Yesterday I was asked if 2 Thessalonians 2:4 suggests that the Antichrist will sit on God’s throne in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Speaking prophetically about “the man of sin, the son of perdition” the King James Version translates 2 Thessalonians 2:4 this way: >Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. The KJV was published (1611) before pre-millennial dispensationalism became popular in the 1830’s as promoted by J.N. Darby and Plymouth Brethren. The New International Version speaks of “the man of lawlessness, the man doomed to destruction” who will set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. The NIV comment says God’s temple “apparently refers to a physical building (Mark 13:14) from which he makes his blasphemous pronouncements.” The English Standard Version also says “the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction... takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” The ESV makes this comment: >The temple of God has been variously interpreted as the church, the heavenly temple, the Jerusalem temple, and for supreme blasphemous arrogance modelled on the activities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 11:31-35). Whatever the meaning, the context seems to indicate a concrete and observable act of defiance against God. Is there any suggestion from the Greek in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt? Indeed, ***is there any biblical basis for thinking that at some point during the Great Tribulation the Antichrist (man of lawlessness) will enter a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem*** (from which he will proclaim himself to be God and demand worship)?

What was God’s role in the Fall (if He had one)? I’m learning about the Calvinist (or perhaps hyper-Calvinist) view of Pre-determinism, and respectfully, it causes me great concern. Perhaps I’m concerned because I misunderstand Pre-determinism altogether. However, if I understand it correctly (which I probably don’t; hence why I’m asking), wouldn’t the Pre-determinist’s natural conclusion of God’s involvement in the Fall be that, because God has willed all events to happen He Himself is responsible for their occurrence? Would the line of reasoning be something like this: 1. Results of events have been determined (or willed) from eternity past. 2. The rebellion (or fall) of spiritual and physical beings were events. 3. Therefore, God determined (or worse, willed) the rebellion of spiritual and physical beings.

During Alexei Navalny's (Russian Orthodox) funeral on March 1, 2024, multiple photos show the pallbearers wearing the same red-black-red armbands on the left arm, as seen in Photos: Crowds attend Navalny funeral as Kremlin warns against protests , In pictures: Defiant Russians gather for Alexei Navalny's funeral , and Funeral of Alexei Navalny in Moscow – in pictures , for instance. Looking back, it seems that the (military) pallbearers during Gorbachev's funeral also wore similar armbands, but in this case those were black-red-black, as seen In Photos: Gorbachev Laid To Rest After Moscow Funeral That Putin Didn’t Attend . I am aware that plain black armbands are sometimes used as a sign of mourning, but I could find no reference to the red color. Is this typical for (Russian) Orthodox funerals or is this a political/cultural/regional thing? What is the significance of the red color specifically? Do they have a specific name, and what is their origin? ![Four Russian men with red and black armbands carrying a coffin ][6] ![Several Russian peoples along the side of a street; some men are wearing red and black armbands ][7] ![A Russian man wearing a red and black armband speaks with a military official ][8] ![A Russian man holds a black and white photo of Gorbachev while four military men with black and red armbands stand nearby ][9]

Just watched this glorious video. In watching it, the similarity of the imagery to the description of God's presence as fire and smoke in the wilderness of Exodus and especially on Mt. Sinai was striking. > Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. (Exodus 19:18, NIV) I'm wondering if any research has been done into whether Ancient Israel, and in particular the author of Exodus would have had knowledge, experience, or read descriptions of volcanoes to have influenced his choice of language.

I am on the brink of studying philosophy. When I asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange what the purpose of Philosophy is, I got a lot of answers about logic, reasoning, mental exercise, challenging assumptions, and so on; but none of them answered anything along the lines of "to improve my life and the lives of those with whom I share this world." In light of the above, is there any point in studying philosophy as a Christian?

Looking back at church history, the Universal Church has failed miserably at keeping Christ’s command when it comes to all Christians. > A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34–35, ESV2016) Jesus’ statements are clear unless one seeks to put a limit to God’s love as the lawyer responding to Jesus: > But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29, 2016) To which Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, from a group the lawyer hated, and concluded: > Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36–37, ESV2016) In case that isn’t enough, Jesus said, > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,… (Matt. 5:43–44, ESV2016) We as Christians need to repent for how we have treated one another and how we have treated non-Christians, especially about our past history where Christians have gone as far as burning people at the stake for disagreeing with our particular beliefs. **While this extreme isn't present today, still the lack of love often is present today. This is a stark contradiction to the New Testament.** How will people know that we follow Christ if we do not love one another? While we as individuals are not responsible for the sins before we were born, should we not be clear to all people that we acknowledge as abhorrible those sins of the past done as a group under the same name we are under today? Those sins were stopped by government mandate rather than repentance. Some forms of fascism would like to bring some of these sins back.

In a Catholic Theology class, we were taught that IVF is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) It separates procreation from the procreative act and 2) Spare embryos are destroyed in the process. **Question 1**: I get #2, but I don't really get #1. I don't really see the point of mentioning #1 in this context. **#2 is already sufficient to reject IVF right?** I actually find this really annoying. It's actually like this in Wikipedia too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Religious_response **Question 2**: Suppose there was a way to separate procreation from the procreative act while embryos were not destroyed in the process. For simplicity, let's say there are no bad side effects to doing such and focus solely on the separation of procreation from the procreative act. **What is "wrong" with that?** Oh sorry. I was unclear. Why is procreation without the procreative act wrong if say couples are either a) unable to perform the procreative act, b) unable to procreate while performing the procreative act or c) have a sufficiently long history of not procreating while performing the procreative act? Also, in the first place, why would anyone want to have biological babies without sex? Isn't it usually the other way around? If they would want bb w/o sex, then most probably they CAN'T have bb w/ sex...I think?

I may have a couple of questions here but it's basically the same subject. My first question: does the Catholic Church see any moral goodness in having a baby through [*In vitro* fertilization (IVF)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation) ? Even though there is let's say 17 embryos frozen still but the couple bring one new life and cares for that life(nothing we can do about it). Can we say that God brings something good out of something bad like this(talking about new life as good) or this is just not the case since the whole case is just wrong? Romans 8:28(New International Version) > And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who > love him, who have been called according to his purpose. The other question is why the Catholic Chuch doesn't talk about iVF in higher urgency. Let's say Pope should mention something about it in every conversation with media because from the perspective of the Church this is just such an evil. Does the silence have anything to do with "John 8:11" (New International Version). > "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus > declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

We all know that IVF fertilization is against the catholic teaching. Recently I found out that when the treatment is carried out, some of the embryos are frozen for the future implantation in case if the couple want more children. My question is: **Do the catholic church allow couples to access the sacraments if they have children from IVF**? And if the couple realize the wrongness of IVF and have embryos frozen, **what do they have to do with them according to the teaching**? Let them die or try to implement them in woman's womb? Both, I see as wrong decision.

I was researching a different question and saw that some people find that In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is something that should be avoided on the basis of religious grounds. Does anyone know what these reasons are? I'd like to know if these religious arguments against IVF are biblically based. If so, what passages do they use to support this argument? (This seems especially strange to me since pregnancy wasn't fully understood back then, let alone IVF.) Specifically, I would like the Catholic stance on this.

I met a Catholic family two years ago that utilizes in vitro fertilisation (IVF). I am inclined to believe that IVF is a completely moral practice in situations where a couple may be infertile. I think this particular couple told me that they use IVF not because of infertility issues, but because they have a right risk of conceiving children with mental disabilities. I don't remember the exact details, but I think they said that multiple eggs are fertilized and whichever one presents the least genetic risk of retardation is implanted in the mother's uterus. If this wasn't the case, then they may have said that another woman donates her eggs for IVF. The first alternative sounds a lot like abortion to me, and thus would be a mortal sin. The second alternative does not seem as bad, but it still feels morally questionable. This leaves us with three different IVF procedures: 1. A single egg is fertilized from the mother due to infertility. 2. Multiple eggs are fertilized from the mother and the "best candidate" is kept. 3. A different woman donates eggs for fertilization. Even if I am misremembering the circumstances from my anecdote, I believe these to all be real IVF procedures used in the world today. What is the Catholic Church's guidance on these procedures?

At one extreme, atheists and agnostics assert that either God doesn't exist or, at best, He has concealed Himself exceptionally well, rendering Himself imperceptible and undetectable ([source](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/)) . Conversely, at the opposite end of the spectrum, Christian mystics make remarkable claims, such as experiencing guided tours of Heaven or Hell ([source](https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Revelation-Heaven-Mary-Baxter/dp/0883685248) ; [source](https://www.amazon.com/23-Minutes-Hell-Story-Torment-ebook/dp/B004TGZEQG/)) , being miraculously freed from heavily guarded prisons ([source](https://www.amazon.com/Heavenly-Man-Paul-Hattaway-ebook/dp/B004SBF7OQ)) , or being called to a revivalist ministry marked by signs and wonders ([source](https://www.amazon.com/Diary-Signs-Wonders-Maria-Woodworth-Etter-ebook/dp/B005FHXYHE/)) . Considering these extreme cases (in both directions), it appears that there must be intermediate degrees between these two extremes, forming a spectrum. Which Christian denominations believe in varying degrees of personal knowledge and experience of God? Among those, which ones believe it is possible to navigate this spectrum, moving from the lowest levels to the highest, and how?

The answers and comments to this question have made it clear that transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic Dogma. Of Dogma the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: > The Church's Magisterium asserts that it exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging Catholics to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. Every Roman Catholic is obligated to irrevocably adhere to Dogma in order to remain 'in the faith': > If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy [...], and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication". - Ott, Ludwig (n.d.) [195X]. "INTRODUCTION — §4. Concept and Classification of Dogma – 1.". In Bastible, James (ed.). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Lynch, Patrick This 2019 Pew Research Center survey indicates that only 1/3 of self described Roman Catholics in the United States agree with the Catholic Dogma of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The survey goes on to say that 69% of those surveyed personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”. Availability and reception of accurate teaching does play a significant role but it is not solely explanatory: Of that 69% who hold memorialist views, 43% do not know or understand the Church's teaching on the matter. Of the 31% who do believe in transubstantiation, 28% know the Church's teaching. However, of the 69% that hold memorialist views of the Eucharist, *one-in-five Catholics (22%) reject the idea of transubstantiation, even though they know about the church’s teaching*. It is this last category, **the 22% of self declared Roman Catholics in the United States who know about the Catholic Dogma of transubstantiation and yet reject it in favor of a memorialist view**, that I ask about: According to the Roman Catholic definition of heresy and the Pew Research survey, are 22% of Roman Catholics in the United States heretics and automatically subject to excommunication?

> Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is a widely used treatment for > men with symptomatic hypogonadism. The benefits seen with TRT, such as > increased libido and energy level, beneficial effects on bone density, > strength and muscle as well as cardioprotective effects, have been > well-documented. Source I am seeking the Catholic perspective on a particular type of treatment that seems to border on the use of drugs and hormonal enhancements, which bear similarities to contraceptives used by women or steroid use by bodybuilders. Specifically, I am referring to Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT). I understand that TRT does not have contraceptive effects in men, but it is a hormonal treatment that can potentially give men certain advantages in life. These advantages could be perceived as being outside of God’s plan. This treatment appears to require a lifelong commitment and, while it does provide health benefits, there may also be some drawbacks. From a moral perspective, should a Catholic man feel at ease proceeding with this kind of treatment after consulting with a doctor? I am interested in understanding the ethical implications of this decision within the context of Catholic teachings.

This haunting question came to me after seeing a documentary regarding the gospels and how John is not considered synoptic. It seems that scholars hold the belief that Mark was the first gospel ever written making it not so far from the time of the resurrection and so I personally think that Mark must be the most reliable. Looking into why Mark doesn't contain the virgin conception, I stumbled across scholar findings regarding other sources other than Mark that were responsible for both Matthew and Luke. For example, the Q-source and the M and L source. I don't know if I believe these theories but since Mark is the earliest, it sure does make sense. But my question still stands why didn't Mark contain the virgin birth given that it was the very first gospel? Why didn't any of the disciples have a more detailed account of the life of Jesus for that matter, I mean I think I would have given up everything to have wrote everything with every detail as possible if I was one of the disciples, wouldn't you? One part that makes me think about this, is when Jesus told his disciples who He was but didn't want them to let any one know until it was all done, if this was the case why didn't they mention each and everything once everything was done.

I'm interested in whether there are peer-reviewed scientific articles, particularly in respected journals like [*Nature*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)) or [*Science*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)) , that offer supporting evidence for Young-Earth Creationism. This inquiry follows up on the discussion at *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101027/61679* .

John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) NOTHING came into being that has come into being." Also Colossians 1:16-17, "For by Him all things were created, in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created by Him and for Him." Verse 17, "And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." I would also include Hebrews 1:10 spoken by God the Father, "And, Thou, Lord in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands." The verses quoted are all encompassing and "ALL" things came into being by Him/Jesus Christ, and apart or without Him "NOTHING" came into being. So what are these "other" things that "a god" (NWT of John 1:1) the Jehovah Witnesses are referring to at Colossians 1:16? Why is the word "other" added to the verse?

For the sake of this question: Predestination = from the foundations of the universe, God chose who will be saved. Purgatory = a place where people suffer / are purified, and afterwards, they go to heaven. Now, the difference between heaven and hell is quite large (positive infinity and negative infinity). In the predestination case, the gap between those that go to heaven and those who go to hell is justified as follows: God chose to save some, and Jesus' blood paid their debt. In this case, salvation is a binary choice by God. In the purgatory case, everything looks more continuous: the gap also makes sense in that: depending on how "sinful" one was, one spends less or more time in purgatory. Now, what I don't understand about the Arminian case is as follows: *) there lacks a binary choice by God (since there was no predestination) *) yet, the suffering/punishment after death is _not_ continuous -- there's no purgatory Thus it seems very weird that on a continuous scale of human sinfulness, in the absence of a binary choice by God, the gain/loss after death is so different. ## Note Suggestions / clarifications to this question welcome.

Last summer I was traveling and I stopped for mass in another state. Throughout mass I was rather uncomfortable due the celebrant's demeanor/conduct, but I brushed it off as "just a bad case of progressivism." After mass I asked him to hear my confession, so we went to the confessional and began the standard process. Without disclosing the exact sins that were confessed, I will clarify a few things: 1. Every sin I confessed has been officially recognized as sin by the Catholic church since her beginning (and before that, by Judaism). 2. Some sins caused direct injury (without being specific, either spiritual, emotional, or physical) to another person. 3. I have confirmed with numerous other clergy that the things confessed were indeed sinful. Throughout my confession, the priest interrupted me many times to say, "so what?" or, "that's not a sin." I expressed the desire to help those affected by my sins come to healing, and the advice was, "Tell them to get over it!" *I spent more time arguing that my sins are indeed sins than I did giving my confession*. In complete honesty, it felt like I was speaking to an atheist clown at a circus and he was mocking me for my moral consciousness. I know with certainty the priest was wrong in this scenario, and I am afraid that he will lead others astray from salvation and into sin. However, I do not know how to make sure the matter is addressed appropriately and sufficiently resolved. I believe the best course of action is to report this to the diocese, but at the same time I am afraid that my experience was just a symptom of the diocese's own potential corruption (specifically, the administration). Also, I do not know *how* to submit such a report. How should I go about resolving this?

We were singing Christmas Carols tonight and noticed that in the Mormon Hymn book , the following verse has been omitted from, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing": > Christ, by highest heav'n adored:
Christ, the everlasting > Lord;
Late in time behold him come,
Offspring of the favored > one.
Veil'd in flesh, the Godhead see;
Hail, th'incarnate > Deity:
Pleased, as man, with men to dwell,
Jesus, our > Emmanuel!
Why don't Mormons sing this verse?