According to this page , it briefly describes this: > Queer theology begins with an assumption that gender non-conformity and homosexual desire have always been present in human history, and are present in the Bible. It is a way of unraveling structures and stories that have been oppressive. It is also a way of understanding the Bible as a source of stories about radical love. It seems to me that this type of theology is strictly limited to academia; however, I may be wrong. Are there any denominations that follow "queer theology", and who are they? I know denominations that are open to LGBT Christians, but they do not seem to be focused on this style of interpretation of the Bible.

On the cover of Charles Hartshorne's *Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method* published by SCM Press (London 1970) there is this symbol A Google image search suggests that this is called a Christus Rex, made up of a crown at the top, the cross and a circle below (my interpretation). Am I correct in saying this? What does each part mean, especially the circle? Does anyone know the origin of this symbol? I could not find any direct documentation of this symbol. Any reference highly appreciated

In 1598 the Edict of Nantes was passed allowing Protestants to worship in Catholic France. But this Edict was revoked in 1685, and under the reign of King Louis XIV, there was extreme persecution of the Huguenots in southern France. Among the Huguenots were the charismatic Camisards known for their visions, prophecies, and speaking in tongues. There was a time of great fighting, with many Protestants fleeing the country of France...until emigration was outlawed, too. And much of the Camisard settlements were destroyed. Many were massacred by the French dragoons. Some were able to flee to England. Are there any existing charismatic Camisards that still meet in Protestant (Reformed) churches today, and practice the charismatic gifts? In France? In other nations? Or have they disappeared from the Church landscape?

Inspired by a thought-provoking comment section discussion about an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86261/50422) to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86233/50422 , I would like to ask a follow-up question: According to those who believe in the inexorable damnation of the unreached, why is punishing the unreached in Hell (possibly for all eternity) a better deal than other more merciful and compassionate alternatives, such as having the unreached go through an afterlife rehabilitation program, preaching the gospel to the unreached in the afterlife so that they may at least have a genuine chance to decide if they want to get saved or not, etc. I mean, any alternative other than being born in the wrong time and place, only to be surprised at the time of death with a boarding pass to eternal damnation, without any chance to revoke it whatsoever.

In Job 40, God describes to Job a creature called "behemoth" which has been a bit of an enigma to interpret. Some interpretations I've encountered include: a hippo, a mythological animal, an allegory, or a unique animal of which only one ever existed. In modern Young Earth Creationist circles, it is very common to see it as a sauropod dinosaur. (Examples: Answers in Genesis holds this theory , it's suggested by GotQuestions as a possibility , it's "probable" according to CMI ). I'm trying to track down the origin of this idea. Specifically, the identification of Behemoth as a **sauropod**, and not generally as dinosaurian or dinosaur-like. *Note: The correct interpretation of the behemoth is irrelevant to this question. I am only asking about the history of the interpretation that it is a sauropod.*

**Do any denominations that believe Jesus rebuked his mother believe Jesus committed a sin by violating the commandment of God to honour one's parents?** Looking at the posted answer here, it claimed that Jesus rebuked His beloved Mother, and worst, Jesus did it infront of a crowd. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112936/mary-is-a-sinner-looking-for-significant-passages-with-exegesis-to-support-the/112953#112953 The answer claimed, the following biblical passages: >1. Matth. 12:43-50 and Mark 3:31-35, St. John Chrysostom: Mary's sin of vainglory These passages are, in my opinion, the clearest if one wants to find a Biblical passage with a specific instance of Mary's imperfection. Quoting from Mark: >Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone to call him. A crowald always sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." >"Who are my mother and brothers?" he asked. >Then he looked at those seating in a circle around him, and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!" Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother. **It might not be clear precisely what Mary has done wrong here, but Jesus' response certainly has the character of a rebuke**. Apparently, she was trying to leverage her familial relationship with Jesus for some kind of gain. >2. John 2:1-4 and John Calvin: Mary's sin of unreasonable haste >John Calvin (contrary to your supposition in the OP) drew a similar conclusion from John 2:3-4: >When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” >“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” >Calvin's commentary on John 2:4, while careful to emphasize that Mary's sin here is of a minor nature, says "she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds." From the above citations and interpretation, Jesus would appear to have committed the sin against the commandment of God. >**The Commandment**: > >**"Honor your father and your mother,**" is a foundational principle in Abrahamic religions, commanding respect, gratitude, and care for parents, extending beyond childhood obedience to include supporting them in old age and recognizing legitimate authority figures like teachers, leaders, and country, forming a basis for social order and lasting blessings like long life and prosperity. It signifies honoring God's gift of life and involves actions like obedience (when not sinful), providing for needs, praying for them, and avoiding disrespect, even when parents are difficult. And Paul repeated the call to honor thy Mother and Father >**Children and Parents** 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. **2“Honor your father and mother” (which is the first commandment with a promise),** 3“that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on the earth.”… - Ephesians6:2 **Is Jesus guilty of committing a sin by rebuking His beloved in two occasions, one was infront of the crowd, and the other was in Wedding at Cana?** Looking for answer from Protestant and any denominations or non-denominations who interpreted the passages cited, as a rebuke and dishonor to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I am attempting to explore the differences in theology between various western theological christian positions. And I would like to know according to the Catholic Church’s perspective, what teachings or beliefs of the Presbyterian Church are considered heretical and in what way. I would like to get a list of these in an easy to read list or table. An entry could be something like this example: - The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (sacramental symbolism) is deemed heretical because it rejects the belief that the bread and wine become Christ’s actual Body and Blood during Mass. This matters because the Eucharist as a central sacrament for salvation and communion with Christ according to the Catholic Church.

I was reading *What is the Trinity* by R.C. Sproul, where he writes on page 18: > One of the most striking things that I encountered during my graduate work in the 1960s was the evidence that was emerging from the work of theological anthropologists and sociologists who were examining the religious views of various primitive tribes in the world. They were finding that while animism was outwardly prevalent in those cultures, the people frequently spoke about a god on the other side of the mountain or a god who was distantly removed from them. In other words, they had a concept of a high god who was not at the center of their daily religious practices. This god was like the unknown god of the Greeks, a god with whom they were not in contact but who nevertheless was there. This is extremely interesting. I am not very familiar with the study of anthropology. What examples of this are there around the world?

On April 8, 2021, during a debate between [Matt Dillahunty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) and Catholic Apologist [Trent Horn](https://www.trenthorn.com/) titled [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) , hosted by [Pints With Aquinas](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClh4JeqYB1QN6f1h_bzmEng) , Matt Dillahunty said: [20:56](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1256) : > It's important for people to recognize **there is a difference between verification and falsification**. Verification is the concept that we should produce the thing. If we were to say that all intelligent beings are on planet earth, verification you could run around "hey, there's an intelligent being on earth, there's one on earth and there's one on earth, there's one on earth", but verifying it exhaustively could be completely impractical because you would have to search every planet at all times in order to determine in fact that all intelligent beings are on planet earth. But falsification is a separate issue. Falsification is whether or not it is theoretically able to be shown to be false. And so, whole we may never be able to verify that all intelligent beings are in fact on planet earth, we could at least in theory falsify it because if we produced an intelligent being that wasn't on earth, that would falsify the claim. Now that would show that the claim is wrong. **But if we have a claim that is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, it is essentially untestable**. **And my foundation is that if you have an untestable claim, it'd better be mundane, trivial and consistent with the facts of reality before you should ever risk believing that it is in fact the case**. **Well, we can't really believe, or we can't argue that it's rational to believe something that we can't test at all**. So we do the best we can when it comes to history, **and so when we take a look at history all we have are reports**. Somebody said they saw this, somebody said they knew this person, somebody said this other thing. That's all well and good when we're trying to put together the best understanding of history we can. **But we shouldn't be proclaiming it as truth, and we shouldn't be necessarily saying that this particular version of history is particularly reasonable**. As history tends to be written by the victors. **So history is always suspect**. And there are two quotes from David Hume that are the cornerstone how and why I go about determining if something is or should be considered reasonable ... [Matt then proceeds to quote/paraphrase David Hume on why miracle claims are unreasonable to be believed on insufficient evidence.] [24:56](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1496) > **So if a claim isn't falsifiable and there's no way to show it's wrong, we can't reasonably accept that it's correct**. **And if we're left with no physical evidence about the existence of Jesus, or the interactions of Jesus, or his death and resurrection, what we are left with is ... testimony**. Now, I'm not willing to dig in on whether or not the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I don't think they were, I don't think that most reasonable scholars aren't going to say these are witnesses but it doesn't matter to me because even if they were all eyewitnesses, **we already know that eyewitness testimony is unreliable under the best circumstances**. In this case we don't know whose testimony, eyewitness second or third hand, and we can't investigate it at all. **All the things they say happened don't have corroborating evidence. They don't have supporting physical evidence. We don't have any way to question them about their reliability. We don't have any way to talk to them to determine**, you know, **are these stories accurate**, you know, **do they overlap**. [...] [27:29](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1649) > [...] I have a hard time going through some of these things and saying "yes, that's being reported as this has actually happened". **So what evidence do we have? Copies of copies of translations of copies from unknown sources that may have been but probably weren't eyewitnesses, and if they had been eyewitnesses it wouldn't be sufficient to confirm that someone actually rose from the dead**. What sort of evidence would we expect for a claim that someone rose from the dead? Depends on the time frame. Sure, back in 1st century Judea, probably not a lot! You don't have a way to test for sure that somebody's dead. You don't have like x-rays, you don't have DNA. Well, the question is: if this story is true, then Jesus was divine, and God exists. **And what sort of evidence could a God provide? God could provide the best evidence possible such that there would be no reasonable debate to be had at all** [...] [49:32](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=2972) : > And I'm not here for interesting. I'm here to find out what's reasonable. And here is the crux of it, which we can have this discussion afterwards because I don't have any follow-up questions after this. And that is this: **you are willing to accept that an extraordinary miraculous event occurred based only on testimony, and I'm not. That's it! That is the foundational difference between our epistemology. I will not accept that the physical understanding of the universe was suspended for an individual based only on testimonial accounts. It is unreasonable. That is how you get conned. That is how magicians fool you [...]** How do Christians rebut Matt Dillahunty's objection that the resurrection of Jesus is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, untestable, lacking supporting physical evidence beyond mere reports, and therefore unreasonable to believe? ___ **Note**: my question is about Jesus' resurrection, not about Jesus' existence. One could concede that Jesus existed and still be skeptical of his resurrection and other related supernatural claims. For Dillahunty's position on the existence of Jesus, see [Did Jesus Exist? | David - Oklahoma City, OK | Atheist Experience 21.25](https://youtu.be/apS_679ru50) . Here is the transcript of an excerpt from the video in case it gets taken down: > Caller: *Well, what do you believe? Do you believe he actually existed in history or not?* > > Matt: *I think it's very likely that there was a historical figure that the stories are tied to, but we don't know much at all about him and there may actually have been a number of different people molded into one after the fact. I don't ... I have no idea*. > > Jen: *I'm unconvinced that there was a single individual on which the stories are based.* > > Matt: *And even if we were convinced that there was a single individual. I don't know how we would know anything about that person specifically because if you, if you go through for example the gospel stories and ... there is no way to verify anything right down to, you know, the name or the date or anything.*

Many moons ago, I was surfing through the ocean of Wikipedia and found the page for "[Great Lent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent) ." While reading, I found [this quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent#:~:text=The%20Church%20Fathers%5Bwhich%3F%5D%20have%20referred%20to%20fasting%20without%20prayer%20as%20%22the%20fast%20of%20the%20demons%22%5Bcitation%20needed%5D%20since%20the%20demons%20do%20not%20eat%20according%20to%20their%20incorporeal%20nature%2C%20but%20neither%20do%20they%20pray.) : > The Church Fathers[which?] have referred to fasting without prayer as "the fast of the demons"[citation needed] since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray. I have absolutely fallen in love with this idea but have completely failed to find where it came from. I have a feeling it is hidden somewhere in the depths of the [PG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrologia_Graeca) or [PL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrologia_Latina) and even the most advanced AIs can not find it. Does anyone happen to know where this quote has come from?

To me, it would be a profound irony and tragedy—if one of the wisest men in history (1 Kings 3:12; 4:29–31), famed for building the temple (1 Kings 5–6) and writing Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, a foreshadowing type for Jesus (Matthew 12:42), yet potentially missing out on the Kingdom. One of his last mentioned acts is trying to kill Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:40; Exodus 20:13) before his death and burial is shortly described next in 1 Kings 11:42-43. This raises doubtful concern for me, about his standing in terms of salvation (Ezekiel 18:24; 1 Corinthians 9:27) or if counted among the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11. Albeit, not denying the possibility of him yielding to God's profound transformative power and healing over his faith walk in the last parts of his life (Psalm 103:8–12; 136; 145:8-18). "Solomon tried to kill Jeroboam, but he fled to King Shishak of Egypt and stayed there until Solomon died. The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including all his deeds and his wisdom, are recorded in Solomon ruled in Jerusalem over all Israel for forty years. When he died, he was buried in the City of David, named for his father. Then his son Rehoboam became the next king." Given that Scripture never clearly affirms or denies Solomon’s salvation, and considering his extraordinary wisdom and accomplishments (1 Kings 11:41), what does his life reveal about the relationship between human achievement, divine judgment, and authentic or saving faith in God (Ecclesiastes 1:16–17, 2:4–9; Hebrews 11)?

I recently learned that Song of Solomon, which is included in Jewish and Christian Old Testament canons, is not considered divinely inspired by the Latter Day Saints (colloquially known as Mormons). As it is described on the LDS website : > A book in the Old Testament. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the Song of Solomon is not an inspired writing. However, it is included in the "Scripture" section of that same website, as well as included in LDS Bibles. **My question is, if Song of Solomon is not counted as inspired by Mormons, how *do* they use it?** I don't mean "how" in an incredulous way here - I mean: What is it used for? In practice, in what ways is it treated differently from the divinely inspired Scriptures? This reminds me somewhat of Protestant attitudes towards the Apocryphal works (Tobit, Ben Sirach etc.), which are not considered inspired but may be considered instructive or historically valuable. However, it is different in some important respects: Protestants do not list these books among Scripture and very seldom print them in our Bibles.

**Is the SSPX still in full communion with Rome?** The Society of Saint Pius X is a traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Monsignor Lefebvre was a leading traditionalist at the Second Vatican Council with the *Coetus Internationalis Patrum* and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers until 1968. The society was originally established as an Association of the Christian faithful of the Roman Catholic Church with the expressed permission of the Swiss Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, François Charrière. This Catholic Association was in full communion with Rome until 1988 with the Écône consecrations: Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the Apostolic Mandate and against a personal warning by Pope John Paul II, resulting in the Vatican declaration that the bishops who consecrated or were consecrated had incurred Latæ Sententiæ (automatic) excommunication. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the remaining living bishops whom Lefebvre had consecrated back in 1988. However certain sanctioned remained in place. On February 12 2026, [the head of the Society of St. Pius X will meet with Vatican officials](https://www.osvnews.com/sspx-leader-to-meet-cardinal-fernandez-after-announcing-unauthorized-bishop-consecrations/) after [announcing (on Feb 2)](https://fsspx.news/en/news/interview-superior-general-priestly-society-saint-pius-x-57064) their intention to consecrate bishops (seemingly without papal approval) in July 2026. I know this is treading on thin ice according to Catholicism, as unsanctioned consecration will provoke an automatic excommunication. Is this society really in full communion with Rome when they actually threaten Rome with open disobedience to get their way? Excommunication remains a ecclesiastical penalty against Catholics. [“Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholic. Bad Catholics, sure; but Catholics.”](https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/11/20/excommunicated-catholics-are-still-catholic/)

Adam was created in the original state of justice and holiness, he have a pure heart originally, a sinless creature. >The concept that Adam was created in a state of original justice and holiness is a doctrine rooted in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-3 and supported by New Testament reflections on the image of God. >Key Bible verses and theological points supporting this doctrine include: Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (KJV). This verse is widely cited as direct scriptural evidence that humanity’s original condition was one of moral integrity, righteousness, and innocence. Genesis 1:26-27, 31: God creates man in His own image and likeness and declares all of creation, including humanity, "very good." This state is interpreted as original justice—a harmonious relationship with God, oneself, and creation. >Ephesians 4:24: While referring to the "new self" in Christ, this verse highlights the original state intended for humanity: "...put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (NIV). This implies that the restoration of humanity brings them back to the original holiness Adam possessed. >Colossians 3:10: Speaks of being "renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator," referencing a return to the original righteous state. >Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This describes a state of innocence, internal harmony, and lack of sin before the Fall. >**Key Aspects of Original Justice:** >Original Holiness: Friendship with God and sharing in God's own life (sanctifying grace). >Original Justice: Harmony between Adam and Eve, inner harmony of the human person (reason, will, and desires were aligned), and harmony with creation. >Preternatural Gifts: Freedom from sickness, suffering, and death. >The Council of Trent (Session V, 1511) formally affirmed that Adam lost this "holiness and justice" through disobedience. It would seems that Adam was created with a pure heart before the fall, and there's no obstacle for him to see the face of God. **Did Adam saw the face of God before the fall?** This question is open for Catholicism, Protestant and Christians who have a source or writings that stated, Adam had seen the face of God before the fall.

I am an atheist and Ex-Hindu. I used to watch Stephen Colbert (American and Catholic) on Comedy Central before his current more famous tv show. In one of episodes, he was talking about Hinduism, and said "Hindus worship the wrong gods" (google search would back me up on this), which I found fascinating -- this point of view about other religions. I admit that Hinduism seems to have a lot of issues, such as infamous caste system. I would like to know if this point of view was intended as a joke, or do people think that there is such a thing as "worshipping the wrong gods"?

I've heard that both Reformed and Roman Catholic eschatologies have Augustine as a major foundation. True?

The practice of Josephite marriage, i.e. a marriage without sexual relations, is occasionally observed by the Catholic Church. It is modelled on Mary and Joseph's marriage and in particular the belief of Mary's perpetual virginity. I am wondering how this can be called ''marriage" given what 1st Corinthians 7:2-5 indicates about physical intimacy in marriage: > But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. The word translated "limited time" in verse 5 is *kairos * which would appear to indicate a limited period, i.e. not indefinite, which interpretation is also implied by the latter half of the sentence instructing the couple to "come together again." This passage would thus appear to indicate that sexual relations are a necessary part of marriage. To corroborate this, Tobit 3:8 also indicates sexual intercourse is normative for marriage: > The wicked demon Asmodeus kept killing them off before they could have intercourse with her, **as is prescribed for wives.** How are these Biblical passages reconciled with the idea of Josephite marriage?

Will the people, who end up in heaven, gain additional glory for each soul that profits from their writings? For example, St. Augustine wrote many good books. Now he is in heaven. To this very day, people read his books and have spiritual benefits. Does St. Augustine receive additional beatitude in heaven for each soul that profits from his books? I want a Catholic answer.

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

If someone quotes e.g. Leviticus 6:7, will this be the correct position no matter the language or translation?