Lately I've read some discussions that says the word "echad" ("one" in English) in the Shema refers to a unity more than an absolute singularity. (Here's one example of those explanations) and would then compare it to husbands and wifes becoming one flesh, among other things. Some even would use the terms "absolute unity" in comparison to "compound unity" These are done, based on my understanding, to support the Trinity via the Old Testament. >Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is **one LORD**: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. [Deuteronomy 6: 4 and 5 KJV] However, in light of what we know of Divine Simplicity, this doesn't quite make much sense to me, and would seem contradicting: God is not a union of separate individuals (like the husband or wife is, or a nation, etc), nor can He be said to be "compound" because He is not composed of parts. With these in mind, I wonder how the concepts of Divine Simplicity and Echad as "compound unity" relate to each other - can they be reconciled at all? Or should Deut 6:4 be even used to support the Trinity in the first place? What do I miss?

Many Protestants object to the practice of addressing priests as "Father," citing Matthew 23:9. > And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Is there a respectful way for someone who is not Catholic to address a priest other than calling him "Father"?

If some cult decided to take the L and massacre as many people as possible each all souls day, then immediately pray for them, do all those victims get into heaven scott free? Can the cult members pray for one another when they are killed on all souls day and also get in?

Matthew 5:44 KJV >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; In Buddhism, it is taught that you should love your enemies because, at some time in the infinite sequence of rebirths, it was certainly the case that your enemy was once your mother. Therefore, hating your enemy is as irrational as hating your mother. This isn't a true explanation, but it is a rational justification for loving your enemies. But in Christianity, everyone is an atom created by the Creator, completely detached from everyone else. In light of this, **why is it rational to love your enemies?**

In the realm of philosophy of religion, I'm acquainted with concepts like *divine hiddenness* and the idea of a *non-resistant non-believer*, which refers to someone open to, yet lacking, a genuinely meaningful and reciprocal conscious connection with God (as explained by the author of [this answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/104847/66156)) . From a Christian viewpoint, if a person (non-believer or otherwise) is (or claims to be) open to God and yet consistently reports an inability to experience or establish a spiritual connection or relationship with Him—a state commonly described as God being perceived as *hidden*—over a span of many years, perhaps even a lifetime (as seen in individuals self-identifying as life-long non-resistant non-believers), is there a specific term in Christianity that best captures the condition of such a person?

The [JEDP theory](http://www.theopedia.com/JEDP_theory) basically states that the first five books of the bible (the Pentatauch) were not written by a single person, but rather by four different people. I'm trying to understand if this theory is even remotely valid or if it is complete nonsense. Specifically (to avoid this being closed as argumentative), what are the most reasonable supporting arguments for this theory? Also, what are the major criticisms against this theory?

Revelation 20:12, 20 >**12** And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. > >**15** if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire To me, verse 15 if it's to be understood logically, then it leads to a sense of a possible condition, where: "maybe there is none - maybe there is at least one name is found written in the book of life". But this possible condition is ruled out as in my own understanding, The Great White Throne Judgement is the second resurrection that happened to the non-elect, while the first resurrection already happened before the elect. If I myself answer the question, then maybe the answer is something like this: "The Book of Life is there to show them that since the beginning of time, their names are not in it." But since it's my own answer, I would like to know what is the Calvinist's answer.

This question is related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97517/objections-to-natural-theology-at-the-time-of-vatican-i In contrast to the observance of natural phenomena in order to arrive at the conclusion that God exists, an [*ontological argument*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument) is one which draws the same conclusion from some source other than observation of the world; e.g., from reason alone. The first such well-known argument, I believe, is the one attributed to St. Anselm, which (though multiple versions exist) I paraphrase as: "God is that Being Whom nothing greater can be conceived" — the proof of which can be assembled by reading his *Proslogion*. His argument which one may infer therein became famous; and then criticized a century or so later by St. Thomas Aquinas. Many variations of Anselm's demonstration, as well as many criticisms, followed throughout the centuries. In the twentieth century, the great logician Kurt Gödel (probably following the writings of Leibniz rather than that of Anselm), formalized a logical argument (with parallels to Anselm) which has been hailed as correct. For those familiar with logical symbols, see, for example, [*Gödel Says God Exists and Proves It*](https://mindmatters.ai/2021/06/godel-says-god-exists-and-proves-it/) ; and his proof is this: Of course, the validity of [Gödel's argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof) (which is now widely accepted) depends on acceptance of his definitions (the Df.'s) and the inherent truth of his axioms (the Ax.'s). QUESTION: What (if anything) has the Catholic Church declared (by say, either Council or papal encyclical) about affirming God's existence by reason alone; i.e., by some (apparently correct) ontological argument?

What happens to the fruits of the Mass applied to a particular soul who is no longer in purgatory?

Can a non-baptized publisher date or marry a person who is not a Jehovah's Witness?

First things first: I am not a Trinitarian. However, I know many good people that are Trinitarians and some of them are very close to me so we'll say that I'm sympathetic to the cause. I'm sincerely interested in knowing the answer to this (and others) query to better my understanding. What led me to the question is the belief that many Trinitarians hold regarding the name Jesus: it only belongs to the Son. I understand this to be a way of avoiding modalism, i.e. Jesus is not the Father. However, the name Yahweh can apply to the Father, Son, or Spirit (correct me if I'm wrong). So is Jesus the name of the person of God in Him, or only the man, or of both God and man? In my mind it makes sense if it's only the man but I could be way off!

The following is pulled from an answer to this question: According to Jehovah's Witnesses, In What Way is Jesus Human . > It would appear, then, that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus had his own distinctive body and personality, and that Michael had his own distinctive body and personality. What was common to them both was the impersonal life force that Jehovah had transferred between them. And since it was this impersonal life force, and not the individual body and personality, which had made either of these persons the Son of God, the body and personality of the man Christ Jesus was the only one among the whole human race which had no hope of the resurrection, because his life force had been vouchsafed unto the Archangel Michael. And this is confirmed by their saying that "Jesus was dead, forever dead" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 5, 1899, p. 454). The Witnesses appear to believe, then, that the man Jesus of Nazareth was human, fully human, in both body and personality, except that he alone among all of the human race had no hope of the resurrection, because he could not be resurrected as the Son of God, whose impersonal life force had been transferred once more unto the recreated body and personality of Michael the Archangel. The body of the answer describes the creation of the essence or life force of the Son of God as Michael the Archangel and then the passing of that essence to Jesus and then back to Michael. The supposition made within the answer (if I read it correctly) is that, since the humanity of Jesus died when he died and what resurrected and returned to the Father was only a "borrowed" essence, Jesus the man never actually had any hope of resurrection. Is this, indeed, what Jehovah's Witnesses mean by the statement, "Jesus was dead, forever dead" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 5, 1899, p. 454)?

Are there examples of transubstantiation that happens in other places/moments that are not in the celebration of Mass? I mean, somewhere in nature or in psychology, maybe philosophy. I am asking this because many theological concepts sometimes have analogues in nature or happen also in other non-religious places, so it would be a bit easier to understand it if there were counterparts. To clarify a bit, it's like the idea of "balance". This is a concept that can be found in many "realms", such as in nature (ecological balance), psychology (well-being), and philosophy (Aristotle's idea of virtue as balance of extremes). Is transubstantiation seen anywhere else beyond theology?

Month of November is dedicated to the deceased faithful. One of the Mass Intentions of Catholic Church for the month is to pray for those souls who have no one praying for them. That implies that those who die without relatives or friends to pray for them post- death, are in a disadvantageous position vis- a-vis those who have many. My question is: According to Catholic Church, how does God compensate those who die without relatives or friends to pray for their souls ?

Okay so I've heard the argument that humans are the one who let evil in the world but at one point there was only God before he stated his creation process, so there was all good. God created the laws of the universe and the way it works, he created free will in the way me and you understand it. Why would he create a universe with the capacity for evil to be in it? He can see the future so he knew the end product already when he started his creation process. He could see that hell would be created and people would be sent there to spend eternity. If you had a blank slate to create your own universe and the laws of the universe why make there even a possibility for evil to exist? At one point there was nothing, only good so all good. He created the capacity in this universe for evil and since he is omniscient he would know the outcome. How could you be all loving and create this existence with the possibility for there to be evil. You may say where there's good there has to be evil but that is because we are human and that is the way we understand things, there has to be a negative to a postlitive, but that is a law of the universe that was created by God and he knew the byproduct of that. I always see the same response to this and it comes down to Adam and Eve. But when God created Adam and eve he could see the future and what they would become and they would release evil into the world (the evil he created). I feel as if god either isn't all loving, all powerfull, or Christianity has lost touch of God's true word and what he is about. I do believe in God but I don't think he is Christian or has any sort of book he tried to get to us considering that basic contradiction in my eyes. I'm not trying to insult anyone's faith but I have my priest, my religious friends, and my family and they all seem stumped on the question and just chalk it up to "there's things that we aren't supposed to understand" and I feel like that's just such an easy cop out when people are so sure in their beliefs

I am consecrated to the Virgin Mary through Saint Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort's method. Although I have read his treatise on the matter, I find myself in a situation that I hadn't considered when reading his work. If you are familiar with the treatise, you know that all the merits of our prayers are given to Mother Mary so that she can present them to God "more perfectly." Therefore, you don't ask for anything in your prayers; rather, you simply ask for the Virgin Mary's intercession. But what should one do with prayers that have a specific part for asking for something? For example, I have many cards/icons with prayers and images of saints, and one specific example is Saint John Paul II's prayer where, at the end, you can ask for something you need and possibly receive it through the saint's intercession. Another example is Saint Thomas Aquinas's prayer asking for intelligence. So, what should someone consecrated to the Virgin Mary do with prayers like these? Omit the parts where you ask for something (but, in the case of Saint Thomas Aquinas's prayer, the entire prayer is a request) or just ask anyway? If there's anything I have not understood properly about the consecration or about praying, please, correct me.

Did ancient Roman Christians celebrate any Roman national holidays? Or were all their national holidays festivities which honored pagan gods?

How do Catholics defend the apparent errors found in the deuterocanonical books? [Errors in the Apocrypha](https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/errors-in-the-apocrypha/)

If there's immediate life after death in Christ, why in the second coming, will he raise those who died in Christ Jesus? John 11:25 >I am the resurrection & the life those who believe in me, even though they die will live. 1 Thessalonians‬ ‭4:16 >For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

I was reading in Matthew and saw a fascinating command, directly from Jesus: >[Matthew 23:9 (NWT)](http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_023.htm) >Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Are there any Christian doctrines or denominations that currently practice this doctrine of not calling anyone on Earth a "father"?