To some people, and even to Christians at times, it seems difficult to believe that the all-powerful Creator of the Cosmos likes or feels affection for humans personally. This was the topic of a recent question addressed to the Catholic perspective. I would specifically like to ask: what is the biblical basis for the belief that God's love for people includes a genuine individual affection?

I am 24 years old. I have been a Christian for 5 years, but was raised in church. For the last two years I have been trying my best to walk out this faith to the best of my ability. I am not trying to brag (honestly), but I spend about 45min-1hour reading my Bible a day. I pray for a long time each morning and periodically throughout the day. I am trying my hardest to live a life that honors God, but I am finding that there is a dichotomy within me. My entire being wants to honor God but it also want to enjoy the pleasures of sin. I have begged God to free me from the sin that has bound me. I just want to know if there will ever be a point in my life that I will not be bound by a particular sin and will be able to walk in freedom.

From Wikipedia (article "Saint"): > The Catholic Church teaches that it does not "make" or "create" saints, but rather recognizes them. Proofs of heroic virtue required in the process of beatification will serve to illustrate in detail the general principles exposed above upon proof of their holiness or likeness to God. Because the Church is not in the business of making saints, where do Catholics recommend a sinner to go in order to become a Saint?

My understanding is that God revealed everything He wanted to reveal in the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus then commanded the apostles to proclaim those teachings to the world, but He didn't give them authority to add anything to His teachings. If Jesus did not mention a topic in His life and teachings, the apostles were not given authority to speak on that topic--only to pass on what they had seen and heard. If we cannot find evidence that Jesus taught or acted on a given topic, that topic cannot become part of the Deposit of Faith--is that a correct assumption?

For context, I'd recommend reading first the answers to [*What exactly would count as a "positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship" between a person and a God?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105869/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange. --- The phrase *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* appears in the context of the atheistic [*Argument from Divine Hiddenness*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/) : > (1) Necessarily, if God exists, then God perfectly loves such finite > persons as there may be.
(2) Necessarily, if God perfectly loves > such finite persons as there may be, then, for any capable finite > person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a **positively** > **meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship** with S at t.
> (3) Necessarily, if for any capable finite person S and time t, God is > at t open to being in a **positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious** > **relationship** with S at t, then, for any capable finite person S and > time t, it is not the case that S is at t nonresistantly in a state of > nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
> (4) There is at least one capable finite person S and time t such that > S is or was at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to > the proposition that God exists.
> > ---- > > (5) So, it is not the case that God exists. (from 1 through 4) > > *(Source: Howard-Snyder, Daniel and Adam Green, "Hiddenness of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. > Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = > .)* From a Christian standpoint: - Does the idea of a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* with God align with Christian beliefs? - Is it a fundamental expectation, by principle or definition, for all Christians to cultivate a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* with God? - Can the notion of a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* between an individual and God be articulated in a manner that better aligns with Christian theological principles and terminology? - Are there specific ways in which God is expected to *talk back* to Christians, assuming the existence of *two-way communication*? - Similarly, are there specific ways in which God is expected to *intervene in reality*, assuming the existence of a *two-way interactive relationship*?

My son’s grandmother was Roman Catholic and she wanted us to have him baptised without delay. However, given we did not intend to bring him up in the Catholic faith, that would not have been possible. I found lots of information in this article: [Infant Baptism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism#Roman_Catholic_Church) . I am also aware that confirmation takes place later, at around age 7, the age of discretion. Source: [Confirmation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism#Confirmation) Since then, I have wondered if baptised infants of Catholic parents are identified as being a member of the Catholic Church. Is a baptismal certificate given to the parents, and, if so, what does it say? Or does a child not become a recognised Catholic until after confirmation? And what obligations and responsibilities does that confer upon the child?

I was recently in conversation with a lady who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She said they are the "true" church because apostolic authority was lost after the death of Jesus' 12 disciples, and that authority was not regained until Joseph Smith met with Moroni (son of Mormon). Reading the Introduction from The Book of Mormon, it says (in part): >The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection... On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith... Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah. ***What I can't find are any official LDS statements to support her claim that apostolic authority was lost after the death of Jesus' 12 disciples, and that authority was not regained until Joseph Smith was given it by God.*** Before I can respond to this LDS lady I need more information on the LDS view of apostolic authority being granted to Joseph Smith.

The verb for evangelizing occurs 135 times in the N.T. while the word for pastoring (shepherding) occurs 15 times. Yet the preponderance of time it is translated as "preach" conjuring up a robed (or three pieced suited ) minister behind a pulpit with a choir behind him, exhorting a congregation. But it seems that the N.T. pictured the evangelist as a type of gumshoe minister who walked the streets and meandered the marketplace in search of lost sheep, distraught souls, and wayward men and women. And these ministers were greatly valued because the spread of the fledgling church depended upon them. And "they did turn the world upside down." - And they (the apostles) went through the towns "evangelizing" and healing everywhere. (Lu. 9:6) - And daily in the Temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and "evangelize concerning Jesus. (Acts 5:42) - Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and "evangelizes" him concerning Jesus. (Acts 8:36) - For though I "evangelize" I have nothing to boast about, for necessity is laid upon me, woe is me if I did not "evangelize." (1 Cor. 9:16) In light of the vast amount of "evangelizing" by the Early Church and its importance, did Paul wish to be considered one of those Evangelist-- as well as an Apostle-- by using this word to describe his ministry in the cities he went to? (See 1 Corinthians 9:16, in the Greek)

Were there any lay Christian writers/theologians as prominent as Church Fathers in the Early Church? Also, why was there a lack of laity representation in bible studies and theology?

In a paragraph of the write-up on Roman Catholic Saints at britannica.com , it is written that many Catholics take or are given a saint’s name for their Confirmation. Normally, a Catholic child on its Baptism is given a saint's name which may be different from the child' s name as entered in civil records. But are there places where children are given saint's names on their Confirmation ?

I was doing my morning prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours and this passage appeared: > “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭7‬:‭14‬-‭16‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Now I’m particularly confused about how trinitarians read this passage, as it’s commonly used as a citation for Jesus’ incarnation, but this bit about him coming to **know** (implied by before he knows) seems to be problematic for an incarnate deity. What is the trinitarian interpretation of this passage?

Did the Early Church acknowledge the Holy Spirit as Feminine? An article recently titled “ The Holy Spirit as feminine: Early Christian testimonies and their interpretation” note that the early Church referred to the Holy Spirit as Feminine. They cite such examples from resources such as Origen’s commentary on John. He writes >> If anyone should lend credence to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour Himself says, 'My Mother (mētēr), the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great Mount Tabor', he will have to face the difficulty of explaining how the Holy Spirit can be the Mother (mētēr) of Christ when She was herself brought into existence through the Word. But neither the passage nor this difficulty is hard to explain. For if he who does the will of the Father in heaven [Mt. 12:50] is Christ's brother and sister and mother (mētēr), and if the name of brother of Christ may be applied, not only to the race of men, but to beings of diviner rank than they, then there is nothing absurd in the Holy Spirit's being His Mother (mētēr); everyone being His mother who does the will of the Father in heaven. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John 2, 12 - Preuschen 1903:67) Or Jerome which notes >> … and he should believe in the Gospel, which has been edited according to the Hebrews, which we have translated recently, in which it is said of the person of the Saviour: 'My Mother (mater), the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs ….' (Jerome, Commentary on Micah 2, 7, 6 - Adriaen 1969:513) >>And also this: (in the text) 'like the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress' [Ps. 123:2], the maid is the soul and the mistress (dominam) is the Holy Spirit. For also in that Gospel written according to the Hebrews, which the Nazaraeans read, the Lord says: 'Just now, my Mother (mater), the Holy Spirit, took me.' Nobody should be offended by this, for among the Hebrews the Spirit is said to be of the feminine gender (genere feminino), although in our language it is called to be of masculine gender and in the Greek language neuter. (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 11, 40, 9 - Adriaen 1963:459) So is this true? Are these genuine citations from the Church Fathers? Or is this quote mining to propel a more feminine deity?

Curious what Christian theologians or the Bible may have said about this. It seems like Jesus speaks in terms of his father's will as if it is not quite his own, which suggests separate minded-ness. And what of the Holy Spirit ? Is the Holy Spirit thought to have a mind in the same way Jesus and God the father are thought to (since they are considered "persons" in some sense of the word). Maybe there are ways it could be a bit of both shared and separate. There may be no obvious answer on this and it could be just up for speculation, and if so, I'd be interested in learning that fact at least.

Normally I would hear the answer is one mind, but I was wondering; If beliefs are part of your mind, and since Jesus (the second person) would believe "I am the Son of God" and the Father would believe "I am the Father", They would believe two different things i.e, The Son would not believe He is the Father but the Father would believe He is the Father. Shouldn't that mean the Trinity should have three minds (for each conciseness/person) and one will?

A lot of things in today's culture have names with the word ***"damn"*** in them, e.g., the restaurant Hattie B's Hot Chicken has a menu option named "Damn Hot". I'm sure it was a sin for whoever came up with that name, but what about for the rest of us? Is it okay for Catholics to use those names when talking about those things, e.g., while ordering at that restaurant, or would that be sinful too? If the latter, then how should we refer to them?

This year Christmas is on a Monday. My wife read in a neighboring parish's bulletin that we had to go to Mass on the Fourth Sunday of Advent (i.e. sometime Saturday night or Sunday Morning) and this greatly distressed my daughter who unfortunately wants maximum presents and minimum Mass for Christmas. Catholicism.chat told me that: > Paragraph 2180 of the Catechism states that the precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass celebrated on the evening of the preceding day. Therefore, if you attend Mass on Christmas Eve, you fulfill your obligation for both the fourth Sunday of Advent and Christmas. --- So, if a person were to attend a vigil Mass on Saturday, I can see that not satisfying the obligation to go to Mass on Christmas. But, if a person went to Mass at 4:00 PM or later on Sunday, would that satisfy the obligation for both Christmas and the Fourth Sunday in Advent?

I have been reading _about_ the Bible and saw this passage: > But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the > night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the > elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works > that are in it will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10) But I cannot find _when_ this is supposed to happen. I am assuming that this is referring to some kind of a war. Does the Bible say when this event will occur, or even hint at a period of time when it may occur? But something tells me that this may not be about war, or at least not about any of our own wars. *"But the day **of** the Lord..."* - that makes me think that this is referring to something like Judgement day?

I was reading a short essay in the [*Word on Fire* Gospel Reflections on Luke 12:49-53](https://www.wordonfire.org/reflections/a-ordinary-wk29-thursday/) where in Luke 12:49 Jesus says that He came to set fire to the world. In the essay Bishop Barron says that Jesus' priesthood is shown as a "spreader of the sacred fire". This reminded me of something I thought was an Old Testament passage, but on reflection it was just a line from the Lord of the Rings - probably only the movie, not the book. Is the notion of a priest as a spreader and/or keeper of the sacred fire based on something to do with Old Testament typology or is it just a general notion of a priest throughout pagan/human history?

The responses and reactions elicited by the question [Is Christianity testable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange have been quite insightful. In particular, I would like to bring the reader's attention to two highly upvoted comments: > Plenty of such anecdotes can be found about other religions too. Even straight up cults like scientology. Are those also true? What is more even if we granted the fact that belief in Christianity or reading the new testament helps people put their life together, it is no proof of divine origin as such thing can be obtained by mundane means too. This is highly unserious on the part of Lennox. (41 upvotes) > So, Lennox has discovered the Placebo effect? Congratulations to him for this discovery. (9 upvotes) On a more serious note, the comment about the placebo effect prompted me to conduct a cursory search for scientific articles to determine if this view has any merits from a scientific standpoint. That's how I came across this [paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130399/) , titled *Spirituality: an overlooked predictor of placebo effects?*, published in the *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* journal. The abstract asserts the following: > Empirical findings have identified spirituality as a potential health > resource. Whereas older research has associated such effects with the > social component of religion, newer conceptualizations propose that > spiritual experiences and the intrapersonal effects that are > facilitated by regular spiritual practice might be pivotal to > understanding potential salutogenesis. **Ongoing studies suggest that** > **spiritual experiences and practices involve a variety of neural** > **systems that may facilitate neural ‘top-down’ effects that are** > **comparable if not identical to those engaged in placebo responses**. **As** > **meaningfulness seems to be both a hallmark of spirituality and placebo** > **reactions**, it may be regarded as an overarching psychological concept > that is important to engaging and facilitating psychophysiological > mechanisms that are involved in health-related effects. **Empirical** > **evidence suggests that spirituality may under certain conditions be a** > **predictor of placebo response and effects**. Assessment of patients' > spirituality and making use of various resources to accommodate > patients' spiritual needs reflect our most current understanding of > the physiological, psychological and socio-cultural aspects of > spirituality, and may also increase the likelihood of eliciting > self-healing processes. We advocate the position that a research > agenda addressing **responses and effects of both placebo and** > **spirituality** could therefore be (i) synergistic, (ii) valuable to each > phenomenon on its own, and (iii) contributory to an extended placebo > paradigm that is centred around the concept of meaningfulness. > > Keywords: spirituality, spiritual practice, salutogenetic effects, > meaningfulness, placebo, neuronal top-down effects How can a case be made against the view that the Christian experience is nothing but the Placebo effect?

For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (or those who understand the positions of those who do), how can the Bible have this status given all the opportunities for any message delivered by God to be corrupted by human failings? In particular, humans have free will and thus fell; but a being with free will may choose to convey a different message than one they have been given, and even without such will, imperfect beings make mistakes. Did God suspend the exercise of free will and ability to err (at least without catching it later) of those who wrote the Bible and those who transcribed it?