**1 Chronicles 25:1-5 makes a point of identifying Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun as prophets/seers.** This suggests that some of the psalms in Psalms are prophetic, anticipating future events. Several of these psalms are recognized as messianic, but largely because the NT treats them as such. But what about non-messianic psalms? **Has anyone developed a candidate list of (non-messianic) psalms which should be approached as prophetic, anticipating--at the time they were published--events which were yet future?** **Perhaps Psalm 137 is one of these?** It is commonly claimed that this psalm is exilic or even post-exilic, due to the initial reference to Babylon, remembrance of Zion, remembrance of the treatment of their captors, etc.1 Yet 137:5 is concerned that one might forget Jerusalem, which seems to exclude a post-exilic situation, unless the concern is that they might forget Jerusalem's former glory; but that goes beyond what is said. Further, 137:8 indicates that Babylon had not yet been destroyed. In some ways this psalm offers parallels to Isaiah 40-66 (esp. Isa 47) which, on the premise that there was a singular writer of Isaiah, prophetically speaks from a perspective of those already in exile. 1 Examples are Kidner and Belcher: "This psalm needs no title to announce that its provenance was the Babylonian exile." Derek Kidner, *Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary*, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 495. "Psalm 137 arises out of the experience of the community in exile in Babylon following the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 587 BC. Although the author may be looking back on that experience the memory is fresh and the historical situation is still unsettled." Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 76.

From the Catechism of Pope St. John Paul the Great: > §2521 Purity requires *modesty*, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. But according to playwright Alan Bennett, "All modesty is false modesty; otherwise, it wouldn't be called modesty". This paradoxicality can be seen in the self-refuting nature of the sentence "I am humble". How would a Catholic moral theologian justify modesty in light of its paradoxicality?

I want to be a scientist, but I don’t know if the Bible says anything against women being scientists. It has said stuff like women should "be quiet" and "submit" (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:11). I know that there are many interpretations of that. I want to know if a woman can, in good conscience, pursue a career in science.

I want to start a novena to St Michael. Found one at [Novena in honor of St. Michael the Archangel and in honour of the nine angelic choirs](http://maryourhelp.org/St-michael-the-arch-angel-novena.html) . How can I say it as there is no specific guide on the page?

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

Do souls in hell have any hope for the forgiveness of their sins? According to Catholic teachings, once a person died, there are 3 places where a soul can be placed: hell, purgatory and heaven. At the time of death, if a soul will be judged and damned to hell, is it possible to be in friendship or be reconciled with God again? What about the Final Judgement where there could be repentance and prayers for these souls in hell?

It appears from this question and answer that the Jehovah's Witnesses hold a slightly different understanding of God's omniscience than the typical Orthodox view wherein God always and at all times knows absolutely everything past, present, and future. From what I understand, the JW position is that God **can** know anything He wishes to know but, when it comes to foreknowledge, He does not choose to exercise the ability universally. In other words, God chooses what things He will and, by extension, will not foreknow. Various branches of Open Theism attempt to describe how the future can be epistemically open to God and the two main branches hold the future to be either alethically settled or open. This related question outlines the 4 main branches of Open Theism and, of the four, I believe JW thought lines up most closely with Voluntary Nescience (although I am not sure if JW believe that the future is alethically settled): > Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ... Even if Vulontary Nescience is not an accurate summation of JW belief regarding God's omniscience, still they do assert that God chooses what He will and will not foreknow. Searching through the Scriptures it seems that there are a great many things which it was critical for God to have foreknown and which, indeed, He did foreknow. Most notably, all prophesy spoken by or through God consists of foreknown future events. I say foreknown because God is not guessing: He is telling beforehand what **will** come to pass. Some of those are things that He brings to pass and one might say that He foreknows what He Himself will do. Others are things that hinge upon human decisions (often a multiplicity). My question is, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, How does God foreknow which things He must foreknow and which things He can safely leave unforeseen without resorting to the equivalent of guessing? Another way of phrasing this is, If God chooses to foreknow certain things from the set of all of the possible things that there are to foreknow how can He identify the critical items and choose to foreknow them without knowing what all of the non-critical items actually are?

## Overview Question ## **When a truth in the various fields of human knowledge contradicts or appear to contradict Divine Revelation, what is an overview of what various Christian religious traditions say is incumbent upon a Christian when their religious tradition hasn't said a thing one way or the other about the contradictory truth?** Science says > *"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us."* - WMAP Site FAQs Q9. Here are some fields of human knowledge (of course not exhaustive): *Mathematics, Astronomy & Cosmology, Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History, The Arts, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems*. If a truth in these appears to contradict or directly contradicts Divine Revelation [= Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition for the Church], what is an overview of what various Christian religious tradition teach a Christian ought to do, when their religious tradition hasn't said anything as yet on the truth in question? The best answer will also have Scriptural support and include a Catholic Perspective. Some examples: - *Current Cosmological model.* Outer Space, shape of the earth, that the earth moves and rotates, etc. - Darwin's *"Descent with modification"*. The above appear to contradict Genesis. - This one was big with me: that *that SARS-CoV-2 - a **"novel virus"** that is supposed to cause CoViD-19 disease - could have been created in a lab* when both Scripture and my Catholic Church says only God is Creator Please note that the answer can use an example for illustrative purposes, but not labor in trying to prove or debunk a truth in human knowledge field. Finally, it appears we are in the End-Times, and if the devil is the deceiver of the whole world, and in the End-Time he will be most active, one would expect to find his lies pervasive in ALL human fields of knowledge.

When in a biblical passage, such as Gal. 1:8--- > But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. or when an Ecumenical Council, such as the Council of Trent, declares, for example (on Justification): > 18. If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema. Can we (from a Catholic perspective) justly conclude that the matter in question is either a matter of faith or morals, and therefore, cannot be rescinded by the Catholic Church?

Whenever we buy something there are many effects, some of which are not good. Some examples include supporting places of work that are rife with immodesty and are an unnecessary near occasion of sin to the people working there, companies supporting sinful behavior, companies doing unethical things, and the government using the tax to fund unjust wars. In these situations we must make use of the principle of double effect. One of the requirements for the action being permissible is that there be a *proportionately grave reason* to do it. I think it's fair to say that nothing other than sustenance and religious activities rises to this level. But since it doesn't, does that mean purchasing anything unnecessary is the mortal sin of scandal (*some word or deed that is itself evil* (funding evil stuff) *or has the appearance of evil* (not caring about funding evil stuff) *and provides an occasion of sin to another* (giving people money for doing evil things))?

What is the official position of the various Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.) regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine and the conflict between them?

Revelation 9:6 says: >*"In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them." (NKJV)* This seems to describe a period of intense suffering or judgment in which people desire to die, yet are unable to. My question is: does this imply that murder (the unlawful killing of another person) will also be impossible during this time?

Question regarding Judas Iscariot. Judas was a Jew by both religion and ethnicity, which would qualify him as one of the chosen. Can we therefore expect to see Judas in heaven? Thanks for your response and insight.

Is doubting the truth of Christianity enough to make a proximate occasion of sin necessary (rather than free)? For example, imagine Bob is subject to many proximate occasions of sin against the 6th commandment. He could alter his lifestyle to remove these occasions of sin, however he is also not quite convinced that Catholicism (or even Christianity) is true. But in his situation there is no way for him to continue his inquiries without the danger of these occasions of sin. Does the danger to faith make these occasions of sin necessary and thus permissible?

The [fine tuning argument](https://www.discovery.org/a/91/) essentially states that there is so much about the universe that is "fine tuned" for life - eg things like the gravitational constant would cause the universe to disintegrate if they were off by 1 part in a million million - that there must be a creator who did the tuning. The most common response from eg atheists is comparing the situation to water in a puddle remarking on how the hole in the ground is exactly the right shape to hold it. In other words, claiming that rather than the universe being fine tuned, it just fit the existing conditions out of necessity. Whenever this is mentioned in Christian forums, it is pooh-poohed and derided as though it is obviously wrong, but no-one ever seems to actually explain it. What is the "obvious" refutation of the puddle analogy that everyone seems to know?

From my reading of the following passages, it seems that Christianity does recognize at least two distinct types of knowledge of God: > [Romans 1:18-23 ESV] 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be **known about God** is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although **they knew God**, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. > [John 17:3 ESV] 3 And this is eternal life, that **they know you**, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. The passage from Romans 1 describes a knowledge of God that does not lead to salvation. In contrast, John 17 presents Jesus declaring that eternal life *is* the knowledge of God (and Jesus), a knowledge that clearly brings salvation. What kind of knowledge is Jesus referring to? Am I correct in concluding that the knowledge of God Jesus speaks of is fundamentally different from the knowledge described in Romans 1? Does Christianity indeed recognize different kinds of "knowledge of God"? If so, what are the various ways in which God can be *known* according to Christian teaching? Is there a type of "knowledge of God" that transcends merely acquiring information from books or making intellectual inferences from creation (as in Romans 1)? Is there a "spiritual" kind of knowledge of God, and how is this understood within Christian spirituality?

Can anyone tell me who is the name's day saint of St. John de Brébeuf ? The name's day saint of someone is similar to a patron saint , but is not exactly the same. I have try to find a source that makes note of this but have come up empty handed so far. St. Jean de Brébeuf was born on March 25, 1593 and was martyred on March 16, 1649 by the Iroquois Indians. > A name day is a tradition in some countries in Europe, Latin America, and Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in general. It consists of celebrating a day of the year that is associated with one's given name. The celebration is similar to a birthday. > > The custom originated with the Christian calendar of saints: believers named after a saint would celebrate that saint's feast day, or in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the day of a saint's death. Name days have greater resonance in the Catholic and Orthodox parts of Europe; Protestant churches practice less veneration of saints. In many countries, however, name-day celebrations no longer have connection to explicitly Christian traditions. > > The celebration of name days has been a tradition in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries since the Middle Ages, and has also continued in some measure in countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, whose Protestant established church retains certain Catholic traditions. The name days originate in the list of holidays celebrated in commemoration of saints and martyrs of the church. For example, the name Karl or Carl is celebrated in Sweden on January 28, the anniversary of the death of Charlemagne (Charles magnus, i.e., "the great"). The church promoted celebration of name days (or rather saints' feast days) over birthdays. - Name day (Wikipedia)

**John 16:13**: > (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. > > (NLT) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. I've often heard John 16:13 quoted as an argument for the various "infallibility" doctrines, be it Biblical infallibility, infallibility of the ecumenical councils, or general Church infallibility. In particular there is great emphasis placed upon the fact that the Holy Spirit will "guide you into all the truth." In fact I have heard it stated that if you believe that the Church can err, then you believe Christ was lying when he said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to "all the truth," not "some of the truth." Yet a plain reading of that verse does not seem to require infallibility. "Guide" seems to imply a process, and one not necessarily free from error. If someone is being guided to a final destination they may still get lost along the way, perhaps even be allowed to do so. The verse just seems to be assuring us that in the end the Holy Spirit will bring us to "all the truth." So am I missing something? Is there something that has been lost in translation? Is there extra-Biblical commentary somewhere amongst the Church Fathers that more thoroughly explains the verse? I am particularly in the Catholic position, but I would also be interested in the Orthodox and Protestant interpretations as well.

What are the historic and current views of the Catholic Church concerning Masons?

Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?