I understand that Christian Science believes that a person with a physical disease should not seek out medical treatment, but instead rely on prayer. Wikipedia says that adherents believe > …that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health. > > The church does not require that Christian Scientists avoid all medical care – adherents use dentists, optometrists, obstetricians, physicians for broken bones, and vaccination when required by law – but maintains that Christian Science prayer is most effective when not combined with medicine. I'm curious to know what Christian Science teaches about mental illnesses (e.g. depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, and other mental illnesses recognized by the DSM-5 ). In particular, I'm wondering if mental illnesses are also described as mental errors or if they are something else. Also, what sort of treatment would be permitted? I presume that taking SSRIs and other medication would be strongly discouraged, but is seeking out a counselor permitted?

We come across many verses in the Bible - both Old Testament and New Testament, where the name of devil is mentioned. For instance: - Is 14: 12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! - Lk 10:18 : And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven - Mat 4:10 : Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. - Lk 11: 15: But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. Satan appears to be a generic name in that Jesus himself reprimands Peter: > "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Mtt 16:23) My question, therefore is: Who, according to Catholic Church, is the leader of all devils?

If God wants everybody to be Christian and the Bible is the central text of Christianity, what were people supposed to do before it was completed, much less started? Also, is there anything on record speaking to reasons why the particular era that the Bible was written was chosen (specifically OT)? It was a gradual roll-out, so were there parts that weren't needed until they came up, or did they perhaps correlate to certain events?

Among the early church there was a dispute on the nature of Christ, with some Christians claiming that Jesus was not only God but was uncreated and some like Arius believing that Jesus Christ was created, but did the early church believe that Jesus Christ was uncreated?

A commonly held belief is that people need to accept Jesus as Lord *during their lifetime on Earth* and failing to do so will result in the individual's damnation. Is there any support for this "last call" doctrine? [Since there is life after death](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17256/judgement-upon-death#comment49358_17256) , I have wondered if people will have an opportunity to make a decision for Jesus after their death. Is there any support for this "second chance" idea? I have tried to study it and have not able to find anything in the bible that would contradict this idea that we can still make a decision for Christ after this life.

**How can I know that I believe the resurrection of Jesus?** Many Christians say that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus is the necessary condition of being a Christian. However, I don’t know whether I believe the resurrection of Jesus or not. The context of this question is my previous question to which many people gave me some comments and answers. Thank you for them.

I am aware of the several *Metaphysical Arguments* for the proof of God's existence (Cosmological, Teleological, Anthropological, etc.). And am familiar with the Logical Syllogisms showing the lethal flaws of Atheism. But several modern Apologists mention and advocate the Transcendental Argument. What is it, and is it as effective as the usual proofs, or perhaps superior?

In John 12:1-6 we see an account of Jesus getting anointed at Bethany , and Judas Iscariot commenting that the expenses could better have gone to the poor. The Evangelist remarks that Judas was in charge of the fund and would occasionally steal from it. Elsewhere, we see rich ladies contributing to the fund ( Lk 8 :1-3). One is therefore, inclined to believe that Jesus and his disciples did keep a fund from which they would source their day-to-day expenses, and would also help the needy. One of the charges the Missionaries face is that they give monetary assistance to the poor with the alleged intention of the latter' s conversion to Christianity. Jesus' statement that the poor is always with us (Mtt 26:11) , in fact makes it obligatory on his followers to render financial assistance to those in need. My question therefore, is : Did Jesus give monetary help to the poor during his public life ?

I had been thinking about this, but since it isn't ever mentioned in the Bible, is there any teaching that says the original disciples and apostles were ever baptized?

In the book of Acts Chapter 1:v 4-5 regarding an earlier speech of Jesus, it is written >On one occasion,while he was eating with them he gave them this command:Do not leave Jerusalem,but wait for the gift my father promised,which you have heard me speak about. 5:For John baptised with water but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy spirit. ---------- When the disciples were choosing one of their own to replace Judas,it is written Acts 1:v23-26 >So they proposed two men:Joseph called Barsabass (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24:Then they prayed,"Lord,you know everyone's heart.Show us which of these two men you have chosen 25: to take over this apostolic ministry,which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26:Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias;so he was added to the eleven apostles. ---------- If they were to baptised by the Holy Spirit in a few days time,then why did they use a form of divination by casting lots to discover who to choose?

I'm reading «Teología Natural» by Ángel Luis González. In the book, it is stated that St. Thomas Aquinas' viae would allow an indefinite series of causes. He distiguishes between two causes. The first is the "cause essentially subordinated in the present", and the "cause accidentally subordinated in the past". Only the latter can come from a process in infinitum. He even quotes St.Thomas: *S.Th.*, I, q.46, a.2, ad 7. I'm having a some difficulty in understanding what these two types of causes are. Any help would be appreciated

I have 3 questions to Jehovah's Witnesses about how they view marriage/divorce: 1. Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow a person to divorce and marry someone else? 2. If it is allowed only in some cases, what cases are those? 3. Will a congregation member get excommunicated if they divorce and marry someone else, or are there other consequences?

The book *[Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview](http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Christian-Worldview-Moreland/dp/0830826947)* (page 18) describes *notitia*, *fiducia*, and *assensus* as the three essential elements that make up the biblical notion of "faith." *notitia* is defined as "understanding the content of the Christian faith" *fiducia* is defined as "trust" *assensus* is defined as "the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition" I am trying to determine what the background is for each of these three words along with what their origin, context, and usage is. Where did they first appear? What is their relationship to the New Testament or the Old Testament?

I personally believe that Christian morality is ultimately utilitarian. I see God as a utilitarian genius that is doing His best to guide His creation towards maximum utility, subject to certain constraints (e.g., respecting the free will of His creatures, etc.) I feel persuaded to believe this is the case because I see many correlations between what God commands or desires and what promotes happiness and well-being. I'll enumerate some examples: - Example 1: *Heaven vs. Hell*. This is the clearest one. Heaven represents the utilitarian utopia, a place of maximum happiness, maximum well-being, and minimum (zero) suffering. In contrast, Hell is the complete opposite. So if God is a utilitarian, it makes perfect sense that He wants to maximize the number of people who make it to Heaven and minimize the number of people who wind up in Hell. - Example 2: *Love vs. Hate*. Love is good. Hate is evil. Love promotes well-being. Hate promotes violence, crimes & suffering. As a utilitarian, it makes perfect sense that a loving state of being should be preferred over a hateful state of being. - Example 3: *Love vs. Lust*. Lust can be [tricky](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95288/61679) , but if we acknowledge that lust and love cannot simultaneously coexist in the same person (they are mutually exclusive), and if we acknowledge that a profoundly loving state of being produces much more well-being than a profoundly lustful state of being, then, as a utilitarian, it makes perfect sense that love should be preferred over lust. Love produces more utility. - Example 4: *Self-control vs. Addictions/Compulsions*. This is pretty much self-evident. People who are enslaved by addictions and compulsions are vulnerable to all sorts of health problems, can sometimes be quite dysfunctional, cause accidents, underperform and become less productive in their jobs, etc. A society in which all individuals are masters of themselves can be much more productive and prosperous than a society in which everyone is compulsively distracted by the urge to get their next fix. - Example 5: *Honesty vs. Lying*. Misinformation can cause a lot of trouble. People can make all sorts of terrible decisions based on bad information and lies. A lot of suffering could be spared if people only reported accurate information (to the best of their ability) in good faith. It makes sense, therefore, that honesty should be preferred over lying in most situations (with the typical exception of lying to the Nazis to save a Jewish family that is hiding in your basement). And so on and so forth. So I'm wondering if my reasoning is flawed, and therefore I would like to ask for counterexamples, that is, examples in which it is nearly impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to make sense of them in utilitarian terms. Are there examples of good and evil in Christianity where utility doesn't play an obvious role?

When God created the world, He had to accept the fact that some of His creatures would sin and ultimately fail to repent and be saved (I'm assuming that [universalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism) is false, to be clear). For example, suppose that X is one of such people. In this world, X fails to repent and gets condemned. One could ask the following question about X: *"Okay, X gets condemned in this world, but was it theoretically possible for God to have created a different, counterfactual world in which X would have been saved?"*. For example, if X had been born and raised in ideal conditions, say, if X had been filled with the Holy Spirit since he was in his mother's womb (like John the Baptist was), who knows, perhaps under those counterfactual conditions X would have been saved. However, God didn't create that ideal world for X. Instead, He created this world. And in this world, unfortunately, X doesn't make it to Heaven ... Which sounds terrible. If God is a loving father, and if there is at least one possible world in which X would be saved, for sure God would create that world so that X gets actually saved, right? This can lead to entertain the idea that, perhaps, God didn't create a world in which X would get saved because there is no such world in the first place. That is, no matter what world God could have created, in all possible worlds X always systematically fails to be saved. God exhaustively searched all the "alternative worlds space" and couldn't find a single world in which X is saved. And perhaps, all the people who freely reject salvation in this world are people who would have also freely rejected salvation in all other possible worlds. In other words, some individuals are just unsavable. They freely mess up always, no matter the world in which you create them. Does this belief have a name? I found this related question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57626/how-do-molinists-justify-a-world-where-not-everyone-freely-chooses-salvation , and so Molinism is surely relevant to this discussion of free will and counterfactual worlds, but I'm specifically interested in finding out if there is an official name for the specific belief that some individuals are unsavable in all possible worlds. Or at least I would like to know if there are any Christian groups who believe this.

Does the Bible contain a thought or any indication of it that throughout the whole Old Testament era there was a process of preparation for the first coming of Christ taking place in the spiritual world? We know that in the physical world there was a process of preparation taking place for the first coming of Christ – in the way of God’s firstly forming a chosen nation, then revealing to them some standards of His righteousness, and later, through multiple periods of their history, showing to them that they were unable to live according to those standards by themselves, that they needed to fully rely on God’s saving hand in the matter of their salvation – despite possessing the status of the chosen nation. But what about the spiritual world? Does the Bible contain any indication that there was also a kind of preparation for the first coming of Christ happening in the spiritual world during those times (perhaps, some kind of spiritual warfare happening between God’s angels and fallen angels, the outcome of which made the first coming of Christ possible)?

In my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95435/what-are-counterexamples-to-the-position-that-christian-morality-is-ultimately-u , someone in the comments referred me to this article: https://www.desiringgod.org/topics/christian-hedonism The title of the article is *Christian Hedonism*. Then it says: > **Joy is not optional. It’s essential**. > > Christian Hedonism is the > conviction that God’s ultimate goal in the world (his glory) and our > deepest desire (to be happy) are one and the same, because God is most > glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. Not only is God the > supreme source of satisfaction for the human soul, but God himself is > glorified by our being satisfied in him. Therefore, our pursuit of joy > in him is essential. > > Christian Hedonism claims that the Christian life should be the > pursuit of maximum joy in God — joy both in quality and quantity. > Fullness of joy and joy forevermore (Psalm 16:11) are found only in > him. > > **Joy Changes Everything** > > Learning that God’s glory and our joy are not at odds is a liberating > discovery. Christian Hedonism touches, and reshapes, our vision of > essentially all of life and ministry — from conversion to worship to > the Scriptures to prayer to marriage to missions to suffering, and > even the very nature of God himself. > > > **Objections** > > Much is at stake with joy in God. Many have thought about Christianity > for so long in terms of duty, rather than delight, that the claims of > Christian Hedonism can be tough to swallow. John Piper has heard these > over the years and is eager to win even the most ardent detractors. So, is John Piper a utilitarian? Is there any difference between Christian Hedonism and Utilitarianism?

How do non-Trinitarian Christians understand the description of Deity in Isaiah 46:9? > Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me (Isaiah 46:9 KJV) Since this is a question about theology, not translation philosophy, for reference I've added below the text of this verse with transliterations of the Hebrew words for God employed here: > Remember the former things of old: for I am God (El), and there is none else; I am God (Elohim), and there is none like me Whereas in English the word "God" is (usually) used both times, in Hebrew we have two different (but related) terms. What, if anything, does this variation in terminology mean to a non-Trinitarian Christian? *** *** Related: How do Trinitarian Christians understand the description of Deity in Isaiah 46:9?

How do Trinitarian Christians understand the description of Deity in Isaiah 46:9? Who is speaking in this verse? > Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me (Isaiah 46:9 KJV) Since this is a question about theology, not translation philosophy, for reference I've added below the text of this verse with transliterations of the Hebrew words for God employed here: > Remember the former things of old: for I am God (El), and there is none else; I am God (Elohim), and there is none like me *** *** Related: How do non-Trinitarian Christians understand the description of Deity in Isaiah 46:9?

I came across a short prayer appended to the Holy Rosary, which states that Blessed Virgin Mary had been chosen from the very beginning, to be the Mother of Jesus. Though the curse given to Satan in Genesis speaks of the progeny of woman crushing the Devil's head, it needs to be confirmed that God the Father had Mary in mind. Some references state that Mary was, at the fulfilment of time, chosen to be the Mother of Jesus. My question therefore is : **According to Catholic scholars, when was Blessed Virgin Mary first chosen as Jesus' Mother?**