GotQuestions.org has an article entitled [*Why did Jesus say that the demon could only come out by prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29)?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/only-come-out-by-prayer-and-fasting.html) , which I’d like to quote to motivate this question: > Later, the disciples privately asked Jesus why they could not cast out the unclean spirit (Mark > 9:28), and Jesus replied that this particular kind could only come out > “by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29, KJV). It is only the King James > Version (and NKJV) that records Jesus saying the demon could only come > out by prayer and fasting. Other translations (ASV, NASB, ESV, NIV, et > al.) leave out *and fasting* and only mention prayer. The difference is > due to a textual variant. The two oldest and most reliable Greek > manuscripts omit *and fasting*. > > While there are many variants in the Greek manuscripts of the New > Testament, it is remarkable that none of the variants create any > significant doctrinal challenge—they are usually minor and don’t > impact the message of a passage at all. Mark 9:29 is one of the more > significant variants, as the differing translations make it unclear > whether the demon in Mark 9 could only come out by prayer and fasting, > or whether prayer alone would work. It is worth noting that in the New > Testament fasting was simply prayer so focused and intense that a > person did not give attention to things like eating or drinking—so > either way, Jesus is emphasizing that the demon in Mark 9 could only > come out by intensive prayer. > > As Jesus explains to the crowd, the key was the faith of those > involved (e.g., Mark 9:19, 23). So it is evident that prayer rooted in > faith in Jesus Christ is effective (see James’ assertion that the > prayer of a righteous [believing] person is effective, James 5:16b). > Jesus was challenging the crowd, the boy’s father, and the disciples > on the importance of believing in Him as the One who could accomplish > what would otherwise be impossible. Whether one accepts the *prayer and fasting* variant or the *prayer only* variant, it is clear that, in either case, a special kind or a higher degree of prayer is required before attempting difficult exorcisms. Unfortunately, Jesus’s recorded words are quite vague on this point, as He does not provide a more precise protocol, leaving several questions unanswered, such as: - How can one determine if an exorcism will be particularly difficult? - What factors contribute to the difficulty of an exorcism? - How much time should be devoted to prayer in preparation for a difficult exorcism? - Is fasting ever necessary, at least in extreme cases, and if so, for how long? Or is prayer alone always sufficient? Are there any Christian denominations or traditions that teach a more detailed protocol for preparing for difficult exorcisms?

Below are several excerpts from Christian websites that discuss the idea of "paying the price" in a spiritual context: > God is a God of process. The major problem with this generation is that men are not ready to **pay the price** to have spiritual power and experiences. But the truth is, if it is genuine, there will be **a price attached to it**. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:49 to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. So, where did you get the version of your divine power without divine process? **Anything valuable always has a price tag**. If you see anything that is valuable, that is cheap, it is either somebody paid for it, or it is stolen. **Authentic power has a price tag**. > > There is a **price you will have to pay** to walk in the authentic power of God. If you see a man that works in supposed power and you don’t see a price in his life, it’s false power he’s working with. The man that God will work with must **pay the price** for spiritual experiences. Specific callings and specific anointing call for specific **prices that we must constantly be paying**. May the Lord find you dependable to carry His power these last days. > > https://spiritmeat.net/2024/06/22/22-june-2024-the-price-for-spiritual-power-and-spiritual-experiences-pay-it-mark-314/ > Every day we need to be watchful by **paying the price to buy the Spirit as the golden oil** so that we may supply the churches with the Spirit for the testimony of Jesus and be rewarded by the Lord to participate in the marriage dinner of the Lamb. > > Our urgent need today is to gain more of the Spirit; we need to live a life of **buying** an extra portion of the Spirit to saturate our entire being. > > Day by day we need to live such a life, a life of **paying the price** to gain the Spirit not only in our spirit but also in our soul, being saturated with the Spirit in our vessel. If we have a day when we don’t **pay the price** to gain the saturating Spirit, that is a wasted day; we do not want to have any wasted days! > > For us to gain more of the Spirit in our soul we need to **pay a price**; we need to **pay the price** of giving up the world, dealing with the self, loving the Lord above all things, and counting all things loss for Christ. > > Day by day we need to **pay the price** of losing our soul life and denying the things that we want to do so that we may pray more, even persevere in prayer and watch unto prayer, so that we may gain more of the Spirit. > > If we don’t **pay the price to buy the oil today**, we will have to pay it after we are resurrected; sooner or later, we will have to **pay the price** – so why not today, why not in this age? > > https://agodman.com/paying-price-buy-spirit-oil-vessel-word-prayer/ > The wise virgins told the foolish virgins to go buy their own oil. When the Bible speaks of the oil, it refers to the Holy Spirit. You may ask, “But, how is it possible to buy the Holy Spirit?” > > Jesus is referring to a person having to **pay the price**, which means denying their will, obeying the Word of God, being faithful, sacrificing and keeping constant watch. > > All those who truly want the presence of God should be aware that **there is a price to pay**. The wise virgins, certainly, **paid the price** (sacrificed) with the time they waited for the bridegroom. Surely, they prepared themselves by investing in their spiritual lives through prayer, fasts, consecration and surrender, not allowing the light of the Spirit to burn out. > > On the other hand, there are those who aren’t willing to **pay that price**. They live according to their fleshly desires, refuse to stop living in sin, are in the church but far from God, have the lamp, which is faith, but don’t have the oil, which is the Holy Spirit. > > https://www.universal.org/en/bispo-macedo/pay-the-price/ Is the idea of "paying the price" for greater spiritual power, anointing, or a deeper experience of God a common teaching across all Christian denominations, or is it emphasized primarily within certain groups? For example, is it widely taught that Christians must *pay a price* to receive more of the Spirit, more anointing, or greater spiritual authority? What is the biblical basis for this teaching?

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

According to the Catholics, Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. Which denominations also teach that those who have not heard the Gospel and are ignorant of Christ can be saved if they seek the truth and obey God?

Which denominations, past and present, would be insulted by opening a statement with premise "when Jesus created the world..", and why? ---------- _background for this is firstly the whole creational account given in the Bible, but which lastly is not limited to Genesis; I do not want to specify John 1:3, or Genesis 1, or anything else here, because different denominations make different arguments based on different approaches to the text; **I am wondering what words in the 5-word phrase exactly may be disturbing for some groups and what arguments they create to sign the phrase "when Jesus created the world" as false** or heretical_

Imagine Bob. Bob was, at some point, Christian. Perhaps he was raised that way, or perhaps he came to faith later in life, but at some point, he was confirmed, communing regularly, professing Christ, and has felt God's Presence in his life. Then, something happened. Some event caused Bob to turn away from Christ to pursue a different path. Maybe the breakup was public, or maybe it was just in the privacy of his heart, but at minimum, Bob said to God, "go away; I don't need or want you". ---- A certain user cited Hebrews 6:4-6, claiming that Bob, having apostatized, can no longer be redeemed: > 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (KJV) However, this seems contrary not only to Scripture (with God, all things are possible), but to God's own nature (God is patient, wanting everyone to be saved). Indeed, most sects as far as I can tell teach that there is no sin from which one cannot repent, and that it is only by remaining in sin that one cuts *one's self* off from Salvation, essentially by refusing to accept the free gift. Logically, moreover, this teaching would suggest to Bob that God despises him and that not only should he not bother to seek God, he might as well do all he can to be God's enemy since he has nothing to lose. **Which sect(s) teach that one who has fallen off the path cannot be called back?**

### Introduction Ezekiel 44-46 relates a prophecy about a restored Jerusalem with a temple which is quite different in dimensions (it's gigantic) from either the 1st or 2nd Temples. The Israelites are following the laws and regulations of God: > A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you, and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ezekiel 36:26-27) The people are ruled by a prince who is of the line of David: > I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them; he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I the Lord have spoken. (Ezekiel 34:23-24) The prince provides various offering in the Temple for himself and the people: > “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall celebrate the Festival of the Passover, and for seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten. On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a purification offering. And during the seven days of the festival he shall provide as a burnt offering to the Lord seven bulls and seven rams without blemish, on each of the seven days, and a male goat daily for a purification offering. He shall provide as a grain offering an ephah for each bull, an ephah for each ram, and a hin of oil to each ephah. In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month and for the seven days of the festival, he shall make the same provision for purification offerings, burnt offerings, and grain offerings and for the oil. (Ezekiel 45:18-25) This Davidic prince will also have an inheritance and children to whom he may give to. He is not allowed to take from the people and give to his children: > “Thus says the Lord God: If the prince makes a gift to any of his sons out of his inheritance,[a] it shall belong to his sons; it is their holding by inheritance. But if he makes a gift out of his inheritance to one of his servants, it shall be his to the year of liberty; then it shall revert to the prince; only his sons may keep a gift from his inheritance. The prince shall not take any of the inheritance of the people, thrusting them out of their holding; he shall give his sons their inheritance out of his own holding, so that none of my people shall be dispossessed of their holding.” (Ezekiel 46:16-18) ### Identity? Traditional Jewish interpretation of these passages is that the prince is the promised Messiah. Who do Christian denominations believe this prince is? Do Christians believe this is a prophecy of the future? If so, why are sacrifices occurring in the future?

### Temple Incident All four canonical Christian gospels record an (potentially more than one, but not pertinent here) incident where Jesus enters the Temple, observes money-changers and merchants selling animals inside the Temple, and drives them out of the Temple with a whip: Mark: > Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” Matthew 21: > Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a den of robbers.” Luke 19: > Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there, and he said, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” John 2: > The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” ### Money Changers *Mishnah Shekalim* records that on the 25th of Adar (just before Passover) money-changers sat in the Temple to help Jews exchange currency and pay the required half-shekel donation prescribed in Exodus 30:13–16​. ### Animal Sellers The *Torah* and *Mishnah* teach that animals like doves were offered by poorer worshipers (for example, as sin offerings or after childbirth), and these birds could easily become blemished during travel. Thus it was entirely reasonable to buy the doves in Jerusalem instead of bringing them from home since a blemished animal would be invalid as an offering (Leviticus 12:6–8, Leviticus 5:7, *Mishnah Keritot* 1:7 & *Mishnah Bekhorot* 7:6) ### Question Given that both money-changers and animal sellers were performing vital services required for Temple services, what do various Christian denominations believe the reason was for Jesus whipping them out of the Temple? What sources do Christian denominations use as support for accusations of corruption/robbery occurring in the Temple?

A popular view is that Jesus was crucified on Friday, 14th Nisan, 3rd April AD 33. This is the Julian date. The Gregorian date is 1st April. Interestingly, 1st April 2033 will be a Friday. The current way of calculating the date of Easter is related to the Full Moon, which ties Easter rather more to the Passover events of the Exodus from Egypt than to the crucifixion. What discussions have there been in any major denomination about trying to tie the date more emphatically to a date of the crucifixion rather than to Passover? Has there been any review, especially in modern times, of this issue?

I do not recall any discussion of the consumption of blood in the LCMS church I grew up in. According to Wikipedia, the Catholic Church decided that consumption of blood is OK for Christians (excepting during fasts, of course). Within Protestant circles, I have heard different ideas, but I'm not sure what the overall teaching is for most denominations. Wikipedia didn't give much information on whether any denominations/traditions forbid eating blood in the modern day. It does report that many of the Church Fathers taught that eating blood is not allowed for Christians. To be clear, I am not asking about who is right or wrong on this issue, nor what reasoning leads to the different conclusions (though this is definitely interesting!). I'm just asking for a survey of major denominations, or prominent non-denominational pastors, which forbid blood. I am also not asking about the consumption of blood that Real Presence implies happens during Holy Communion; that is a different issue.

This is intended to be a question of general applicability, but in all honesty, I'm asking inspired by concrete YouTube channels that promote atheism and skepticism, most notably, [CosmicSkeptic](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7kIy8fZavEni8Gzl8NLjOQ) and [RationalityRules](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg) . These are examples of a special category of atheists that stand out for their remarkable understanding of philosophy, logical thinking, and skepticism, as well as their outstanding debating skills, even against renowned Christian apologists. Just to give you an idea, Alex O'Connor, the founder of CosmicSkeptic, has debated [William Lane Craig](https://youtu.be/eOfVBqGPwi0) , [Frank Turek](https://youtu.be/b5a3MxIqZOs) , [Jonathan McLatchie](https://youtu.be/woqy13ZkeqM) , [Trent Horn](https://youtu.be/5PF1JgXOKDQ) and several other defenders of the faith. When it comes to atheists of this caliber, I see no possible way of evangelizing them through purely intellectual/argumentative means. Not even the best apologists have managed to do so. If I were asked my honest opinion, I would say that the only thing that can turn them around would be a supernatural, "road to Damascus" kind of experience. I see no other way. But leaving my personal opinions aside, I would like to know if there are any denominations that provide official advice on how to evangelize highly intellectual and well-spoken atheists and skeptics. What recommendations do they give to win strong atheists for Christ? Or is this category of atheists simply a lost cause and the only thing that we can do is to throw up our hands, leave them alone and hope for the best?

Every time I revisit questions about God's nature on Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange I can't help but come out with more doubts than convictions. For example, take a look at the following questions: - [Is Paul suggesting in Eph. 4:6 that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70188/38524) - [Is 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 an assertion that God is three equal Persons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55344/38524) - [“Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” - why did the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for saying this?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55803/38524) - [What does it mean to be "equal with God" in John 5:18?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/60302/38524) - [What does "equality with God" mean, and how can it be "exploited"? Philippians 2:6](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55612/38524) - [What can we learn about the relationship between "God" and "the Spirit of God" ontologically from 1 Corinthians 2:6-16?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55640/38524) - [Is the Son second in authority under God the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:24-28](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55872/38524) When questions about Christology, Pneumatology and the nature of God in general can cause so much debate and doctrinal division among Christians, with arguments both for and against each conceivable position, it is very hard for me to accept the idea that one has to embrace a particular doctrinal position about God's nature **as an essential condition for salvation**, as opposed to simply withholding judgement. Personally, I see no other way to hold a strong conviction about the nature of God than God Himself revealing these details about Himself in a crystal clear manner to the individual, through a special revelation. **Question**: Are there any Christian groups or denominations that do not see having a definite doctrinal position on God's nature as essential for salvation, even if they, personally, have one? Or in more colloquial terms, are there any Christian groups or denominations that either lack a definite doctrinal position on God's nature OR believe in one but say *"we believe that God's nature is best described by X, but if you are not sure or have doubts about X, that's okay, you can still be saved"* ? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86199/50422

In the Lord’s Prayer, we see these words: > and forgive us our debts, > as we also have forgiven our debtors. (Matthew 6:12, ESV) Among the views on how to understand Matthew 6:12 are: - **Conditional View**: Direct correlation. God's forgiveness is contingent upon our prior or simultaneous forgiveness of others. - **Consequential View**: Our forgiveness of others is a result or evidence of God's forgiveness working in our lives. Experiencing God's grace empowers us to extend grace to others. - **Relational View**: The two acts of forgiveness are parallel and interconnected, not strictly conditional. Emphasizes the relational aspect. God's forgiveness restores our relationship with him, and our forgiveness of others restores our relationships with them. I would like an overview of: - Which denominations lean toward each view - Which Prominent theologians endorse each If possible, include quotes from confessions or theologians that show that they hold that view. If there are other important and different ways to look at this verse, include them as well. Note: This is related to a previous question on Luther’s view: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97180/how-do-lutheran-discern-law-and-gospel-in-the-lords-prayer **Example: John Calvin** As an example, here is a quote from John Calvin, suggesting the Consequential View: > *As we forgive our debtors…* This condition is added, that no one may > presume to approach God and ask forgiveness, who is not pure and free > from all resentment. **And yet the forgiveness, which we ask that God > would give us, does not depend on the forgiveness which we grant to > others:** but the design of Christ was, to exhort us, in this manner, to > forgive the offenses which have been committed against us, and at the > same time, to give, as it were, the impression of his seal, to ratify > the confidence in our own forgiveness. Nor is any thing inconsistent > with this in the phrase used by Luke, καὶ γὰρ, for we also Christ did > not intend to point out the cause, but only to remind us of the > feelings which we ought to cherish towards brethren, when we desire to > be reconciled to God. And certainly, if the Spirit of God reigns in > our hearts, every description of ill-will and revenge ought to be > banished. The Spirit is the witness of our adoption, (Romans 8:16 ,) > and therefore this is put down simply as a mark, to distinguish the > children of God from strangers. The name debtors is here given, not to > those who owe us money, or any other service, but to those who are > indebted to us on account of offenses which they have committed. - John Calvin (1509-1564) *Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1* https://www.lords-prayer-words.com/commentary/john_calvin_matthew_6_12.html

My common sense tells me that there must be many such churches, but I'm having a hard time finding concrete examples on the web where this is officially stated in their doctrinal statement of faith. Does anyone know concrete examples that can be backed up with references? _______ Note: by "keeping the Sabbath" I mean from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, according to Exodus 20:8-11 (ESV)'s instructions: > 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Isaiah 58:13-14 (ESV) sheds more light on this commandment: > 13 “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89124/50422

## Introduction From early church fathers such as 2nd Century Justin Martyr (*Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 73*) to the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin (*Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:373*), accusations that Jewish scribes "tampered" with the Masoretic Text (the authoritative Hebrew Bible text) to obscure messianic prophecies have circulated for centuries. ## Question Is this belief still held by Christians? Do Christians who believe this provide evidence for this belief? What evidence is there for this accusation?

I am curious to learn which (if any!) sects/denominations/cults of christianity are totally against reducing human suffering related to illnesses via medical science. I believe this is significantly different then the other more general question on this site. A negative example: I am aware that the Jehovah's Witness are against blood transfusions, this would be an example of what I am NOT looking for due to the fact that the opposition is limited in scope to just blood transfusions. To my knowledge the following denominations have issues with "SOME" aspects of medical treatments. But none of them are "fully opposed" which is what I am asking for. - The Amish (do not have doctrinal opposition to medical care, but tend to favor natural remedies) - The Assembly of God - Bapticostal Church (West virginia) - "Christian Science" (Possibly opposed to all, but not clear in my search) - Church of God (some congregations are fixated on faith healers) - Church of the first born (Religious based neglect of children, but not of medical treatments in general or as a whole) - End Time Ministries (Child related, medical care related to children, but not adults) - Faith Assembly (Child related only) - One Mind Ministries (Child related exorcism) - True Followers of Christ Church (Oklahoma, medical neglect of children only, not adults, not universally) - Unleavened Bread Ministries (Wisconsin, child dies of untreated diabetes... seems limited to children again) #### One that is close that I found is "The Church of Christ, Scientist" The Church of Christ, Scientist, for example, is a denomination that promotes healing of physical and mental illnesses and disorders through prayer. They do compromise somewhat in the case of broken bones. There are many cases of apparently preventable deaths due to reliance on faith healing by Christian Scientist. Due to the broken bones aspect it doesn't seem to fit my criteria... ---

There are a several prominent Christian denominations which include young earth creationism as official dogma, such as the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod which I grew up in. Many other denominations do not have any official stance on creationism, such as the far more liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. And, of course, lots of Christians are not young earth creationists, including lots of people I know personally, as well as famous figures such as Pope Francis and William Lane Craig. **I am wondering whether there is any Christian denomination which, as an organization, officially opposes young earth creationism.** I was unable to find any examples by a quick Google search, or by consulting ChatGPT. The closest example that I can find is the Catholic Church, whose Canon 337 says: > God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God." This, and some of the other canons, plainly *lean* towards a non-YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, but does not strictly require it. The word *symbolically* in the second sentence is only expressly applied to God "working" and "resting", and in any case there is no reason why "symbolic" and "literal" meanings cannot coexist. See this article on Catholic Answers for a good summary of the Catholic teaching regarding creation and evolution. In short, Catholic dogma lends itself to theistic evolution (which is the view of the three most recent popes), but does not require it. So, my question is: **Is there any Christian denomination which goes a step beyond this and certifies a non-YEC position as official doctrine?**

I can't find any CSE questions about this religion, although I think it is linked to John the Baptist. There may be different spellings for the religion, and perhaps that's why I have been unable to find out how and when it originated and what the main beliefs are.

Among the religious organizations and sources that discourage blood consumption, do any extend the principle to hemolymph, the equivalent of blood in creatures such as locusts and oysters? While organizations that require a kosher diet would prohibit shellfish already, even kosher diets include locusts, so this question is applicable to any denomination or other source that discourages blood consumption.

Scripture... does not approve of homosexuality. On the other hand, I know of no prohibition against loving (in a non-carnal manner!) and living with one's parents or siblings, and certainly many, many people spend years of their lives living with one or more thereof. In some cases, "siblings" might even be adopted. Historically, cohabitation of persons of the same sex is hardly unusual (schools, militaries, monasteries/nunneries). This got me wondering... I can't offhand think of any scripture that forbids living in the same household with a person of the same sex, *provided* that one is not engaged in... inappropriate activities. *Does any denomination* teach that this is forbidden, even among people that "love" (but not carnally!) one another? (Does Scripture?)