What is the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Book of Mormon? The Community of Christ – formerly the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" – is a rather unique branch of Christianity in that it stems from the LDS Church, recognizing the Book of Mormon, but is also Trinitarian in its beliefs.

It seems to follow from this that they must conclude that the Book of Mormon affirms the doctrine of the Trinity and does not teach eternal progression like the LDS church teaches.

My question, then, is what is the Book of Mormon basis in support of the doctrine of the Trinity?

With a fair bit of searching, I could find only one source associating the Community of Christ's belief in the trinity with verses from the Book of Mormon. The verse is 3 Nephi 11:36:

  And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

In order to join the National Council of Churches (NCC), The Community of Christ had to make several concessions, including reducing it's reliance on the Book of Mormon. A 2010 NCC report made the following statement about the Community of Christ's belief in the Book of Mormon:

  Leaders of the COC... affirmed without qualification that the Bible
  is the foundational, authoritative Scripture of the church.  They acknowledged that “the Book of
  Mormon is in our DNA,” and suggested that it confirms God’s revelation in Jesus Christ as testified in
  the Bible.  But it is not, in any sense, equivalent to the Bible in the life of their communion.
  Subscription to its teaching is not required for membership or ordination.  While the Book of Mormon
  is sometimes used in worship, there are parts of the COC that seldom refer to it.

Considering that the Community of Christ has made the Book of Mormon optional, I doubt they feel the need to find support for any of their doctrine in it beyond general support for Christ.


Could there be any possible action proving Yahweh to be cruel? Recently, one of my christian friends died of cancer. My Christian friends told me that Yahweh is very merciful. But if he got well, Yahweh would be merciful, too.

So, HYPOTHETICALLY (see the note): could there be any possible real action proving Yahweh to be cruel? By real I mean not requiring faith in soul, heaven, sin and other christian stuff, clear to non-Christians.

In other words: If Yahweh did X, he would be cruel. - Is there any X from christian perspective (any doctrine)?

Note: I expect many downvotes here, but please help me improve it instead of closing votes: I don't mean this as holy war against Christians, I just want to know any reference to this question. Thank you.

Mercy is when judgment is withheld from those who deserve it.  God is merciful in that He oftentimes does withhold judgment and punishment from those who deserve it.

However, God is not merciful in every situation.  If that were the case, He no one would ever suffer any penalty for anything they ever did.  Hitler and Stalin would be completely without judgment.  This is not the case.

There is a distinction between God being Love and God being loving.  God is love in that love is an attribute of God.  Loving describes His actions.  God is merciful (adjective), but God is not mercy.

Regarding the death of Christians, history is full of Christians who have died young and who have been killed for their faith.  Yet, in the truest sense, God was merciful to them--not in preventing all harm and death from them, but in forgiving them for their sins against God.  Death is the fate of all men, but death is not the end.  Mercy has to do with our sins being forgiven--not in us being freed from all suffering.


When can our prayers change God's mind/will? Is it wrong to pray against the will of God? Firstly I believe that prayer can change God's mind. Like when Moses asked God to not smite the Israelites. But when can our prayers change the will/mind of god?

I believe we have to pray that God's will be done, regardless of whether His will lines up with what we pray for. But like in Moses' case, he prayed against the will of God.

Is this because God made His will known to Moses, that he could pray for God to change his mind? Can we only pray for God to change his will when he shows us what it is, and the rest of the time we have to pray for it to happen?
(Obviously we will sometimes unintentionally pray against God's will, if we do not know what it is, but that's not what I'm talking about).

We can pray to God for anything anytime, but He is allowed to respond.
The fact that we can communicate with a timeless being is itself hard to fathom. Check out this passage about Hezekiah who, upon hearing that the Assyrians would come to destroy him, prays to God. God then decides to act based on Hezekiah's prayer...or does He?

Isaiah 37:14,15,20-23,26 ESV Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it; and Hezekiah went up to the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. And Hezekiah prayed to the Lord: ... "So now, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the Lord.”
Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria, this is the word that the Lord has spoken concerning him: Whom have you mocked and reviled? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes to the heights? Against the Holy One of Israel! ... Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old
what now I bring to pass, that you should make fortified cities crash into heaps of ruins,

Within the same statement God says "because you prayed" and "I determined it long ago." This is how it works when created things within time (us) communicate with a being outside of it (God).
In one sense (form our perspective), our prayers can certainly influence God's decisions in our lives. Jesus knew this and asked God to change His mind:

Luke 22:41-42 ESV And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

But in another sense (from the viewpoint of God) his will has already been predetermined. This is something we simply cannot understand, and that's OK. What we do know is that God has set up the universe in such a way that we can, and should, ask him for things all the time. If what we're asking for is good and not sin then it's fair game.

Matthew 7:7-8 ESV Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.


Is Christianity with reason wrong? Is it wrong to try to reach God with reason instead of faith?

I really believe that logical reasoning is the way to get closer to God but since I was a kid my parents and relatives keep telling me that I can only get closer to God and be saved by my faith and I'm not really a faith person, I'm more a logical person.

I'm afraid I'm taking the wrong road, my mind keeps telling me I'm right thinking with reason but my parents and friends from church keep telling me I'm not going to be saved because of that.

I've started studying Deism and I really like it, not everything, but it makes sense to me.

Is there anyone that can make me understand more about Christianity and logical reasoning?

PS: Am I going through a spiritual war or something like it? I'm really confused and a bit scared about my decisions and thoughts.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Reasoning can take you a long way.  Just look at this community.  Being a part of the StackExchange network, a good percentage of the members (including myself) come from a highly technical, scientific background, and would likely revolt at the thought of rationality being incompatible with Christian faith.

The problem is that reasoning is only a process.  It's a tool, and like any useful tool, it's susceptible to the golden hammer fallacy, particularly when one fails to realize that the reasoning process does not (and provably can not) provide any foundation to start reasoning from.

Reasoning is the process of taking information and drawing useful conclusions from it through the application of rational rules.  As such, it can only ever be as good as the information you start with.  For an illustrative demonstration of the significance of this fact, take a look at late medieval science sometime.  Stuff like phlogiston theory (an explanation of how fire works in the absence of atomic theory and an understanding of oxygen) or retrograde motion (an explanation for peculiarities observed in the orbits of our neighbors in the solar system, based on a geocentric model instead of a heliocentric one.)

The people who studied this stuff did a lot of very interesting experiments, which were valid according to the scientific method, to try to figure out how things really work.  But because they began with incorrect assumptions, they reached bad conclusions.  Reasoning was useless in these cases; what was needed was better data.  (And indeed, when better data became available, scientists were able to reason out more accurate theories pretty quickly, and the old ones became obsolete.)

This is where faith comes in.  God has given us everything we need to have a reason to believe that he exists, but he stops short of providing absolute and universal proof because that would interfere with the development of our faith, and salvation comes only through faith. (The reason why it's only through faith that we can be saved is a matter for another question, and not everyone agrees on the details, but the fact that it's necessary is nearly universally accepted as Christian doctrine AFAIK.)  So your parents and friends are right, to a point.  You can't find God through reason alone.  But when you have achieved a foundation of faith, it's certainly possible to use reason to strengthen your faith, or to figure out how to deal with problems in our lives when no obvious, explicit solution is given in the scriptures.

God has revealed his existence, his plan for us, and the rules that we need to live by in order to find happiness in this life and salvation after this life, through his prophets and apostles.  This information has been recorded in the scriptures, to preserve it for later generations, like us.  If we can exercise our faith enough to accept this, it gives us a solid foundation to start reasoning from when it comes to many important aspects of our lives.  For example, we're told that Paul made a habit of using the scriptures which the Jews had already accepted to reason with them and help them find faith in Christ, (Acts 17: 1-3, see also Acts 18,) and that the resurrected Lord did the same with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. (Luke 24: 13-25)

So no, there's nothing wrong with using reason to increase your faith.  But it cannot establish your faith, and it should not be the only thing you allow to guide you.  There are times when we reach the limits of what we know, and reason becomes useless.  In those cases, it's necessary to simply let God's word serve as a lamp unto our feet, lighting
our path one step at a time, and walk by faith, not by sight.  Having both principles available to you will make you stronger than having to rely on only one or the other, particularly if you can learn when the appropriate time to apply each of them is.


According to Calvinists, is each person "dead in sin" at birth, or only after committing a sin? First I thought that there is no difference between OS (Original Sin) and TD (Total Depravity) in the Calvinist pov.

This is what I first thought : (OS = TD)
Cain/Abel/Seth (and their next generation including us and the future babies) are born spiritually dead.

But today I read this from this link :

  The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins.

Assuming the word "dead" from the sentence above is "spiritually-dead" - it leads me to think that the sentence means :
spiritually-dead is the result of a person's sin, spiritually-dead is not the result of Adam's sin. So, a newly born baby is not spiritually-dead.

The other source says :

  We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners.
  —R.C. Sproul

From the sentence above leads me to think that it means :
a person sin because a newly born baby is a sinner.

So the question is :

A person is spiritually-dead WHEN : A. he/she is born sinner
? or   B. he/she did sin ?

To be honest, this is quite confusing to me.

If I choose A ....
A newly born baby is a sinner. A sinner is a spiritually-dead person. So, a baby is a sinner at the same time a baby is a spiritually-dead person.

But I think this choice negates the sentence in the first quote. Assuming that my interpretation of the word "dead" = "dead spiritually" is correct, I thought the first quote say that a person is spiritually-dead when after he/she did sin ---> This leads to the next conclusion which is : a newly baby born is not spiritually-dead. A newly baby born is not a sinner. Later when a baby become a toddler and do a sin, that's not because before hand this toddler was born a sinner. Choosing A is not "agree" with the first quote.

And from the second quote say that a person did sin because he/she is a sinner. If my interpretation from the second quote is correct which is : a person did sin because he/she was born a sinner. Then this second quote negates the first quote. A person is spiritually-dead NOT because he/she did sin (as the first quote mentioned) but because he/she was born a sinner (as the second quote mentioned). Choosing A is "agree" with the second quote.

On the other hand, if I choose B...
I think this choice is "agree" with the first quote. But this choice is not "agree" with the second quote.

If I "manipulate" it to become something like this :
a person did sin because he/she was born a sinner BUT he/she was NOT born spiritually-dead

Then it raise another question :
How come a sinner is not spiritually-dead ? Isn't it because a person is spiritually-dead that's why he/she did sin ?

Back to my original question.... so...

A person is spiritually-dead WHEN : A. he/she is born sinner
? (second quote)   B. he/she did sin ? (first quote)

Reformed catechisms make it clear that all of Adam's (ordinary) descendants are conceived and born spiritually dead.  First, a translation of Q&A 7 of the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from?
A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise. This fall has so poisoned our nature that we are all conceived and born
in a sinful condition.

And the less readable but more thorough Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q&A 16 and 18:

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.
Q. 18 Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

That is, everyone is born into this sinful condition as a result of Adam's sin, and that sinful condition entails corruption of the "whole nature" as well as all the actual sins that are committed as a result.
Thus the phrase "dead in our sins" (cf. Eph 2:5) shouldn't be understood restrictively.  The unsaved are indeed dead in their sins, but they aren't spiritually dead exclusively because of their own sins – their spiritual deadness is rooted in Adam's sin.


If jealousy is sin, how can God be jealous? Exodus 20:4–5 reads:

  for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for
  the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who
  hate me

But jealousy is sin, as explicitly stated in the NT:

Galatians 5:19–20

  The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and
  debauchery;  idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits
  of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions

and in the OT:

1 Samuel 18

Plus, the Pope says:

  Cosa brutta è l’invidia! E’ un atteggiamento, è un peccato brutto. E
  nel cuore la gelosia o l’invidia crescono come cattiva erba [...] (source)

which means approximately:

  What an ugly thing envy is! It's an attitude, it's a horrible sin. And inside the heart jealousy and envy grow like a weed [...]

Saint Augustine says:

  The highest good, than which there is no higher, is God.

So how can God be jealous?

"Jealousy" in colloquial English, means either (1) indignation in response to infidelity, or (2) covetousness of the belongings of others. We can immediately eliminate the second case, because God cannot be covetous; everything is his.

(Psalm 50:12) “If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is Mine, and all it contains."

This jealousy that is attributed to God must be of the first kind then. Consider the following passages,

(Proverbs 6:34 NASB), For jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.
(Deuteronomy 4:23-24 NASB)  So watch yourselves, that you do not forget the covenant of the Lord your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a graven image in the form of anything against which the Lord your God has commanded you. For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
(Zechariah 8:2) “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I am exceedingly jealous for Zion, yes, with great wrath I am jealous for her.’

The first passage demonstrates a man's jealousy, which is an act of the flesh that leads to fury and revenge. The second and third demonstrate God's jealousy. It appears that both God and men have the ability to become jealous. So, what is special about God's jealousy?
Notice immediately that God's jealousy is uniquely for his chosen people. Consider the context of the passage you quoted,

(Exodus 20:4-6 NIV) “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Notice that both this passage and the previous passage from Deuteronomy discuss the worship of false gods. God has commanded the Isrealites to worship no other gods but him, and they have made a covenant with him that he would be their God, and they would be his people. The people of Israel, however, are unfaithful to God and undertake worship of other gods. Throughout the prophets, God uses the symbol of marital infidelity to discipline Israel for her tendency to worship idols and the gods of other nations.

(Jeremiah 3:20) But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you, Israel, have been unfaithful to me," declares the LORD.

So, while covetousness or envy is an unrighteous desire to obtain what belongs to another, the jealousy that is referred to in Exodus 20:4-5 is indignation on God's part in response to unrighteous infidelity on the part of God's covenanted people. Israel willfully entered into a covenant with God as a wife willfully enters into a covenant with her husband. God is not desiring something that is not his, but instead he is angry and distressed by Israel's unfaithfulness to him. The nation of Israel belongs to God because he created it,

(Isaiah 43:1 NASB) But now, thus says the Lord, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine!

And because- more importantly for this question- they covenanted themselves with him.

(Exodus 19:5-6 NASB) Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’

Let us then consider the passage from Galatians,

(Galatians 5:19-20 NASB) Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,

In this passage, Paul lists "jealousy" among the unrighteous deeds of the flesh. But Paul also says of God, in the context of consuming wine sacrificed to false gods, that is, to demons,

(1 Corinthians 10:21-22 NASB) You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?

Notice that in this context Paul, who also wrote the passage in Galatians, warns that associating ourselves with idol worship provokes God to jealousy- the very same thing that the prophets had been saying.
It is important to consider that in many instances, God's actions are justified, even when the same actions taken by men would be considered unrighteous. God is Sovereign of Sovereigns, and so he is not subject to the commandments he has given us to follow. When a mother tells her son not to touch the matches, is it then wrong for her to light the stove to cook him a meal? Of course not, but she uses the matches to light the stove because she loves him and in her love provides a meal for him. Paul includes jealousy in his list of fleshly deeds, but we know well that God is greater than us, that he does not suffer from the same tendencies to act according to the flesh, and the expression of God's jealousy is righteous and justified. If it were not so, he would not say "I am a jealous God."


What is the difference between lust and sexual desire? How can two people possibly have a sexual relationship without each objectifying the other to some degree, which is lust? I was taught that lust is "excessive or unrestrained sexual desire" — assuming that I also truly love her, how much can I desire my wife before I am sinning?

I would prefer an answer that reflects the Mennonite position.

The bible only discusses lust in the context of adultery, see:

Matthew 5:27-28 KJV

  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
  commit adultery:

  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after
  her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

and

Proverbs 5:20

  Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man's wife? Why embrace the
  bosom of a wayward woman?

However, the bible does mention how you should love your wife:

Ephesians 5:25

  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and
  gave Himself for her,

Ephesians 5:28-33

  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
  loveth his wife loveth himself.

  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
  cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
  be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the
  church.

  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife
  even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

There are no better examples in the bible of sexual desire that Song of Solomon.

Song of Solomon 4:7

  You are altogether beautiful, my love;
      there is no flaw in you

and also:

Song of Solomon 7:1-8

  How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful
  legs are like jewels, the work of an artist’s hands. Your navel is a
  rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of
  wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin
  fawns of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are
  the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the
  tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus. Your head crowns you like
  Mount Carmel. Your hair is like royal tapestry; the king is held
  captive by its tresses. How beautiful you are and how pleasing, my
  love, with your delights! Your stature is like that of the palm, and
  your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm
  tree; I will take hold of its fruit.” May your breasts be like
  clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like
  apples,

note: if a pastor would teach from Song of Solomon, I'm sure he wouldn't have people falling asleep in the pews

Finally, we should look at:
Matthew 19:5 KJV

  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
  shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

So then, we can see from the bible, how to treat our wives.  I do not know of any biblical example where having too much lust and / or sexual desire for a man's own wife is a sin.  Maybe there is a specific denominational teaching - Quakers being one that comes to mind.  Any further information that I can give you would border on pastoral advice.


What is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and what power do they have? Does the Magisterium of the Catholic Church hold equal power with the Pope in decision and statement making? Are they the Catholic Church's 'think-tank'? Do they advise the Pope on matters spiritual, or does the Pope advise them? Why don't we ever hear about them ie.' The Magisterium are working on the Latin Vulgate today and came upon what appears to be some insightful new revelation'.

Can the Pope make decisions against what the Magisterium says, or do they all have to be in agreement for any statement to be made, in public, or a binding statement from 'the chair'.

What is Magisterium
Magiterium is the Teaching Authority.

  CCC 93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained
  by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred
  teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once
  for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to
  this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies
  it more fully in daily life."

Who is "the Magisterium"?
The Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops with Him.

  CCC 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God
  authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the
  Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Please see also Catechism of the Church CCC 85-87 The Magisterium of the Church.

From this and the references, you will get answers and clarification to your post.


How is spiritual progress described in eastern monastic traditions? Catholic church has a long monastic history, and there are excellent exponents of spiritual progress whose concepts are used even today. Take Theresa of Avila's "interior castle" or Juan de la Cruz' "dark night of the soul" which describe specific and well defined spiritual stages in which a person may live. Another example may be Therese de Lisieux' "little way".

I've read excepts from some spiritual books of the east like "The ladder of divine ascent" or "Philokalia", but I found them excessively cryptic and hard to understand. I'm actually asking about any spiritual concept or rule of spiritual progress that comes from orthodox churches that is still used today; of course I'm also interested in the explanation of such concepts and if possible to know the author and source.

I appreciate your help in understanding the eastern monastic spirituality.

UPDATE: After researching, I've figured out the deepness of eastern spirituality. I would like to limit my question to the explanation of Hesychasm (whose practices I don't understand) and Imiaslavie practices.

Hesychasm, one of the monastic traditions this question is about, is still practiced on the Greek peninsula, Mount Athos.  For over a thousand years, monks have practiced the discipline of continual prayer and worship, which goes back at least as far as the 4th century Desert Fathers.  And of course, the concept of praying continually goes back at least to Paul:

  Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.—1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (NIV)

The idea of going to a private place to pray (becoming a hermit in extreme practice), goes back to Jesus himself:

  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.—Matthew 6:6 (NIV)

From the outside, there does not seem to be too many differences between Western and Eastern Monasticism.  But since the Great Schism (and obviously even before), the two great branches of Christendom have diverged in doctrine and praxis.  To take a small instance, opponents of Hesychists accused them of practicing Omphaloskepsis (literally "navel gazing") because of one of their prayer postures.

More seriously, Eastern traditions place a greater emphasis on icons than Western traditions.  (Some Protestants go as far as to abolish all images in their places of worship.)  Due in part to Saint Basil the Great, the Eastern Orthodox traditions place much greater importance on images to help focus worship and prayer.  Perhaps the greatest treasure of Mt. Athos is their extensive collection of Byzantine painting.

On the other hand, Mt. Athos was not the center of scholarship that many Western monastic centers were (and are).  Gregory Palamas famously defended Hesychasm against the scholastic Barlaam of Seminara.  By this point, Eastern Monastics had largely rejected secular teaching as unprofitable for drawing closer to God.  In later years, the Eastern monastic tradition has grown more separate from the secular world, while Western monastics have maintained contact.  As an example, females (both human and animal!) have been forbidden to travel to Mt. Athos.

Even so, Hesychasm continues to have a large influence in Eastern Orthodoxy.  Devout believers still travel to Mt. Athos to observe and be a part of the continual prayers and worship going on day and night in the various monasteries.  It is held that these men have a holy connection to God and stand on the spiritual front-lines against evil.  Novices take on vows to remain on the peninsula for the rest of their lives in order to draw closer to God.

Sources for this answer include Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World by Colin Wells and an episode of 60 Minutes.  Wikipedia has good articles on specific people and belief systems, which greatly helped me recall details.  Not directly part of the answer, but fascinating to me, is an article in Vanity Fair by Michael Lewis on the monks' role in the Greek financial crisis.


What is the source of the tradition that animals can speak on Christmas Eve? If one Googles animals talking on Christmas Eve a wide number of hits will mention this practice.

I get the connection to the animals in the manager, but I'm trying to ascertain the origin of this Christmas legend.

Who practiced it first and when?

How widespread is it?

And, at what time does it work?

Further research found this page with interesting highlights:

This is primarily a Northern European/Scandanavian myth, based in the Christmas story

This is a syncretic pagan tradition that melded with the Christmas story

I imagine that the talking animals business is somehow connected to the general "world turned upside down" idea of traditional winter solstice festivals, e.g. Twelfth Night:
In medieval and Tudor England, the Twelfth Night marked the end of a winter festival that started on All Hallows Eve — now more commonly known as Halloween. The Lord of Misrule symbolizes the world turning upside down. On this day the King and all those who were high would become the peasants and vice versa. At the beginning of the Twelfth Night festival, a cake that contained a bean was eaten. The person who found the bean would rule the feast. Midnight signaled the end of his rule and the world would return to normal. The common theme was that the normal order of things was reversed. This Lord of Misrule tradition dates back to pre-Christian European festivals such as the Celtic festival of Samhain and the Ancient Roman festival of Saturnalia.

True to the "magnificat" animals get the upper hand, and humans often do not like what they hear. It is often used as a lesson to be kind to those lesser than themselves.

It apparently works from sunset until midnight, although some variations put it at once every hundred years.


How can incorrect information on a Catholic baptismal record be corrected? My mother was baptised Catholic in 1923 but the baptismal record has a few mistakes on it not least the mother's name.

Is it possible to have a baptismal record corrected and what forms of proof do I need to do so?

How can incorrect information on a Catholic baptismal record be corrected?

Start by going to the parish priest of the church in which the baptism actually occurred and explain it to the pastor in charge. This should be done in person and not over any sort of social media. Please phone in advance to make an appointment and to make sure the pastor not on holidays or way on business or studies. If you are know to the priest(s) of this parish church, there should not be too much difficulty in getting the records set straight. Make sure that you have all the pertinent information needed when you see him, such as official government issued IDs, the original baptismal certificate (if possible) and the appropriate birth certificates and or marriage certificates (if required because of a name change).

If this fails, then approach your local chancery office on how to proceed. If the baptism occurred at the cathedral (as in my case) you will need to start directly at the chancery office of the diocese. In this case the Rector of the Cathedral would be able to assist you in making any corrections necessary on the baptismal records.


How do Trinitarians respond to the objection that God cannot be a man based on Hosea 11:9? Hosea 11:9 (ESV):

I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.

Recently someone brought this up to argue against the doctrine of the incarnation and the divinity of Jesus. How do Trinitarians respond?

Related: Trinitarian Christianity and Numbers 23:19 - Was Jesus a man?

Hosea 11:9 says "I am God and not a man."  But it says neither  "I am God and cannot become a man" nor "I am God and cannot be a man", which the OP has put in the title of the question.


Looking for an apologetic to the "Cosmic Child Abuse" objection Recently during a discussion I got smacked with the "Cosmic Child Abuse" argument. I had heard of it before, but never really had to wrestle with it in real life. I discovered that I don't actually have a satisfactory answer.

The situation: Assume Universal salvation for the sake of argument. So God loves everyone, is able to save everyone, is willing to save everyone, and will in actual fact save everyone. That's all well and good, but in order to save everyone, the father sent his son to be tortured on a cross and also (for the sake of argument) descend into the deepest depths of Hell and endure further ineffable tortures there too.

The problem: Doesn't this compromise both God's love and his justice? How was it loving for God to torture his own son? How was it just/fair for Jesus to take the punishment that we deserve?

Scope: I would be happy to hear apologetics from any tradition, seeing as this is a problem which plagues almost all if not all Christian traditions.

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God means that He is fully God made manifest in human form (John 1:14). Jesus is simultaneously both fully God and fully man. As such, Jesus being crucified wasn't God sending someone else to be pusnished, but instead God taking the punishment Himself.

This, therefore, does not compromise God's love and justice, but instead is examplary of it. It is loving because God has saved us from punishment, and it is just because "as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnessg leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18-21)


Were the 12 disciples Jewish? As was brought up in another question; in so using Matthew 10:1-4, which lists the names of the 12. A response from a contributor stated the unavailability of proof in the Scripture to show that any or all(my own addition to shorten) were truely Jewish or Israelites.
The belief I have found, which comes from Jesus's mouth in Matthew 28:19, "make disciples of all nations", leads me to my point. The missing facts that could tell us if the 12 disciples were Jews is irrelevant. It does not matter, that is why it is not found in the Scriptures. We do not need to know, and Jesus already said that He wanted disciples of all nations. Had the information been available stating all to be Jews, then we may find ourselves arguing, as I know I do about things anyway, except this time with Jesus's command, on whether or not a disciple should or should not be either Jewish or of Israelite lineage, or of all nations.

Tradition holds that all 12 were Jewish, but the Bible affirms the Jewish heritage of many of them. Their names are:

Thomas, Simon the Zealot, Philip, Simon Peter, Matthias, Matthew (aka Levi), Jude, Judas Iscariot, John, James (Son of Alpheus), James (Son of Zebedee), Bartholomew (aka Nathaniel), and Andrew.

Nathaniel. Jesus labeled Nathaniel (also called Bartholomew) as Jewish. When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” (John 1:47)
Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were a fanatical Jewish sect, so his title confirms that he was Jewish.
Matthew. Since Matthew was also called Levi, one of the tribes of Israel, this is evidence that he was Jewish.
Jude and James, son of Alphaeus. The name Jude comes from Judah, the same tribe that King David came from. James was Jude's brother.
Judas Iscariot. Judas also comes from Judah.
Philip, Andrew, Peter. John 1:44 says, "Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida." Bethsaida was on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. In those days, its residents would have mostly been Jewish. Also, when Peter went to the Temple in Jerusalem, the authorities never punished him for desecrating the Temple for being a non-Jew, but for other reasons.
John and James. They were brothers: Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. (Matthew 4:21) Since John had the same name as Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, we know that it was a common Jewish name. Also, In Mark 1, they accompany Jesus into a synagogue. They would not likely have been welcome there if they were not Jewish.
As a group. In Acts 1:6, the disciples asked this:

  Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this
  time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

That proves that they still had a Jewish mindset, and were focused on their nation, the nation of Israel, not the world. Jesus responds with this:

  7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the
  Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when
  the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in
  Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
  earth.”


Are there any Trinitarian Protestant denominations that deny the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father? Are there any Trinitarian Protestant denominations that deny the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father?  By "denomination" in this context I am excluding any sects, Unitarians, or Oneness groups.

"Eternal generation of the Son" excludes any form of Arianism based on this usage, and is the historical view expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. As I am anticipating the answer "no," an example of a good answer would be, "This group is an example and their position is this."

The Churches of Christ appear to not espouse the doctrine of eternal Sonship;
however neither do the deny Christ's eternity or His divinity.

See "Eternal Sonship" on this Church of Christ's web page, and their about page identifying them as Church of Christ.

See "Jesus the Son of God Eternally?" Bullet "2. The Denial of Eternal Sonship" in a magazine published by Church of Christ, and their about page identifying them as Church of Christ

Adam Clark, a Methodist theologian, not representing the beliefs of His denomination, did not espouse the doctrine of eternal Sonship.

John MacArthur for a long time did not espouse the doctrine of eternal Sonship, but recanted his stance.

I found some others listed who do not espouse the doctrine of eternal Sonship.


What is an overview of arguments given by churches that allow women to plait their hair to support that practice? (1 Peter 3:1-6) Consider this passage from 1 Peter 3,

1 Peter 3:1-6 KJV Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Assuming that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, what is an overview of arguments that are given by pastors or congregations who allow female attendees to wear their hair in plaits?

3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,

This is one of the most misunderstood lines in the Bible, which in its first glance is a clear expression of misogyny. It isn't. This is to actually teach the women to be creative in their ways to pitch to their husbands the beauty of Jesus' word. Society during Biblical times are truthfully, so limiting to women that any overt attempt for women to Christianize their husband would be seen as emasculating. The women, thus, need to be subtle.

2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

Simply, actions speak louder than words. A naggy woman preaching the Word of God is more off-putting than a quiet woman showing a Christian lifestyle, don't you think?

3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.

This is actually feministic, as it says that women, who tend to be insecure about their looks more than men, have to stop validating their appeal from society's unrealistic expectations of beauty, especially men's sexual desires.

4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.

Again, subtlety and integrity of character as a measure of beauty.

5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands,
6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

That again, being lower than a man in the food chain may be an oppressive condition, but it can be used as leverage, especially in showing that the Christian way of life is superior to any other lifestyle.
A smart eagle does not show her claws.


How do Catholics explain Jesus' words to the thief on the cross, in light of the doctrine of Purgatory? In Luke 23, there is a brief conversation between Jesus and one of the thieves crucified beside him:

42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
43Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

This seems to be a promise to the thief of salvation, of eternal life, and that this promise will be fulfilled imminently; not after a long period in Purgatory.
How do Catholics interpret and explain this?

Pope Benedict XVI addressed this in a General Audience on 15 February 2012:

The second word spoken by Jesus on the Cross recorded by St Luke is a word of hope, it is his answer to the prayer of one of the two men crucified with him. The good thief comes to his senses before Jesus and repents, he realizes he is facing the Son of God who makes the very Face of God visible, and begs him; “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power” (v. 42). The Lord’s answer to this prayer goes far beyond the request: in fact he says: “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (v. 43). Jesus knows that he is entering into direct communion with the Father and reopening to man the way to God’s paradise. Thus, with this response, he gives the firm hope that God’s goodness can also touch us, even at the very last moment of life, and that sincere prayer, even after a wrong life, encounters the open arms of the good Father who awaits the return of his son.
Dear brothers and sisters, the words of Jesus on the Cross at the last moments of his earthly life offer us demanding instructions for our prayers, but they also open us to serene trust and firm hope. Jesus, who asks the Father to forgive those who are crucifying him, invites us to take the difficult step of also praying for those who wrong us, who have injured us, ever able to forgive, so that God’s light may illuminate their hearts; and he invites us to live in our prayers the same attitude of mercy and love with which God treats us; “forgive us our trespasses and forgive those who trespass against us”, we say every day in the Lord’s prayer.
At the same time, Jesus, who at the supreme moment of death entrusts himself totally to the hands of God the Father, communicates to us the certainty that, however harsh the trial, however difficult the problems, however acute the suffering may be, we shall never fall from God’s hands, those hands that created us, that sustain us and that accompany us on our way through life, because they are guided by an infinite and faithful love.

Note that there is no mention of Today. Eternity is outside time: while the thief was indeed to die "today", he then entered eternity, which cannot be measured in earthly time.
It is entirely possible that the repentant thief went through Purgatory, but any time spent there cannot be measured.
However, the Catechism has more to say:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

Given that Christ himself imparted his grace and friendship to the penitent thief, who are we to say that he was not perfectly purified by those words? It is entirely possible that he did not experience Purgatory at all, and that Christ's today did actually mean today.
One difficulty with timings in earthly time is that Christ descended to the dead before his Resurrection, and then spent six weeks on earth before ascending to his Father. This gives weight to his Today pointing to an Eternity outside earthly time: from an earthly point of view, it certainly wasn't today.
The end result? We don't know. We can be certain of Benedict's interpretation that we have "the firm hope that God’s goodness can also touch us, even at the very last moment of life, and that sincere prayer, even after a wrong life, encounters the open arms of the good Father who awaits the return of his son."


Why the wrongness of "Our Father" translation wasn't spotted earlier? Pope Francis thinks the church should tweak the translation of the “Our Father” to clear up the confusion around the phrase “lead us not into temptation.”

We all know God doesn't lead us into temptation. James 1:13

  When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot
  be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;

My question is why the Catholic Church didn't notice this error much earlier and kept encouraging wrong translation which resulted in a wrong request to God for 2000 years. Did any of the saints ever notice this error? Many were mystics and never sensed that it is a wrong translation?

How is the Holy Spirit's influence embedded in Church's infallibility if such an obvious error was missed? Is this a matter of faith? To believe wrongly that God lead us into temptation? I understand that today's pope noticed but why is it so late if the church should be our protector in what we believe?

The Our Father has not been wrongly translated.

It is Catholic dogma of the highest degree (de fide) that there are no errors in Holy Scripture, and the 4th Session of the Council of Trent defined the dogma that St. Jerome's Vulgate translation—which says in both Mt. 6:13 and Lk. 11:4: "et ne nos inducas in tentationem" ("lead us not into temptation")—is "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals," as Pope Pius XII later summarized Trent's dogma.

Read St. Thomas Aquinas's Expositio in orationem dominicam a. 6 for an explanation of "and lead us not into temptation," specifically:

  But does God lead one to evil, that he should pray: "Lead us not into temptation"? I reply that God is said to lead a person into evil by permitting him to the extent that, because of his many sins, He withdraws His grace from man, and as a result of this withdrawal man does fall into sin.


Are there any Catholic Audiobook sharing websites like Librivox? Are there any Catholic audiobook websites like librivox, where christian volunteers from all over the world can read a catholic book, and upload the audiobook to share with all other christians?

"LibriVox volunteers read and record chapters of books in the public domain, and make them available for free on the Internet... All recordings... and are also donated into the public domain.

We record books in all languages.

You do not need any prior experience to volunteer for LibriVox, nor do you need to audition or send us samples. All you need is your voice, some free software, your computer, and maybe an inexpensive microphone."

Yes, CatholicAudioBooks is one such site.


What is theistic evolution? Theistic evolution sounds similar to Old Earth Creationism. Both ideas start with the premise that God created. After this, I've heard tale of wars fought between the two camps. What is the gist of the differences between these two ideas?

Theistic evolution (TE) is the belief that we should look to the Bible to learn about God, and rely on scientists to inform us about science. As someone once put it, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go. Science can give us the age of rocks; the Bible can give us the Rock of Ages."

This view holds that there is no conflict between faith and science regardless of the conclusions the scientists reach. This viewpoint has been labeled "theistic evolution" because about 98% or 99% of all scientists in the life science fields accept evolution as the best theory to explain the variety of life forms found on our planet.

TE differs from old earth creationism (OEC) in that OEC generally accepts modern geology and cosmology but not evolution.

TE differs from intelligent design (ID) in that ID proponents hold that science can uncover ways in which God is active in the creation process; TE proponents hold that God has been active, but can accept the "how" of God's involvement as a mystery.


What are some good resources that explain the rational reasons behind the faith for a questioning Atheist? I have been contemplating the existence of a god for years now, and have settled upon the idea as a remedy to the absurd. I would like to believe in God, but my mind is so apt to lean on reason that committing to the belief is difficult. So is there any sort of "jumping off" point where I can finally start to realize my faith?

P.S.: I do not mean the word 'absurd' in any sort of offensive context. I mean it solely in reference to the writings of Camus and Kierkegaard, where the absurd is a word describing the impeccable improbability and zaniness of human existence.

Technically this is off topic and your absolute best course of action is to talk with pastors, priests etc... But your query is so obviously crying out for one witness in particular that I want to break the "rules" of this site and give you an answer.  I do not wish to speak to your personal circumstance - you really need a person for that, but there is one answer that I suspect you'll hear a lot if you ask.

Fifty years ago today (November 22, 1963), C.S. Lewis died. If there ever was a man "convinced by reason" into the Kingdom of God, it was he. Lewis was an Atheist Oxford don whose rationality and logic convinced him of the existence of God.

His semi-autobiography "Surprised By Joy" will probably seem very familiar to you.
"Mere Christianity" is a classic if densely packed work of systematic theology see below that also seeks to present the reasons for the basics of the faith in a clear, rational fashion.
"The Weight of Glory" is a brief sermon in which Lewis talks about the real reason for the faith - JOY, and not just mere pleasure.  He argues that faith in God enables a man to see more clearly what man was created for, if man is willing to trust in God.
"The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe" is a children's book, in which an allegory in which the sacrifice of Christ and its role in salvation is pretty explicit.
"The Abolition of Man" is a brief invective against an educational system that seeks to remove virtue from its aims. "Men without chests" is a phrase he uses to decry the condition.
The "Screwtape Letters" further explores how Christians can avoid the truth of the love of God in extraordinarily clever writing.
The "Great Divorce" highlights how the choices we make have logical consequences in the afterlife. It has changed my life.

Finally, if C.S. Lewis isn't your cup of tea, consider Lee Stroebel's "The Case for Faith".

If you are an academic looking for the meatiest of systematic theologies and something older, consider Calvin's The Institutes of Christian Religion.  Any good systematic theology - J.I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Francis of Assisi, Karl Barth, Alistar McGrath, Louis Berkhof, etc... - these are all books that attempt to systematize and explain the reasons behind the articles of dogma many Christians take for granted.  While rarely a starting point to convince someone of the faith, they are really good for explaining it.

Finally, for most people, reading the Bible (John is usually a good book to start) and talking to other Christians and or trying out several churches is usually the best way to go. I have a particular passion for the intellectual who is seeking with rationality and faith so I get your reluctance to start with the followers and I wish you well on this journey.


Can people who don’t believe, yet don’t not believe in Jesus Christ, still make it into heaven if they’re a good person? My boyfriend and I have gotten into many discussions. He’s mentioned “I don’t get it. I don’t not believe it him, but I can’t say I’m a whole hearted believer. Who’s to say I won’t go to heaven if it’s real? I’m a good person. Why do murderers who find Jesus only because they are imprisoned get to go to heaven, yet I’m sent to hell for simply not being 100% sure?”. He’s also mentioned “what if my perfect world is different from yours? Is heaven one solid thing, or will I have a perfect after life and you’ll have a different but still perfect heaven?”. He’s raised many questions and I think they’re good topics to talk about, since I have no clue.

I'm going to ignore the very wishy-washy "don't not believe" bit for a moment to just address "Can people who don’t believe [...] still make it into heaven if they’re a good person?". And the answer to that is:
No
No one is a "good person". No one (Romans 3:10-12). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). You will not gain Heaven through works: "no one comes to the Father except through [Jesus]" (John 14:6).
I realize there are probably some folks that consider themselves Christian out there that will disagree, but IMO, the Bible is pretty clear on this subject. We are saved by grace alone.
All have sinned. All are born sinful, and are incapable of saving themselves... and yet, Christ died for all sin, no matter how heinous, and this is a free gift.
If you stop and think about it, this is also an excellent logical argument for Christianity being true. Christianity is, as far as I know, the only religion in which you can do absolutely nothing to "earn" salvation, and in which salvation has already been earned for you, and by God himself! This is contrary to Man's logic, which is why in every religion created by Man, one must do something to be saved. That makes sense to us, but "the word of the cross is folly to [unbelievers]" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I might also add that those who believe in Sola Gratia consider it fundamental to Christian doctrine. Why? If you think about it, to deny Sola Gratia is to deny Christ. In order to say that "being good" is necessary for salvation, you must say either that Christ's death was insufficient, which is to lessen God, or worse, unnecessary. The theme of the entire scripture is that Christ, both true Man and true God, came not merely to be a good example, but to bring Salvation. If, therefore, you deny that Christ's death was necessary, you might want to seriously consider why you call yourself Christian. If you deny that it was sufficient, you call Him a liar, because on the cross he tells us "it is finished" (John 19:30; another possible translation is "it is accomplished"). Not "I've done my part, now it's up to you". Christ Himself tells us clearly that his death is sufficient.
Moreover, why in Heaven would you want to believe in anything else? If you believe you must do something to "earn" Salvation, how can you ever know that you have done so? What a horrifying thought! Thanks be to God that we need do no such thing!

To more directly address some of the points you raise:

I’m a good person.

You are not a good person. (I'm not a good person. Your pastor is not a good person. No one is a good person.) You are a sinner in need of Christ's forgiveness, and thanks be to God that he forgives you!

I don’t not believe it him, but I can’t say I’m a whole-hearted believer.
I’m sent to hell for simply not being 100% sure?

Be careful here, because this may be verging into works righteousness... and thank God for that! If salvation were dependent on our having absolute faith, I'm pretty sure we'd all be doomed. "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24)
I guess this is what you mean by "don't not believe". Your boyfriend might be more Christian than he realizes. How does one not obtain Grace? Well, one can obviously not know it is available (here we could get sidetracked into a whole other debate of the eternal fate of those that never heard of Christ), or one can reject the gift. Feeling uncertain is natural; I believe there are very few, if an, Christians who have not felt doubt on at least some occasions. For most, it is a constant struggle, but take comfort knowing that salvation is a gift that does not depend on anything you can do. On your own, you cannot even accept this gift, but it is the Spirit working through you which calls us to faith. Therefore, do not despair, neither let your heart be troubled, when the adversary and your own fallen nature causes you to doubt. Instead, I would commend you and your boyfriend to remain in the Church and in the Word. Surround yourselves with others that you may know God's love and know that you are not alone in your struggles.

You also had some interesting thoughts on the nature of heaven that aren't really on topic. I would encourage you to ask a separate question!


Effectiveness of prayers of intercession I understand that there are many different reasons to pray: confessing your sins, thanking God for daily provisions.

However, many people pray for intercession and believe in the possibility that God will intervene on their behalf. There are also examples of this in the Bible.

Is there any evidence to suggest that God intervenes on our behalf (in the modern world). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but are there any studies demonstrating proof of the effectiveness of intercessory prayer?

If God intervenes on our behalf surely this can easily be proved, reproducible, and should be statistically greater than chance.

If there is no evidence to suggest this type of prayer is effective, is there any purpose for praying for intercession?

The best analysis/meta-analysis I know of regarding intercessory prayer has been conducted by the Templeton Institute, with a negative result.  Thus, there is presently no statistical support for the belief that prayer will be answered in an obvious or measurable way.

However, praying for intercession need not necessarily be done because you think God will listen to your individual plea and change outcomes accordingly.  It could also be done because you have hopes for how things will turn out and want to express those hopes in a meaningful way.


Did Pontius Pilate follow God's Plan? I am confused. Since I know salvation must be attained through the sacrifice of God's only son, Jesus Christ, what were the consequences of the actions taken by Pontius Pilate, for Pilate himself. Did the actions he took leading to the crucifixion of Jesus lead him to heaven or not?

Are there any major, recognized commentaries about this,and if so, what do they say?

It's important to remember that just a few days earlier, Jesus had warned his disciples:

  Matthew 18: 7:

  Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Yes, having Jesus be betrayed and killed was part of the plan, but that does not mean that the specific persons who played a part in bringing it about were not guilty of some very serious sins anyway.


Was Peter poor and uneducated before he met Jesus? Peter is sometimes depicted as a poor uneducated fisherman before he met Jesus (I am referring to quite a few homilies I have heard in different churches). Do we know what languages he spoke? Did he know the scriptures well? What his social status was likely to be?

Was Peter poor and uneducated before he met Jesus?
Historical facts seem to be lacking in order to make a reasonable conclusion whether St. Peter was in fact poor or not and how well educated he was.
Nevertheless there are a few glimmers of historical and biblical statements that may shed some light on this subject.
What do we know about St. Peter? His original name was Simon and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth. He was married and most likely had children.

St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town.
Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ's public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Church History III.31) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3). - St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

It is traditionally believed that Peter wrote two epistles contained in the New Testament, however authenticity in modern times contests the actual authorship.

Authenticity
The authenticity, universally admitted by the primitive Church, has been denied within the past century by Protestant or Rationalist critics (Baur and the Tübingen School, Von Soden, Harnack, Jülicher, Hilgenfeld, and others), but it cannot seriously be questioned. It is well established by extrinsic and instrinsic arguments.
(1) Extrinsic arguments
(a) in writings of the first and second centuries, e.g., Justin's letter to the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, the "Didache", the "Pastor" of Hermas, and others. The Second Epistle of St. Peter, admitted to be very ancient even by those who question its authenticity, alludes to an earlier Epistle written by the Apostle (iii, 1). The letter therefore existed very early and was considered very authoritative. (b) Tradition is also unanimous for St. Peter's authorship. In the second and third centuries we have much explicit testimony to this effect. Clement and Origen at Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian in Africa, the Peshitto in Syria, Irenaeus in Gaul, the ancient Itala and Hippolytus at Rome all agree in attributing it to Peter, as do also the heretics, Basilides and Theodore of Byzantium. (c) All the collections or lists of the New Testament mention it as St. Peter's; the Muratorian Canon, which alone is at variance with this common tradition, is obscure and bears evident marks of textual corruption, and the subsequent restoration suggested by Zahn, which seems much more probable, is clearly favourable to the authenticity. Moreover Eusebius of Caesarea does not hesitate to place it among the undisputed Scriptures.
(2) Intrinsic arguments
Examination of the Epistle in itself is wholly favourable to its authenticity; the author calls himself Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1); Mark, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles, had such close relations with Peter, is called by the author "my son" (v, 13); the author is represented as the immediate disciple of Jesus Christ (i, 1; v, 9, 11-14); he exercises from Rome a universal jurisdiction over the whole Church (v, 1). The numerous places in which he would appear to be the immediate witness of the life of Christ (i, 8; ii, 21-24; v, 1), as well as the similarity between his ideas and the teaching of the Gospels, are eloquently in favour of the Apostolic author (cf. Jacquier, 251). Finally, some authors consider that the Epistle and the sermons of St. Peter related in the Acts show an analogy in basis and form which proves a common origin. However, it is probable if not certain that the Apostle made use of an interpreter, especially of Sylvanus; St. Jerome says: "the two Epistles attributed to St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction of the words, which proves that according to the exigencies of the moment St. Peter made use of different interpreters" (Ep. cxx ad Hedib.). Peter himself seems to insinuate this: Dia Silouanou houmin . . . egrapha (v, 12), and the final verses (12-14) seem to have been added by the Apostle himself. Without denying that Peter was able to use and speak Greek, some authors consider that he could not write it in the almost classic manner of this Epistle. Nevertheless it is impossible to determine exactly the share of Sylvanus; it is not improbable that he wrote it according to the directions of the Apostle, inserting the ideas and exhortations suggested by him.

So what can glean from this.

St. Peter was was a good fisherman with enough personal resources on hand that he was able to follow the Lord Jesus and not worry about providing for his own family at the same time.
How educated he was is really unknown. He may or may not have been that well educated. But that in no way makes him not unintelligent. We see in  Scripture, how majestically he spoke out to the crowd on the day of Pentecost.
St. Peter was a fisherman by trade. Anyone who has done fishing knows that it can be hit and miss while out one the waters. He owned his own boat and had good days and bad days. In any case, he was good enough to maintain his household!

Notwithstanding this we still see people calling St. Peter poor. Such is the title of a church in the village of Noss Mayo, in Devon, England, was built in 1226: Church of St Peter the Poor Fisherman!
Possibly one can employ the term poor in reference to St. Peter having denied Our Lord during his Passion rather than his ability to fish for a living or the state of his finances, which are reasonably unknown to us in exact detail.
Let me explain this. The French have a have a phrase for a poor man ”homme pauvre", but they equally reverse the word  order to ”pauvre homme". Thus it is not impossible that St. Peter the fisherman was a poor fisherman or was not wealthy, but he was simply the discipline that denied Our Lord three times! Thus is simply a suggestion on this take. Oh! Poor, poor Peter!

Church of St Peter the Poor Fisherman, Revelstoke, England
One thing is certain, that St. Peter was like all of us a poor sinner ("pauvre pécheur" in French). Whether or not he was a poor fisherman  ("pauvre pêcheur" in French), I will let other decide. In any case these two French expression are both pronounced in the same way, en Français!


Does Christianity allow for believing on someone else's behalf? In 1 Corinthians 7, verse 14 (ESV) we can read:

  14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But in verse 16, Paul goes on to say:

  16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

So, what exactly does "holy" mean? Is it the same as "saved"? If not, what is the difference?

Does verse 14 refer to the relationship between husband and wife, and the relationship parents have with their children in particular, or is it better understood as "any believer in a househould will make all other members holy"?

Are there other bible verses about this topic that might help clearing this up?

Apparently, Acts 16, verses 31 to 34 are similar:

  31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

It's not clear to me what exactly the jailer did and what his family members did. Sometimes it sounds like the jailer's action were sufficient to save his family. On the other hand, I don't understand if, for example, the jailer would have been saved if his daughter (or maybe even his sister or other relative) had started believing in Jesus.

If there are different views depending on denomination, I would be interested in hearing them.

No, the Bible doesn't teach that one person's faith automatically saves others in your family/household. Rather, it teaches that it will be more likely for someone to be saved if they have a family member who can assist them in acquiring and maintaining strong faith.

Parents can show their children the way to life by instructing their children in God's wise commands:

  Proverbs 6:20-23 (ESV) - My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching. 21  Bind them on your heart always; tie them around your neck. 22  When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you. 23 For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life.

A person is not accountable for the decisions of his father or son:

  Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

In the experience at Acts 16:31-34, the jailer wasn't the only one who put faith in Jesus. His whole family did. However, the jailer was the first one of his family to put faith in Jesus, and he brought Paul and Silas to the rest of his household so that they would also learn and acquire faith. If the jailer had not believed in God, the rest of his household would not have heard the life-saving message at that time (or maybe ever), so they rejoiced that the jailer had believed.

Being holy is also different from being saved. The Israelites were holy, because God had chosen them to be his people and to give his commandments (Deut. 7:6), but they were not saved from their enemies unless they were trusting in God and being obedient to his commandments.


Are there any Saints that have miraculously overcome death (should have died, but did not)? Are there any saints that should have died but didn't, not like they dodged a moving train, but rather something like were stabbed in the heart but didn't bleed, or something.

And when they did die, how did it happen?

Yes, St. Polycarp (A.D. 69-155).

The early Church Father St. Polycarp. He was put in fire, yet he did not burn. We read in The Martyrdom of Polycarp:

  This, then, was carried into effect with greater speed than it was
  spoken, the multitudes immediately gathering together wood and fagots
  out of the shops and baths; the Jews especially, according to custom,
  eagerly assisting them in it. And when the funeral pile was ready,
  Polycarp, laying aside all his garments, and loosing his girdle,
  sought also to take off his sandals — a thing he was not accustomed to
  do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager who should
  first touch his skin. For, on account of his good behavior he was,
  even before his martyrdom, adorned with every kind of good.
  Immediately then they surrounded him with those substances which had
  been prepared for the funeral pile. But when they were about also to
  fix him with nails, he said, Leave me as I am; for He that gives me
  strength to endure the fire, will also enable me, without your
  securing me by nails, to remain without moving in the pile.

  They did not nail him then, but simply bound him. And he, placing his
  hands behind him, and being bound like a distinguished ram [taken] out
  of a great flock for sacrifice, and prepared to be an acceptable
  burnt-offering unto God, looked up to heaven, and said,

  "O Lord God Almighty, the Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus
  Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of You, the God of
  angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the
  righteous who live before you, I give You thanks that You have counted
  me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the
  number of Your martyrs, in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection
  of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption
  [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. Among whom may I be accepted this day
  before You as a fat and acceptable sacrifice, according as You, the
  ever-truthful God, have foreordained, have revealed beforehand to me,
  and now have fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise You for all things, I
  bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly
  Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost,
  be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen."

  When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those
  who were appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame
  blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given to witness it,
  beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we might report
  to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping itself into
  the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the
  wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he
  appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is
  baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we
  perceived such a sweet odour [coming from the pile], as if
  frankincense or some such precious spices had been smoking there.

  At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not
  be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near
  and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there
  came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was
  extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a
  difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most
  admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic
  and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in
  Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or
  shall yet be accomplished.


How do Catholics and Eastern Orthodox justify their clergy praying with those big hats on their heads? How do Catholics and Eastern Orthodox justify their clergy praying with those big hats on their heads in the face of this scripture?

  1 Cor 11:3-4 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

The head of man is Christ, and every man who prays with his head covered dishonors his head (Christ).  So how can wearing big hats while praying be justified?

Orthodox bishops, priests and monks always remove their hats (of whatever kind) when praying.  The Bishop removes his mitre at the Altar.  Monks hang their klobuk over their shoulder or remove it entirely during the service.  So the question seems to stem from ignorance, or not actually attending an Orthodox Liturgy to see what we do.  Incidentally it is correct for monks (and Orthodox bishops are monks) to keep their klobuks on during much of the Offices.


Are there any denominations that teach their members how to hear God's voice better, as exemplified by the Apostles in Scripture? From time to time I have come across people who claim to have heard the voice of God speak to them in various circumstances. To someone who has never experienced this firsthand, this may sound a bit crazy, but the Bible is not without examples where this phenomenon is reported to have happened to the apostles. For example:
2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (ESV):

7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Acts 10:9-21 (ESV):

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
17 Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood at the gate 18 and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there. 19 And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” 21 And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for. What is the reason for your coming?”

If the apostles experienced this, it is not far-fetched to think that Christians nowadays may also experience this. In light of this realization, I'd like to know (1) if there are any denominations that actually believe in this possibility (that God still speaks to people today), and if so, (2) if there are denominations that provide explicit teaching or training to their members on how to become more sensitive to God's voice to be able to hear Him better on a more consistent basis.

Yes, this is a principle of great importance to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Recent Teachings
In an April 2020 global conference, church president Russell M Nelson gave a discourse entitled Hear Him, including the following remarks:

We also hear Him more clearly as we refine our ability to recognize
the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. It has never been more imperative
to know how the Spirit speaks to you than right now. In the Godhead,
the Holy Ghost is the messenger. He will bring thoughts to your mind
which the Father and Son want you to receive. He is the Comforter. He
will bring a feeling of peace to your heart. He testifies of truth and
will confirm what is true as you hear and read the word of the Lord.
I renew my plea for you to do whatever it takes to increase your
spiritual capacity to receive personal revelation. (see here)

Two years prior he also gave an address discussing how & why to come to recognize revelation from God. See Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives
The April 2020 sermon led to a hashtag among Latter-day Saints #HearHim (referring to hearing God) that has prompted many responses in which people have described what they do to hear Him. My own #HearHim comments are here.
Passages from canonized scripture
One of the Book of Mormon passages most commonly cited by missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Moroni 10:4-5, which specifically calls upon people to seek confirmation from God regarding the book:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye
would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these
things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with
real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of
it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.'
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
things.

One of the passages used to describe what revelation from God feels like is Doctrine & Covenants 11:12-13:

12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that
Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk
humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.
13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I will impart unto you of my
Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind, which shall fill your soul
with joy;

Conclusion
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that God speaks today as He did in the past, and the church actively teaches its members to seek revelation from God for the areas of responsibility He has given them.


What does "Throwing Pearls to Swine" (Matt 7:6) mean? So This is Christ delivering the 'Sermon on the Mount'. And I think he's talking about how to deal with other people because In the same passage, Christ talks about Taking the beam from your own eye, before removing the mote from your brother's eye.

The verse directly after:

  Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matt 7:6)

It seems to say don't preach the Gospel (what is holy, and was is -precious as- pearls) to the Dogs and Swine, which I can only imagine as Sinners. But I don't think that is correct! Because the Lord preached to Sinners, and even said that he came for sinners - and not the righteous. (Luke 5:32)

So is the (Holy things/Pearls) not the Gospel?

Who are the Dogs/Swine? And How do I know who is the Dog/Swine?

In Proverbs 9.8, 26:1-11 (and many more), the Bible talks about the fool. A fool is characterized as unteachable, therefore unwise in this passage.

The passage tells us that there is no sense to invest into the unteachable. There is only one things you might do: discipline the fool. But still, that does not benefit the fool, but the teachable that watches and takes it to heart.

I always interpreted the dogs and the swines as the unteachable, the fools (for one because of Proverbs 26:11). The holy things and pearls are the pieces of wisdom and truth taken from the word, and certainly include the Gospel.

There is a clear distinction between sinners and fools. Sinners might be teachable, and fools might at a time even have accepted Christ, but are not willing to go deeper and be taught further.

On the other side we are not to judge people. Yet we need to be wise. Proverbs 9:8 tells us that rebuking a fool will have him hate you. That is by no means what we want. Thus, if we find somebody to be unteachable, we stop teaching him. But we certainly do not stop praying for the person.


Without an annulment, a convert is confirmed and receives first communion A non-baptized man marries a Catholic, then divorces.  Then the non-baptized man remarries a Protestant.  During this marriage the man is baptized Protestant. The man later coverts to Catholicism and but does not get an annulment from the first marriage because the priest says he meets all three criterion and absolves him.

He is then confirmed and receives first communion, from the same Msgr.

Is that man able to receive first communion and confirmation?
Is he in a state of grace?
Can he be a godfather?

"Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven"

I refer to the second, current marriage.

Your question is both incomplete and nearly incoherent. You mention "all three criteria" yet you do not spell out what you believe them to be.

It is quite possible that the first marriage "lacked form" and thus in the eyes of the church never was.

Caveat: in my experience with RCIA, that situation you describe usually led to a decree of nullity (the short form) if a divorce decree was in the petitioner's possession, and, if the original spouse, even though Catholic, had not married in the Church with this non-Catholic person.

It is the responsibility of the Catholic party to do that for the marriage to be a sacrament.  If she had married outside of the Church in his first marriage, it is really her fault (in the eyes of the Church), not his, that the first marriage was not sacramental.  I have seen multiple variations on this, so it requires a lot more information than you provided to come to a finding.  I will assume good faith on the part of the Msgr in this case and estimate that such an inquiry took place. If it did not, then someone didn't do their job.  Action item 1: Go and talk to the Msgr and find out what happened. The internet can't help you.

Existing marriages have the favor of law

Even if such a decree of nullity was not issued for the first marriage, his second seems to be in good order.  Since the Church typically holds that a marriage has the favor of law unless it is challenged, and, the Church generally holds the marriage of other Christian couples are licit and valid (unless challenged) - there doesn't seem to be a problem beyond (perhaps) a paperwork problem in that diocese.

  Can.  1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

If the second spouse is still this person's spouse, there may be no need to raise any challenge.

Incoherence and Incompleteness

This is what you say:

  He is then confirmed and receives first communion, from the same Msgr.

You then ask:

  Is that man able to receive first communion and confirmation?

He already did, so this question makes no sense.

  Is he in a state of grace?

At the moment of receiving communion, yes. After that, who knows?  We can fall into sin as soon as we walk out of the door of the church.  (Hopefully, we don't)

  Can he be a godfather?

Maybe, probably not for a Catholic baptism.  That is a separate question.  The requirements of being a godparent are a bit more than "received communion once."  Consult with the parish priest and, if ncecessary, the chancery at the local diocese.

Caveat:  If the second spouse isn't Catholic, this will take a ruling from the diocese for this to be favorable, since the usual requirement is a Catholic married couple. (In my experience with RCIA in a US-based diocese).

God parents for baptism, and requirements for that role, are best inquired about at the local parish where the baptism is being performed.  Here are the requirements in the Dioces of Austin, Texas.

  REQUIREMENTS FOR GODPARENTS FOR YOUR CHILD
  As stated in Canon 874 and required by the Diocese of Austin
   - Must be at least 16 years of age.
   - Must be a baptized Catholic who has completed the sacraments of Eucharist and Confirmation.
   - May not be the parent of the child being baptized.
   - If married, must be married in the Catholic Church, regularly attending mass on Sunday, and living their Faith.
   - The two godparents do not have to be married to one another.
   - A baptized non-catholic may not be a godparent but may serve as a witness along with a Catholic godparent.
   - Non-baptized persons may not serve as witnesses or godparent

Short answer: likely can't be a godparent without a special dispensation from the Diocese.

You seem to be asking if the Msgr did the right thing.

What your question seems to be is asking whether or not the Msgr made a mistake, and that can't be answered with the information you gave.

The most likely thing that happened was that, during the conversion process (usually RCIA in a case like this) the marriage history was investigated and a series of 'yes/no' questions were answered per the guidance given by the diocese.  If the Msgr received 'yes' answers, then he was confident that all of the Canon Law requirements were met, and confirmation of the Candidate was completed per the diocesan guidance.

If the Msgr wasn't that thorough, then there may be a problem that can only be resolved in the diocese where this happened.   Once again, contact the Msgr and find out the details. The Internet Can't Help You.


What is the biblical basis against euthanasia? It seems like the majority of Christian denominations oppose euthanasia, although I can't imagine it's universal.

What is the biblical basis against euthanizing terminally ill and those who are diagnosed as brain dead?

The biblical argument, I believe, is that as Christians we all must have faith, and just as Christ was able to wake the "dead girl who was sleeping" (Mat. 9) so we should have faith that Christ can heal. Things get a little bit more ambiguous when you're talking about brain death, though — we are able to keep body parts alive long after the original owner has clearly passed on (a transplanted heart will often out-survive its original owner for years), but committing suicide, in any circumstance, has been considered a profound lack of hope.

A non-biblical argument (put forth by Augustine) was that, more or less, "dying" had no substantive meaning — I could have cancer and be told that i have two weeks to live. Clearly I would be "dying" in that case, but I could then make a full recovery tomorrow. On the other hand, I could be perfectly healthy and then decide to go for a walk and get hit by a bus. In this case, the person who seemed healthy was the one who was really dying and the person who seemed sick was not dying at all!


What arguments are given that Ephesians was not written by Paul? According to the opening paragraph of the article for the Book of Ephesians on Wikipedia, it is not universally held that Ephesians was written by Paul. A source on that site says,

  Hoehner surveys 279 commentators from 1519 to 2001, finding 54% favor Pauline authorship, 39% conclude against Pauline authorship, and 7% remained uncertain.

What arguments support the claim that Paul did not write the book of Ephesians?

I am aware of four lines of evidence frequently adduced:

Greek syntax and vocabulary

Even a casual read through Ephesians in Greek shows it to be different from the undisputed Pauline letters.1 Despite their sometimes complex argument structure, the Greek of the other letters tends to minimize the complicated subordinating syntax of Classical Greek. Ephesians, on the other hand, is known for its extraordinarily long sentences, especially one encompassing verses 3-14 of the first chapter.2  The vocabulary is also different. There are 116 words in Ephesians not found in the undisputed letters (Furnish).

Of course, one can argue that Paul used different styles for different occasions. Scholars have quantified things like sentence length and comparisons of vocabulary to show that the difference between Ephesians and the undisputed letters is greater than the difference typically seen among works by the same author. This becomes very technical and beyond the scope of this answer (and beyond the grasp of this writer), but the conclusions are generally seen to favor distinct authorship.
Theological viewpoint

These arguments are manifold. The most substantial concern elements of the eschatological perspective presented in Ephesians which are seen to be in conflict with Paul's stated views elsewhere:

In Ephesians, there is no mention of Christ's expected return.
In Ephesians, believers have already been "saved" and resurrected with Christ (contrast Eph. 2:4–8 with Rom 6:5).
The concern for social order in Ephesians (5:21-6:9) has been considered inconsistent with 1 Cor 7:31 and Rom 13:11–12, in which the end of the age is imminent.

There are many other minor points. A sampling of those which can be exemplified succinctly:

Christ is viewed in Ephesians as the "head" of the church, distinct from other members of the "body" (contrast Eph 1:22 and 1 Cor 12:21)
Ephesians seems to work with a presupposition that controversy over the law is a thing of the past (2:15), a clear and present concern in other letters, one considered by some to have not been overcome within the career of Paul.

Portrayal of Paul

The basic idea is that Ephesians portrays Paul as a particularly holy man among the apostles (contrast "earthen vessels" 2 Cor 4:7). He is also seen as the apostle to the Gentiles. (Eph 3:8 is apparently interpreted as a bit of false modesty, as opposed to 1 Cor 15:8-9.)
Dependence on Colossians

Ephesians appears to borrow heavily from Colossians.  If Paul wrote Colossians (not universally accepted by any means, but generally considered in the relevant circles to be more likely than Pauline authorship of Ephesians), it is seen as unlikely that he would borrow from himself in this way. This is considered evidence for an imitator.

The summary above is organized according to and largely dependent on the references included below. For those who find it relevant, the author of the first concludes that the evidence is

  neither strong nor harmonious enough to invalidate the judgment of tradition.

The author of the second finds the evidence inconclusive.

References

Markus Barth, Ephesians 1-3 (AYB; YUP, 1974), 36-41.

Victor Paul Furnish "Ephesians, Epistle to the" in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 2:539-544.

 1. Here I include: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon. I'm sure there's no such thing as "undisputed", but this is standard use of terminology.

2.  The beauty of which should constitute adequate motivation for all interested parties to learn Biblical Greek.


Do Catholics have a "profession of faith" in Jesus Christ before baptism? I was looking through one of the older catechism books and I seem to recall it mentioning that a profession of faith in Jesus generally precedes a baptism.  Is this true?

Do Catholics have a “profession of faith” in Jesus Christ before baptism in older catechisms?

The short answer is yes.

The Baltimore Catechism states:

  Q. 647. What are the chief ceremonies used in solemn baptism, and what do they signify?

  A. The chief ceremonies used in solemn baptism are:

  A profession of faith and renouncement of the devil to signify our worthiness;
  The placing of salt in the mouth to signify the wisdom imparted by faith;
  The holding of the priest's stole to signify our reception into the Church;
  The anointing to signify the strength given by the Sacrament;
  The giving of the white garment or cloth to signify our sinless state after baptism; and
  The giving of the lighted candle to signify the light of faith and fire of love that should dwell in our souls.