receive
  the Holy Ghost: for he was not as yet come upon any of them, but they
  were only baptised. Here we may see that he who had baptised, having
  been only a deacon, had no power to confirm; but that its
  administration was reserved to a more perfect order of ministers, that
  is, to the Apostles. The same may be observed whenever the Sacred
  Scriptures make mention of this Sacrament.

  Nor are there wanting in proof of this matter the clearest testimonies
  of the holy Fathers and of Popes Urban, Eusebius, Damasus, Innocent
  and Leo, as is evident from their decrees. St. Augustine, also,
  seriously complains of the corrupt practice of the Egyptians and
  Alexandrians, whose priests dared to administer the Sacrament of
  Confirmation.

  The thorough propriety of reserving this function to Bishops the
  pastor may illustrate by the following comparison. As in the
  construction of buildings the artisans, who are inferior agents,
  prepare and dispose cement, lime, timbers and the other material,
  while to the architect belongs the completion of the work; so in like
  manner this Sacrament, which is, at it were, the completion of the
  spiritual edifice, should be performed by no other than the chief
  priest.