Genesis 1:26-28, along with passages like Genesis 2, Psalm 8, and Romans 8, makes it pretty clear that God gave humanity the job of looking after His creation. And I think that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in this responsibility. (Just like most other Christians do) > Other people look to political organizations to solve man’s problems. By doing this, they are rejecting God’s Kingdom. (Who is the devil? , §5, JW.org) > We know that we originate with God, but **the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.** (1 John 5:19 New world translation ) So, the JW steer clear of politics because Satan’s in charge. But from what I can tell they also believe that we’re all called to actively care for creation during our lives. Not taking action does leave creation vulnerable to harm from the wicked one, and God commanded us to protect it. So how does this duty to be good stewards of creation fit with their beliefs on a large scale, **how would a fully JW society operate before God’s Kingdom fully arrives**? As in *a realistic society the size of Germany or Belize that needs to feed people, manage waste, prevent crime, manage a power grid, and handle things like pollution or sickness.*

According to Catholic theologians, is every lawfully-constituted civil authority divinely-instituted like the Church (Mt. 16:18-19 )? Pope Leo XIII, in his 1881 encyclical on the origin of civil power, *Diuturnum * §8, says that "political power […] comes from God"; cf. Romans 13:1-5 .

In looking at historical cases of revival it seems like most seem to occur right in the midst of some disaster or general societal upheaval. Of course, the occasion for revival taking place shouldn't be confused with the source of revival. That would be a genetic fallacy. The source of revival is God and the power of his word. But if the occasion is important to remove obstacles for God to work than that's another story.

I'd like to know how well provided is Paris Foreign Missions Society. How come they have the largest private garden in all Paris and located in Rue de Bac (it was originally just outskirts of Paris when this seminary was founded), sending numerous priests into the far east Asian countries? Many of them were died and executed there, Korea included in the 19th century. Also, how did they provide money to the priests who took a nearly 10 month trip? Their building seems very elegant as well. I don't mean to criticize things, it just seems doubtable and marvellous to me, seeing their nature as missionary works and I respect their sacrifice. Or, do or did they get many donations to provide themselves, especially in the 19th century?

Pope Francis: > “The Acts of the Apostles relate that ‘no one claimed private > ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in > common.’ This is not communism, but pure Christianity,” he said. Source I heard a priest saying that this was to apply to religious orders who take a vow of poverty and not everyone or society as a whole. Acts 4:32-35 > 32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one > claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had > everything in common. 33 With great power the apostles bore witness to > the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them > all. 34 j There was no needy person among them, for those who owned > property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 35 > and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to > each according to need. Source So my question is: Is this scripture applying to a religious community which would resemble nowadays Catholic religious orders i.e.: Franciscans or are we all meant to live like this?

(This question seems to especially apply to modern western societies) I’ve come across renown preachers (MacArthur, Bachmann, et al) that the man is the provider according to **God’s** design of the family Granted the Scripture does say that the man is the leader/head of the family > *“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, **the head of a wife is her husband**, and the head of Christ is God.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:3* However a leader does not by extension also have to be the provider in order to lead. One can lead without also providing. Leaders give guidance, instructions, direction and they can do all these without also having to provide. Or put differently, if a man is in between jobs does he stop being the leader? No, obviously not. Or if the man becomes physically handicapped or is already handicapped, is he excused from being a leader in his family just because he cannot provide? No, of course not. ‬ ‭ There is a passage that comes to mind which seems to be misapplied and misinterpreted. >“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭5:8‬ ‭ This text assumes many things. Among which are the obvious, he has living relatives, they are in need, he has the ability to provide and is not in need himself. In essence it refers to someone who has resources but refuses to help, such a man has denied his faith. But a man that would help yet barely has enough should not help a relative at the expense of his own family. Or would help but is handicapped. Or as it sometimes happens the wife earns significantly more than the husband and paying childcare for strangers (Christian or not) to raise the children seems like an abdication of responsibility as a parent contrary to other Scriptures that Instruct parents to teach their children. Or settling for less income so the man can provide puts undue and unnecessary stress on the family. Or more pointed, how is the man leading if his pursuit of providing is getting in the way of him spending time with the family? > Hypothetically If the father is home and teaching his children, focusing on the spiritual health of his family while the wife has a well paying job beyond what he could manage on his education path, is he not a leader? And if he chooses to distribute the income to help relatives and those in need though he didn’t earn the pay check has he denied the faith? ### So can someone explain why some Christian leaders insist that the man must be the provider? What text are they basing this teaching on? https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1947/gods-pattern-for-husbands-part-2 John MacArthur in the link above goes along these lines > So if you want your marriage to be blessed, you take care of your wife. When you know she has a need, you seek to meet it. When you know she has a secret longing in her heart and it’s certainly reasonable and will add to her virtue and her wellbeing and her happiness and her ability to fulfill her role, you do everything you can to meet that need. Something is seriously wrong when a man sees his wife as a cook and a clothes washer and a babysitter and a sex partner and that’s it. **Something is seriously wrong when he puts her in the place of the breadwinner**. She is a God-given treasure to be cared for, to be cherished, to be nourished, to be your loving helper, to fulfill your need for companionship, for the fulfillment of physical desire, for the fulfillment of love and partnership and friendship and to produce children in a home. Another excerpt from John MacArthur >She is not the nourisher. She is not the provider. You’re to do that. That is the man’s responsibility. And if a man doesn’t do that, according to 1 Timothy 5:8, he is denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. **Throughout Scripture, the man is always the provider as Christ is the provider for His church**. That’s key. We provide nothing. The church provides nothing. We just receive Christ’s provision, protection, preservation, His care, His nourishing, His cherishing. It comes to us. In a sense, it’s very one-sided. Men, we are to provide that in our homes. You say, “Well, I’d have to sacrifice my career to do that.” Then sacrifice it. Maybe you can’t climb as fast and as far up the ladder as you would like, but in the end you’re going to be so richly rewarded in the bliss of that home that it will be far worth every sacrifice. Christ provides everything for us, to nurture us, to warm us, to provide the security for us.

In 1778, John Wesley published his *Thoughts upon Slavery*, where he wrote: >The variety of ways that slavery appears make it almost impossible to convey a just notion of it ... First in what manner are they procured? Part of them by fraud ... But far more have been procured by force. The Christians landing upon their coasts, seized as many of them as they could find - men, women and children - and transported them to America ... It was some time before the Europeans found a more compendious way of procuring them: by prevailing upon them to make war in each other and sell their prisoners. Till then they seldom had any wars, all was peace and quiet. But the white man taught them drunkeness and avarice and hired them to sell one another. Nay, by this means even their kings are induced to sell their subjects ... As for the punishments that are inflicted upon them, say Sir Hans Sloan, some are gelded, others have half a foot chopped off ... others cut off an ear, and constrain them to broil and eat them ... > >How can Britons can so readily admit a change in their disposition and sentiments as to practise in America what they abhorred and detested in Britain can be accounted for no other principle than of being the natural effect of slave-keeping which as the celebrated Montesquieu observes 'insensibly accustoms those who are in the practise of it, to want all moral virtues, to become haughty, hasty, hard-hearted, passionate, voluptuous and cruel.' More, forty years earlier when he had been in the United States with his brother on missionary work in 1737-38 he recorded in his journal the barbaric treatment that: >daily practise upon their fellow creatures [inclufing whipping, driving nails through their ears and drawing teeth] ... even giving a white child a slave of his own to tyrannise ... [describing them] as shocking instances of diabolical cruelty Given the interest that Britain had in maintaining the slave trade it's not suprising to discover that whenever Wesley preached against the slavery trade he put his life at considerable risk. For example, when he preached in Bristol, one of the foremost slave-trading ports in Britain, a disturbance broke out. **Q. Given this, what compelled Wesley to take on slavery and become one of the early adopters of abolition?** **Moreover, given the shocking scenes of 'diabolical cruelty' he saw in the then slave owning United States why did it take so long to take up the cause?** **Finally, how significant was his preaching in the context of the abolitionist movement - my own understanding - from being told this at school - was that Wilberforce was the main force behind it**

In which year G. K. Chesterton wrote the letter with the message? > Dear Sirs: > > I am. > > Sincerely Yours, > > G. K. Chesterton This letter was an answer to the question: "What is wrong with the world?".

I've noticed that some people would single out "Catholics" from "Christians". Belief.net is one website that separates "Catholicism" from "Christianity", and the website does not claim to be affiliated with any religious organization. Sometimes, a public university's student health center may classify "Catholic" and "Christian" into two separate categories under "Religion". Assuming that everyone has benign intentions, why are Catholics singled out from "Christians"?

I read that the Amish trace their roots back to the late 1600's. It seems to me that their culture is vastly different than the mainstream, in part because of mostly (but not entirely) rejecting modern technology. Also modern fashion, music, etc. However would I be correct to think that in the late 1600's and early 1700's such differences must've been much less pronounced? I mean, I imagine that the level of technology and the fashions, etc which modern Amish have are approximately the same as what most people in the colonial times had? It's not like they are always lagging their technology 200 or 300 years behind whatever is current, and were thus using 1300's tech in the 1600's, right? When did they decide to freeze their lifestyle? Was that always a part of being Amish or did it come later?

I know saints are exceptional, but I wonder how they could bear some people who are everything they are not. Could someone be a saint while being asocial, or a bit misanthropic? I know some saints were hermits or prefered to be alone, but to what extent could they do this without contradicting the Gospel and its teaching? My question is mainly about: Are there some examples of these kind of saints in the history of the Catholic Church?

Does the Bible ever talk about class systems? If so what does it say about them? Does it give a recommended class hierarchy at any point? Would a classless society be allowed? See also this question at politics se (there are links to more questions at other religious sites there).

Works like "Mere Christianity" try and address common Christian beliefs and help recognize the diversity of belief systems within Christian sects. The question is whether this is what all of Christianity is, or is there more? Do Christian religious texts provide guidance on how to organize society and govern it with justice and fairness? Added after reviewing comments through morning of 1/13/12: 1. Is it true that the family & social laws in the Old Testament texts are to be ignored? Yes/No? (provide supporting information) 2. If OT laws are to be ignored by Christians, does God/Jesus provide substitute laws in the New Testament texts? I.e., if God thought it important to provide laws (in addition to requiring certain beliefs) to guide people prior to the New Testament, why has He not deemed it important to either re-affirm these same laws in the New Testament, or provide substitute laws?

Inspired by [Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2793/is-a-moral-society-more-open-to-the-gospel-than-an-immoral-one) There have been many debates going around regarding what constitutes moral or immoral actions; moral or immoral society; etc. This set of questions is in regards to society and how morality can be measured. --------- First and foremost, is it possible for a society to be moral or immoral? If so, what does morality mean in regards to a society? Meaning, what's the difference between a moral society and an immoral one? As a Christian, I tend to define morality based on the Bible. Can this same gauge be used for societies? How can I apply this metric to societies that are undeniably non-Christian? Ultimately: **What does morality mean in the context of a society?**

One of the answers to Why do many Christians object to same-sex civil marriage? got me thinking. If we work to make the common morals of our society more in line with Biblical morality does that make the members of our society more open to the gospel? There's no doubt that an immoral society is more likely to be antagonistic or even hostile to the gospel. We could argue that a moral society is more likely to be tolerant of the gospel, but then again that could turn into a real argument. The Jewish society of Jesus's day was very moral, but it was the religious leaders (presumably with strong morals) that had Him killed. As Christians, wouldn't our lives present a greater contrast to an immoral society? Wouldn't we stand out more in that setting and thereby attract more attention to the gospel as a real alternative to the status quo? Members of a society with basically Christian morals won't see much difference between themselves and Christians. Does that lack of contrast make them more or less likely to accept the gospel? Note that by "accept the gospel", I'm thinking in evangelical terms of accepting by faith and being a "new creature" as Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 5:17 : > Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.