Does the Catholic teaching on *remote material cooperation* imply that you should live at the level of bare sustenance? As I understand it there is *formal cooperation*, which is if you share the intention of the sin you are cooperating with, and there is *material cooperation* which is if you don't. There is not an easy distinction between *proximate* and *remote* material cooperation other than that *immediate* material cooperation (cooperation in the execution of the sinful act per se) is always proximate. Otherwise they *"can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else."* However if it is *immediate* (*"the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, rather than the agent acting by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act"*), then it is always proximate and hence(?) forbidden (As far as I know *immediate material* cooperation is always forbidden but as for *mediate proximate material* cooperation I'm not sure). As I understand it *remote material cooperation* is acceptable as long as there is a "proportionate" reason to do so. This is obviously true because it would be impossible to live in the same society as sinners if all *remote material cooperation* were sinful. But this seems to lead to the conclusion that you shouldn't buy or use anything that isn't strictly necessary for survival or religious practice because how could this be a proportionate reason for cooperating with sin?

I know Jesus was a Jew. Jews are circumcised and don't eat pork. Was Jesus circumcised and did he eat pork? If so, why are these two things not primary ingredients of Christianity? I thought, to be a good Christian you have to be like Jesus.

It appears that the term "evangelical" is one of the most used category of Christians referred to today, but also the least well-defined, imho. On this website, I found an article talking about how the term is used opposite the term "fundamentalist", and sometimes in concert with that same word. It has also been used opposite the term "liberal", implying that one can't be liberal and evangelical. But I'm not sure that is the case either. So how do I know if someone is evangelical? If I ask a Christian, will they know if they are evangelical? It seems absurd that we have this word that is thrown around so much but almost no one can tell me who exactly fits in that category.

Are not all Gods in different religions the same one? Same God given different names being praised in different ways according to different customs and traditions but the message is the same! The Ten Commandments are present one way or another in all holy books of all religions. Aren’t we all praying to the same God?

In Mtt 11:21(KJV) Jesus laments the fate of two cities: > Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Here, Jesus is referring to the collective sins of the cities . In so far as the Ten Commandments are concerned, they are mandated to be followed by individuals . Reward for obeying them as well as punishment for disobedience are also decided on individual-to-individual basis. But then there are collective sins which individuals may partake of in the capacity of members of a group, for example, voting for legalization of abortion for family planning. How far is the offence culpable in individual capacity ? How is the individual punished ? Does Catholic Church have consolidated teachings on collective sins and their implications ?

Who do Catholics believe that God put in charge of Judaism in the Old Covenant? I assume they believe that there was someone in charge with continuity from the time of Moses to Christ and that they know who this was, or do they believe that it perhaps wasn't as cut and dried as in the New Covenant with the Papacy? I am a bit confused because I have heard a number of figures mentioned such as the Sanhedrin, judge (Dt. 17:9), priesthood, High Priest, etc. Two things to consider are that Moses was not a priest (not a Levitical one at any rate) and that presumably whoever Mt. 23:2 is talking about weren't priests either, although perhaps they sort of depended on the priests in some way.

I know the word itself means "of or related to the gospel." That's not what I'm talking about. I mean, when the term is used to refer to a subset of Christians, what are the characteristics being implied? What is the criteria used to determine what Christians are "Evangelicals" and which ones aren't?

How does one confess adulation? If you said *"I committed adulation 5 times"* that would probably just be the genus, right? So what are the species of adulation?

I know that if you commit a mortal sin against your parents you have to state that in confession. >"Sins opposed to piety are specifically distinct sins from those which offend against charity or justice. Therefore, they must be given distinct mention in confession; thus, for example, to strike one's own father and to strike another man are specifically distinct sins. Any offense contrary to piety between those who are **distantly** related to each other... does not change the moral species of the sin." (Handbook of Moral Theology by Dominic Prummer) But is there a specific limit to how far out the sin of impiety reaches so that you would have to state it?

Is "blasphemy" really specific enough for confession so that one could just say *"blasphemy 10 times"* etc.? I wouldn't think so but then I read in the *Summa Theologiae*, >"Properly speaking, the sin of blasphemy is not in this way divided into three species: since to affirm unfitting things, or to deny fitting things of God, differ merely as affirmation and negation. For this diversity does not cause distinct species of habits, since the falsehood of affirmations and negations is made known by the same knowledge, and it is the same ignorance which errs in either way, since negatives are proved by affirmatives, according to *Poster. i*, 25. Again to ascribe to creatures things that are proper to God, seems to amount to the same as affirming something unfitting of Him, since whatever is proper to God is God Himself: and to ascribe to a creature, that which is proper to God, is to assert that God is the same as a creature" (II-II.13.1.3) But you can also commit blasphemy against creatures such as the saints (see CCC 2148), so is this just for blasphemy against God?

The Holy Spirit speaking through the pen of apostle John said those who share in the first resurrection will have power while those who share in the second resurrection will not have any kind of power but will be priests and prophets for the Most High. >Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. I understand the Spirit is urging believers to do their best to be part of the first resurrection but what kind of power will God give those who partake in the first resurrection?

The Paulicians are a semisecret movement with different Christian teachings, the key leader was Constantine of Mananalis in (641-668). There is not much clear data on the idea of God of the Paulicians in history that I can find. Due to the semi secret nature, and almost all information I've found being written from the perspective of this church being heresy (aka biased). Often with claims that they would "act one way, but secretly believe something else" --- I would like to understand their perspective in their own words as it is really difficult to find information about them. Can someone in a general manner answer how the Paulician church understands salvation?

### LDS Prophecy Joseph Smith made the following prophecy predicting a temple to be built in Independence, Missouri: Doctrines and Covenants 84:5 : > For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. No LDS temple was ever constructed in Independence, and Mormons were driven out of the state. Non-LDS Christians point to this prophecy as a clear example of Joseph Smith failing the Deuteronomic test of a prophet . On the other hand, LDS Christians offer numerous explanations for this apparent discrepancy: - The prophecy was conditional, and was delayed because the Mormons were not faithful - "This generation" does not refer to a generation of people but to an age or dispensation - "This generation" does not refer to the generation of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, but to a later group - The prophecy did actually come true in the 19th century, because the "house" in 84:5 referred to the temple built in Kirtland, OH four years after the prophecy ### Gospel Prophecy The gospel of Matthew records another disputed prophecy: Matthew 24:29-34 : >29 Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. > >30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory. > >31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. > >32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. > >33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. > >34 **Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place**. The apocalyptic events described in 24:29-31 did not occur within the lifetime of the listeners. The sun did not stop shining, and the 'Son of Man' did not appear in the clouds of heaven. Christians offer numerous explanations for this prophecy: - The prophecy was conditional on the people of Israel 'repenting' and accepting Jesus, and was delayed because this did not occur - "This generation" does not refer to a generation of people, but to a specific 'race' of people - "This generation" does not refer to the generation of Jesus's contemporaries, but to a later group - The prophecy did actually come true in the 1st Century when Jerusalem was destroyed (the 'Preterist' position') ### Question LDS Christians offer several resolutions for Joseph Smith's apparent prophetic mistake, and these explanations seem to have significant overlap with Christian explanations of Matthew 24. How do non-LDS Christians who reject D&C 84 as a false prophecy defend using the same explanations that Mormons do?

After exploring various perspectives, including the Nicene Creed and its origins, I have come to the conclusion that the Trinity, comprising the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is essential to understanding the nature of God. However, while questioning the Trinity was a challenging process, I also believe that Jesus cannot be fully God on his own; the three are necessary to be God. Regardless of my understanding, I am committed to aligning my beliefs with what God says is true. I would like to know what Trinitarians think of my thoughts on this matter.

Some scholars say that "Paul" did not write Ephesians , whereas they are confident that he did write Romans. Who are they talking about when they say that? Some quick possibilities could be - The author of Romans - The Paul who Luke speaks of - The early Christian missionary to the gentiles - The Paul who Peter speaks of Now, obviously, if one is defining Paul as the author of Romans, then the deduction that Romans is a genuine letter of Paul becomes trivial. So, my question is "what are the trivial facts about Paul?" or "if scholars had to replace the word 'Paul' with a description then what would that description be?"

Is it possible to know the language that Adam and Eve spoke? I am not interested in "how did Adam and then Eve, learned to speak" , but rather is it possible to know the language that was spoken by Adam and Eve from an historical viewpoint or at least how close we can get to an original source? We see in the Book of Genesis that the whole world spoke one tongue prior to the destruction of the Tower of Babel: >The Tower of Babel > Genesis 11:1-9 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. > 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” > 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” >8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Have any Christian scholars or mystics have any possible hints as to what Adam’s language actually may have looked like?

I know that transgenderism is somewhat a new concept, but how did the Early Church Fathers view the act of transgenderism, did they condemn it or did they interpret the verses differently than we do? Verses such as: > Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he > him; male and female created he them. > Genesis 5:2: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their > name Adam, in the day when they were created. > Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. > Deuteronomy 22:5: The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither > shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are > abomination unto the Lord thy God.

For Christians who believe 1 Enoch is pseudepigrapha what internal evidence do you have? A professor saying "trust me bro I'm a professor" is not evidence. In other words, for Christians who believe that 1 Enoch was first written 300 BC, and then deliberately deceptively backdated to make it look like it was written by Enoch 7th generation from Adam before Noah's flood -- as that is what internal authorship claims -- what evidence do you have of this? In case someone does not know what pseudepigrapha means, here's the [origin and history of *pseudepigrapha*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudepigrapha) from the *etymonline* website: > **pseudepigrapha**(n.)
"books or writings of false authorship," 1620s (implied in *pseudepigraphical*), especially of spurious writing professing to be Biblical in character and inspired in authorship, from Modern Latin use of Greek neuter plural of *pseudepigraphos* "with false title," from *pseudos* "a lie" (see [pseudo-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudo-)) + *epigraphē "a writing" (see [epigraph](https://www.etymonline.com/word/epigraph)) . **Note**: I mean what internal evidence in 1 Enoch do you have that it was first written 300 BC, and not pre-flood by Enoch 7th from Adam? I know a lot of people like to refer to authority figures, and majority to get their opinions, but for this question I am asking for *internal evidence*. Actually you can use evidence from archaeological writings/inscriptions from the Ancient Near East to argue against it if you want, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls.

How do Evangelical Christians discern between a false prophet and a true prophet in the modern era? Is it the same as was required in the Old Testament? (Deuteronomy 18:20-22) In the Bible it says to beware of false prophets: Is there any kind of test for this that can be used today?

I've read in Ellicott's commentary that the "other" disciple of John 18:15 might be James, for it stands in contrast to John's supposed self-designation as "the beloved disciple". But that got me wondering: why did John not directly name himself or his brother within the entire gospel? Is there any church traditions or research out the that disseminates why John may have not wanted to name himself or James within his own gospel?