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 ?

The Baltimore Catechism says: > "God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in the next." Many Catholics have this ingrained in their brains, even if they've forgotten the other 500 things in the Catechism. What do all other denominations who have catechisms (i.e. Westminster Catechism) consider the meaning of life to be in their catechisms?

According to experienced Christians, "If anything, a focus on General Revelation should correlate with more experience focus, as people relish in the signs of God." It is so true that when the Faith of a person is thoroughly establish, the pathway to intimate experience with God is enhanced! But when there is less known about the strong Apologetic foundation of Christianity, it seems that the average Christian must rely on experiences he has encountered, to maintain his faith. Would this dilemma tend to cause church services to be more audio/visual (which is appealing to the younger set in the church)? This question is based on 35 years of teaching Apologetics in a Christian high school. The dearth of information evidenced from a questioning of students from the diverse churches, revealed that General Revelation (and Apologetics in general) was non-existent in the Discipleship classes of those churches! Discipleship class manuals contained the usual topics of Baptism, communion, tithing, family, charity, prayer, etc. These are the **what's of Christianity**. But the **why's of Christianity** were left out. Or were referenced to para-church orgs such as Cru, Intervarsity, Got Questions, and the like outside the local church. The satisfaction the students showed when they realized that the Christian worldview provided **reasons and answers** that the average mind sought after, was amazing! The response of the surprised parents was off the charts! This class filled a huge gap that was in the Discipleship efforts of their churches. So is this the reason why church families that do not have access to great Apologetic teaching, are relying on audio/visual emphases in Sunday morning churches, or youth group meetings with emphasis on "a good time"? Experiential emphasis? And does it also lend to a tendency for Believers to want and seek some physical manifestation in their walk with God to increase or sustain their Faith in God Would a foundation in General Revelation teaching (Apologetics) provide a surer foundation and basis for any experience they may encounter?

Today is the 13th day of the calendar month falling on a Friday. Many cultures consider the combination as something evil. The superstition seems to relate to various things, like the story of Jesus' last supper and crucifixion in which there were 13 individuals present in the Upper Room on the 13th of Nisan Maundy Thursday, the night before his death on Good Friday (Courtesy: [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_the_13th#Christian_associations)) . Surely the Catholic Church is aware that many of her followers are victims of the superstition. One gets to hear priests speaking against superstitions like the one involving Friday the 13th. One also gets to read about them. **My question is**: Has the Catholic Church officially denounced the superstition involving Friday the 13th?

On the eve of the Reformation, *The Mirror of a Christian Man* (1470) by [Dietrich Kolde](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Coelde) was one of the most popular Catholic catechism in the German language (German title: "Kerstenspiegel" or "Christenspiegel"). It is sometimes also titled as *A Fruitful Mirror of a Christian Man*. [It has been argued](https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/late-medieval-catechism-vs-the-heidelberg-catechism/) that the Protestant [Heidelberg Catechism](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/heidelberg-catechism) was written partly as an antidote to the dismal attitude of the Christian faith at the time. Is this true? I would like to check this claim by myself. This book is included in the 1982 book [Three Reformation Catechisms: Catholic, Anabaptist, Lutheran](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1933276.Three_Reformation_Catechisms) , but I am looking for a freely downloadable copy of Kolde's book only, preferably in an English translation.

This subject is clear when it comes to Catholicism who explicitly forbids contraception and encourage natural family planning. Then most protestants do not forbid the use of contraception. However when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, it seems that there is a smoke in the air, and nobody has a clear position. Orthodox Christians don't have a central catechism like the Catholic Church does, so that only further complicates things. Does Eastern Orthodoxy have a position at all when it comes to contraception? (My guess would highly be that they forbid it.)

Why do Catholics have crucifix in their home and Churches; priest, bishops, cardinals, popes and the faithful wear crucifix in their neck and make a sign of the cross before and after prayer and always say “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, amen”. Would this mean that the culmination of the Catholic Faith of salvation was on Christ death and His triumph over death in order for a man’s death to sin will be brought back to immortal life in unity to Christ? If this is so, the sign of the cross will forever in history and the age to come to be remembered and not forgotten in our hearts. Are there theological, history, catechism, canon on this?

One Protestant source says it wasn't until the 16th century that the word "catechism" came into use and it refers to the Heidelberg Catechism, first published in 1563 and approved by the Synod of Dort in 1619. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that a catechism was established much earlier: >By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines. Source: https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2661 I seek information on when and how catechisms first came into use, and welcome Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed Protestant input. Ths is NOT a who is right or who is wrong question - it's a genuine enquiry into how and when catechisms originated within the Christian faith. Question: Is there any biblical basis to support the use of a catechism within the Christian faith and how did they originate?

The former is based on the latter, being drawn up by a special Assembly convened in London in 1643, to be a Catechism for the Christian Church in England, Scotland and Ireland. It was adopted by the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland in 1648 as a means of Christian instruction. Here is how a 1981 Presbyterian Church of Australia words question and answer No. 1 – > “What is the chief purpose for which man is made? The chief purpose > for which man is made is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever. > Scripture: 1 Cor 10:31; Rom 11:36; Ps 73:24-26; John 17:22, 24; Rev > 7:17.” Yet in “The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes”, the first declaration is all about God revealing himself through his works of creation and providence, but primarily through written Scripture, so to declare his will to the Church as his former ways of revealing his will to his people have ceased (Heb 1:1-2). The Shorter Catechism No. 2 appears to make the link: > “What rule has God given to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him? > The Word of God, which consists of the Scriptures of the Old and New > Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how to glorify and enjoy > him. Scripture: Gal 1:8-9; Isa 8:20; Luke 16:29-31; 2 Tim 3:15-17.” The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 opens up with, > “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own > glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down > in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from > Scripture…”. Yet, ironically, the previous Study Class question is asked, “How do Protestants sometimes subordinate the authority of Scripture to men?” and I wonder if the first Shorter Catechism exemplifies this fault. Thus my question is, why would man be made the object of the first question, not God and his written word? Is there something intrinsically wrong with the first Shorter Catechism question and answer?

Is there some philosophical doctrine in Catholicism which does not require to believe in the historicity of Christ, like in Buddhism (you can "believe"/practice Buddhism, but don't believe in Buddha and his historicity)? I ask it because I can believe in symbol or philosophical concepts but not in those Bible stories, they sound absolutely immodern, naive and untrue. I know about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, but I don't know what is the current status of his doctrine in Holy See. Also, it's super difficult to me to believe in a soul and anthropomorphic God... And believe in soul makes close death very difficult, you know, hope is a pain, sleep is a rest. Maybe there are some more symbolic or philosophical or mystic concepts in Catholicism for peoples like me? Like there are such ones in Islam and Buddhism?

I teach Sunday School at an evangelical congregation that is essentially nondenominational, but has various, historical ties to the Church of the Brethren and or one of the smaller Baptist denominations. The pastor has generally given me free reign to come up with my own material: I send him my slides after the fact as a courtesy and to allow him to offer any correction or guidance. I have learned in this forum that not all Christian groups have a catechism in the same way that Lutherans do. My question is, do the Southern Baptists, American Baptist Association, or any other Baptist association have a common book that is relied on for instruction of youth in a similar way that Lutherans would have Luther's *Small Catechism*? If no, is there any standard of doctrine-- even a book of systematic theology, or works of a theological hero like Charles Spurgeon-- that **is trusted** for doctrinal clarification beyond the bible? If such a thing exists for "nondenominational evangelicals" and not Baptists, that's even better.

I'd like to know which denominations have a catechism and be able to review them. As a bonus has there been any attempt at a global type of common catechism?

In Lutheranism, there's the *[Small Catechism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Small_Catechism) , [Large Catechism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Large_Catechism),* and the [*Book of Concord*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Concord) , with each book in series getting much larger and having more specific doctrinal material. Even though the practicing theology of Lutherans spans crazy extremes, even the pastor who may be pushing the envelope against traditional doctrines is nonetheless apt to teach the *Small Catechism* to his or her students with pride. Does every major faith tradition in Christianity ultimately have a catechism?