There is a famous quote from [sermon 23](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360323.htm) on the Feast of the Nativity by [Leo the Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I) , the bolded text among the paragraph context below: > Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning, and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in, and man deceived committed, had no trace in the Saviour; nor because He partook of man's weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. **He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: for that emptying of Himself, whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power.** The section context (II. The Arians could not comprehend the union of God and man) is clearly an articulation for the proper meaning of Christ's "emptying himself" (Phil 2:7) from his pre-existence, against Arianism. But **what did he mean by "increasing the human"** (part of the bolded text above)? Does it simply mean God "adding human nature" during Incarnation instead of "relinquishing divine nature" (which is unorthodox)? Or does it refer to "healing humanity" (for example: by "taking the sins of the world", [John 1:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201%3A29&version=CSB) , or by giving new life to us so we can "share in the divine nature", [2 Pet 1:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201%3A4&version=CSB)) since in the beginning of the paragraph he said something about "undertook to repair"? A good answer should try to do one or more of these: - shed light on possible translation issue from Latin to English - provide a link for a critical edition of the text - discuss how his original audience would have understood the meaning - include consideration that the language he used may not be precise if the sermon has been dated PRIOR to Chalcedon (since his papacy is from 440-461 AD) - include discussion on how the quote could have been cited in Patristic, Medieval, or post-Reformation theological text in discussing Christology. For example, if Aquinas quoted it, what's his understanding of "increasing the human"? - doctrines (maybe related to Eastern Orthodox *theosis*) that use it for support

I feel like many people have their own definition for what it means to be a Christian. To each person who sees this, do you believe you are a Christian? Why? What does it mean for you personally to be a Christian? Thank you!

William Golding wrote about a group of Boy Scouts who were stranded on an island, and who tried to set up a society among themselves. At first they were quite civil and logical in their social interactions. But as time went on they became less civil, and eventually barbaric in their treatment of each other...even setting up a pig's head for worship! The story ended with a rescue, before they annihilated each other completely...by a warship! Showing the need of society at large in the world. Does this represent faithfully what Protestants teach about the Fallen Nature of Man as presented in the Bible? (Romans 3:23, 6:23) And does it lead to the incisive conclusion that Fallenness directs us to: the need of a Transcendent Savior? Note that the troop of boys had no outside, cultural influences. They only acted according to their inherent instincts. Which instincts gradually manifested themselves in evil conduct, growing worse and worse by the days. Is this an accurate illustration, by the novelist, of Paul's thesis in Romans 1-2 (wittingly or unwittingly on the part of Mr. Goldman)? >What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise, for we have proven before both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one...* (Psalm 14:1; Romans 3:9-10)
*For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.* (Romans 3:23) Did Golding have any connection with Christianity in his personal life? Was there any knowable influence that theology had in forming his motifs in writing his novels?

Many people argue that we only created God and religion to give our lives meaning, and that is why we worship God and other gods. However, we have to take into consideration that humans tend to worship everything, and it is in our nature, which is evidence that God exists. (If we are merely evolved from inanimate matter with no aspect of Design involved, why would we possess this big sense of spirituality, worship and believing in gods, when in reality believing in gods that do not exist does not matter and does not help us survive?) How can we rebut the argument that we only worship God because we want meaning in our lives and to give an explanation for our existence?

In the following statement in the [Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) (AD 381), what exactly does "one" mean *for the framers* (i.e., not to subsequent interpretation)? - **[English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed)** : We [*or* I] acknowledge [*or* confess] **one** Baptism for the remission [*or* forgiveness] of sins. - **[Latin](https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm)** (same as in [Tridentine mass](https://extraordinaryform.org/ExtraordinaryFormTextLandscape.pdf)) : Confíteor **unum** baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum. - **[Greek](https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm)** : ὁμολογοῦμεν **ἓν** βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· ([transliteration](https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/greek_conversion.htm) : homologoũmen **hèn** báptisma eis áphesin hamartiō̃n) Does "one" mean: 1. You can only be baptized one time 1. There is only one way to baptize (with the Trinitarian formula) 1. The catechumen has to accept the one (orthodox) meaning of the creed 1. There is only one authority (orthodox church) that gives the sacrament of baptism 1. Baptized with the One Christ 1. Baptized into One Body of Christ 1. Etc. This question, which is historical in nature, requires the answer to provide a reference to a historical work that the framers *indeed* intended that meaning.

In St. Alphonsus Liguori's *Dignity and Duties of the Priest,* it is written: > Empty words and sounding periods are, says St. Francis de Sales, the pest of sermons. (*De la Predic.* ch. 5, a. I.) First, because God does not cooperate with vain preaching.... Does anyone know what St. Francis may have meant by the expression, "sounding periods"? Also, what is the referenced work, *de la Predic.*?

The hymn *I Gave My Life For Thee* has the following verse (emphasis added): > My Father's house of light, > > **My glory-circled throne** > > I left for earthly night, > > For wanderings sad and lone It appears to present the speaker, Jesus, as having a "glory-circled throne" that He left when He came to this world. However, does Jesus instead teach that He won't sit on His throne before the Second Coming (Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Luke 1:32)? Furthermore, don't the Scriptures teach that at present, rather than being on the throne, Jesus is "seated at **the right hand of the throne** of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1, NKJV, emphasis mine; cf. 12:2)? It seems as if He isn't seated on the throne even now but is rather seated *next to* the throne. (Actually, this isn't entirely accurate. See "Update.") Am I missing something? Can Jesus be spoken of as having a "glory-circled throne" before His first coming, one that He left behind after coming to earth? **Update:** Jesus certainly can be spoken of as being enthroned ever since His ascension: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, **as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne**" (Revelation 3:21, NKJV, emphasis added). But is Jesus spoken of as being enthroned _prior to His incarnation_?

In [entry **(774)** of her Diary](http://www.seraphim.my/divinemercy/diary/text/DiaryII(751-800).htm) , *Divine Mercy in My Soul*, St. Faustina writes: "... in the spiritual life, suffering is the thermometer which measures the love of God in a soul." The complete entry is: > **(774)** *+* O my Jesus, I understand well that, just as illness is measured with a thermometer, and a high fever tells us of the seriousness of the illness, so also, in the spiritual life, suffering is the thermometer which measures the love of God in a soul. QUESTION: Does the "love of God" refer to God's Love for the soul, or the soul's love for God? Or something else? Does anyone know, with a fair degree of confidence, what St. Faustina means by this statement? *Remark:* She had previously noted in [**(343)**](http://www.seraphim.my/divinemercy/diary/text/DiaryI(301-350).htm) that: "True love is measured by the thermometer of suffering."

Contained in *[The Maxims and Sayings of St. Philip Neri](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_maxims_and_sayings_of_St_Philip_Neri)* are two quotes on humility which I have never fully understood: >To obtain perfectly the gift of humility, four things are required: to despise the world, to despise no person, to despise one's self, to despise being despised. and >He is perfect in the school of Christ who despises being despised, rejoices in self-contempt, and accounts himself to be very nothingness. QUESTION: Is it possible to interpret, in the context of humility, the meanings of "to despise being despised" and "despises being despised"? It almost sounds to me as if St. Philip Neri is indicating that a humble person ought to care if the world despises him; but, this would seem to be a contradiction with his own personal humility and the humility of every other Saint who cared not what the world thought of them. I have often wondered if this could be some sort of translational error, since, in my (perhaps erroneous) way of thinking, "not to despise being despised" and "despises not being despised" would be more suitable to convey the thought that the humble cared not if they were hated by the world.

I have a necklace that is a cross charm with Jesus Christ on the cross but on both sides. What's the meaning of this symbol?

> Time, like an ever-rolling stream, > > Bears all its **sons** away; > > They fly forgotten, as a dream, > > Dies at the opening day. [Isaac Watts; Our God, Our Help in Ages Past] What does the word "sons" refer to? I think he didn't simply mean that those sons were male children. Could you help me out?

The third stanza of the hymn *The Breaking Of Bread* states the following (emphasis added): > Our Savior now doth reign in heav’n above; death's power he overcame, such matchless love; to heav’n he did ascend, there he’s enthroned; he is our dearest friend, **for us atoned**. It sounds somewhat strange to say that Jesus was atoned. Perhaps I'm confused, but aren't *our sins*, rather than Jesus Himself, the things that are atoned (i.e., forgiven). As for Jesus, isn't He the atoner rather than the "atonee," so to speak? Or am I misunderstanding what it means to be atoned?

My question is for those who believe the Bible is the inpired word of God. I have been wondering what exactly the purpose of typology is in the Bible. The best answer I have thusfar is that it acts almost as a very long 'ruler' of sorts that enables the Bible student to acurately draw a very long but very straight line through the Bible 'connecting the dots' as it were, so that he/she may see the 'bigger picture'. Typology enlarges on themes that the Bible sometimes only gives limited details of at the time but later (some times only in the NT) elaborates on in more details. For example, the story of David and Goliath as a typology of the work that Christ came and did in our behalf as described by Paul in Rom. 5:18. By one act of disobedience Adam (king Saul) many were made sinners (all Israel remained as good as'defeated') until Christ (David) by one act of righteousness defeats Satan (Goliath) and because of His victory (David's) all men are made righteous (all Israel was victorious). Further: King Saul is mentioned as being 'head and shoulders higher than the rest' of the nation. So, he was like a 'giant' compared to the rest. He also stands as head (king) of Israel so too does Adam stand as head (king) of humanity. Goliath is described as wearing impregnable armour. So too does God describe Lucifer at the end of the book of Job (Leviathan). God says Leviathan is the king of the children of pride (How art thou fallen O Lucifer...) and that none but his (Lucifer's) maker can approach unto him (to destroy him). So too it is only Christ that could destroy Satan. David as symbol of Christ is quite lengthy so I will limit myself to the means he used against Goliath and the manner of his death. David destroys Goliath without sword or spear (not by might nor by power but by My Spirit) by throwing him with a stone against his head (bruising the serpent's head as promised in Gen 3) There is so much more but I hope you can see how many 'lines' start intersecting in just this one typology. In my mind typology used to be simply something beautiful that reminds me of the 'bigger picture' but the more I study them, the more they start looking like an elegantly detailed unification and harmonization of 'other things' I read of in various places in the Bible. Almost like a mosaic but each little tile in the mosaic is sometimes a mosaic in itself. I suppose that is why the humble romanesco broccoli will always be a tangible illustration to me of the principle behind typology - a small piece of it looks similar to the whole plant (aka self similarity, fractals, etc) Typology is very important to me but I am looking for a more concise answer as to it's purpose (why it is in the Bible). I am not that good with words (hence the long writing just to make a 'simple' illustration and explanation of what I mean so I can get to the point where I can try and make a simple statement as to its purpose). Anyone with wisdom to express this so simply so even a 'child' could understand? Thanks in advance. (And for all your time in reading all of this!

I was going to ask this in music.stackexchange, but decided to ask here, as I think the subject is inspired Judaism and Christianity. If there's a more appropriate site, please let me know and I can ask there. The question is related to this one - https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/12481/what-is-the-word-used-in-this-line-of-this-song-for-which-ive-typed-up-these-ly . Would the lyrics in the linked song above be inspired by any particular religion and what do the metaphors mean? I think it is either or both of Judaism and Christianity, and maybe Islam, but I am not sure. The author is Mary S. Applegate, whom I assume to be the same Applegate as the author of "The Power of Love ". On Applegate's Wikipedia page's Associated acts section, I don't find any religion-based artists, if it is the same writer. In particular, what could the name of the artist mean? Who or what is Gabriel? What is the perfect circle of infinity that Gabriel shows? What is the sacred kingdom? What are the forbidden skies? I showed this to a Jewish friend, who mentioned that sin is disturbance of harmony. I'm curious to know more.

I ask this after seeing a documentary on BBC TV, the evening of 27 October 2021, where Professor Brian Cox started a new series on the universe. This first episode dealt with the way the universe created the birth of stars, how the death of stars gave rise to heavier elements (vital for life) so that when our sun had been around for a few billion years, there were enough heavy elements to create life on a planet at just the right distance from it, where an atmosphere could retain them. (The eminent physicist used the word ‘created’, not the phrase, ‘gave rise to’.) But then he said (several times) that, in a sense, the stars did create life, so it was understandable that people used to worship the sun as a god, for to them the sun WAS a god! It had given rise to life. He combined this with claiming there was no intelligent, creator God, but that we owe the marvel of our life to our second-generation sun, which, in turn, had been created by the universe which had been a nursery for billions of suns. He could have concluded, “Let us gaze in wonder at our god-like sun!” I’m a bit surprised that he did not, though the concluding shot seemed to have him doing just that. I want to ask Christians who (like me) don’t object in principle to theories about the Big Bang and developments thereafter, ***if such a naturalistic INTERPRETATION of life and meaning is pseudo-science that should be flagged up as potentially dangerous in going beyond the remit of science***. Further, does this not ***actively seek to undermine peoples’ faith in an intelligent creator God, substituting him for things the Creator created?*** And have not Christians been warned centuries ago about those who worship the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25)? **On the point about stars giving meaning to life here on earth**, that claim was also repeated more than once by Professor Cox. Yet the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagal has written this in his book *“Mind and Cosmos – why the Neo-Darwinian view of the world is almost certainly false”:* > “But if the mental is not itself merely physical, it cannot be fully > explained by physical science. Evolutionary naturalism implies that we > shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the > scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself > depends.” (OUP, 2012) p14. The point here is that ***naturalism, and therefore atheism, undermines the foundations of the very rationality that is needed to construct or understand or believe in any kind of argument whatsoever, let alone a scientific one.*** That is why **I’m asking why a documentary such as this seems to have an agenda of replacing belief in an intelligent Creator God with a view of stars being god-like creators of life and meaning.** Is that not a star too far? *Please note that* **I am NOT asking for stuff about the age of the universe, or seeking attacks on science**. I just want to know if other Christians who appreciate science (as I do) have **points to make about where science should end, and speculation based on atheistic interpretation begins** – the latter being a subtle danger to watch out for. *Additional Source:* *Can Science Explain Everything,* pp 47-49, John C. Lennox, 2019 ***EDIT*** *in view of concerns about this Q being off-topic:* I am merely using the BBC documentary and Prof. Cox's comments as an example of what I'm asking about. As one answer shows, such a pseudo-scientific trend was spotted back in 1968. Have Christians who appreciate science got other examples, or would you disagree that this is happening at a subtle level?

After reading the answers to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/81396/how-do-deniers-of-jesus-divinity-explain-that-the-angel-at-revelation-229-did) , I realized that many do not necessarily see it as idolatry if someone prostrates before someone else (e.g. Jesus), as long as it is done to pay obeisance rather than as an act of worship. However, from an external observer's point of view, doing obeisance and worshipping are indistinguishable acts. In both there is a person in prostration, saying nice things to someone else. This must imply that if there is any difference, it is not found in the physical act itself, but in the attitude of the heart. **Question**: what is the difference between obeisance and worship? In particular, I'm interested in understanding what aspects of obeisance make it different from worship so as to not be considered idolatry when targeted to someone other than God.

I've never quite understood the concept of worship and how it differs from the concept of love. Are worship and love the same thing? Or is worship = love + something else? If someone loves God, does that automatically imply that they worship God or vice versa? I would appreciate it if answers include illustrative examples of how these concepts materialize in a concrete way in everyday Christian living.

The question is about the words "Your will be done" (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, [Matthew 6.10](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0155%3Abook%3DMatthew%3Achapter%3D6%3Averse%3D10)) in the Lord's prayer. I do not understand the meaning of it. My faith tells me that *everything* happens according to the Lord's will anyway, so why pray asking for this to happen if I believe that this is the only thing that can ever happen in any circumstances anyway?

I believe when a person is born God chooses him or her to carry out an action on this planet. And until that action is carried out they can never retreat from this world. Paralyzed people fully from head to toe who are like so from birth and those people in life who developed some intense illnesses that they never quite got over with and can't rebuild their lives or help their family, what was that purpose-driven life for them? I am asking this because I volunteer at an organization where broken people and people in wheelchairs come for help. I talk to them. I hear their distressing everyday life story. I want to know what was that God's chosen action that they have to carry out on this planet when they are so vulnerable themselves and are suffering so much? I also heard on tv that a pastor saying every person's life has a grand design. So this question.

In Willa Cather's 'One of Ours', there is a passage about a preacher at a country wedding. Here is his thought that I have trouble interpreting: _He looked disconsolately into his ruddy goblet and thought about the marriage at Cana. He tried to apply his Bible literally to life and, though he didn’t dare breathe it aloud in these days, he could never see why he was better than his Lord._ I first though his meaning was that like good wine was served last in the Marriage at Cana, so he coming after Christ was supposed to be the better one, but that seems rather far-fetched. Here is a little larger excerpt: _The company rose and drank the bride’s health in grape-juice punch. Mr. Royce, however, while the guests were being seated, had taken Mr. Wheeler down to the fruit cellar, where the two old friends drank off a glass of well-seasoned Kentucky whiskey, and shook hands. When they came back to the table, looking younger than when they withdrew, the preacher smelled the tang of spirits and felt slighted. He looked disconsolately into his ruddy goblet and thought about the marriage at Cana. He tried to apply his Bible literally to life and, though he didn’t dare breathe it aloud in these days, he could never see why he was better than his Lord._ source: https://www.bartleby.com/1006/31.html