Scripture... does not approve of homosexuality. On the other hand, I know of no prohibition against loving (in a non-carnal manner!) and living with one's parents or siblings, and certainly many, many people spend years of their lives living with one or more thereof. In some cases, "siblings" might even be adopted. Historically, cohabitation of persons of the same sex is hardly unusual (schools, militaries, monasteries/nunneries). This got me wondering... I can't offhand think of any scripture that forbids living in the same household with a person of the same sex, *provided* that one is not engaged in... inappropriate activities. *Does any denomination* teach that this is forbidden, even among people that "love" (but not carnally!) one another? (Does Scripture?)

The earliest Christian writings, notably the writings of Paul in his letters and of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, address issues of multiculturalism in the relationships, beliefs, and practices of Jews and Gentiles. Based upon extra-Biblical sources and the histories of other religions, what evidence is there to support (or refute) a claim that Christianity was the *first* intentionally multicultural religion?

Young-Earth Creationists, as far as I understand it, believe that Proto-Indo-European was one of the languages spoken immediately after the Tower of Babel, that is, around 2200 BC. Obviously, you need to reject glottochronology for that, as glottochronology dates Proto-Celtic to 3200 BC, and Proto-Indo-European is therefore dated way earlier, but not every linguist accepts glottochronology (which is based on the assumption that words on the Swadesh List are replaced at a constant rate). However, as far as I understand it, all historical linguists agree that Proto-Afro-Asiatic was spoken way earlier than Proto-Indo-European. According to mainstream linguistics, Proto-Afro-Asiatic was spoken somewhere between 16'000 BC and 10'000 BC. The earliest attested Afro-Asiatic languages (Egyptian and Akkadian) were attested very early and they were not closely related. One of the earliest Egyptian writings is the Narmer Palette, dated, by the mainstream history, to around 3'100 BC. And the earliest Akkadian inscriptions are dated to 2'400 BC. And they were not closely related languages. Proto-Afro-Asiatic had to be spoken thousands of years before that. Now, Young-Earth Creationists dispute such early datings of the inscriptions. Young-Earth Creationists believe that the Narmer Palette dates to around 2'000 BC. I don't know what they think about the earliest Akkadian inscriptions. But, either way, since Akkadian and Egyptian were obviously not closely related languages, Proto-Afro-Asiatic had to be spoken thousands of years before those earliest inscriptions. So, do the Young-Earth-Creationists believe that Proto-Afro-Asiatic language existed? And if so, when?

A hand was writing on the wall and it was judging a ruler, it said that he has been weighed on the scales and found wanting. God weighed the good deeds against the bad deeds of a ruler here before passing judgment to him. Will this technique be used on judgment day or will it apply to people who lived during the era of the old covenant? **Daniel 5:27** >you have been weighed on the scales [of righteousness] and found deficient This is because even Paul said people must appear before a seat of judgment: >For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due to him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.(2 Corinthians 5:10) Will all bad deeds be accounted for together with the good deeds, put on a balance which decides your fate? This is because there were millions of people who lived in the Old Testament era and the name of Jesus had not yet been given. Since all must appear before a seat of judgment and its not their fault to be be born in that era, then a scale that measures their righteousness against their wickedness must be used?

Jesus taught that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven after the Pharisees and Sadducees claimed he was using the power of Beelzebub-the prince of demons to heal. In this response, Jesus is not only acknowledging that the power to heal sources from a distinct entity called the Holy Ghost but also distinguishes himself from the later by acknowledging that he is not that entity but the son of man. *Mathew 12:31* >He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come. Does the statement above show the healing power sourced from the Holy Spirit?

In the spirit of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12584/on-what-basis-do-some-denominations-prohibit-christians-from-drinking-alcohol and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10051/why-do-young-earth-creationists-make-such-a-big-deal-about-the-yec-view First, what this question isn't: - It is not asking whether the gifts discussed are still valid today. (That's been asked already). - It is not asking if the Ongoing Revelation as believed by some denominations is ***valid*** or ***true***. - It's not about asking for a Scriptural reason. As noted in the question linked to in the first bullet point, Scripture can be interpreted either way on this. Put other way, ***this is not a "Truth" question***. It's a question of the cultural and doctrinal understandings that leads to adherence to a particular view. In other words, what are some of the reasons some Christians are so wary of a view that other Christians are so willing to embrace? --- Many of the Pentecostal denominations believe that things like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and ongoing revelation are still happening today as ways for God to provide us with Truth. Likewise, the LDS Church believes in continuing revelation to the Church through the Prophets , as do others . Some of the more conservative/Fundamentalist denominations believe that extra-Biblical revelation stopped with the closure of Canon , and tend to view modern day practice of these types of personal revelation as false, and even dangerous. Most people can understand the Scriptural arguments, which would lead to believing that such a view is either true or false, but why ***dangerous***?

I received this "question" from another user who defined immorality as "treating people like things", and must confess that I don't have a ready response. In the book of Job, God permits Satan to kill Job's children in order to test Job. While acknowledging the difference between direct action and permitting, it still seem very... questionable that God would allow other humans to be (ab)used in this manner. (Even more cynically, the user claims that the later children described at the end of the book of Job are 'replacements, as if Job's children are interchangeable'.) What is a (mainstream) Christian response to this objection?

I have heard the concept that in the end times there will be a 7 year peace treaty signed with the nation of Israel, and that three and a half years into that treaty, it will be broken. What is the biblical basis for this idea?

It has came to my attention that there is a great debate on the internet regarding the ingredients of the "Holy anointing oil", with some saying that Kaneh Bosem translates to cannabis. I was rather surprised to find out that this belief is supported by the Ancient Hebrew Research Center. Ancient Hebrew Research Center > The Hebrew phrase qaneh bosem can be defined as “an aromatic resinous reed plant” and is descriptive of the cannabis plant. > Just as the word “cinnamon” is derived from a Semitic origin; it is possible that “cannabis” is also of Semitic origin. > Cannabis was known and used in the Near East at the time of the Hebrew people. **The Guardian** I was shocked to find out that this claim was documented in The Guardian newspaper, which is a British national newspaper. The Guardian > Jesus 'healed using cannabis' **The Times of Israel** The claim is further supported by the Times of Israel. The Times of Israel > Do you know that “cannabis” comes from the Hebrew word “קנבוס” (“KaNaBoS”)? And קנבוס actually comes from the ancient Biblical term, “קנה בשם” (“KaNeH BoSeM”), one of the ingredients of the anointing oil delineated in Exodus 30:23! **Wikipedia** It is only when I came to Wikipedia that I found out that there are opponents to this theory, such as Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Wikipedia > Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan notes that "On the basis of cognate pronunciation and Septuagint readings, some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek cannabis, the hemp plant. Benet argued that equating Keneh Bosem with sweet cane could be traced to a mistranslation in the Septuagint, which mistook Keneh Bosem, later referred to as "cannabos" in the Talmud, as "kalabos", a common Egyptian marsh cane plant. **Youtube** The claim that Cannabis was one of the ingredients of the "Holy anointing oil" is also made in a youtube video. Kaneh Bosm The Hidden Story of Cannabis in the Old Testament **Question** What do Christians believe Kaneh Bosem translates to?

I'm old atheist and I'm going to die soon. I never enjoyed life, not then, not now, and I'm happy to die and disappear. A missionary told me that if I accept Jesus, I will have eternal life, but was unable to explain me what that exactly entails. I read the New Testament and found it lacking in details. Will I reborn in this same old planet? What about climate change? Must I work? What activities/hobbies will I pursue? Please, only Bible quotations. **Answers** I didn't accept any answer; all lacks any level of detail. It all comes down to this: *It will be fantastic; trust me. I don't how, I don't where, but trust me, I will be amazing anyway.*

Trinitarian Christianity and other major denominations contend that Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time. ***Did Jesus in his human nature, know that he had another nature (as "God the son") inside of him or that he had two "natures"?*** If so, why was it that when the fully man Jesus prayed, he didn't pray to his divine nature but prayed to "the father"? ***Did Jesus (the man) take advantage of his "God side/nature" in order to have power to perform the miracles that he performed?*** This being my first question, forgive if I make mistakes.

An expression I heard during a September mass this year. Just wondering what is the source?

In Weimar's edition of Luther's work, Luther supposedly summarized Psalm 83 as follows: > "God must be recognized and honored by all creatures, whether by grace or, contrary to the will, in damnation." I'm trying to locate that quotation in the original German work.

The Bible quotes God assaying: >And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Genesis 2:15-17) The Bible goes on to quote Eve and the serpent talking: >3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. (3:3-7) Now the devil tells Eve that she will not die and that she will gain the knowledge of good and evil. Which happens from what the Bible describes. God also specified that they will die on the day that they touch the tree, which does not happen, so it wasn't truth that God told Eve. Even if God said it as a metaphor, it was a metaphor that neither Adam nor Eve understood, because Eve told the serpent they they will surely die. And God is all-knowing, so he had to know that they will misunderstand him. So, he deliberately told a metaphor, which he knew was going to be understood literally, and he knew it would be taken as literal interpretation. In either way God provided Eve with misleading information. (It could be a possibility that something is lost in translation, but if not, it would take interpreting the text completely opposite to what is written in order to come to a different conclusion - and if we do, then why bother taking the rest of the Scripture as it is written?) Does this mean that we must redefine our definition of lying? Maybe lying excludes lying to children for example to save them from a greater harm (like taking drugs for example) If something is too complicated to explain to a child, maybe the Bible suggests that it's OK to lie to them. I feel like a lot of parents already do that making up stories to keep their children from making noise in church (for example). Telling them that if they misbehave the ghost will get them etc. Or maybe lying overall means something else in the 10 commandments. I really wonder about that, because I see situations when it might be good to tell a lie. I'm Polish, so I always think of the story If I was holding a Jew in my house and Nazis would come in asking if I had any Jews in the house. I know that I couldn't tell the truth. So I just wonder If God lied? If so, is lying sometimes ok according to this passage? If God doesn't lie, then what is the definition of lying? If God told the truth that they would die, then is devil lying that they will not die? I'm only interested in the Catholic perspective of this scripture as I was raised Catholic and this question bothered me for most of my life.

I was said that some pope of last centuries wrote a document where he stated this idea: "A priest can say three heresies in a sermon but must not insist on them." I have a suspicion that I have seen that somewhere, but I cannot remember now where it was? Can you help my poor memory? :-) Thanks

I've stumbled multiple times across the claim that Adam and Eve were clothed in light before the fall, and afterward they saw their nakedess not merely as a new form of enlightenment ("Suddenly I feel like I should put on some clothes!") but rather visual change had occurred. What original sources contain this information to make it such that some commonly believe this?

There is a meme circulating where the statement > He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust. is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas treats of anger in *Summa Theologiæ* II-II q. 158 , but the quote does not seem to appear there. **Is the quote in the meme attributable to Thomas Aquinas, or not?**

Is metaphysical idealism (matter doesn't exist) compatible with Catholicism? I'm guessing the answer is no, but I'm not sure because I think that "matter doesn't exist" is kind of a meaningless statement and everyone would agree that mind is prior to matter. Obviously nobody is denying that matter exists *in some sense*, so it's hard to see what this actually means because there's nothing to compare it to. You can't say matter exists or doesn't exist in the same way that X exists.

What was the core issue in the Arian Controversy? ================================================= Whether the Son was God? ------------------------ It is often stated that it was about whether Jesus is God. But Lewis Ayres says that is not true. The so-called Arians also referred to Jesus as God and placed Him on the God side of the God-creation barrier. For example: > The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, > describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345) > > “It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the > divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) > > “A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century > debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on > either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4) Whether the Son was a lesser Being? ----------------------------------- One may counter and say, yes, the 'Arians' described Him as God but they also described Him as subordinate to the Father. That statement would be misleading because, as RPC Hanson stated, the pro-Nicenes also thought of the Son as subordinate. Ayres says that even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example, he regarded the Son as part of the Father and would never say that the Father is homoousios with the Son. The first theologian to insist on full equality was Basil of Caesarea. For example: > Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate, > e.g.,: The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity > entered the fourth century ... was to make the Son into a demi-god … a > second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). > > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year > 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the > controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. > xix) > > Athanasius also described the Son as subordinate. He always described > the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father's own wisdom,” meaning > that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, > p. 206)  > > Basil of Caesarea was the first to proclaim full equality: “In all the > previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term > (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least > implied.” (Ayres, p. 206) “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being > involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” > (Ayres, p. 207) So, whether the Son was subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue in the Arian Controversy. Was the Controversy about Arius? -------------------------------- The title 'Arian' Controversy implies that Arius caused it and that it was about Arius' teachings. However, Hanson and Lewis confirm that Arius was not the 'cause' but that it was the continuation of the controversy that raged during the previous century: > "He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of > no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii) > > “This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between > pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute > over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12) Furthermore, the Controversy was not about Arius' teachings. He left no school of followers. After Nicaea, he was no longer mentioned. Nobody thought his writings were worth preserving. As Hanson, Ayres, and Williams confirm, it is called the 'Arian' Controversy only because Athanasius falsely accused his opponents, the anti-Nicenes, of being followers of Arius, which they were not. For example: > “The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, > did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his > supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth > preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early > stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent > on Arius' specific theology." (Ayres, p. 2) > > “The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” > (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and > sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of > Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82) > > “The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings > of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ > polemic.” (Williams, p. 234) So, what was the real core of the Arian Controversy? Was there a golden thread that ran through the controversy in the third and fourth centuries? Authors Quoted -------------- Following the last full-scale book on the Arian Controversy, published in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, R.P.C. Hanson in 1988 published perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy. (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988) This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres.(Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004) Ayres confirmed the importance of Hanson's book. > “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) > and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain > essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) Ayres’ book is based on those surveys and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) I also quote from another important book by Rowan Williams, focusing specifically on Arius.(Williams, Rowan (24 January 2002) . Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.)

Jesus is reported as mixing with sinners and eating with them in Luke 15:2. The RSV and KJV say this was “murmured”, which I take to show that those stating this fact were complaining, or – worse – sneering. This question wants to explore (1) how persons who knew themselves to be sinners would have felt, that: “This man receives sinners and eats with them”. Then, (2) how might that contrast with what the people who murmured that fact thought of themselves with regard to sin. Finally, For both groups, (3) how would their view of salvation affect their response to what Jesus did? I’m *not* looking for a hermeneutic-type answer because this question asks whether the unspoken implication that the murmurers had was a view of themselves that meant they did not view themselves as ‘sinners’. There are many Bible texts that deal with this matter of different views of what it is to be a sinner, not just the one I gave as an example. Nor do I want the parables Jesus gave after others said he ‘receives sinners and eats with them’ to be explored. **The question is not about what Jesus said, but about what others said of him. Did they say it invidiously, with ill will, and being offended? If so, why?** ***I wanted to avoided the general tag of ‘sin’*** and use ‘sinners’ and ‘sinless’, plus ‘salvation’, all of which are listed as possible tags. Unfortunately, the sinner tag only gives, 'sinners-prayer' which is ***not*** what I'm after. It only gives 'sin' which is ***not*** the same as sinlessness. It only gives 'assurance of salvation', **which is *not* what I'm after**. *The tags will turn out to be worse than useless if people just look at them and launch into that.* This is a topic about sinners compared with those who view themselves as sinless, and all with regard to salvation. I address this to those in the Reformed, Protestant, Evangelical category, noting that some may not identify themselves with any particular denomination, but be evangelical Protestants nevertheless.