One feature of the [Word of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith) movement's teaching is that you can "call things into existence" by faith, by which proponents primarily apply to health and wealth, since they say that because - we are given promise (Mark 11:22-24), - we are given a share in Jesus's divinity as children of God, - God wants to give us good things (Matt 7:11), - we inherit Abrahamic blessings if we have faith that can move mountains (Matt 17:20) we can also speak restorations into existence **just like how Jesus *as man* was given the power by God and was able to**: - declare someone to be healed in the manner of Genesis 1 (see [this interpretation of Matt 9:24](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/102587/10672)) , - command the demons to leave a possessed person (Matt 8:28-34) or - calms the storm simply by speaking (Mark 4:35-41), noting that Jesus's disciples can do "greater things" (John 14:12) BY FAITH **following the example** of post-Pentecost healers like Paul & Peter, while noting that Jesus could not work many miracles in Nazareth because of unbelief (Matt 13:58). Of course [WoF movement is *not* Biblical](https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html) , but my question is a HISTORICAL one, **whether a similar movement has happened in the past 20 centuries**, *even if* it was not as "full featured" as the 20th century charismatic-tinged Word of Faith movement. More specifically I'm asking whether the element of **calling restorations into existence by word of faith** has ever been taught before, **especially keeping in mind that Jesus, Paul and Peter were doing that as well**. Please note that the work of restoration itself **IS** orthodox because we Christians are also called into Jesus's ministry of restoration, although understood more along the lines of restoring injustice, human dignity, and most importantly peace with God through repentance, which then flows over into the restoration in our horizontal relationships, bringing healing to humanity's many facets of brokenness. The preaching of the gospel can be seen as a means to this end. For example, orthodox Christians *can* declare "your sins have been forgiven" to a repentant person, or declare "Jesus loves you" to them (thus removing shame and bringing psychological healing), which in a sense bringing something not previously there into reality. I wonder whether there has been any group that teaches this style of explicit declaration **as a standard practice by *all* members of the group**, apart from Catholic priests declaring "I absolve you from your sins" during the Catholic [Sacrament of Penance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance) .

I came across a blog post by a platonist in which he critiqued the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil given God's omnibenevolence and omniscience, saying: > Augustine's claim that evil is not a substance but a privation of good > was designed to absolve God of direct responsibility for evil's > existence. However, this position does not escape the more profound > paradox that God created beings who could lapse into privation and did > so with full foreknowledge of the consequences. The free will defense > only complicates the issue: if God grants free will knowing it will be > misused, the divine act of creation becomes entangled with the > emergence of moral evil. Moreover, if the will can remain oriented > toward the good only through divine grace, then free will itself seems > limited or dependent in a way that undermines its explanatory value. > The paradox intensifies when considering the role of Satan, whose > rebellious agency destabilizes the coherence of monotheistic > sovereignty. If Satan undermines God's purposes, divine omnipotence is > weakened; if Satan acts only with God's permission, then divine > benevolence is compromised. Either interpretation raises problems that > the privation theory cannot reconcile. These tensions reveal a more > profound structural paradox at the heart of Christian theodicy. In a > cosmos created ex nihilo by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, > nothing can exist independently of divine will or permission. > Consequently, all conditions that make evil possible, creaturely > freedom, vulnerability, corruptibility, and the existence of tempters > are ultimately grounded in God's creative act. Christian theodicy thus > attempts to balance divine goodness with divine sovereignty, but the > metaphysical architecture of monotheism forces a contradiction: either > God is powerful enough to prevent evil but chooses not to, or God > wills a world in which evil inevitably emerges, making evil indirectly > a by-product of divine creative intention. Augustine's partial > incorporation of Neoplatonic ideas helps articulate evil as a > metaphysical deficiency. Yet, even this philosophical refinement > cannot compensate for a more fundamental issue: Christian theology's > consolidation of causality in a single omnipotent agent ensures that > God remains tied to every aspect of cosmic order and disorder alike. > The result is a system in which the existence of evil perpetually > threatens either the goodness or the sovereignty of the creator, and > the tradition's attempts to resolve this tension never entirely > eliminate its underlying contradictions. > > (Flavius Julianus Mithridaticus, *Evil as Shadow, Heroism as Form: An > Indo-European View of Theodicy*, The New Platonic Academy) To restate his critiques: - God created people with the ability to be evil and knew of the consequences because of his foreknowledge. He created people knowing they would use their free will for evil which makes evil a by-product of his creation. This seems to bring his omnibenevolence into question. If I created a simulation with the parameters allowing for characters in it to be evil then I'm responsible, at least partly, for evil existing in my simulation. - If Satan can thwart God's purposes [such as his desire for everyone to have faith in Him and live according to His moral law (my comment)], then it calls his omnipotence into question. And if Satan only acts with God's permission, then God's benevolence is compromised. If someone is stealing something or hurting someone and I allow it to happen when I have the ability to stop it, then I'm being evil. In Catholicism, being able to prevent or stop something evil and not doing it is the sin of omission. A more accurate allegory with regards to Satan's acts that are permitted by God: I'm standing in the way of an assailant and their victim and when the assailant asks if they can attack their victim, I nod and step aside, allowing the evil to take place. Maybe my allegory is off, but I'm having difficulty seeing his omnibenevolence given this. My allegory somewhat reminded me of the book of Job where Job, who is a holy man has his life and loved ones destroyed after God gives Satan permission and if I'm remembering correctly, God didn't give Job an explanation and instead told him about the world He created. - In a world created by God as understood by Christians, nothing exists apart from God's will or permission. Either God is powerful enough to prevent evil, but chooses not to or God willed a world where evil would inevitably exist, making evil a by-product of his creation. He presents a sound critique of the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil and it completely stumped me so if you have any thoughts, please share them because I don't know how to rebut him. Thank you in advance to anyone who tries to tackle this.

Expressing this idea is difficult to relate. And I don’t understand the true significance of it. It seems that if Jesus destroyed his temple and which was “put back together” in three days. And to borrow a science quote from astronomer Carl Sagan: > If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Did God/Jesus create/recreate the universe through the crucifixion and resurrection? Just thinking about it seems way to deep and over my head.

One aspect of Christian theology that has long puzzled me concerns the internal logic of those sects and denominations – Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox alike – that affirm belief in a literal Lucifer. In discussions with adherents from various denominations, I have encountered a range of explanations for Satan’s motivations. However, these explanations tend to converge on a common theme: that Satan, consumed by envy and hatred toward both God and humanity, seeks to inflict as much destruction and suffering as possible. Yet this account raises certain difficulties. The portrayal of Satan as an embodiment of unrestrained malice seems to mirror the archetypal villains of literature and popular culture. Figures whose motivations are often exaggerated or simplistic, such as the spiteful fairy or the vengeful antagonist whose actions are driven by little more than resentment or jealousy. The evil, but just misunderstood and socially outcast, witch. The evil antihero in Pocahontas that just wants to annihilate the native tribe for no good reason, only based on incredibly superficial, shallow and hateful grounds. To me, it appears somewhat incongruous that a being described as possessing superhuman intelligence and insight would act with such emotional impulsivity and self-destructiveness. From a logical standpoint one might expect such a being to recognize the futility of opposing an omnipotent deity and to comprehend that rebellion against ultimate goodness is contrary to its own self-interest. The paradox, then, lies in the idea that Satan, though vastly more intelligent than any human being, acts with less rational foresight than the average person. If Satan is fully aware that his defiance will culminate in his own ruin, his continued opposition to God appears irrational, even absurd. Is Satan like those cartoon characters? Maybe *that is* the answer. Maybe Satan is just so blinded with hatred, for no apparent good reason, that he just cannot stop hating human beings and God’s creation. Maybe Satan is like one of those evil caricature in children’s movies, that just wants to destroy everything no matter the cost. Maybe he just cannot reason about his own self-interests. Maybe Satan is a *theological* caricature, a personification of evil in its most absolute and irrational form. Maybe Satan is a caricature of those characters. Or maybe both are a caricature of what we humans identify as the corrupt, destructive, hateful, malevolent and vicious forces of the world – they both take the evils to their respective extremes. To provide some personal context, I approach this question as an atheist and former believer. I lost my faith at the age of sixteen, and since then I have sought to understand Christianity as an intellectual and cultural system rather than as a lived faith. One aspect I found particularly burdensome within my former belief was the tendency of some Christians to use an interpretive framework that cast all events and moral choices as elements within a vast cosmic, constantly raging, struggle between good and evil. While this worldview can offer moral clarity and a sense of taking moral stances, seeing oneself as a “soldier of God” in a colossal war, it can also be profoundly exhausting. It is a mode of understanding existence that definitively do not miss.

Do you know of any other books (besides those by John Sailhamer) that advocate for Historical Creationism?

Here's a debate between Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" and Ken Ham. These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God "stretching the heavens" Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis?

As near as I can determine from Scripture; Creation and ejection of the rebellious angels, both happened at about the same period. That led me to begin to wonder, since it seems logical to me that God created the Angels for a specific duty. It also seemed logical that the rebellious Angels being ejected would leave some functions undone, and if my concepts gained from Revelation are true that would probably be in the area of worship. Of course God could simply create more Angels, but in creating man he could have man make the choice of whether to worship him or Satan before placing them in Heaven as is the procedure for entering the Ultimate Heaven.

Many creationist have beliefs concerning the pre-flood environment on earth. Are Jehovah Witnesses adamant about the water canopy being the source of flood waters? Do JWs believe the restored earth will have a restored canopy?

One argument I have encountered in support of the view that homosexuality is natural, and therefore acceptable, is that it occurs within the animal kingdom. For example, the Wikipedia article [Homosexual behavior in animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals) explains: > Various > non-human [animal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal) species > exhibit behavior that can be interpreted > as [homosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual) or [bisexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality) , > often referred to as *same-sex sexual behavior* (SSSB) by scientists. > This may include same-sex [sexual > activity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour), [courtship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtship_display), [affection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affection), [pair bonding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond) , and [parenting > among same-sex animal > pairs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_parenting_in_animals).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-ES-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-Bailey_2009-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-3) Various > forms of this are found among a variety > of [vertebrate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate) and [arthropod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod) taxonomic [classes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(biology)) . > The sexual behavior of non-human animals takes many different forms, > even within the same species, though homosexual behavior is best known > from [social species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociality) . > > Scientists observe same-sex sexual behavior in animals in different > degrees and forms among different species > and [clades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade) . A 2019 paper states > that it has been observed in over 1,500 > species.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-4) Although > same-sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in > many animal species, they are routinely manifested in only a few, > including > humans.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-5) Other > than humans, the only known species to exhibit exclusive homosexual > orientation is the domesticated sheep ([*Ovis > aries*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovis_aries)) , involving about > 10% of > males.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-Poiani2010-6)[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-levay-7)[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-8) The > motivations for and implications of these behaviors are often lensed > through anthropocentric thinking; [Bruce > Bagemihl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bagemihl) states that > any hypothesis is "necessarily an account of human interpretations of > these > phenomena".[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-Bagemihl-9)^( : 2)  > > Proposed causes for same-sex sexual behavior vary across species. > Theories include mistaken identity (especially for > arthropods), [sexually antagonistic > selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_conflict), [balancing > selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_selection) , > practice of behaviors needed for reproduction, expression of social > dominance or submission, and social > bonding.[^(\[10\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-10) Genetic , > hormonal, and neurological variations as a basis for individual > behavioral differences within species have been proposed, and same-sex > sexual behavior has been induced in laboratory animals by these means. Similarly, other sexual behaviors such as masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex have also been observed in animals. Once again, the Wikipedia article [Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals) explains: > **Animal non-reproductive sexual behavior** encompasses [sexual activities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour) that > animals participate in which do not lead to > the [reproduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction) of the > species. Although procreation continues to be the primary explanation > for [sexual behavior in > animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behavior) , recent > observations on animal behavior have given alternative reasons for the > engagement in sexual activities by > animals.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-Waal-1) Animals > have been observed to engage in sex for [social > interaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_interaction) , > bonding, exchange for significant materials, affection, mentorship > pairings, sexual enjoyment, or as demonstration of [social > rank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(ethology)) . Observed > non-procreative sexual activities include > non-[copulatory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copulation_(zoology)) mounting > (without insertion, or by a female, or by a younger male who does not > yet produce semen), oral sex, genital stimulation, anal stimulation, > interspecies mating, [same-sex sexual > interaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals),[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-Dubuc-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-Bailey-3) and > acts of affection, although it is doubted that they have done this > since the beginning of their > existence.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-4) There > have also been observations of sex with cub > participants,[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-Dukas-5) as > well as [sex with dead > animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia_in_animals).[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-necro2012-6) How can Christians respond to the fact that animals sometimes engage in sexual behaviors like homosexuality or masturbation? If God made animals, and if God is against sexual immorality, why do these behaviors exist in nature? Are animals “sinning” when they do this, or is it acceptable for them but still wrong for humans? How do Christians who are against homosexuality explain the evidence of homosexuality and other sexual behaviors in animals?

I'm going to give an example. If my parents only met because of Hitler, would I not exist if not for the actions of Hitler. Or does God give the same souls life regardless of our parents? There are different verses in which some would say we have existed before birth (Jeremiah 1:5), and others claiming that we are created from nothing (Genesis 2:7).

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and fundamentalist flat earthers continue to look to Genesis 1 for an explanation of cosmogony. Did the Catholic Church ever admit that science triumphed over pre-scientific religious origin stories?

Origen and some early Christian thinkers speculated that God may have created and destroyed worlds in cycles before the current creation described in Genesis 1. This idea, though speculative, raises the question: since Scripture does not detail what God did in His eternal past (before "In the beginning"), on what biblical basis do Christian traditions reject such views? Given that: - God is eternal and existed before time, - Genesis 1 focuses on the beginning of our world, not necessarily God's first act of creation, - Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, "He has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end," How do Christians who reject Origen’s cyclical creation model ground that rejection **biblically**, rather than merely philosophically or theologically? Are there specific Scriptures or doctrinal principles that limit God's act of creation to a single beginning as described in Genesis?

Old Earth Creationists (OECs) interpret the "days" in Genesis 1 as representing long periods (e.g., millions of years) rather than literal 24-hour days, to align with scientific evidence for an ancient Earth. What scriptural passages and theological arguments do OECs use to support this non-literal interpretation?

In Genesis 1, we observe that God the Father appears to be the one speaking creation into existence (“God said…”) and the Spirit of God is described as “hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:2). However, the Son is not seen engaging in any form of activity in the narrative. This seems puzzling in light of John 1:1–3, which identifies the Word (the Son) as being present in the beginning and as the agent through whom all things were made, and Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him and for Him. Why doesn't Genesis include any mention or visible action of the Son in the creation account? How do Christian theologians reconcile this apparent absence with New Testament claims about the Son's role in creation?

According to dispensationalist theology, sin is not directly caused by Satan - though he plays a significant role in temptation and deception - but rather originates from humanity's free will. However, if Adam and Eve were created with free will and declared "very good" by God (Genesis 1:31), does this imply an inherent flaw in their design that free will itself be a vessel for sin? If so, how does Dispensationalism reconcile God's perfect creation with the capacity for rebellion embedded in it?

**Newly created Catholic Mass for the Care of Creation?** Apparently Pope Leo XIV inaugurated a new mass for the care of creation. This [source](https://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Mass-for-Creation-Time..pdf) says the the Feast of Creation is September 1st (or for any other day in Creation Time, September 1st - October 4th). Concerning this new mass or feast, what is the reasoning behind this new mass and feast? What is it’s liturgical rank as a feast? And why these dates for the Feast of Creation? Any insights about this new mass would be greatly appreciated.

According to Protestantism, why did God create humanity? I have been looking around this website for some Biblical verses, etc for some clues, but couldn't find any.

I would like to express some questions and points here regarding why God made this world as it is and not a world where humans could simply fly away at will. So, my main question to be brief is: Why did God create or willed reality in this way? That He allowed gravity in this level and not like other Mars, or why He didn’t allow us to be underwater creatures or flying ones. The thing that I’m struggling about here is the idea that God allowed us to have a choice; free will. Now what I have thought about is this: Do we really have free will if there are things that are naturally impossible for us to choose, therefore limiting our choices? Like you cannot choose between “flying” or “not flying”. You can only “not fly”. So can you really say “well, I still have free will” The answer that I have thought is “well, God has to set up some form of reality or limits. Otherwise, free will without limitations can include illogical conclusions such as existing and not existing at the same time” So okay, God creates a reality for us to live in: why this reality and not other realities? I apologize in advance if you think this is way too simple, lacking or so and so. But I hope you get the point.

I am not trying to be argumentative, this is an earnest question, as this question got me in huge trouble when I was growing up attending a southern baptist Christian middle school. This question (and people's reactions to it) is actually one of the things that lead my away from the church as a teenager (which I later came back to). If the speed of light is constant and we can see distant objects (stars, galaxies, etc) that are millions or billions of light years away how can we account for a young age of the universe? - My father, at that time, was convinced that the speed of light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe. Although, I have never seen any credible evidence of this, and it would seem that measurements taken at CERN (and elsewhere) would be seriously affected if the speed of light was not a constant. - My 8th grade science teacher said it was because objects used to be closer than they are now, and have moved away from each other over time. However, if the universe was only 10k years old, and two objects started next to each other and traveled away from each other at nearly the speed of light, the most distant objects in the universe would still only appear to be a little less then 10k light years away. - God creating the universe with photons in flight, making the distant universe (and therefore past events) only *appear* to be taking places (or even existing), is certainly deceptive and I cannot accept it. - Do YEC consider the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth two separate questions? My question isn't 'how old is the universe?', or 'did the big bang happen?', or 'creation vs evolution'. It is simply this: how do Christians, who are YEC, reconcile this? **Edit** Some have asked, why I cannot accept that God created photons in midflight giving the appearance of age? - In the [video series](http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/distant-starlight) @SeanDowney posted below, the presenter speaking against this argument shows a star that is 150k light years away that we observed blowing up. So, if God created photons in midflight then for 8k years God has been showing us a star that never existed and showed us an event (the start being destroyed) that never took place. - This is a specious argument in general, because I can make the same argument that God created the universe 5 minutes ago and all the evidence to the contrary (physical evidence, our memories of the past, etc.) were all put in place to give the appearance of age. In both these cases, God making the universe appear to be billions of years old, instead of 5 minutes old, or the universe appearing to be billions of years old instead of 10k years, involves deception on the part of God that I cannot accept God (or my conception of him) would perpetrate.

> In contemporary philosophy, a **brute fact** is a fact that cannot be explained in terms of a deeper, more "fundamental" fact. There are two main ways to explain something: say what "brought it about", or describe it at a more "fundamental" level. For example, a cat displayed on a computer screen can be explained, more "fundamentally", in terms of certain voltages in bits of metal in the screen, which in turn can be explained, more "fundamentally", in terms of certain subatomic particles moving in a certain manner. If one were to keep explaining the world in this way and reach a point at which no more "deeper" explanations can be given, then one would have found some facts which are brute or inexplicable, in the sense that we cannot give them an ontological explanation. As it might be put, there may exist some things that just are. > > To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained ("Everything can be explained" is sometimes called the principle of sufficient reason). > > ... > > **Bertrand Russell took a brute fact position when he said, "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all." Sean Carroll similarly concluded that "any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation."** > > Source: [Brute fact - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact) Postulating that the universe *just is*, as a *brute fact*, devoid of an ultimate cause or explanation, is a viewpoint often embraced by naturalists and non-theists, exemplified by figures like [Sean Carroll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll) and [Bertrand Russell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell) . However, this notion runs contrary to the Christian faith's premise of a Creator God serving as the ultimate explanation for the universe's existence. How might a Christian effectively persuade a naturalist non-theist, such as Sean Carroll, that it is metaphysically impossible for the universe to be a brute fact? --- *Bonus for the interested reader with about one hour of free time*: [God is not a Good Theory (Sean Carroll)](https://youtu.be/ew_cNONhhKI)