Is it okay to abort a baby when the continuation of the pregnancy may result in the death of his or her mother, according to Catholicism?

Did the early church fathers view "monogenes" as "only" or "only-begotten"? The following Bible verses have "monogenes" in it: Verse KJV NET John 1:14 only begotten the one and only John 1:18 only begotten only one John 3:16 only begotten one and only John 3:18 only begotten one and only 1 John 4:9 only begotten one and only Luke 7:12 only only Luke 8:42 only one only Luke 9:38 only child only child Hebrews 11:17 only begotten only son With only one exception, the King James Version translates it to specify that the only is a child. However, modern translations, such as the New English Translation, use "one and only" most of the time. How was this word understood by the Church Fathers?

Eating a [fruit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:3&version=NIV)\* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin? \* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.

Like almost all churches, the Church of England and even more the wider Anglican Communion is struggling to come to terms with the vocal and growing minority of, in their own terms, "non-heteronormative" people, within the church as well as within the wider society. This concerns gender-fluidity/changes as well as homosexuality. The issue is contentious within and between the congregations. This question is motivated by [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104499/how-can-anglican-clergy-be-suspended-without-pay-for-teaching-what-the-anglica?noredirect=1#comment300641_104499) : What should an Anglican priest do who cannot in good conscience represent the more libertarian stance of their church regarding the fairly broad complex of sexual identity, gender fluidity, homosexuality etc. In one specific case cited, a priest was put on leave after opposing in a sermon what he perceived as LGBT indoctrination bordering on coercion by a sexual education charity at a primary school. The OP of that question perceived a mismatch between the more conservative official doctrine of the Church as opposed to their more libertarian actions. The question claimed that the priest was "upholding the Church of England’s doctrinal stance". I tried to find out what that official stance might be. There is a long Wikipedia page about the wider Anglican community's [struggle to deal with homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Anglican_Communion) , and it is clear that the *factual* opinion spectrum, even just on this relatively narrow topic, is very wide. But what is the *official* doctrine? I read passages of the [Book of Common Prayer](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer) , "a key source for its doctrine": - The [ordination vow](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/ordaining-and-consecrating-0) did not seem to contain anything that directly would compel a priest to oppose LGBT... advertising. - There is a [enumerated list of relatives that must not marry](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/table-kindred-and-affinity) ; homosexuality is not mentioned there, most likely because it didn't cross anybody's mind. - [The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/form-solemnization-matrimony) talks about man and woman respectively husband and wife throughout. Whether the absence of same-sex marriage is to be taken as a prohibition or whether it simply didn't cross anybody's mind is, I suppose, up to debate. Is there more in the official, binding doctrine that would compel a priest to resist his superiors in LGBT... issues as a matter of doctrinal principle?

## Background: Christian Trinitarians believe "that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit". Trinitarians generally believe that this doctrine is taught in the New Testament. They also generally believe the trinity is (minimally) simply compatible with the Hebrew bible, or (maximally) also clearly taught in the Hebrew bible. This is in contrast with traditional Jewish belief in a unitary deity. The authors of the Hebrew bible make several statements about the oneness of G-d: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one." > **Isaiah 44:6** - "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'" > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is G-d; there is no other besides Him." These authors do not write about distinctions between *being* and *personhood*. ## Unfalsifiable belief? Under trinitarian hermeneutical approaches, the above verses are not contrary to the trinity because they could be interpreted to refer to *the single being of G-d*, and not to the trinitarian *multiplicity of persons*. This is a curious interpretation since concepts of distinction between “person” and “being” only appear in literature which post-date the completion of the Hebrew bible. ## Question If seemingly clear verses attesting to ontological oneness can be used in support of trinitarian doctrine, what could a biblical author have written in the Hebrew bible that would falsify the trinity? Is the trinity only falsifiable with a verse such as *"There is only one person of G-d"*, *"G-d is only one being and one person"*, or even *"The trinity as defined by Christian patristic fathers and ecumenical councils in the 4th Century CE is false"*?

I'm looking for something like Strong's Concordance but for historical cities and other things that the average modern Westerner wouldn't understand without research. I'm reading Isaiah 15 and there are several place names (Ar, Kir, Dibon, Nebo, Medeba, etc) that are completely unfamiliar to me but some quick searches on wikipedia told me all I was looking for. I would like a (free) bible study tool that links to those kinds of things with footnotes or something. Doesn't have to be wikipedia but that was my first thought. [Strong's Concordance](https://strongsconcordance.org/results.html?k=dibon) shows all occurrences of Dibon and says > or (shortened) Diybon {dee-bone'}; from 01727; pining:--Dibon, the name of three places in Palestine:--Dibon. (Also, with 01410 added, Dibon-gad.) But what I wanted to know is exactly what [the wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhiban,_Jordan#Dhiban_and_the_Israelites) says > According to the Bible, the Israelites stopped at Dhiban during the Exodus. The Bible mentions "Divon" (Hebrew: דִּיבֹן), or "Divon Gad" (דִּיבֹן גָּד‎) because the city was said to have been occupied by the tribe of Gad. The name in Biblical Hebrew means wasting or pining. > According to the Mesha Stele found at the site, Mesha, a Moabite king from the 9th century BCE, expelled the Israelites and established ancient Dhiban as an important settlement in the kingdom of Moab.

I have a leather jacket that just picked up from a girl who was selling it and I didn’t notice that it had a Chimera on its back. Truthfully, the image disturbs me a bit. I don’t want to curse my household neither my family by keeping it. It has a lion head with a goat’s body and a serpent head at the end of its tail. I know the image of the serpent represents Satan & goats could represent unbelievers & maybe the lion could represent the enemy roaring like a lion. Please help me understand this further. Are there any Christian traditions on this Chimerical imagery to indicate if it represents something particularly un Christian, or if it is linked to the occult?

The 2025 Jubilee Prayer in English bothered my wife by capitalizing the word "Evil". > when, with the powers of Evil vanquished, > your glory will shine eternally. https://www.usccb.org/prayers/jubilee-prayer I really had no explanation for her and I've expended my bother the Bishops budget (because I was busy trying to get them to put a comma between "when" and "with") so I think it's worth asking here. Is Evil personified in the person of Satan? Or is it the Gates of Hell or the name given to the collective forces of darkness?

I have been a member of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod for most of my life. My problem is that now, as a middle-aged man, and for the last five years, I have realized that I am a gay man. I am not thrilled about this and I wish it was not the case. I also have not done anything in furtherance of it either. I believe the Bible condemns it as sin. However, in being a member of a conservative denomination such as mine, I have nowhere to turn for help. I live in daily fear of God's wrath and worry that I'm in danger of being "given up" as mentioned in Roman's 1:24. I have a great pastor but I don't feel like I can come talk to him about this because I don't know what would happen. Thus, I am reluctant to ring a bell that can't be unrung. Any references to literature, etc. Would be most appreciated.

I have watched a dozen of YouTube videos on the identity of the Sea Beast mentioned in the book of Revelation. Almost all these channels conclude that the sea beast is a religious institution that already exists. There are also thousands of website online that make the same allegations. The first evidence they use to point to the RCC as the sea beast is the Daniel prophecy about a *future institution that shall think to change the times and the law.* **Daniel 7:25** >He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall oppress the holy ones of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law It is common knowledge that the Pope transferred the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday which was also known as the Lord's day in those days hence a fulfillment of shall think to change the times which is the time of worship. The Catholic Church also persecuted Protestants and they have apologized for this many times hence a fulfillment of "shall oppress the Holy Ones of the Most High". Some of those fleeing the religious persecution in Europe fled to America where they declared each individual had a right to freedom of worship. The second proof they use to identify the RCC as the Sea Beast is the Biblical verse that says the beast is *seated on seven hills and seven mountains* and there is only one city in the entire world that fits this description: **The Vatican**. **Revelation 17:9** >This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated The third evidence they point to is that the sea beast has already been given *authority over every tongue, tribe and nation* which is a **power only held by the RCC as it's the only institution found in all countries of the world** **Revelation 13:7** >And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation Lastly but not least, the third evidence is the *color of clothes Pontiffs and Cardinals use during masses and sermons*. **Revelation 17:4** >The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup. It is crystal clear that priests use clothes made in Scarlet and Purple and there are golden cups all around during regular masses. How do Catholics defend their faith from these allegations?

Where did Jesus go when he died? At the crucifixion, Jesus says to the other condemned man (Luke 23:43) > And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, **today you will be with Me in Paradise**.” [The Apostle's Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) says: > who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried, **descended into hell**, rose again from the dead on the third day, If Jesus descended into hell until his resurrection, he could not have gone to Paradise on the same day. Is the Apostles' Creed wrong?

I have heard that aidios is the only word for eternal and all others are only referring to age (an ending period of time). (Possible source link added ) In the Bible Aidios is used only twice in Romans 1:20 and Jude 1:6-7. There are several other words, but I'm not familiar with them. Can someone please give me an short overview of the various words for Eternal, age, and similar? I am primarily interested in the true words for "eternal" and not "age".

The actual Number of The Beast is only mentioned in Revelation 13:18 ; In the Greek manuscripts, the number is rendered as **χξϛ** or "six hundred and sixty-six". In 2005 Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum revealed the discovery of the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 which gave The Beast's number as 616 **χιϛ**. What is the more common belief between the two? What are some examples of Churches that belief in 666 and some in 616? Are there other interpretations this question does not consider?

At the end of the Gospel of Mark, the boy in the tomb tells the women to give a message to "[Jesus's] disciples AND Peter" (Mark 16:7). Nowhere else in Mark is any apostle "separated" from the word "disciples" and Peter, the "leader" of the disciples, is given second billing. What, if any, are the official church explanations for this unusual language?

I'm just curious how there can be more than one truth at the same time? God came to establish a church. Not any church. The church of the first thousand years is the Eastern Orthodox church.

I would like to know when David, the king of Israel, was born.

Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses go from door to door, talking to people about their beliefs. Also neither group accepts the notion of Trinity. What are the main differences between these two denominations?

In an article on "Authorship of Luke-Acts " in Wikipedia, it states the following: > According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – > c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of > the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the > countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic > Pauline letters... The editors of Wikipedia appeal to the following reference for a "critical consensus" for a list of contradictions: > Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998) . The historical Jesus: a > comprehensive guide. Translated by Bowden, John. Fortress Press. ISBN > 9780800631239. What are the strongest arguments contained in that source, translated by John Bowden, and what are the responses by critics (i.e. Christian apologists) holding to a traditional view of the unity of canonical Scripture?

To me, it's simple that black and equal races are equal. But recently, black people have had a lower status than white people and also suffered from discrimination as everybody knows, and I'm wondering, because Christianity has been around for more than 2000 years, and these issues were among white Christians, so I'm wondering maybe what we think today, wasn't simply understood to people in past, therefore I'm looking for proofs/verses from the **New** Testament that support or oppose the idea that black and white people are equal in their rights etc.

Since all evil acts come down to disobedience against god, are all evil acts equivalent? Is no sin worse than any other sin? If one sin is worse than another sin does that imply that one act can be more disobedient than another act? Is sin and/or disobedience absolute or does it have a degree?