Would it be an invalid confession if the penitent brings a written list of sins for the priest to read, instead of speaking himself? (This is assuming there are no extenuating circumstances like the person being unable to speak)

I was in a debate with someone recently who claimed that "God does not require governments to follow Christian behaviour", even if those governments are composed of Christians, are elected by Christians, and explicitly call themselves Christian. The claim is that this means it's OK for Christians to vote for a government that violates Christian behaviour on a regular basis. I'm interested in arguments *against* this position, and in order not to make this question an argument let's restrict ourselves to reasons that governments *should* (in general) follow Christian teaching. I'm aware that there will be some things that governments are permitted to do that a private individual shouldn't, like enforce the law or go to war, but I'm not talking about those. I'm interested in countering the idea that governments may do anything they like, no matter how much it contradicts Christian teaching. Answers from a Protestant viewpoint preferred, especially Evangelical Protestant.

In Genesis 4, we read the following account of Cain and Abel: > So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And **the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.** So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Genesis 4:3-5 The story continues that Cain continued in anger and ended up murdering Abel. So, Cain's offering was not accepted by God, while Abel's offering was. Why was this so? What was it about Cain's offering that made it unacceptable, what was it about Abel's offering that made it acceptable?

> Ge 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely **die**. (KJV) The penalty for sin is death. > Ge 3/19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. **For dust you are and to dust you will return**.” Death means going back to the dust of the ground. Ao, Will Adam and Eve be resurrected to **eternal life ** and why do you answer that way? This question is for mainstream evangelicals. ----- > John 17:3 And this is **life eternal**, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (KJV)

Drawing a parallel to the test given to Christians by God, could it be that access to the tree of life was going to be granted to Adam and Eve if they passed that test. |Adam and Eve | Christians | | -------- | -------------- | | Test was to resist eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil |Test is to have faith in the Son of God | | A serpent tricked them to eat from that tree | An ancient serpent makes war on all Christians who keep the commandments of God | |There was a tree in that garden called the tree of life, though access was blocked after they sinned|Jesus grants access to a tree of life which is in the paradise of God| Since the devil acted independently to cause the fall of Adam and Eve then it can be conluded that God was against this scheme by the devil which raises the question, was the tree of life there as a rewad if Adam and Eve stood by what God commanded them? *Genesis 3:22* >And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

The devil deceived Eve into eating what was forbidden. She then persuaded Adam to do likewise. After eating, they gained knowledge of good and evil. It is my view that God's true intentions, his omnibenevolence, is presented in the Ten Commandments and the Bible. Basically they are a moral guide to overcome the sin we all inherited from Adam and Eve. But what was Eve's situation before the bite? Did she have knowledge of good and evil? Was she pure still and acting as God meant her to act? Why is gaining knowledge of good and evil in the devil's advantage? Because she had no knowledge of the bad yet? She knew the good neither. Wasn't it a great gift then, the devil gave her with the apple? What gain had the devil to give her knowledge of the good? If Eve had no knowledge of good, how she could act good? By divine instinct? What was in it for the evil devil Satan, disguised as a luring snake? Was this, as the fallen angle, his way to take revenge on God? By letting people know what is bad? At the same time he gave knowledge of the good. Wasn't it better to give Eve knowledge of the bad only?

I think everyone knows that the name Jesus is Greek, but why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses use his Hebrew name, which is closer to *Joshua* than to *Jesus*?

### Background Protestants who believe that the sin of Adam/Eve caused a fall in creation appear to believe some variation of the following : > The fall of man was caused by Adam’s sin. Sin is any human behavior, word, or thought that is contrary to the perfection of God. Because of Adam’s sin, God placed a curse upon the world, the people, the animals, the plants, and the very ground (Genesis 3:14–19). The idea of sin "entering the world" via Adam and Eve is also found in the NT: > Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned - Romans 5:12 ### Question If the sin of Adam and Eve caused the Fall of Creation and sin to enter the world, one could imagine had they not sinned the eternal fate of all humanity would hover on a knifes edge until someone else sinned. Do Christians believe there was something unique about Adam and Eve and their sin where they (and only they) could cause the fall?

I'm currently fascinated by extraordinary cases of NDEs reported by individuals who have been declared blind from birth. I recently watched a 33-minute video (available [here](https://youtu.be/5qX0zBUYLFs)) featuring an interview with one of such blind-from-birth NDEers (title of the video: *Vicki Noratuk Blind Person NDE*). This case is quite impressive, because the lady in question experienced two NDEs in which she saw very vivid details of her surroundings as she left her body, with what appeared to be perfect 20/20 vision in spite of her congenital blindness, in addition to the evidently mystical aspects of her story, which includes being transported at extraordinary high speed to a paradise in heaven, meeting deceased loved ones and even Jesus himself. In fact, this case is put forward as a strong piece of evidence by a [journal article](https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799333/m2/1/high_res_d/vol16-no2-101.pdf) titled *Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind: A Study of Apparent Eyeless Vision*, Kenneth Ring, Ph.D. Sharon Cooper, M.A. University of Connecticut. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 16(2) Winter 1997. 1997 Human Sciences Press, Inc. These cases are fascinating to me because they are harder to "explain away" skeptically by appealing to naturalistic hypotheses, such as (1) *the Dream Hypothesis*, (2) *Retrospective Reconstruction*, (3) *Blindsight*, and (4) *Skin-based Vision* (which the aforementioned article mentions explicitly and eliminates one by one). Having said all this, I would like to know if these sorts of reports are supported by or at least theoretically consistent with the Bible. Do NDEs find support in Sacred Scripture?

I know that some key fighters for Irish independence were Anglican, and that Ireland has had an ambivalent relationship with Catholicism in modern times. That said, has there been any serious effort by Irish Catholic bishops to reclaim Church of Ireland properties like Christ Church Cathedral or St. Patrick's Cathedral?

During a conclave, the participants (cardinals) come from all over the world. Is there a *lingua franca* which they are all expected to master at least at a conversational level? (I am guessing that this would be Italian, or English, or (probably not) Latin). Or are they expected to somehow manage between themselves, though overlapping language capacities? (A speaks Italian, B speaks Italian and French, C speaks French - so after some gymnastics A, B and C can be more or less synchronized). I do not believe they have translation services for confidentiality reasons.

In providing this answer with respect to recognizing the Trinity in the Old Testament, I noticed that Jesus is called the Father which could be confusing when trying to understand the Trinity. **In what sense is Jesus the Father but certainly not the Father?** >For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, **Everlasting Father**, Prince of Peace. (NIV Isaiah 9:6) **Please do not answer unless your answers uphold the doctrine of the Trinity**. I do not want the debate about the trinity to confuse the question. The answer must assume the Trinity is true, that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal yet different persons that share the same single divine nature and therefore are called the One and true God.

I am looking for a recording of the "Habemus Papam" proclamation for Pope Leo XIV. I found this video from CNN , but it has added audio in English. Where can I find a recording of this proclamation in Latin only?

How does Catholicism respond to this? From what I understand in some responses, a Catholic may accept this text as referring to either the particular or general judgment, but I don’t understand how 1 Corinthians 3, if referring to the general judgment, could support the doctrine of purgatory. It seems to go against the dogma. Defense: 1 Corinthians 3:15 The passage that Catholics generally use—based on their own distortion—is the one that supposedly speaks of a purifying fire. They quote the following passage: >“If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.” (1 Corinthians 3:15 – Ave-Maria Version) To understand the nature of this “fire,” it is crucial to examine the context of the passage. In the Catholic version, the broader passage reads: >“If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.” (1 Corinthians 3:12–15) It is clear that Paul is not referring to an ordinary day, but to the Day of Judgment before the Tribunal of Christ. The challenge for defenders of the Catholic doctrine lies in the fact that, according to Scripture, this Day of Judgment takes place at Christ’s second coming—which has not yet occurred—and by then, there would no longer be any “purgatory” available for purification. That intermediate state would have given way to the eternal state. This is why Paul declares: >“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge...” (2 Timothy 4:1) Paul refers to that “Day” for himself before dying, in the hope of being rewarded at the Tribunal of Christ at His coming: >“Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.” (2 Timothy 4:8) We see that this Day of Judgment is intrinsically linked to Jesus’s return, when His Kingdom will be fully revealed. On that Day—according to Catholic teaching—there would no longer be a purgatory for postmortem purification. Therefore, the text cannot be referring to purgatory. Even the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible) has a footnote that nearly admits this verse does not speak about purgatory: >“1 Corinthians 3:15: That is, like someone escaping through flames. Such a person is saved barely. Purgatory is not directly considered here, though this text, along with others, was used by the Church to explain the doctrine.” Newer versions of the Jerusalem Bible now give a shorter note: >“1 Corinthians 3:15: That is, like someone escaping through flames. Such a person is saved barely.” It almost seems like they are omitting the earlier note that stated explicitly that purgatory is not considered in the text. To address this difficulty, Catholic theologians developed the doctrine of the “two judgments”—a concept absent from the Eastern Church. According to this Roman Catholic perspective, there are two judgments: the particular judgment, which occurs immediately after death and begins the intermediate state; and the general judgment, which takes place at Christ’s second coming, ending that intermediate state. Therefore, under this view, each person goes through two judgments: the individual and the general. They argue that 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the individual judgment after death, not the general judgment at Christ’s second coming. However, this explanation introduces significant theological problems. First, the context of 1 Corinthians 3:15 seems to point to the general judgment rather than a personal one. Verse 13 says: >“...the Day will bring it to light; it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.” There are two aspects supporting the idea of the general judgment at Christ’s second coming. First, the Day will “bring to light” the sins hidden during life. Jesus said that “nothing is hidden except to be made manifest, nor is anything secret except to come to light” (Mark 4:22). Historically, this has been interpreted as referring to the general judgment, when all will be gathered and the sins of each person exposed—nothing hidden will remain hidden. Moreover, verse 13 says the fire will test the work of “each one,” not of one person individually. The text implies a general assembly, where many are judged, not a private encounter with God after death.

In the Gospel of John, the term "Jews" appears significantly more often than in the Synoptic Gospels — 66 times in John compared to 5 in Matthew, 6 in Mark, and 4 in Luke. In the Gospel of John, there are about 31 verses in which Jews are portrayed in a negative light, such as in John 8:42-56: > 42 Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love > me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, > but he sent me. > > 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my > word. > > 44 **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye > will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the > truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he > speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. > > 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. > > 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do > ye not believe me? > > 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, > because **ye are not of God**. > > 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that > thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? > > 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and > **ye do dishonour me**. > > 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and > judgeth. > > 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall > never see death. > > 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. > Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my > saying, he shall never taste of death. > > 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the > prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? > > 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my > Father that honoureth me; **of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 > Yet ye have not known him;** but I know him: and if I should say, I > know him not, I shall be a **liar like unto you**: but I know him, and > keep his saying. > > 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was > glad. The occurrences are detailed below: Note: If you edit the question, please keep the numbered list Matthew 1) Matthew 2:2 2) Matthew 27:11 3) Matthew 27:29 4) Matthew 27:37 5) Matthew 28:15 Mark 1) Mark 7:3 2) Mark 15:2 3) Mark 15:9 4) Mark 15:12 5) Mark 15:18 6) Mark 15:26 Luke 1) Luke 7:3 2) Luke 23:3 3) Luke 23:37 4) Luke 23:38 John Note: Negative verses are reproduced 1) John 1:19 2) John 2:6 3) John 2:13 4) John 2:18 5) John 2:20 6) John 3:1 7) John 3:25 8) John 4:9 9) John 4:22 10) John 5:1 11) John 5:10 12) John 5:15 13-n1) John 5:16 "And therefore did **the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him**, because he had done these things on the sabbath day" 14-n2) John 5:18 "Therefore **the Jews sought the more to kill him**, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." 15) John 6:4 16-n3) John 6:41 "**The Jews then murmured at him**, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven." 17) John 6:52 18-n4) John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because **the Jews sought to kill him**." 19) John 7:2 20) John 7:11 21-n5) John 7:13 "Howbeit **no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.**" 22) John 7:15 23) John 7:35 24) John 8:22 25) John 8:31 26-n6-n11) John 8:42-48 "Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, **ye believe me not**. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, **why do ye not believe me?** He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because **ye are not of God**. Then **answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?**" 27-n12) John 8:52 "**Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.** Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." 28-n13) John 8:57-59 "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. **Then took they up stones to cast at him**: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 29-n14) John 9:18 "**But the Jews did not believe concerning him**, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight." 30-n15) John 9:22 " These words spake his parents, **because they feared the Jew: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue**." 31) John 10:19 32) John 10:24 33-n16) John 10:31 "Then **the Jews took up stones again to stone him**." 34-n17) John 10:33 " **The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy**; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." 35-n18) John 11:8 "His disciples say unto him, Master, **the Jews of late sought to stone thee**; and goest thou thither again?" 36) John 11:19 37) John 11:31 38) John 11:33 39) John 11:36 40) John 11:45 41-n19) John 11:53-54 " **Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews**; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples." 42) John 11:55 43) John 12:9 44) John 12:11 45) John 13:33 46-n20) John 18:12 "**Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him**," 47-n21) John 18:14 "Now Caiaphas was he, **which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people**." 48) John 18:20 49-n22) John 18:31 "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. **The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death**:" 50) John 18:33 51-n23) John 18:35 "Pilate answered, **Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me**: what hast thou done?" 52-n24) John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, **then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews**: but now is my kingdom not from hence." 53-54-n25) John 18:38-40 "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, **he went out again unto the Jews**, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that **I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?** **Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas**. Now Barabbas was a robber." 55) John 19:3 56-n26) John 19:7 "**The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die**, because he made himself the Son of God." 57-n27) John 19:12 "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: **but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend**: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." 58) John 19:14 59) John 19:19 60) John 19:20 61-n28) John 19:21 "**Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews**." 62-n29) John 19:31 "**The Jews therefore**, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) **besought Pilate that their legs might be broken**, and that they might be taken away." 63-n30) John 19:38 "**And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews**, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus." 64) John 19:40 65) John 19:42 66-n31) John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when **the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews**, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Cardinal Robert Prevost was made Pope Leo XIV today. He is the first Augustinian to become Pope as Pope Francis was the first Jesuit. It would seem that someone who accepted the order even prior to ordination would be very formed in some ethos and I don't know a whole lot about Augustinians other than I doubt the order was founded by St. Augustine and that Martin Luther was one. So what are the qualities might a young Robert Prevost have found in the Augustinian order that drew him to it which he might carry into his papacy?

I see Eastern Orthodox keyboard warriors commonly posting memes, bite size apologetics and propaganda against Catholicism which make some variation on the claim "4 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Eastern Orthodoxy. You should too". I was wondering how much veracity is behind this claim. I was under the impression that the Patriarch of Alexandria wasn't even in communion with the Eastern Orthodox church at all. I thought he was a Copt and a member of the Oriental Orthodox communion instead? Likewise for Jerusalem and Antioch. I thought that the only Patriarch of the original Pentarchy that is an actual Eastern Orthodox is the Patriarch of Constantinople? My understanding is that 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Catholicism, 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Eastern Orthodoxy, and 3 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Oriental Orthodoxy. Please help me understand this situation further?

One minute Paul says anyone who tries to earn their way to heaven by obeying the law will die. An then he goes on to say don't obey the desires of your sinful nature. OK, I'm confused. Do we put "faith" in Jesus, or do we "work" on trying to stop sinning? Which one? >Galatians 2:16: ". . . by the works of the law no one will be justified" (NLT). > >Galatians 5:18: ". . . but when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses" (NLT). Vs >Galatians 5:19-21: ". . . when you follow the results of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immortality, impurity, lustful pleasure, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God" (NLT). Its like he tells us it's impossible to obey the law because we are sinners through and through. Therefore put faith in Christ who died for those sins and love one another. But then, he says don't sin, or you won't inherit the kingdom of God. I'm confused.

I just wanted to get a quick update on Church History. I have heard this debate time and time again, so I just want to see if this platform can give me an answer. Which church split of first? Did the Catholics split away from the Eastern Orthodox? OR did the Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholics?

N.b.: I originally posted this question in the Philosophy stack, but then realized it was more appropriate, and might get more informed answers, here. In a famous article, Anscombe castigates "Modern Moral Philosophy" (including but not limited to consequentialism) as "quite incompatible with the Hebrew-Christian ethic. For **it has been characteristic of that ethic to teach that there are certain things forbidden whatever consequences threaten, such as: choosing to kill the innocent for any purpose, however good; vicarious punishment**...," which in contrast consequentialists can sometimes allow for sufficiently good consequences. (p.10) Many other Christian apologists make similar claims. Yet I have also seen many Christian apologists--and often the same ones--bend over backwards to defend, e.g., the drowning of babies in the Biblical flood, the slaughter of the Canaanite civilian population after a war victory, etc., as well as vicarious punishment: of the Egyptian first-born, of children "to the third and fourth generation" (Num 14:18), etc. Even Christians who do not take these stories literally at least generally say that they reveal something about the character of God and morality, and so have to excuse them away--giving special reasons (consequentialist or otherwise) for why these cases of innocent-killing and vicarious punishment are justified. So my question is, **is Anscombe's quoted claim simply and quite obviously wrong, or can something be said in its defense?** The only thing I sometimes see apologists say about this is that these moral obligations only apply to humans, not to God, though this is odd if God is supposed to be morally good. But even for God, these actions are often excused on account of being part of his "plan," i.e., because in some way (perhaps unknowable to us) these will lead to good consequences. I am not asking whether any of these arguments are plausible, but simply whether they /exist/ and fit Anscombe's description of what Christian ethics supposedly does not do. If so, then these are not innovations of "modern moral philosophy" but old hat strategies which Christian moralists have been using for centuries. So is she just the pot calling the kettle black? Or does she really have a point in saying that there is something novel about modern consequentialist morality which is not present in the history of Christian apologetics? Note that I am well aware that Christian moralists have not historically espoused consequentialism as a general theory, at least before William Paley. But espousing this theory is different from making occasional consequentialist arguments in specific cases. It is also possible that the modern apologists I read giving such arguments are in fact a novelty, and that historical theologians didn't do this, so that perhaps Anscombe's criticism should be extended to "Modern Moral Theology" insofar as she might think it has been infected by a consequentialist thinking anathema to Christian tradition. This is an interesting question; did Augustine, Aquinas, etc., *never* make consequentialist arguments for God's doing or commanding such things? But again, it's not my full question, for Anscombe is claiming that Christians *never* gave justifications for ever doing these things, consequentialist or otherwise. But this seems false, for "I am God," or "I have been commanded by God to do/allow these things" apparently *was* such a justification in some such cases.