What are the rules or guidelines on how a Christian should engage with others who would like to discuss philosophies, beliefs, ideas, and practices of other religions or belief systems? - Are Christians allowed to discuss / engage in the ideas to some degree? Or is it shunned. - How does Christianity incorporate ideas outside the main canon / system? _(Generally speaking)_ - Are certain topics to be never discussed? This would help me ask better questions to the Christianity community in general, but also would serve as a gauge as to how to interact. Basically, what is acceptable conversation topics in the end.

After the reforms of the 16th century, the Scots Confession served as the primary confession for the Church of Scotland for just over 80 years. In 1648 it was replaced by the The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines , a later revision of which is widely known as the Westminster Confession of Faith and is still used today in many Protestant denominations. Meanwhile I don't hear much about the Scots Confession. I'm curious what changes switching to the Westminster Confession brought over the Scots Confession of the previous century. According to what the Westminster divines set out in the WCF, on what points would the Scots confession have been considered either incomplete, not clear, or outright wrong?

We started a "new tradition" a few years ago of having a Mass at the cemetery with a procession at night on All Souls Day. This year, All Souls Day is on a Saturday. According [to this](https://catholicvote.org/archdiocese-explains-how-weekend-will-affect-all-saints-day-all-souls-day-masses-this-year/) it means that the Mass is not truly an All Souls Day Mass. I'd imagine that also means that the vestments should be green and the readings from the Sunday Mass, etc... Does it also mean that the intentions ought to be regular Sunday intentions as opposed to something special that we'd be likely to do on All Souls Day? Is it inappropriate to treat the events after Mass as if it were still All Souls Day?

Which earliest sources does Christianity posses that claim that apostle John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus?

Are there Christian books for fence-sitter agnostics—those for whom spirituality and God feel as foreign as trying to explain colors to someone blind from birth or quantum mechanics to a 5-year-old? Such readers might be curious about what Christian spirituality actually entails: what it means, in practical terms, to have a "relationship" with an unseen, undetectable being who, if real, seems hidden in another dimension. How is this relationship supposed to work? How might such a being interact with you? Are there books that address these questions directly, making Christian spirituality concrete and relatable instead of abstract and vague? Ideally, these books would use down-to-earth examples and clear language, leaving readers with genuine insights instead of confusion. Additionally, the book should explore what readers might expect if they choose to engage more deeply in Christian spirituality. What does it mean to "go deep" in a spiritual context? What kinds of experiences or changes—emotional, mental, spiritual, or even supernatural—might they encounter? Clear explanations of this deepening process, with illustrative examples of what a genuine journey of faith might look like, would provide the reader with a clearer roadmap to understanding. Regarding denominations, I'm open to multiple perspectives, so it would be great to receive book recommendations representing the major branches of Christianity—namely, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the major subbranches of Protestantism, including Evangelicalism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Pentecostalism/Charismatic traditions. This way, I can gain a well-rounded understanding of Christian spirituality as viewed through different theological lenses, practices, and traditions.

My earlier question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103636 received the following criticism in the comments: > Rather than asking for truth about a religious concept, ask something like *"What, if anything, have the church fathers or notable theologians written explaining how God chooses specific times, places, and people for significant conversion experiences?"*. That asks for objective facts (e.g. "Martin Luther wrote "…") as opposed to subjective opinion (e.g. *"It is absurd to ask …"*). Most of us might agree with that opinion, but it is still an opinion. Whereas Catholics, Hindus, and Atheists would all agree with the statement about Luther, even though they all disagree with what Luther said. Thus, I ask: **What, if anything, have the church fathers or notable theologians written explaining how God chooses specific times, places, and people for significant conversion experiences?**

If you look at historical records, the concept of a soul has existed long before it was ever "revealed" by any ancient prophet, with tribes and ancient civilizations already coming up with an ethereal substance that connects them together as a species, probably to feel important with respect to animals or to create a connection with their pre-existing deities. In fact, the Jews formally recorded the idea of the soul in their religious texts based on traditional beliefs which had not come from divine inspiration. So, if souls as described in the Bible and prophetic texts are a human invention derived from reason and other social beliefs, then how could this possibly coincide with what is actually true? The "system" for our connection with God and the supernatural world could literally be anything outside our wildest imaginations, and it just so happens that it's exactly the same as how humans had originally believed it to be? Do souls really exist? But then, if souls don't exist, can heaven or hell even exist either? In fact, those have also existed as concepts since ancient times, and it's clear how their creation by a society could positively benefit it (e.g. an elder telling kids they will suffer eternally if they disobey, lie, steal, etc. and this evolving into widespread belief)... Without these principles, everything about Christianity falls apart, so where does the reasoning go wrong? Sorry if this seems a bit anti-religious, but they're genuine doubts of mine.

The *glorified body* of Jesus who appeared to the disciples after resurrection is one of the most foundational truths of Christianity, the basis of our hope for our future resurrection of the body as well. **My question**: since in his glorified body Jesus ate and drank with his disciples before his Ascension ([Lk 24:42-43,John 21:12-14,Acts 10:41-43](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+24%3A42-43%2Cjohn+21%3A12-14%2CActs+10%3A41-43&version=NLT)) , can we conclude that there is eating and drinking in the new heaven and new earth since we will have similar glorified body that Jesus has, and which was shown to be capable of eating and drinking? Or should we interpret the verses as "accommodation" only, so that Jesus can prove to the disciples that he is REAL and/or that the resurrection is BODILY (not just spirit)? Or maybe we should interpret the eating and drinking not literally, but find the theological message behind them? ### Food for thoughts 1. For an argument that Luke didn't intend the eating and drinking to be read literally, read the 1988 *Gregorianum* journal article [Did Jesus Eat the Fish (Luke 24:42-43)?](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23577821) by Jesuit scholar [Gerald O'Collins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_O%27Collins) . 2. If there IS eating and drinking in the new creation, how about the final product of our glorified digestive system? Pardon the image, but are there toilets in heaven? How about the [39 trillion microbes that we carry in our human microbiome](https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/human-microbiome/) , are they glorified as well? 3. If there is NO eating and drinking in the new creation, how should we understand the references to the - **Great Banquet** ("eat at the feast" *cf*. Luke 14:18-24, "eat and drink at my table" *cf*. Luke 22:29-30), and the - **Marriage Supper of the Lamb** ("until that day when I drink it anew with you" *cf*. Matt 26:29, "I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" *cf*. Luke 22:16, "Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!" *cf*. Rev 19:6-9)?

I recently [answered](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/103715) my own question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103704 , and I'm noticing that each tradition seems to emphasize different aspects of Christian spirituality. In fact, I shamelessly provided all of the book references in the aforementioned answer to ChatGPT and asked it to give me a brief summary of the spiritual emphases in each Christian tradition, and this is what I got: > ### Eastern Orthodox > 1. **Mystical Union with God**: The focus is on achieving a transformative communion with God, often through contemplative prayer > and ascetic practices. *Theosis*, or becoming partakers of the divine > nature, is a central theme. > 2. **Hesychasm**: Silent, meditative prayer, especially the *Jesus Prayer*, is emphasized as a way to achieve inner stillness and unity > with God. > 3. **Tradition and Liturgy**: The liturgy itself is seen as a mystical encounter with the divine, integrating believers into the life of the > Church. > > ### Catholic > 1. **Contemplative Prayer and Mysticism**: Catholic spirituality often emphasizes the practice of contemplative prayer, especially as seen in > the works of mystics like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the > Cross. > 2. **Sacraments as Means of Grace**: The sacraments are seen as primary means by which God’s grace is imparted, fostering a spiritual > connection to the divine. > 3. **Service and Community**: Catholic spirituality includes a strong focus on service and commitment to the community, aligning with the > Catholic social teaching of *caritas* (love). > > ### Protestant > 1. **Personal Relationship with God**: A central Protestant emphasis is on the personal, direct relationship with God, often nurtured > through Bible reading, prayer, and individual faith. > 2. **Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)**: Protestants view Scripture as the highest authority and often emphasize daily engagement with the > Bible as a means of spiritual growth. > 3. **Practical Discipleship**: A focus on living out one’s faith through spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, solitude, and service, > is common, as seen in works by authors like Richard Foster and Dallas > Willard. > > ### Pentecostal/Charismatic > 1. **Empowerment of the Holy Spirit**: There’s a strong emphasis on experiencing the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, often through > gifts like prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing. > 2. **Miracles and Signs**: This tradition emphasizes the supernatural, viewing miracles and signs as evidence of God’s active presence in the > world. > 3. **Personal Revival and Witnessing**: Pentecostal spirituality focuses on personal revival, fostering a sense of urgency to spread > the Gospel and witness to others. I haven't fact-checked every detail, but overall the output appears consistent with the book titles. The main point, however, is that each Christian tradition emphasizes different aspects of Christian spirituality. My question, then, is: **would it make sense to attempt a synthesis of these spiritual insights from each tradition to create a "best of all worlds," so to speak? And if so, have there been any recent attempts within Christianity to propose a "hybrid" approach to spirituality that combines these insights?** For instance, could there be a theory of spirituality that integrates the Pentecostal emphasis on the Holy Spirit, the Eastern Orthodox focus on mystical union with God, and the Catholic emphasis on sacraments? Is such a synthesis even possible in principle, or are these perspectives fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable? I'm asking this question because it seems to me that if each Christian tradition has developed unique practices and doctrinal emphases that nurture different aspects of an individual's relationship with God, then perhaps a more comprehensive theory of spirituality could emerge by integrating these insights. After all, it’s the same God, the same Holy Spirit, the same Jesus, the same spiritual laws, the same universe—so at first glance, I don’t see why a combination of insights wouldn’t be possible. To make an analogy, it would be like Google and Microsoft joining forces to combine their expertise rather than competing, or if Pepsi and Coca-Cola were to collaborate to create an even better drink.

Philip Schaff's anthologies of the Church Fathers are frequently referenced in online conversation due to their accessibility on newadvent and elsewhere, but my question is about Schaff as a patristic commentator. I am not aware of any impact he has had on the later study of the Fathers. Are his commentaries on the Fathers of any scholarly influence or value? God bless, Daniel

It was brought up in a comment to an answer1 that the Holy Ghost as a personage of spirit contradicts the Church of LDS doctrine that a body is required for godhood. How does the LDS church reconcile these contradicting beliefs. 1 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/103687/22319

https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/40402/does-quran-548-imply-that-allah-wants-jews-to-follow-the-torah-and-christians This post suggests that the given verses in the quran that seemingly show that the gospel is not corrupted actually point to the word given by Jesus and not the current new testament But quran 5:47 states this ""So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious."" It says that at the time of the prophet , the people of the gospel are to judge by the gospel, but the gospel at the time of the prophet was the more or less the current 4 canonical gospels of the new testament . Is this a wrong reading of the Arabic of the text( as gospel in arabic might more directly related it to the words of Jesus) or does the op make a mistake? I ask this in this exchange because Christians would have a better and less biased understanding of what exactly the gospels indicate here( even tho it's from the islamic pov)

When asked "*If there is an omnipotent and good God, why is there suffering in the world?*", the most common response Christians give is something along the lines of "*Suffering is a necessary consequence of free will, and it is more important to God to allow free will than to eliminate suffering. All the suffering is ultimately caused by free will.*". I think one of the most serious problems with that response is that suffering predates free will by hundreds of millions of years. Which all beings have free will? I don't think anybody would seriously argue that non-human animals have free will, in the sense that they should be held responsible for their actions. And human beings have existed for, let's say, two million years. But which all animals are capable of suffering, at least feeling physical pain? It's hard to tell, the general consensus seems to be that it is birds and mammals and perhaps octopuses. The latest common ancestors of birds and mammals existed 300 million years ago. Now, many people think that the ability to feel pain has evolved separately in birds and mammals, so that would push the number of years suffering has existed to lower, but we are still talking about hundreds of millions of years. So, for hundreds of millions of years, there was suffering in the world, but there was no free will. How do the proponents of the "free will" theodicy explain that?

I am pondering this question and would like other people's help/thoughts. James, the brother of Jesus, author of the Epistle of James and leader of the early Jerusalem church, writes in the book of James, "Faith without works is dead." He clearly sees that faith leads a person to action. Yet, in Acts 21, Paul comes to Jerusalem and James tells Paul to perform the Jewish ritual of purification so that other Jews do not wrongly judge Paul as being anti-law. Paul does what James asks, but the plan does not go well. Paul is nearly killed and is imprisoned. Here is my question - why did James not support Paul when he was arrested? Where is James' faith in action supporting and caring for Paul?

We know from many sources of evidence that life started more than 4 billion years ago, and over the aeons evolution produced a huge range of different creatures. We also know that modern humans originated at least 200,000 years ago, and that for at least 50,000 years humans have had the same cognitive powers as current ones. The theory of evolution also tells us that there never was a "first couple". Instead, the genes that make us human spread through a population of almost-humans, and the change from almost-human to fully-human happened over a period of tens of thousands of years, with no clear speciation point. Among Christians, many accept evolution and the age of the earth as facts. However, most of them also agree that, somewhere along the line, we acquired a soul - which they argue is the final piece that makes us fully human. For example, Catholics believe that "after a long and gradual process of biological evolution, which produced hominins who were highly advanced mentally, there was a sudden transition, in which God raised some of them to the “spiritual” level, i.e. to the level of rationality and freedom" . I can see 2 possibilities here: either God implanted a soul in just one couple ("Adam and Eve"), or He gave souls to all humans alive at the time. Either way I see problems. If all people got souls, how do you explain the original sin, for which Jesus had to die on the cross? Did all those people commit the same sin? In that case, why was God complaining? He obviously built the same mistake into all people. If God built the same mistake into all people, He should not complain about it, and accept His mistake. Which leads me to the other alternative: if only one couple got a soul (or the soulless ones died out), and we are all descended from that one couple, how do you square that with DNA evidence? Our DNA shows no evidence at all of the human species ever having been restricted to just 1 couple. How do Christians reconcile the existence of the soul with the fact of evolution, and specifically the DNA evidence? **EDIT** I just realised there's a third alternative: God gave a soul to Adam & Eve only, and all the "soulless" ones survived as well. That explains who Adam's children had offspring with. However, it also means that the vast majority of people today are direct descendants of the soulless ones, and hence cannot have a soul. That is contrary to all Christian teaching.

According to Luke's genealogy Jesus is the 76th great grandchild of Adam . But in the holy bible how many years elapse between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus? I have googled the question, but I do not believe the answers given by google to be accurate. All the answers point to a time period of around 4000 years which would bring us back to only 4000BC. However according to Wikipedia Adam was 930 years old when he died, Seth was 912, Enos was 905, Kenan was 910, Mahalalel was 895. Therefore we still have around 71 generations left to go and we are already beyond the 4000BC period.

In his *Confessions* Augustine goes into detail about why he stopped being a Manichaean, but he doesn't say what his problem with Judaism was. I assume he did do this in his other writings. So what was Augustine's rationale for accepting Christianity rather than Judaism?

I asked this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103636/81556 . The question references the conversion of Blaise Pascal as an example. In response, a user commented the following: > The question assumes that Pascal was in fact directly converted by God. **What reason is there to believe the Christian God decided to do this to him, as opposed to someone else's similar experience by a Hindu god?** The experiences can't both be real. But are they both delusional? How can you know? ¶ This isn't a site for asking about truth. The question should present some denomination's view of the situation, and the question should be about how that denomination thinks God makes his decisions. A good answer will be equally acceptable to a Christian, a Hindu, and an Atheist. Are there Christians who are skeptical of conversion stories like Blaise Pascal's? If yes, why?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism#Apathetic_agnosticism) defines *apathetic agnosticism* as follows: >### Apathetic agnosticism >A view related to apatheism, apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans; therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs. This view has also been called *Pragmatic Agnosticism*. The Wikipedia article also provides a reference to a [source](https://web.archive.org/web/20070807021506/http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/ourchurch/faith.html) which further elaborates upon the concept: >### Commentary on the Articles of Faith > This section contains all that is really important. All the rest of this extensive website is mere expansion on these fundamentals, or filler and amusements. (That is not intended to imply that you would not find it interesting to explore some of the other sections.) If you understand and accept these Articles of Faith, then you are an Apathetic Agnostic, whether or not you can be bothered to actually join the Church. > > **1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.** > > To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know. > > **2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.** > > All events in our Universe, including its beginning, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants. > > **3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.** > > If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being. However, our apathy to the question of God's existence does not necessarily mean we are apathetic about promoting agnosticism. What reasons does Christianity offer to reject one or more main tenets of *apathetic agnosticism*? For instance, are there compelling reasons to *care* about (rather than remain apathetic toward) the question of a Supreme Being's existence? Or, are there reasons to reject agnosticism (*we don’t know*) in favor of a more definitive stance on either side (*theism* vs. *atheism*)?

We read in Mark 10:46-47 > As Jesus was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a sizable crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind man, the son of Timaeus, sat by the roadside begging. On hearing that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, son of David, have pity on me." Mark goes on to say that after getting healed by Jesus, Bartimaeus followed the Lord 'in the way'(Verse 52, KJV). In the narration of a number of Jesus' miracles, identity of the beneficiary is not given. That Mark mentions the identity of the blind beggar implies that he would subsequently become a household name among the followers of Christ. My question is : What do traditions say about the post- healing life of Bartimaeus, the blind beggar ?