Many cultures in many ages have practiced arranged marriages. I understand that in Jewish culture --at about the time of Christ-- arranged marriages were considered a normal way of life. Obviously if this was a religious value at the time Christianity probably had an opinion about it. Somehow today, many 'Christian' cultures do NOT practice arranged marriages (none in the west, only a few scattered ones elsewhere). How did this happen? Is it a cultural issue that Christianity never held a position on or did the early Christian church take a stand against the Jewish custom? Was it Christianity and some doctrine that instigated this change, or just coincidence?

John 2:18-22 says: > 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (ESV) The temple is the place where God's presence dwelled, see Exodus 25:8: > 8 “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. If Jesus' body is the temple, in what sense does God dwell in the temple according to Biblical Unitarians?

This official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [source](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/bible?lang=eng) asserts: > As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, **many errors entered the text**. The existence of such errors becomes apparent when one considers the numerous and often conflicting translations of the Bible in existence today. Careful students of the Bible are often puzzled by apparent **contradictions and omissions**. Many people have also been curious about references by biblical prophets to books or scriptural passages that are not currently in the Bible. What are notable examples of contradictions and omissions in the Bible that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has identified? --- See also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101391/61679

The Wikipedia page for Blaise Pascal's apologetic work *Pensées* says that the Catholic Church banned the book: > However as conflicting with the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church it has been forbidden to print or read by the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Source: [Pensées - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es) Following Wikipedia's citations, [Beacon for Freedom of Expression](https://beta.nb.no/extrip/beacon/9800645) says the book was banned for religious reasons in 1789, but offers no other information. Following Beacon for Freedom of Expression's sources again brings you to [FileRoom](https://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/80) , but that mostly discusses one of Pascal's other works. FileRoom cites another source, *Banned Books 387 B.C. to 1978 A.D.*, but it is a physical book that I don't have access to. So why was *Pensées* banned? I've read articles online about the book, but they all praise it and don't mention anything about it being heretical. The only thing I could think of would be that the French Revolution was happening the same year it was banned, but I don't know how that would affect Pascal's works.

I've heard the terms **"Roman Catholic"** and **"Irish Catholic"** since I was little, but I have never understood what, if any, are the differences between the two. Why the differentiation of the two? hat makes them separate? How did they come to be separate?

Why do Mormons travel in pairs (husband and wife, two young women, or two young men) instead of a group? Does a pair that consists of a brother and a sister ever go on a missionary trip together?

What is the Greek word Chrysostom uses for authority? “The blessed Paul did not suffer them even to speak with authority in the church.”

An AI priest named "Father Justin" came under fire for providing incorrect information. From [‘I just have to take my lumps’](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/i-just-have-to-take-my-lumps) : > I asked if I could baptize my baby with Gatorade in an emergency, and ‘Father Justin’ said yes — and of course, that’s not true. I can’t baptize my baby with Gatorade. But is it true that in the Catholic Church, Gatorade is impermissible for baptism? What types of water are acceptable?

I would like to know if this is a common belief among Christians, and if so, is it grounded in the Bible? Does the Bible suggest that God created mathematics, and that He used mathematical principles to design the universe? As a bonus, I invite the reader to take a look at the following related ongoing discussion on Philosophy Stack Exchange: [Is the surprising applicability of mathematics to the physical world a brute fact, or something crying out for a theistic explanation?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111145/66156)

tl;dr - how can heaven be paradise if those there are aware of the suffering of others in hell? I think that creates a paradox. My logic goes like this: 1. Heaven is for followers of Christ. It's presumably pleasant. Christ refers to it as paradise. 2. Christ's 2nd commandment is to love your neighbor. This includes even your enemies. 3. The type of love we're talking about cares deeply about the plight of others. It shares other's pain, regardless of whether the pain is deserved. 4. Not everyone goes to heaven. That leaves the rest in hell, where there is eternal suffering. 5. How does the plight of the damned not weigh on the minds of the saved? How can paradise be paradise if it is not shared by everyone? I could contrive an argument against each point, but everything I come up with seems biblically incorrect: No one could go to heaven, no one could go to hell, hell isn't really that unbearable, heaven comes with it either an understanding of why the suffering isn't upsetting or it comes with an ignorance of the suffering of others, once a non-follower passes your obligation to love them expires with them. None of these seem satisfactory. The point about enemies isn't necessary for the paradox. Plenty of Christians have non-Christian family members. What solace is there for them? Does this problem have a name? What are the answers to it?

What was the Investiture Controversy and lay investiture, and why exactly was it condemned? Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "lay investiture ": >The act by which a sovereign, in the Middle Ages, granted titles, possessions, and temporal rights to bishops, abbots, and other spiritual leaders. The ritual of investiture consisted in the delivery of the spiritual emblems, ring and crosier, and sometimes the keys of the church. This privilege of secular princes and lords dates from the time of Charlemagne. So long as these princes had the Church's welfare at heart, lay investiture was tolerated. But when ecclesiastical offices were bought and sold, and free elections of bishops hindered, the Church vigorously opposed it with anti-investiture legislation, which was sporadically enforced. Pope Gregory VII, upon becoming Pope, enacted stringent measures against investiture, even to excommunicating those who continued it. The Concordat of Worms in 1122 finally ended the strife between the emperors and the Holy See. Once the major concessions were made by the emperors, the Pope agreed that all elections would be held in the emperor's presence and his bestowal of the temporalities of the bestowed office would be continued. The conflict over lay investiture reached its peak in Germany. Was "lay investiture" condemned because it enabled spiritual leaders to dictate in matters that properly belonged only to the temporal order (or *vice versa*)?

I am seeking answers on the basis of Protestant Trinitarianism. ----- As referenced in a previous answer regarding *Sola Scriptura* , Steven Lawson quotes Martin Luther, in a specialised article on *Sola Scriptura*, and explains the force of Luther's words : >*Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves, I am bound by the Scriptures that I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot to do otherwise. Here I stand, God help me.* > >By this declaration, Luther testified that the Bible is the sole authority upon which he stood. He asserted the Scripture is a higher authority than church traditions, ecclesiastical councils, or even the pope himself. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church had espoused the authority of the Scripture and these other things. But Luther rebutted this position and declared that Scripture alone has the right to rule in the church. By this fearless posture, he established and embodied Sola Scriptura. > >*Martin Luther and Sola Scriptura* by Steven J Lawson April 2018 But I have noticed that some appear to suggest that *Sola Scriptura* would deny any kind of personal and spiritual experience of the Gospel, leaving one to merely assimilate the words of scriptural doctrine, appropriate them to oneself and assume that this was all one could expect of Christian faith : an intellectual apprehension of biblical knowledge. My own understanding of *Sola Scriptura* is that all Gospel doctrine and all matters of Church Government and all authoritative guidance of personal behaviour have already been revealed, through the words of Jesus Christ and his own chosen Apostles, in Holy Spirit inspired and inerrantly recorded words of scripture, which is not to be added to by claims of "personal revelation". Nevertheless it is also true, as Hart the hymnist wrote, that: >True religion's more than notion, something must be known and felt. ... words which inspired a book to be written *More than Notion* (with a foreword by Dr. Martin LLoyd-Jones) urging Christians not to be content with a profession of words and intellectual assent, but to seek the real experience of salvation, through the Gospel. One example in point is that of Abel who, it is said, "received witness that he was righteous", Hebrews 11:4. He, being justified by faith, understood that future redemption was by means of the sacrificial example of God (coats of skins) which, demonstrated example, Abel then followed. There was *the receiving of a witness* that he was justified. It was not a mere assenting that, since justification existed, therefore by intellectually accepting that fact, he would have, automatically, obtained it. Am I incorrect in my understanding that *Sola Scriptura* does *not imply* that I should be bereft of personal spiritual experience? For it is my own understanding that *every Gospel doctrine* is to be entered into by experience and not merely to be assented to, in the intellect. >The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power [1 Corinthians 4:20 KJV]

Here ([*On Conscience and the Pope*](https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html)) is found an essay written by St. John Henry Newman. It begins as follows: > IT seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word. I found this essay published in 1875 by The Catholic Publication Society here: [*A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation: Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching*](https://ia904704.us.archive.org/10/items/a678635200newmuoft/a678635200newmuoft.pdf) . The link contains an expanded title. However, this book has neither Approbation or Imprimatur by competent *Catholic* ecclesiastical authority. QUESTION: Does anyone know of a publication which contains the above essay; and which comes with a valid Imprimatur? Preferably, the book will be accessible online. If not, that's O.K. too.

In the beginning of the gospel of John it is written: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word > was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were > made; without him nothing was made that has been made. A similar idea of a word being an expression of a person, and appearing in the flesh in this case, is also stated in Colossians 2:6: > For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. Does this actually indicate that the doctrine of the divine nature of Christ, is actually just an exposition on the theology of Moses? If so, how does John the draw this as a logical construct from Genesis?

According to St. John Henry Newman (in his essay on Conscience): However, [*Papal Encyclicals Online*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm#25) , says nothing of the sort. Unlike previous Councils, the proceedings were not formally recorded. Hence, we must rely on other sources which provide accounts from observers of the Council. Question: Can someone produce evidence that the Fourth Lateran Council promulgated what Newman indicates on conscience?

To the best of my knowledge (which might be incomplete), pretty much all instances of tithing in the Bible involve agricultural produce or animals. Even in the time of Jesus, when money was commonplace in the Roman Empire, the Pharisees would tithe "mint, dill and cumin", as indicated by Matthew 23:23 (NIV): > "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give **a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin**. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. What is the biblical basis for tithing money instead of agricultural produce or animals?

The New Testament makes several references to "Scripture" or "the word of God", but without specifying a concrete canon: | Passage (ESV) | Content | | - | - | | Acts 17:11 | Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining **the Scriptures** daily to see if these things were so. | | 2 Timothy 3:16-17 | 16 **All Scripture** is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.| | 2 Peter 1:20-21 | 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of **Scripture** comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. | | Hebrews 4:12 | For **the word of God** is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. | How do Latter-day Saints decide whether a given manuscript (or a copy of a manuscript) should be considered "Scripture," and how does this approach contrast with that of other faiths like Catholicism and Protestantism? Furthermore, considering the divergences in canon determination among different traditions, what are the merits of the Latter-day Saint method? What critiques can be leveled against the processes followed by other traditions, and what makes the Latter-day Saint method of canon determination preferable? --- See also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101393/61679

Consider the following entries (not a complete list) in [St. Faustina's *Diary*](https://liturgicalyear.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/divine-mercy-in-my-soul.pdf) in which a spiritual sharing or breaking of the wafer is noted. > Christmas Eve, 1935. From early morning, my spirit was immersed in God. His presence pervaded my whole being. In the evening, before supper, I went to the chapel for a minute to share the wafer, at the feet of Jesus, with those who are far away and whom Jesus loves greatly and to whom I owe so much. Just as I was spiritually sharing the wafer with a certain person [probably Father Sopocko], I heard these words within me: **His heart is, for Me, a heaven on earth.** When I was leaving the chapel, in an instant, God's omnipotence enveloped me. I understood how greatly God loves us. Oh, if people could at least partly comprehend and understand this! **(574)** > ... Christmas Eve, . ... In the evening, before the ceremony of the breaking of the wafer, I went into the chapel to break the wafer, in spirit, with my loved ones, and I asked the Mother of God for graces for them. ... **(182)** > [December 1937]. Today during confession, breaking the wafer with me spiritually, he gave me the following wishes: "Be as faithful as you can to the grace of God; secondly, beg God's mercy for yourself and for the whole world, because we are all in great need of God's mercy." **(1432)** > Christmas Eve . After Holy Communion, the Mother of God gave me to experience the anxious concern she had in Her heart because of the Son of God. But this anxiety was permeated with such fragrance of abandonment to the will of God that I should call it rather a delight than an anxiety. ... **(1437)** > [December 1937] Before supper, I went into the chapel for a moment to break the wafer spiritually with those beloved persons, so dear to my heart, though far away. First, I steeped myself in profound prayer and asked the Lord for graces for them all as a group and then for each one individually. Jesus gave me to know how much this pleased Him, and my soul was filled with even greater joy to see that God loves in a special way those whom we love. **(1438)** **QUESTION**: What does it mean to (spiritually) "Share the Wafer" or "Break the Wafer"? Is it a Polish custom, i.e. only in Poland?

For those that believe some are predestined to reject Christ, is the gospel still offered to them?

Young Earth Creationism postulates two main theses: - **Creationism/Intelligent Design**: the thesis that the universe was created by a divine entity. - **Young Earth**: the thesis that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old. Now, let's imagine we compile the strongest arguments and evidence for competing secular theories, such as [Common Descent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent) , [Abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) , and the widely accepted old-Earth model supported by mainstream [geology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology) and [cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) . Similarly, suppose we gather the most compelling arguments and evidence for competing theistic views, like [Theistic Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) and [Old Earth Creationism (OEC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism) . Suppose we also collect the best peer-reviewed papers and books from respected apologists for each position, essentially creating a comprehensive library of material for each view. Now, imagine X, an unbiased, sincere, honest, open-minded, and neutral truth seeker with plenty of time on their hands. They are about to dive into studying all this material in detail, even if it means dedicating an entire decade to study, with many hours devoted each day. Is it the position of Young Earth Creationism that X should inevitably conclude that YEC is true? If so, does this imply that anyone who disagrees with YEC, whether theist or non-theist, has not diligently, honestly, sincerely, and open-mindedly studied the evidence and arguments hard enough? --- *Bonus* This question intrigues me, especially in light of public declarations by Christian apologists who have relinquished their former Young Earth Creationist beliefs, such as the following: > A few weeks ago, astrophysicist Dr. Luke Barnes (Western Sydney University) published an excellent article in Premier Christianity Magazine, in which he gives his story of changing his mind about the age of the Universe, revising his view from being a young earth creationist to embrace an old earth. I resonated with much of Barnes’ story, since my own intellectual development on this topic has followed a similar trajectory. More than a decade ago, as an undergraduate student, I too would have identified as a young earth creationist. However, the more I have come to understand of science and epistemology, the more implausible young earth creationism has seemed to me. I now see the antiquity of our earth, and indeed our cosmos, as being supported by an avalanche of data, spanning multiple scientific disciplines. While I do not doubt the sincerity of young earth advocates — and am often quite inspired by their piety — it is my considered opinion that young earth creationism has, regrettably, done more damage than good to the public perception of Christianity. > > Source: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/a-response-to-jim-masons-defense-of-young-earth-creationism-in-premier-christianity-magazine/ > I sometimes describe myself as a “disappointed young-earther.” By that I mean I started out holding to the young-earth position, but the shortcomings of most of the YEC arguments and the shenanigans of certain YEC proponents forced me to the old-earth position. > > ... > > As you can probably tell, my decision to move from YEC to OEC was motivated strongly (but not exclusively) by a reevaluation of the empirical evidence. However, I recognize that everyone approaches the empirical evidence with presuppositions. Facts are not self-interpreting nor do facts “just speak for themselves.” The question before me—indeed, before all of us—is how, when, and how much should the empirical evidence cause me to adjust or change my operating presuppositions. What should I do since the scientific data seems to clash strongly with my presuppositions? > > Source: https://peacefulscience.org/prints/confessions-disappointed-young-earther/