The question is: According to The Anglican Church, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Anglican definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

The Bible warns us *not* to participate, engage with, or practice magic/sorcery/necromancy/etc. And magic is seen throughout the Bible (not miracles, but magic) For example turning your rod into a serpent (Egypt vs God via Moses round 1) > 2 Chronicles 33:6, Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; **he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery**, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger. > Revelation 21:8, But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, **sorcerers**, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death > Galatians 5:19-20, Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, **sorcery**, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, > Micah 5:10-12, “And it shall be in that day,” says the Lord, “That I will cut off your horses from your midst And destroy your chariots. I will cut off the cities of your land And throw down all your strongholds. I will cut off **sorceries** from your hand, And you shall have no **soothsayers**. > Acts 19:17-20, This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds. Also, **many of those who had practiced magic** brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed > Isaiah 8:19-20, And when they say to you, “Seek those who are **mediums and wizards**, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. > Isaiah 47:9b Because of the multitude of **your sorceries**, For the great abundance of **your enchantments**. (This one is too long to copy and paste see full passage of Isaiah 47:8-14 here > Acts 8:9-13, [**The Sorcerer’s Profession of Faith**]; > > But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced **sorcery** in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the great power of God.” And **they heeded him because he had astonished them with his sorceries** for a long time. But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. > Deuteronomy 18:10-14, There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices **witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.** For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. For these nations which you will dispossess listened to **soothsayers and diviners**; but as for you, the Lord your God has not appointed such for you. And while the passage from deuteronomy/Chronicles mentions "passing through fire"... what exactly is magic as understood by the Scriptures? We are clearly warned off and God clearly commands us to avoid it as a sin. So what is it? What am I definitely trying to avoid? - Necromancy is obvious. - Divination is obvious.

Does anyone know if an online copy (e.g. stored at the *Internet Archive*) of Bishop Richard Challoner's translation of Thomas à Kempis' "The Imitation of Christ" exists; and if so, where I may find it? What I do know exist (not necessarily online) are: 1. A 1927 edition published by Benziger Brothers with an Imprimatur by Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York. 1. A similar version by the same publisher c. 1895 with an Imprimatur by an earlier Archbishop. 1. An 1893 edition published by Desclee, Lefebbre & Co., Belgium with an Imprimatur But alas, I have not been able to locate any of the above editions online. The only edition I have been able to find is a TAN Books "Retypeset and republished" edition (in 1989) of a Benziger Brothers edition (year unknown) translated by Richard Challoner, with imprimaturs by the Archbishop of New York Michael Augustine (1895) and Patrick Cardinal Hayes (1926), which can be found at *archive.org* [here](https://ia802903.us.archive.org/25/items/TheImitationOfChristChalloner/TheImitationOfChristChalloner.pdf) , which I don't want because it isn't a true copy of the original.

### Introduction Ezekiel 44-46 relates a prophecy about a restored Jerusalem with a temple which is quite different in dimensions (it's gigantic) from either the 1st or 2nd Temples. The Israelites are following the laws and regulations of God: > A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you, and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ezekiel 36:26-27) The people are ruled by a prince who is of the line of David: > I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them; he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I the Lord have spoken. (Ezekiel 34:23-24) The prince provides various offering in the Temple for himself and the people: > “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall celebrate the Festival of the Passover, and for seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten. On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a purification offering. And during the seven days of the festival he shall provide as a burnt offering to the Lord seven bulls and seven rams without blemish, on each of the seven days, and a male goat daily for a purification offering. He shall provide as a grain offering an ephah for each bull, an ephah for each ram, and a hin of oil to each ephah. In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month and for the seven days of the festival, he shall make the same provision for purification offerings, burnt offerings, and grain offerings and for the oil. (Ezekiel 45:18-25) This Davidic prince will also have an inheritance and children to whom he may give to. He is not allowed to take from the people and give to his children: > “Thus says the Lord God: If the prince makes a gift to any of his sons out of his inheritance,[a] it shall belong to his sons; it is their holding by inheritance. But if he makes a gift out of his inheritance to one of his servants, it shall be his to the year of liberty; then it shall revert to the prince; only his sons may keep a gift from his inheritance. The prince shall not take any of the inheritance of the people, thrusting them out of their holding; he shall give his sons their inheritance out of his own holding, so that none of my people shall be dispossessed of their holding.” (Ezekiel 46:16-18) ### Identity? Traditional Jewish interpretation of these passages is that the prince is the promised Messiah. Who do Christian denominations believe this prince is? Do Christians believe this is a prophecy of the future? If so, why are sacrifices occurring in the future?

I am not trying to be argumentative, this is an earnest question, as this question got me in huge trouble when I was growing up attending a southern baptist Christian middle school. This question (and people's reactions to it) is actually one of the things that lead my away from the church as a teenager (which I later came back to). If the speed of light is constant and we can see distant objects (stars, galaxies, etc) that are millions or billions of light years away how can we account for a young age of the universe? - My father, at that time, was convinced that the speed of light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe. Although, I have never seen any credible evidence of this, and it would seem that measurements taken at CERN (and elsewhere) would be seriously affected if the speed of light was not a constant. - My 8th grade science teacher said it was because objects used to be closer than they are now, and have moved away from each other over time. However, if the universe was only 10k years old, and two objects started next to each other and traveled away from each other at nearly the speed of light, the most distant objects in the universe would still only appear to be a little less then 10k light years away. - God creating the universe with photons in flight, making the distant universe (and therefore past events) only *appear* to be taking places (or even existing), is certainly deceptive and I cannot accept it. - Do YEC consider the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth two separate questions? My question isn't 'how old is the universe?', or 'did the big bang happen?', or 'creation vs evolution'. It is simply this: how do Christians, who are YEC, reconcile this? **Edit** Some have asked, why I cannot accept that God created photons in midflight giving the appearance of age? - In the [video series](http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/distant-starlight) @SeanDowney posted below, the presenter speaking against this argument shows a star that is 150k light years away that we observed blowing up. So, if God created photons in midflight then for 8k years God has been showing us a star that never existed and showed us an event (the start being destroyed) that never took place. - This is a specious argument in general, because I can make the same argument that God created the universe 5 minutes ago and all the evidence to the contrary (physical evidence, our memories of the past, etc.) were all put in place to give the appearance of age. In both these cases, God making the universe appear to be billions of years old, instead of 5 minutes old, or the universe appearing to be billions of years old instead of 10k years, involves deception on the part of God that I cannot accept God (or my conception of him) would perpetrate.

The [Papal Inauguration Mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_inauguration) is the first major mass of a new Pope. Elements of a Papal Inauguration Mass may come from the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church as stated below: > Papal inauguration is a liturgical service of the Catholic Church within Mass celebrated in the Roman Rite but **with elements of Byzantine Rite** for the ecclesiastical investiture of a pope. Since the inauguration of Pope John Paul I, it has not included the 820-year-old (1143–1963) papal coronation ceremony. I found this interesting as I thought the bulk of ceremonies pertaining to the Pope were fully Latin Rite in nature. So I was curious... What specific elements of the Papal Inauguration Mass derives from the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church?

> In contemporary philosophy, a **brute fact** is a fact that cannot be explained in terms of a deeper, more "fundamental" fact. There are two main ways to explain something: say what "brought it about", or describe it at a more "fundamental" level. For example, a cat displayed on a computer screen can be explained, more "fundamentally", in terms of certain voltages in bits of metal in the screen, which in turn can be explained, more "fundamentally", in terms of certain subatomic particles moving in a certain manner. If one were to keep explaining the world in this way and reach a point at which no more "deeper" explanations can be given, then one would have found some facts which are brute or inexplicable, in the sense that we cannot give them an ontological explanation. As it might be put, there may exist some things that just are. > > To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained ("Everything can be explained" is sometimes called the principle of sufficient reason). > > ... > > **Bertrand Russell took a brute fact position when he said, "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all." Sean Carroll similarly concluded that "any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation."** > > Source: [Brute fact - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact) Postulating that the universe *just is*, as a *brute fact*, devoid of an ultimate cause or explanation, is a viewpoint often embraced by naturalists and non-theists, exemplified by figures like [Sean Carroll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll) and [Bertrand Russell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell) . However, this notion runs contrary to the Christian faith's premise of a Creator God serving as the ultimate explanation for the universe's existence. How might a Christian effectively persuade a naturalist non-theist, such as Sean Carroll, that it is metaphysically impossible for the universe to be a brute fact? --- *Bonus for the interested reader with about one hour of free time*: [God is not a Good Theory (Sean Carroll)](https://youtu.be/ew_cNONhhKI)

How would [Southern] Baptist (SBC) churches explain Acts 8:14–17 in the giving of the Holy Spirit after initial conversion or belief? It had always been my understanding that the argument was the Holy Spirit was given to each believer at the moment of faith. Are we indwelt by the Spirit when we believe and if so why were the apostles needing to pray for them to receive Him? >Acts 8:14–17
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. ESV, © 2001

To preface, I am an atheist trying to understand more about the Christians around me as that is the religion I grew up on, until breaking away. I acknowledge that he was a real historical figure, but I don't accept the supernatural claims like miracles or resurrection. I watched an interview with Paul Rudd who was asked which historical figure he would most like to spend a day with and he replied with Jesus. I am curious on the rationale and what makes him so important or desirable to meet with. Personally, I would have initially thought of a great scientist or philosopher. From a skeptical standpoint, I’m trying to understand what makes Jesus such an important or appealing figure to spend time with - particularly beyond the theological claims like miracles or "dying for our sins," which rely on specific faith assumptions. When I researched this, I only get the assumptions as answers, so I am looking for objective truths. Apologies if this is a basic or obvious question. I'm just looking to learn more, and the Christians around me aren’t particularly well-versed in theology though I assume this community is.

From Wikipedia : >Adam is told that he can eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be his companion. They are innocent and unembarrassed about their nakedness. >However, a serpent convinces Eve to eat fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. These acts not only give them additional knowledge, but also give them the ability to conjure *negative and destructive concepts such as shame and evil.* God later curses the serpent and the ground. Doesn't that mean God thinks shame is a negative, destructive evil? If so, I agree with God. I believe shame comes from Satan. If you never do evil, you never have to feel shame. That means you can feel free and happy, and joyful, ike we did in The Garden.

In multiple passages, Jesus explicitly commands people not to speak about the miracles He performed. For example: - Mark 1:44 – "See that you say nothing to anyone..." (healing of the leper) - Matthew 9:30 – "Jesus sternly warned them, ‘See that no one knows about this.’” (healing of the blind men) - Luke 8:56 – "He charged them to tell no one what had happened." (raising of Jairus’s daughter) Yet these very events were recorded and widely circulated in the Gospels. Why did Jesus initially discourage publicity around His miracles, but the Gospel authors — writing years later — chose to publish them for all to read?

I hear this a lot between Jesus and David, both being shepherd. But how is Jesus the ultimate shepherd over David? Can you guys help me? I tried asking my pastors and they just say: "because He is God."

According to Catholic theologians, when does sexual attraction become lust? By "sexual attraction", I mean the pleasure those of the opposite sex feel in one another's presence. By "lust", I mean "seeking venereal pleasure (*delectatione venerea*) not in accordance with right reason" (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologiæ* II-II q. 154 a. 1 co.).

I’m very curious to hear the Protestant view of Fatima, considering that it involves the Virgin Mary appearing before witnesses, many of whom were skeptics.

In the Introduction to the devout life by St Francis de Sales we find ten meditations. In the first meditation we read: > Considerations. > > 1. Consider that but a few years since you were not born into the world, and your soul was as yet non-existent. Where wert thou then, O my soul? the world was already old, and yet of thee there was no sign. > > 2. God brought you out of this nothingness, in order to make you what you are, not because He had any need of you, but solely out of His Goodness. > > 3. Consider the being which God has given you; for it is the foremost being of this visible world, adapted to live eternally, and to be perfectly united to God’s Divine Majesty." - [Meditations From The Introduction To The Devout Life By St. Francis De Sales](https://www.discerninghearts.com/catholic-podcasts/meditations-for-the-introduction-to-the-devout-life-by-st-francis-de-sales/) This consideration (whatever that term means) sounds very academic to me and I often have to tell myself to stop trying to do them before I have done more studying on these subjects. I am not sure they are intended to be academic but to me they sound academic. It might be that he wrote his book for people with good education in philosophy and theology. Many writers in what is called the French school of spirituality can sound like they want us to do academic meditations. What does the term "consideration" refers to and is it something academic?

Over the last thousand years there have been many reported apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, most famously (as far as I can tell) in Fatima, Portugal and in Guadeloupe, Mexico. These apparitions would seem to prove the Roman Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church given the contents of the messages seeming to come directly from Heaven from the mouth of the Mother of God. Additionally, the evidence for these apparitions seems to be high, including miraculous and unexplainable portraits on the tilma of Juan Diego and thousands of eye witnesses to the miracle of the sun at Fatima, making it the most attested to miracle of all time. If these apparitions had overwhelming evidence to their validity, I would think the whole Christian world would come under the Roman Church, yet no such thing has occurred, leading me to wonder if there is reason to doubt the validity of these apparitions. What are the chief arguments against the validity of these Marian apparitions, specifically those of Fatima and Guadeloupe?

Is there a reason why female Mormon missionaries wear such varied dresses but male Mormon missionaries wear uniforms? I see male missionaries often. They are easily recognizable, because they all wear uniform outfits - white t-shirt, black pants, and a clean tie to finish. When I go on the Mormon site, the dress code for men seems more varied than what I previously thought, and the dress code for women is not only more varied but also more colorful and vibrant. My question is, is this true? Do Mormon missionary women get to wear more varied and colorful clothing than Mormon missionary men? And why do the men on the website wear more varied clothing with different-colored ties but the men on the street wear *exactly* the same style?

I will try to ask this unique question again. How can we answer here without defining simple words used to define God? **Premise** From Wikipedia: >***Ontology*** addresses questions of how entities are grouped into categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. Ontologists often try to determine what the categories or highest kinds are and how they form a system of categories that encompasses classification of all entities. **person** pûr′sən noun >An individual of specified character. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self. **personhood** pûr′sən-hoo͝d″ noun >The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality. Grammerly.com >A **personal pronoun** is a short word we use as a simple substitute for the proper name of a **person**. The 1 God, YHWH, uses the **singular** masculine **personal pronoun** to describe **Himself**. So do the 3 **persons** of the trinity. The 1 true God, is described as having a ***personality***. Zephaniah 3:17 >YHWH your God in your midst, **The Mighty One**, will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing.” Isaiah 42:8 >"I am YHWH, ***that is My name***; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images." *Note here: YHWH doesn't share His unique glory. His uniquely supreme nature is only His.* John 17:3 (*Jesus speaking directly to God Almighty*) >And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the **only true God**, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. **QUESTION** -- ***According to the triune concept, there exist 3 eternal persons. How can 3 eternal persons with 3 distinct presences, be the 1 God of Israel?*** >“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, **YHWH is one**” (Deuteronomy 6:4). **God is one **what**? What is of one in the Trinity doctrine?** Please solve this equation: >***1person+1person+1person=1_____*** - a.) 1 person - b.) 1 being - c.) 1 essence - d.) 1 [other defined noun] Please define these words so that we can better understand. - If YHWH is **1 singular person**, how can 3 persons be 1 person and how many personalities? - If YHWH is **1 being**, how is a being different than a person? And how many personalities does this being have? - If YHWH is **1 non personified essence/nature**, please address how He addresses Himself with singular personal pronouns and His personality? __________________________________________________ Before flagging this question please read: **Stated rules for duplicates defined from this SE's META:** *"1.Having one 'perfect' form of a question that contains every possible answer to every slight variation of that question is a myth at best and actively harmful at worst.* *"2.Having dozens and dozens of variations of the same question is clearly bad.* *"3.What we want is on the order of 4 or 5 similar-but-not-quite-the-same duplicates to cover all possible search terms and common permutations of the question. It is also OK for these duplicates to have their own answers so people who find them don’t have to click yet again to get to a good answer."*

> Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was **because of a revelation** that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. - **Galatians 2:1-2, NASB** I am wondering ***what*** Paul's revelation was? Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?

Monotheism is the fundamental belief shared by Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. However, the concept of monotheism raises the question of what it entails to have just one God. There appears to be a distinction between the following two statements: * I believe there is just one God * I have just one God (Edit: Better phrasing - what does it mean to actually belong to him, not just to believe him) The first statement, „I believe there is just one God,“ is less demanding. It implies a belief in the existence of a single deity without any specific implications. An individual can hold this belief without acknowledging or engaging with the deity, thereby maintaining the validity of the statement. While such an approach may not be very intelligent (not doing what he says while believing that he exists), it does not contradict the assertion that „I believe there is just one God.“ Conversely, the second statement, „I have just one God,“ carries greater significance and implies practical implications for an individual’s life. Consequently, the question arises: What does this statement actually mean in practical terms? ---------------- Edit: I deleted the Judaism flag. But since, in Dtn. God, asks us not to follow any prophet that leads Israel to other Gods, even if he does perform miracles, a correct christian answer that answers this question should be - at least in my opinion, also be a correct Jewish one. The distinction stems from a point Fr. Mike Schmitz makes in his "The Bible in a year" podcast. He said that it is important for God not merely to believe in him, but actually to belong to him. The latter is what I described using the unfortunate wording "I have only one God". (Context: I am a german native, and "Ich habe nur einen Gott" would mean "I have only one God", but can also mean "I belong to just one God". Nobody here says "Ich gehöre nur einem Gott", thats where the misunderstanding comes from, sorry about that)