What does it mean for the Catholic Church to be inclusive ? Does inclusivity mean that of race? From one of the links: The St. Louis Mosaic Project Ambassador School program encourages member schools to reinforce an internationally welcoming and inclusive culture through pledges unique to each school. St. Margaret of Scotland is proud to be an Ambassador school.

In this comparison of ESV/NIV/NET translations, several references are made to how evangelical a translation is: > I am happy to endorse the ESV, with the understanding that **the > scholarship, largely because it was restricted to evangelicals** and > was, within this realm, not as broadly based as some would like to > see, took a downturn from previous iterations. > The NIV went in the opposite direction. ... It came out eight years > after the NEB did; those two translations (one British **and not > evangelical, the other more international yet evangelical**) were the > first and second committee-produced English translations done in over > 400 years that were not in the KJV tradition > The translation committee, for example, used some irritating > evangelical ‘trump cards’ in places where the text really does not say > what they want it to say. I am not asking for opinions on the article itself, but what is meant by an "evangelical translation" - how is it different from a "not evangelical" translation (whatever that is?)

**Do we know which side of Christ was pierced by the Roman soldier during His Passion?** Have any serious studies been done to determine which side of Christ was pierced by a lance during the Crucifixion of Jesus, immediately after He died on the Cross?

I am merely seeking validation, or otherwise, on an article appearing on Reddit/Ask Historians, regarding the '*Index Librorum Prohibitorum*'. This came to attention recently as Elon Musk has called for a 'Moratorium' on research into Artificial Intelligence and some have likened this step to a similar, supposed, historical event. Is this article factual, or not ? Did the Roman Catholic Church seek to prohibit the publication of Protestant literature, by influencing University and Government powers in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries ? >When the Catholic Church realised that the printing press was being used to proliferate Protestant literature, their response wasn't to ban the printing press, it was to ban printers from publishing heretical texts. Their response to this new technology was not to ban the technology, it was to ban the use of the technology for - in their view - nefarious and dangerous purposes. Local governments and the church would issue an *Index Librorum Prohibitorum* (Index of Prohibited Books) that publishers were not allowed to print. For example, King Henry II of France issued the Edict of Châteaubriant in 1551 to suppress Protestantism, and among its terms were that publishers had to adhere to the *Index Librorum Prohibitorum* maintained by the faculty of the University of Paris, and the University of Paris was permitted to inspect publishers twice a year to check for breaches of the *Index Librorum Prohibitorum.* They had nothing against the printing press itself - they were happy to use it to proliferate their own literature - but they took issue with what it was being used for. > >Chartier, Roger, ed. The Culture of Print: Power and the Uses of Print in Early Modern Europe. Princeton University Press, 2014. > >Meserve, Margaret. "The Papacy, Power, and Print: The Publication of Papal Decrees in the First Fifty Years of Printing." Print and Power in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800). Brill, 2021. 259-299. > >Sachet, Paolo. Publishing for the Popes: The Cultural Policy of the Catholic Church towards Printing in Sixteenth-Century Rome. PhD Diss. University of London, 2015. Reddit - Ask Historians - Catholic Church : "6 month Moratorium" It would seem to me that, if this is historically true, then it says a lot about the development of the Roman Catholic Church in history if, at that time, as is alleged, it deliberately aligned itself with government and academia to censor the conscientious exposition of scripture towards a true apprehension of God through his Son, Jesus Christ.

For context and to be open and fair for this post, I *do not* identify as any kind of theist, although I was rendered in a "non-denominationalist" environment. I'm trying to progress through the following book (however, I've basically given up on it besides throwing it a life-line via this post): **"God is Dead" and I Don't Feel So Good Myself:**...(David, Andrew) I'm attempting to read this because I like to at least *try* to approach "things" with a fair, developed perspective. I'm a non-theist and typically want to understand things from a Scientific point-of-view (i.e. is it reproducible, quantifiable, ...). I've read the following parts and now have discontinued reading the book because of them. I'll present some here and implore someone to better explain or justify the words provided herein. As a side-note: I don't want this post being seen as a "taken out of context" situation. So, I implore readers to see the before/after, if need be. **Excerpt 1**: > That is to say, the believer responds to our cognitive limitations > with an inward turn, whereas the nonbeliever redoubles his calculative > ambitions. It is almost as if the believer is more skeptical than the > skeptic in that he is skeptical of concepts themselves. **Excerpt 2**: > Yet in this abandonment, the contemplative has access to values that > the contemporary atheist tends to forget, underestimate, and ignore. > These values include a healthy skepticism towards abstract > reductionism and scientism, sympathy for paradoxical nature of truth > and its existential expression, and appreciation for the literary and > figurative nature of mind. There's a lot going on here, but I completely disagree with these words and am troubled to continue reading this book. Can someone please offer an explanation for these words or some salvageable reason to continue reading?

I am currently researching the Protestant view of the biblical canon and have encountered a variety of perspectives on the infallibility of the canon. For instance, the renowned Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul argues that Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. This raises several questions: If the canon is not infallible, how can we be certain about the correct number of canonical books (e.g., 66, 73, or another number)? This ultimately leads to that canon is closed or not problem. Others are those who argue that the canon is infallible, as it was determined by the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the church fathers and councils *(It is seems like saying they were infallible indirectly)* **My question is how these views be reconciled with** ***sola scriptura*** **in protestant context**? *Related : https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/92954/protestants-on-how-the-biblical-canon-came*

Let me illustrate with a few examples. Examples of good in Christianity: - Love: it's evident that love feels good and promotes behaviors that make others feel good. Therefore, love ranks very high on the "wellbeing scale". - Joy: the experience of joy ranks very high on the "wellbeing scale". - Peace: same thing. - Self-control: this basically means having the ability to avoid falling into the trap of addictions and compulsive behaviors, which is a great ability to have considering that addictions and compulsive behaviors can cause a lot of suffering to oneself and others. So, again, this virtue promotes wellbeing. - Faith: it's less obvious how to put this one in terms of wellbeing and suffering, but if we think of faith as "trust", then faith basically means trusting what God is telling you to do, and if we assume that God is omniscient and therefore has an optimal plan that ultimately seeks to maximize wellbeing (heaven) and minimize suffering (hell), then faith in (and obedience to) this kind of God should promote behavior that maximizes wellbeing and minimizes suffering in a holistic manner (i.e., by trusting and obeying God we are cooperating with God's plan and thus contributing to the ultimate maximization of the wellbeing of the whole creation.) - Etc. Examples of evil in Christianity: - Hatred: it's evident that hatred causes a lot of suffering. - Anger: same thing. - Envy: it can cause a lot of psychological suffering to the envious person, and the envied person may suffer as well if the envious person decides to do something stupid against them. - Stealing: very obvious, victims of stealing can experience a lot of suffering. - Lying: this one can be a bit trickier, since there might be situations in which lying can actually promote wellbeing, e.g. lying to the Nazis to save a Jewish family that is hiding in your basement. But there are plenty of cases when lying can cause suffering, for example when misinformation is propagated, causing people to make wrong decisions based on false information. - Fornication and Lust: this one is even trickier. Sexual desire and sexual pleasure feel good, so in this sense they have positive points on the "wellbeing scale". Perhaps someone might say that fornication might lead to STDs, but if proper safety and hygiene measures are taken, this potential risk can be greatly mitigated, so not a compelling argument in my opinion. Perhaps a better argument could be that lust might lead to pernicious behaviors such as sexual harassment and even rape, and these can undoubtedly cause a lot of suffering to the victims, and so we can trace an indirect path from lust to these harmful behaviors. But again, people can be lustful in private, using their imaginations, porn, etc. Not everyone who has lustful desires is a rapist or a sexual harasser, so this argument would not apply to those cases. Maybe a better reason why lust is seen as wrong is because the level of wellbeing it produces is of "lower quality" than the wellbeing experienced by someone "full of love". In other words, "love" is of a higher quality than "lust", meaning that love ranks higher than lust on the "wellbeing scale", and therefore love should be preferred. But this would only make sense if love and lust are mutually exclusive (otherwise, you could enjoy both love and lust at the same time and have the best of both worlds). Another possible reason against lust and fornication could be that they can lead to compulsive behaviors and obsessions, which may impair a person's ability to behave in loving ways, be productive and useful to society, etc., which can be similarly argued against other compulsions such as alcohol addiction, drug addiction, gambling, etc. - Etc. Are good and evil in Christianity ultimately based on maximizing wellbeing and minimizing suffering? Extra comments on homosexuality: The issue of homosexuality seems to be a good objection and potential counterexample to the view of morality as based on maximization of wellbeing and minimization of suffering that I'm defending here. How is wellbeing increased and suffering decreased by forbidding homosexuality? However, I still think there is a way to frame the prohibition of homosexuality in Christianity in terms of wellbeing and suffering, as follows: - If homosexuality is a sin that can get one sent to hell (maximum suffering) instead of heaven (maximum wellbeing), then it should be in one's best interest to refrain from homosexuality. - Homosexuality is a behavior that doesn't align with God's original plan for humanity. So we could say that God envisioned an optimal plan for humanity, and allowing homosexuality in would make things suboptimal from God's perspective. And maybe the reason has to do with reproduction and other considerations, fewer salvations, and therefore less people enjoying the maximum wellbeing of heaven, I don't know. - We could also include God's wellbeing into the equation. As far as I understand, whenever someone sins against God, that makes God angry and/or sad in some sense. Therefore, in order to maximize God's wellbeing, humans should avoid sinning, which includes homosexuality.

For the first five years of my Christian life I was blessed by the expository preaching of a U.K. Baptist minister. Sermons were usually 45 minutes in duration and the word of God was preached without apology or excuse. Application of Scripture and biblical principles within our Christian lives was made clear. Often I would feel distinctly uncomfortable as I realised that there were lessons there which I had to apply in my life. Sadly, since moving away, I have been unable to find a church that applies the same rigorous teaching programme aimed at the congregation. ***I believe that preaching is central to Christian worship.*** Yes, there is a place for singing hymns and praying, but hearing the word of God is why I go to church. The evangelical Baptist church I now attend seems to think that most of the time should be devoted to singing bland songs, repeating the simple tunes over and over and over again. Why, last Sunday, the visiting preacher only had 20 minutes left to deliver his message. It was hardly worth getting out of bed for because the preaching of the word of God was not the focus. My question is aimed specifically at Evangelical Protestant churches. I would like to know if expository preaching is the norm or if it's become a thing of the past. My question is inspired after reading this article which comes from a Southern Baptist source: [The Sheer Weightlessness of So Many Sermons—Why Expository Preaching Matters](https://albertmohler.com/2013/08/21/the-sheer-weightlessness-of-so-many-sermons-why-expository-preaching-matters) . I realise that evangelical churches in other continents may have a different take on Expository Preaching, so allow me to narrow the field. How do U.K. and European Evangelical Protestant churches define expository preaching, and how does that differ from modern-day evangelical preaching? EDIT: Subsequent to the posting of this question, I have found a Reformed Protestant article which teaches that Scripture should interpret Scripture. https://www.theopedia.com/analogy-of-faith

We read in Jn 19:30 (KJKV): > When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. Lealani Acosta and her colleagues scoured the archives of the world’s art museums to inspect 550 images of Christ on the cross, and discovered that over 90 per cent portrayed Jesus with his head turned to the right, his left cheek towards the viewer (Courtesy: Weird.com) There are a number of theories explaining why Jesus may have bowed his head towards his right at the moment of death. One for instance, postulates that the Lord was acknowledging the “chosen ones” on his right (Matthew 25: 33-34). Another says that artists who depicted Jesus on the cross simply drew the best appealing look. Yet another states that the depiction had something to do with neuro-science and human receptivity to suggestion. My question therefore is: **Is there a deeper meaning for the depiction of Jesus' head tilted towards his right on the Crucifix?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

The hymn *I Gave My Life For Thee* has the following verse (emphasis added): > My Father's house of light, > > **My glory-circled throne** > > I left for earthly night, > > For wanderings sad and lone It appears to present the speaker, Jesus, as having a "glory-circled throne" that He left when He came to this world. However, does Jesus instead teach that He won't sit on His throne before the Second Coming (Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Luke 1:32)? Furthermore, don't the Scriptures teach that at present, rather than being on the throne, Jesus is "seated at **the right hand of the throne** of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1, NKJV, emphasis mine; cf. 12:2)? It seems as if He isn't seated on the throne even now but is rather seated *next to* the throne. (Actually, this isn't entirely accurate. See "Update.") Am I missing something? Can Jesus be spoken of as having a "glory-circled throne" before His first coming, one that He left behind after coming to earth? **Update:** Jesus certainly can be spoken of as being enthroned ever since His ascension: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, **as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne**" (Revelation 3:21, NKJV, emphasis added). But is Jesus spoken of as being enthroned _prior to His incarnation_?

We see St Paul writing at 2 Corinthians 12:7 (RSVCE): > And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. What exactly was St. Paul referring to here? Was he telling an idiom of his time in order to show that he was undergoing some painful medical condition? Or, was he referring to the temptations of flesh? Are there any authentic interpretations from the side of Catholic Church on the saying of St Paul?

**According to Catholicism, why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword?** > > 36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. > > 37 For I say to you, that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. > > 38 But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.- [Luke 22:36-38](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=DRA) Have any Church Father or Doctor of the Church offer any insights as to why Our Lord spoke as such? I am rather curious also if the word for ***sword***, could have been the same word used for a dagger? For in such a case, a dagger could in theory also be used as a fork when eating as well as for self defense! In the movie, **The Passion of the Christ**, Peter cuts off the ear of [Malchus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malchus#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Bible%2C%20one,prevent%20the%20arrest%20of%20Jesus.) with what looks more like a dagger in lieu of an actual sword. The Hebrew word **חֶרֶב**: Axe, dagger, knife, mattock, sword, tool for cutting [Strong's Concordance](https://www.quotescosmos.com/bible/bible-concordance/H2719.html#verses)

How do the 1962 Holy Week ceremonies, initiated by Pius XII's 1955 Holy Week reforms, compare to the 1954 ones? cf. FIUV 's - PP 14: Holy Week Reform of 1955, Part I - General Comments - PP 14: Holy Week Reform of 1955, Part II - Liturgies

Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords? Was he suggesting they be warriors like the ancient Israelites? > “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! (Luke 22:36, NLT)

According to the ancient historian, Mantheo, the fifteenth dynasty of Egypt were a people known as the [Hyksos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos) , literally the "rulers of foreign countries" or, as sometimes been translated "the Shepherd Kings." These Hyksos were the rulers of Egypt roughly 1700 BC, were clearly not Egyptian, and centered in and around Goshen - all facts that line up with the time period and story of [Joseph](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(son_of_Jacob)) . Still, scholars do not think this is archeological "proof" of Joseph. Why is this the case?

**Will the Antichrist come from the Catholic Church?** Perhaps since the Antichrist was a real person, is it possible that he is like a Cardinal or Bishop infected by the spirit of Antichrsti? According to St. John's epistle (1 John 2:19-20); > They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if > they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us, but their > going showed that none of them belonged to us. Is St. John talking about the future Bishops or presbyters will become the Anti-Christ who belong to the Catholic Church but separated themselves in a form of schism? Does Catholic Church have a teaching that one of the Bishops or Cardinals will be the Antichrist?

I have seen many times the claim that Genesis 1-2 is *intended by the author(s)* to be taken as a myth, that ancient people took it as a myth, etc. Now, maybe I'm just weird, but I don't see this from simply reading the text. I have seen numerous articles and such explaining why the text, statistically and grammatically, is consistent with other "plain history" accounts in Scripture. As best I can determine, the majority of Christians throughout history¹ have taken it as plainly historic. I have seen *atheists* stating that it is "clearly" *intended* to be plainly historic. What is the basis (*Biblical* basis, if possible, but I'll take extra-Biblical arguments as well) for a non-historic reading? **PLEASE NOTE:** Arguments from "science" (that is, Materialist assertions which are founded in a desire to deny God) are clearly tainted and therefore not acceptable. (¹ I'm aware there are exceptions. Unless it can be shown that a *majority*, i.e. more than 50%, of Christians rejected a plain historic reading, please limit comments on this point.)

In light of the current media trend of reporting and resorting to fake news and gossiping, and some netizens are somehow careless in becoming an instruments to spread it. Some social media users already have a habit of not making a diligent effort to verify the truthfulness of the news, and a lot of people who post on comments even link the fake news and worst posted it on their channels, clearly either unaware or intentionally to malign the character of a person. The subject of fake news usually is a recipient of character assassination and maligning one's dignity. The common habits in social media is sharing or posting "Fake News" and gossiping "Fake News" both action will end up damaging the subject's/person's character. **Has the Catholic Church particularly cited or considered sharing "Fake News" and gossiping "Fake News" as a griveous/mortal offense to God commandments especially if this common thing/actions in the mainstream & social media becomes habitual?**

> 18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that [a]it would be evident that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:18-19 NASB) What was St. John describing when he said the words "they went out from us but they were not really of us". It's like the schismatic bishops, they claimed to be inside the Church, but they were not really belong to the Church, because schismatic behavior makes one outside the Church. - Canon 751 Cardinal Sarah stated, **"to oppose the Pope is to be outside the Church"**, and we have seen so many bishops and cardinals opposing Pope Francis, but still insist they remain in the Church and not outside. [Cardinal Sarah: To oppose the pope is to be outside the church](https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/cardinal-sarah-oppose-pope-be-outside-church) Antichrist or spirit of Antichrist won't submit to authority like the Pope, like Lucifer won't submit to God uttering "Non-Serviam". Was St. John passages in 1 John 2:18-19, be appropriately pointing to schismatic bishops of our times?

> No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) QUESTION: **Is there anything in Catholic doctrine which prohibits or restricts displaying an image in the "likeness" of God the Father?** *Remark:* I ask, because I seem to be coming across more and more such images. Yet, I thought that such was not permissible. Consider, for example, the Name of God for the Israelites (abbrev., *The Tetragrammaton*), then replaced by LORD (in smallcaps). Finally, somewhat recently, I thought that the Catholic Church had forbidden the pronunciation of the HOLY NAME alluded to, thus producing a change to some of the Catholic hymns to reflect this.