What is the difference between the two? What scriptures are used to best explain the differences? How does one receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

> The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. **Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations**. **Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life.** > > There are many different formulations of the anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts them at thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into "weak" and "strong" forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail. The weak anthropic principle (WAP), as defined by Brandon Carter, states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias). Most such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes from which to select. However, a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine tuning. Carter distinguished the WAP from the strong anthropic principle (SAP), which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. A form of the latter known as the participatory anthropic principle, articulated by John Archibald Wheeler, suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed, thus implying one or more observers. Stronger yet is the final anthropic principle (FAP), proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, which views the universe's structure as expressible by bits of information in such a way that information processing is inevitable and eternal. > > Source: [Anthrophic principle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) In essence, when theists marvel at the remarkable fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe, which enables the existence of intelligent conscious life, and suggest that this remarkable phenomenon demands an explanation (such as an intelligent designer), proponents of the anthropic principle often argue differently. They suggest that such fine-tuning isn't actually surprising—after all, we inevitably find ourselves in a universe capable of supporting life because, otherwise, we wouldn't be here to ponder it. If circumstances were different, we wouldn't exist, but since we do, it's not unexpected that the universe possesses conditions conducive to our existence. Does this effectively counter the fine-tuning argument for God's existence? How do Christian proponents of this argument address such objections? --- **Note**: Personally, I don't think so. See [Does the "sniper analogy" undermine the Anthropic Principle objection to the fine-tuning argument for God's existence?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111278/66156)

When Christians talk about having a "personal relationship with Jesus," what does this mean?

The Apostle Paul used to be a Pharisee at one point, and Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul [citationneeded], but then Paul became a Christian through a dramatic conversion, and I don't know to what extent his beliefs on the afterlife might have changed. Did the Apostle Paul believe in the immortality of the soul? Can this question be answered objectively to any extent (on the basis of objective evidence)? Is there consensus among scholars and historians on this topic? ______________ **Note**: Is this an "obvious" question? At first glance it might look so for many, but once you have garnered some experience exchanging thoughts with [Christian mortalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) and [Annihilationists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism) (e.g. see [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/27088/38524) & [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/73790/38524)) , the answer to the question no longer looks so "obvious". _____ Related BHSE question: [What are the theological implications of Paul's continuing identifying himself as a Pharisee in Acts 23:6-10 despite being an Apostle of Christ?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74210/38524)

Genesis 5:6-32(RSVCE) gives an account of the generations of Adam. Prima facie, eldest sons were born to the forefathers when some of them had completed or were about to complete a hundred years of age! For instance, Genesis says: When Seth had lived a hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh. When Enosh had lived ninety years, he became the father of Kenan. When Lamech had lived a hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son, and called his name Noah. After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All that puts one is serious doubt whether there was a different method of counting of age, during the ancient times. My question is: has the Catholic Church made any studies into the system of counting of age that was prevalent at the time of events of the OT?

Consider the published monthly prayer intentions by Pope Francis for 2024: [*The Monthly Prayer Intentions of Pope Francis for 2024*](https://www.popesprayer.va/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ENG-INTENZIONI-DI-PREGHIERA-DEL-SANTO-PADRE-2024-DEF-1.pdf) When Catholics say, for example, a family Rosary or perform some other indulgenced work, prayers for the intentions of the Holy Father are prescribed. QUESTION: When Catholics say prayers for the intentions of the Pope, what exactly are they praying for? Is it for the **specific** intention promulgated by the Pope for that particular month? If not, consider what Fr. F. W. Faber says on p. 285 of [*The Precious Blood*](https://ia800906.us.archive.org/22/items/preciousbloodorp00fabe/preciousbloodorp00fabe.pdf) : > If we pray for the intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff, it is the sweet Spirit-guided will of the Church, which we are assisting to its accomplishment.

There are quite a number of verses that seem to contrast the LDS teaching of exaltation, where man may become like God and God was once like man, in submission to a God like Him on a different world somewhere. The most difficult ones to reconcile with this theology are in Isaiah 43, 44 and 45. > "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." > Isaiah 43:10 > > "'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." > Isaiah 44:6 > > "Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of > none." Isaiah 44:8 > > "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." > Isaiah 45:5 > > "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." > Isaiah 45:14 > > "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18 > > "Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A > righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21 > > "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like > Me" Isaiah 46:9 There are more on this page here , which is where I got these, so I don't know what translation they are. How does the LDS church respond to this?

The answer to another question referenced a website that discusses the LDS endowment ceremony . I was looking through the part about creation and was a bit surprised to see that the angel Michael actually takes on flesh and becomes Adam. I had read that Brigham Young had once taught the so-called "Adam-God" theory, but I had never heard the "Adam-Michael" concept. > JEHOVAH: Brethren and sisters, this is Michael, who helped form the earth. When he awakens from the sleep which we have caused to come upon him, he will be known as Adam and, having forgotten all, will have become as a little child. So, my question is, "What specifically is the basis for the LDS teaching that Michael took on flesh and became Adam, the first man?" Is this in the D & C or anywhere else in particular? *With apologies to anyone who might be offended by this question... I understand that this is from the sacred endowment ceremony. However, I am asking just about the doctrine itself, which happens to appear in the endowment ceremony. I am assuming that the basis for the doctrine is not the ceremony itself, but comes from elsewhere. That is what I am asking about.*

According to [this post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8456/what-language-did-jesus-speak) : >Both Aramaic and Hebrew were in use in the Land at the time of Jesus. However, while we cannot say one predominated, we can say that Mishnaic Hebrew was very much a living language used by people of all walks of life in Judea and Galilee. So, maybe we are safe to assume that Jesus spoke these languages. Yet, Pontius Pilate was a Roman, who would have spoken Latin. Would he have been able to speak Hebrew? And as such, in the Gospels' account of Pilate's encounter with Jesus, did they speak in Hebrew? Is there any evidence, or perhaps tradition on this?

What cannot licitly be bought and sold, according to Thomist Catholic moral theologians? (I know buying/selling relics is forbidden.)

For some time now, I've been profoundly interested in the idiosyncracies of Catholic priest dress - particularly everyday (formal) and choir dress. Due to its uniqueness, in particular the dress of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest canons has piqued my interest. It is my understanding that the formal dress entails a black cassock with blue buttons and trimming + pellegrina, with a blue fascia for ALL the priests, superiors and the general (no zucchetto or pectoral though, as that would make them look too much like bishops or cardinals). Or is it just the general, and the lower-ranking canons wear theirs with no pellegrina, or completely black? Or perhaps, is the privilege of wearing hte blue-buttoned cassock in everyday situations tied to Monsignor status, such as Chaplain of His Holiness, which the Prior General happens to hold? Regarding the choir dress - it is said that it consists of a cassock, rochet, manteletta and mozzetta + biretta & distinctory. However, most available images (both photos and illustrations) also seem to include a second cape of sorts that encompasses the priest's figure even more widely and seems to be worn right under the mozzetta. While the Prior General is demonstrated to wear this part in full blue in the schematic, Gilles Wach seems to wear it black, in this photo for instance: This cape of sorts is not described anywhere (I can't find it at least). So my question is: is this part a ferraiulo? It seems to be a completely separate layer from the manteletta, which is directly below it. Whether it is indeed a ferraiulo or not, then it would seem that these canons' choir dress is the most extensive and elaborate out of all Catholic clergy, combining the manteletta with the mozzetta, and even throwing in this extra cape for good measure. But I would like to be sure what exactly it is. Thanks!

I know there are many splinters of different churches after the reformation, some that seem to be different kinds of Christians and some that seem to be opposed to the previous Christians, while still taking the name ‘Christian’. Of all these false splinters (as viewed by the originals) they also obviously disagree with each other on important matters, otherwise they would not be a separate group. The question ‘is there any unity or common reformed doctrines that they all deny?’ In other words are there some basic doctrines that the Protestants hold that separate them from what they would call ‘heretics’ without having to go into the details of each splinter groups favorite topics? A sort of short-cut if you will that groups them all together in a more direct fashion. Or are they holding a whole host of differences without a common root that makes it impossible to form such a simple grouping?

I've heard it reported that Martin Luther told his parishioners to "sin boldly". I'm not sure if this is based in fact and his writings or something that is made up by Catholics to paint him badly. If he *did* say this, what's the original source/context, and how is it explained? Is he claiming that sin has no *ultimate* consequences? Is he claiming that sin has no consequences whatsoever? Is he claiming that it's "ok" to sin? Please help me to exegete Luther's statement.

My aunt stole money from me. I was hurt, balled my eyes out; not because she stole but because I felt betrayed by someone I helped numerous times. I forgave her in my heart but someone told me that Im supposed to tell her that I forgive her. Note: She is a believer in christ and she lives in Nc while I’m currently in Md.

My son was asking me this question and I'm actually not sure of the answer so I figured I'd ask here for him. In all the years I've taught confirmation nobody's tried using their same name, but if you're named after a saint, my assumption is that that saint is already your Christian name - in Baptism, therefore you'd be doubling up. Now, I'd imagine there's no rule on this, if there is, it probably short circuits the question, but if there isn't, what are the pros and cons of choosing your own name as a confirmation patron?

I know that the Catholic Church teaches during confession the priest acts "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ). Since the mass is meant to be a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and this occurs in the re-enactment of the Last Supper, does the priest act in persona Christi? Are there only certain points when this is the case (for instance is he not during the Homily)?

>"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20, ESV) The Apostle Paul here says that those who ignore God, who fail to worship him or give him thanks are without excuse because the Universe shows there is a Creator God with certain attributes, namely, that he is eternal and has a divine nature. My question is, in what way(s) does the existence of the Universe plainly demonstrate the existence and nature of God? Preferably, in your answer say what "eternal power" means, and show how the Universe demonstrates the eternal power of God? My question seeks answers mainly from a Trinitarian perspective. (If you answer from other perspectives please indicate this in your answer. Thanks.)

When I was a child, I attended a Catholic summer camp where the majority of campers were not baptized and did not profess any faith. This camp held weekly celebrations of mass, and distributed the Eucharist to everyone present, despite knowing that many did not have any belief in Christ. Is this is mortal sin and perhaps a sacrilege?

I went to a church recently and the tabernacle was not placed in the center (the apse), nor to the side (the transept), nor anywhere within the nave, chancel, etc. Rather, the tabernacle was placed in a separate room east of the north transept where it could not be seen from the nave or sanctuary. I actually had to ask someone where it was located because I couldn't not find it. This seems wrong to me, so I privately confronted the celebrant after mass. He told me that he's been trying to have the tabernacle moved back to the apse but that he cannot do it without the bishop's permission. I think he was lying to me because 1) the bishop in our diocese is conservative and very supportive of Eucharistic reverence, and 2) a new priest was recently assigned to our local parish and his first day on the job he moved the tabernacle to the apse. I would like to learn what the Church's official teachings are concerning this matter. Was the priest lying to me? What does Canon Law require for tabernacle placement?

From what I've heard about the Mormon God, he doesn't actually seem to fit the description of "supreme being" and rather seems more like a polytheistic Greek or Hindu God. The following may be misconceptions, so I'm open to correction: 1. The Mormon God didn't create matter. The matter was pre-existing and he just shaped it into being. This would seem to indicate that matter is as fundamental and eternal as God himself, potentially even more so. 2. Mormons seem to literally be polytheists: as I understand it they believe that the father, the son and the spirit are three separate Gods. However if that's true then neither the son, the spirit, or the father could be a "supreme being" because a supreme being can have no equal by definition. It's impossible to have more than one supreme being. If there was more then one then they wouldn't be "supreme". Mormonism complicates things further by the doctrine of exaltation, which I understand to mean that we can leave behind our human natures and literally become Gods. Sounds like strict polytheism. 3. The Mormon God doesn't act as the ground and source of all existence, like the Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish) God does. He doesn't seem to be sustaining all of reality in existence from moment to moment by his creative energies, like the God of classical theism. Instead he seems to be hanging out in creation using his omnipotence like a really powerful human being would as if he were Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty. Again, more like a Greek or Hindu God, who have very human/"created being" personalities. I might be totally wrong about that though. Most religions that I've investigated seem to have some concept of a supreme being/ultimate reality. For example in Hinduism you have the idea of Brahman, which is a Pantheistic Supreme being/Ultimate reality (the line gets a bit blurry in Hinduism) - all things have their source in Brahman. In Taoism you have the Tao, which is kind of like a force which permeates all creation and reality - all things have their source in the Tao. In the Classical Theism religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) you have the idea of God, who created all of reality and holds it in existence by his creative will from moment to moment - all things have their source in God. Whereas the pattern breaks when you look at Mormonism. "All things have their source in the Mormon God" doesn't seem to hold true. In this sense the Mormon God honestly seems like an inferior being to the usual conception of God in Christianity. (I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just describing the situation as it presents itself to me) So for my actual question: Is there something I'm missing? Perhaps Mormonism DOES have some fundamental "ultimate reality" concept and I just haven't come across it during my research. Perhaps Mormon philosophers and scholars have thought about the issue and devised some "ultimate reality" concept but it hasn't been spoken about publicly much if at all. For an alternate wording: Is there something which is "above" God in Mormonism? or is the Mormon God as supreme as it's going to get?