There is already a question focused on biblical arguments, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6908/61679* , but I found none focused on scientific reasons. According to creationists, are there scientific grounds for being skeptical of the view that God used Darwinian mechanisms to bring about the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor? What are the main scientific arguments that creationists put forward to challenge [theistic evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) ?

How integral is a personal experiential aspect to Christian belief in addition to [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) ? Can one rely solely on natural theology, or is a personal encounter or experience considered essential in Christian doctrine, and if so, what type(s) of experience(s) specifically? I'm interested in perspectives on the balance between these two elements in shaping and reinforcing one's faith. --- EDIT: @curiousdanni brought up a very good point: > If you rely solely on natural theology you can't be a Christian - the Gospel is communicated only through special revelation. I agree with this observation. Considering this, I think the question can be rephrased in more general terms as follows: Publicly accessible revelation (that can be grasped intellectually, including nature and Sacred Scripture) vs. Privately accessible revelation (involving spiritual experiences that presumably go beyond the confines of the intellect)?

Apart from preaching the good news to the Gentiles and the Jews, did the apostles have a responsibility to keep track of the number of years passed since Jesus Christ was taken up in a cloud to heaven. The Jews had their own calendar and they had a system of tracking the days, months and years. They knew the day Jesus took them to Mount Olives and ascended into heaven. This is because the 2023 years proposed isn't exactly accurate.

In the *"Bondage of the Will"*, Luther mentions *St. Jerome*, no more or less than 27 times. Having some snarky comments to say about him like: *"Jerome is cast in my teeth; a man, (to say no worse of him) of neither judgment nor application"*, obviously not liking him. Why did Luther disliked St. Jerome? Consider *Tabel Talks* – Of the Books of the Fathers, DXXXIX, p 235. > Jerome should not be numbered among the teachers of the church, for he was a heretic; yet I believe that he is saved through faith in Christ. He speaks not of Christ, but merely carries his name in his mouth.

Matthew 2:23 > And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: He will be called a Nazarene. It is widely known that academics were unable to find this reference in the Hebrew Bible. Some time ago I raised the thesis that Matthew 2:23 refers to the oral tradition also mentioned in Luke 2:25-39, in which the word Nazareth occurs; "propheses" and Simeon, the two are equivalent to the "prophets" of Matthew 2:23. What am I saying with this? Let's make it clear: It is possible that there was an oral tradition in the Church of the Circumcision (Acts 20:20-27), this is the conclusion when understanding Matthew 2:23 and Luke 2:25-39 It is also possible that there was NOT this oral tradition, but I do not agree with this possibility. "The Didache" refers to an early Christian document also known as the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles." It is generally dated between the years 70 and 150 AD, it does not show any clear access to the canonical Gospels... Papias, who lived between the years 100 and 130 AD, is known to be familiar with the rumored origins of two writings that bear similarities to the Gospels of Mark (associated with Peter) and Matthew. Aristides, who lived between the years 120 and 130 (or 140 AD), makes mention of a book entitled 'Gospel', whose full name is not specified, in which the figure of a virgin is described. This book, apparently, was known and possibly available to the public at the time. Patristic Collection vol. 20 - Origen Against Celso Ed. Paulus > "Here is the first affront formulated by Celsus in his desire to defame Christianity: Disregarding established laws, Christians form secret conventions among themselves. Among the conventions, some are public, and all are in accordance with the laws; others are hidden, and they are all those whose implementation violates the established laws." This certainly explains why the Gospels do not appear in Christian records until Justin Martyr in 150 AD. The Church of the Circumcision (Acts 20:20-27) served and worshiped in the Temple, what is the possibility of another Christological "god"? Celsus is also the first recorded pagan writer to have access to the 180 AD Gospels and criticize them. Confirmed existence of the Gospels: Justin Martyr, around 150 AD, makes reference to several books entitled "Gospels", including the memoirs of the Apostles and the reminiscences of Peter. Justin Martyr died around 163 AD and it is conjectured that his disciple Tatian possibly received the literary inheritance of his writings. Tatian 172 AD possibly produces the harmony of the Gospel 'From the Fours', but does not mention the names of the authors. Irenaeus 180-190 AD – he is the first to name all four Gospels. If this conjecture is correct, did the Gospels already exist in 70 AD? Were they hidden and for private use? As we understand when we read Celsus' comment regarding the Jewish Assembly, because the gospels have a divine Christology and so as not to create an "environment" of confusion and persecution on the part of the majority of unconverted Jews... Or do the gospels really Were they written after 70 AD?

> Acts 1:1 > "In my former book, **Theophilus**, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach" Who was he? --- Is it also possible that, since Theophilus means, *"friend of God "*, as Richard states, that Acts is written to **all believers**?

Genesis 3:12 says: > The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me > fruit of the tree, and I ate.” I've heard several people interpret this verse as Adam blaming God and / or Eve ("whom you gave to be with me") for eating the forbidden fruit. Are there contextual or grammatical clues in the passage that support this conclusion? I'm wondering if Adam was just being matter of fact or truly blaming Eve or God? Update: I found this question on another StackExchange .

Is their any objection in 2023 to the wearing of a beard by JW men who have been appointed to leadership positions?

Concerning the Book of Acts, Chapter 7, I would like to know if all Christians should accept that everything that Stephen had said about Jewish history in his speech before the Sanhedrin, particularly about how the past generations of Jews had dealt with God's prophets, was correct or are there any discrepancies in what he had said. Was Stephen correct in his historical summation of Jewish history in the Book of Acts, Chapter 7?

Around the world, many religious practices incorporate naturally-occurring hallucinogenic compounds using plants like [*Cannabis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis) , [*Datura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura) , [*S. divinorum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum) , and [peyote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote) ; fungi like [*P. cubensis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_cubensis) ; and preparations like [ayahuasca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca) . Are there Christian churches with practices which incorporate hallucinogens?

Is there any verse of Scripture anywhere that says that God has not changed? Malachi 3:6 says "For I am the LORD, I change not". This is present tense, and also there are verses which denote His unchanging nature in the present and infinitely into the future: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8) However, this same verse places a potentially time-bound retrospective on His unchanging status. All other verses I have found convey this same directionality: That in the present and future without end God is unchanging and unchangeable, but with respect to the past, there is no indication of never having changed. All of us are tempted at some points to wish that God would change, but we know He won't. There can be no question about the integrity or steadiness or absolute virtue of God. This is not a question about His integrity or virtue. This is not the same as the question of whether God does currently change . This is a question about whether God has ever changed in the past. It is a non sequitur of course to say that if He has changed in the past then He is capable of changing in the present or in the future. The Scriptures explicitly and categorically rule out such a notion. What I am having difficulty finding, however, is any indication that He never changed. Do the Scriptures say that God never changed? If so, where?

I typically read the Bible and pray every night but over time my prayer has become long and very structured and in some ways forced with me saying the same things every night and the same established prayers IE. Our Father Hail Mary Oh my Jesus etc. because of this prayer typically takes a long time, feels forced, and frustrating. I have no issue with the time, but if I were to make my prayers at night shorter and more relative to the day would that take away from praying as a whole? Would it be selfish or disrespectful of me to pray in total less that way? I just feel that i say the same things and it doesn’t feel like a conversation anymore, more so a burden. But should I continue on this commitment or not?

There is currently controversy between some Catholics regarding the current pope and the validity of him holding the office. On a video addressing this controversy (which I can no longer find), a comment mentioned that some people believed the current pope to be invalid due to Canon 188 in Title IX of the code of the canon law: Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself. My question is, what exactly is this Canon saying, especially with regards to the "substantial error", and how are people interpreting this to apply to the current pope?

**"God is perfect"** is often used as a justification for the belief that God never became God, but that rather, He never changed, but simply always was God, and **always was perfect**. What is the Biblical justification for the claim that "perfect" means that God always was God and never changed, seeing as Jesus commands us to be perfect, "even as our Father in Heaven is perfect"?

1 Timothy 2:11-14 >**11** Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. **12** I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. **13** **For Adam was formed first, then Eve**; **14** **and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor**. Jude 14 >It was also about these that **Enoch, the seventh from Adam**, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones Luke 3:23-38 >**23** Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, **24** the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, **25** the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, **26** the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, **27** the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, **28** the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, **29** the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, **30** the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, **31** the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, **32** the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, **33** the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, **34** the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, **35** the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, **36** the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, **37** the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, **38** the son of Enos, the son of Seth, **the son of Adam, the son of God**. Acts 17:26-27 >**26** **And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth**, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, **27** that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, Romans 5:12-14 >**12** Therefore, **just as sin came into the world through one man**, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— **13** for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. **14** Yet death reigned **from Adam to Moses**, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 1 Corinthians 11:7-12 >**7** For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. **8** **For man was not made from woman, but woman from man**. **9** **Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man**. **10** That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. **11** Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; **12** for **as woman was made from man**, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 >**21** For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. **22** **For as in Adam all die**, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:45 >Thus it is written, “**The first man Adam** became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 2 Corinthians 11:3 >But I am afraid that **as the serpent deceived Eve** by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. Matthew 19:4-6 >**4** He answered, “Have you not read that **he who created them from the beginning made them male and female**, **5** and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? **6** So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” These passages appear to depict Adam and Eve as historical figures. For Christians embracing the theory of Evolution, how might these verses be interpreted to align with a [theistic evolutionary](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) account of the origin of the human species? --- A few subquestions to consider when seeking to reconcile theistic evolution with these passages: 1. How can the genealogy outlined in Luke 3:23-28, corroborated by Jude 14, be harmonized with an evolutionary timeline? It's noteworthy that this genealogy is often cited in support of [Young Earth Creationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) . 2. Within a theistic evolutionary framework, what interpretations exist for the sequence of creation, particularly with Eve's creation occurring from/after Adam, as indicated by 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:7-12? 3. Concerning Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, how is the idea of death entering the world through one man understood in the context of theistic evolution? How is the absence of death before Adam and Eve's fall reconciled with the mechanism of natural selection that relies on the death of the unfit to work? 4. How is the deception of Eve by the serpent, referenced in 2 Corinthians 11:3, reconciled with an evolutionary perspective on human origins?

Saint Ignatius was bishop of Antioch in Syria between 68 and 100 or 107, a disciple of the apostle John. He also knew Saint Paul and was the successor of Saint Peter in the church in Antioch. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch in Syria and according to Origen he would have been the second bishop of the city. Saint Ignatius was detained by authorities and transported to Rome, where he was sentenced to death in the Colosseum martyred by lions. Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter 18: > For our **God**, Jesus Christ, was, according to God's designation, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit. Approximately at this same time, 110 AD and in nearby regions, we have the main historical document of the existence of a Christ worshiped as "god", written by the enemies of the Church, which makes it even more valuable and pertinent: Pliny the Younger, on Christians, a letter to Emperor Trajan. > ... There were among them those who assured, moreover, that their entire fault, or rather, their entire error, consisted solely in meeting regularly on a certain day before sunrise, alternately singing among those present a hymn in honor of Christ, as if he were **a god**... The term Θεὸς "God" can also refer to the term "Elohim" which encompasses the meanings of human magistrate, the divine Christ and also Almighty God himself. The two citations to the previous narratives refer only to the uncircumcised church outside Judea (Acts 20:20-27). In the letter to the Romans 6.1, Ignatius of Antioch writes: > The ends of the world, nor the kingdoms of this age, will be of no use to me. It is more wonderful for me to die for Jesus Christ than to reign to the ends of the earth. It is Him I seek, who died for us; I want Him who was resurrected because of us. My birth awaits me. 2 Forgive me, brothers: do not want to stop me from living, do not want me to die; what wants to be from God, do not present it to the world nor seduce it with matter. Allow me to receive pure light: when I get there I will be a man. 3 Allow me to imitate the suffering of **my God**. If someone has it within themselves, they will know what I want and will sympathize with me, because they know what drives me. In the Epistle to the Smyrniots, chapter 1 says: > I give glory to Jesus Christ, **the God** who granted him such wisdom What reasons led the recent Church of the uncircumcision and Ignatius to treat Jesus as a God?

[Ex Opere Operato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato) is a theological claim that a sacrament is efficacious by the nature of it being a sacrament, not the minister or recipient. But what is the biblical basis for this idea (if any?)?

Starting with John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Colossians 1:16, "For by or in Him all things were created, both 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." Then there is Hebrews 1:10 where Jesus' own Father states, "And Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands;" The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 102:25, "Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands." This Psalm is the prayer of an afflicted man and at verse 24 the man says, "I say, "O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days etc." Finally, Revelation 3:14, "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write, The Amen the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, say this;" In view of these Biblical facts about Jesus Christ before He was actually born please reconcile all of this with Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

I understand that the context for this passage was intended, by John the apostle, to warn the church about decievers that will come, and have the power to destroy us from the inside; 2 John 1:9-11 KJV >**9** Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. **10** If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: **11** For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. I'm capable of discerning, spiritually that is, people that are not truly followers of Christ. But considering how Jesus taught us to love (John 13: 34-35), who he taught us to love (Matthew 5:43-48), and how Jesus treated sinners (Mark 2 15-17), how does the above passage differ? I know that both ways of acting toward others are important, correct, consistent, and compatible. But while on one hand we're told not to let them in our house, Matthew 5:41-42 tells us to walk with them. A mile even! Then afterward, we're told to give them what they ask of us. So my question is this: According to the Word of God, how are we as Christians, rightly supposed to recognize these differences, and treat others accordingly, with the love and meekness of a child of God? Could he moreso be warning against ideologies introduced to the church, and the church adopting them, and teaching them, that go against what the Bible teaches? Passages mentioned: John 13:34, 35 KJV >**34** A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. **35** By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Mark 2:15-17 KJV >**15** And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. **16** And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? **17** When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Matthew 5:41-48 KJV >**41** And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. **42** Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. **43** Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. **44** But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; **45** That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. **46** For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? **47** And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? **48** Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Is wearing makeup is sinful according to Catholic teaching? If so, why? I am not asking about someone who would put makeup to cover some kind of deformity on his face (like when someone gets burned on his face) but about regular cases. **Edit (My conclusion so far).** It would seem to me that Aquinas is saying that wearing makeup can not be devoid of sin. It seems to me that Aquinas in his article separates two questions: 1. Whether the adornment (and here adornment (*ornatus*) means wearing clothes, jewelry or something which is added onto the body and is not like makeup which applies paint on the body as Aquinas says in a replay to the second objection) of women is devoid of mortal sin? With this question, it seems to me, he deals in '*I answer with (Respondeo)*'. 2. Whether applying paint(and here is painting (*fucatio*) something that we would call wearing makeup) on the body can be devoid of sin? With this question, it seems to me, he deals in 'Reply to Objection 2'. I am here interested in question 2 and as far as I can see, Aquinas says in Reply to Objection 2 that it is sinful to wear makeup: > Cyprian is speaking of women painting themselves: this is a kind of > falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin. It seems to me, that the reason that he gives for why wearing makeup can not be devoid of sin is that it is some kind of deceiving. I could try to formalize his argument in this way: 1. It is wrong to deceive others. 2. Wearing makeup is the same as counterfeiting a beauty one has not, therefore wearing makeup includes deceiving others. 3. Therefore, it is wrong to wear makeup. The reason why this argument would not work for wearing clothes is that clothes are to cover the body, while makeup applies paint on the body. Clothes to the body are not the same as makeup to face. Also, this argument would not convict applying products against skin dehydration (or something like that) because those products could be understood as medicine. Also, we could see that the same argument (principle) which I gave is used against those who paint themselves in a way to seem to be of different sex (ie. transgenders). One of the reasons why is it sinful for them to paint themselves that way is because they deceive others. If I am still misunderstanding something please correct me.