In Catholicism, is it a serious sin to make major decisions as if you don't believe in Catholicism? >"844. Negative doubt is the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite, without forming any positive judgment either of assent to or dissent from the article, or its certainty or uncertainty > >(a) If this suspension of decision results from a wrong motive of the will, which directs one not to give assent on the plea that the intellect, while not judging, offers such formidable difficulties that deception is possible, then it seems that the doubter is guilty of implicit heresy, or at least puts himself in the immediate danger of heresy. > >(b) If this suspension of judgment results from some other motive of the will (e.g. from the wish to give attention here and now to other matters), the guilt of heresy is not incurred, for no positive judgment is formed. Neither does it seem, apart from the danger of consent to positive doubt or from the obligation of an affirmative precept of faith then and there, that any serious sin in matters of faith is committed by such a suspension of judgment. Examples: Titus, being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics, is tempted to doubt the divinity of the Church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the Church is really doubtful, but the difficulty has so impressed him that he decides to hold his judgment in abeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment (i.e., one contained in the motive of the doubt) in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the Church. Balbus has the same difficulty as Titus, and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer a temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects, or that he puts off till a more favorable moment the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Balbus would sin seriously if his suspension of assent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt; he would sin venially, if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness." (McHugh & Callan, *Moral Theology* Vol. I) For example, suppose Bob is dating a Catholic woman and would like to marry her as soon as possible. However, he has some doubts about whether Catholicism is true or not and whether he will ultimately remain Catholic although he continues to practice Catholicism in the mean time. For this reason he is delaying getting married. What will happen to Bob if he dies suddenly? Sure he is theoretically a Catholic in good standing, but he is living as if he doesn't believe in it.

It has been suggested to me that some Christians believe that rock music is inherently immoral, and as a result they believe that Christians would do well to avoid the entire genre. For example, several older Christians have told me that statements about the immorality of rock were more common back in the 60s and 70s. Apparently, American evangelist Bob Larson was against rock music, and that he was lampooned for these view by Larry Norman, a musician who wrote rock music with a gospel theme. If this perspective is widespread, are there denominations that are opposed to rock music? Is there a cross-denominational movement that objects to rock music on the grounds that the genre is in some way unholy? I met someone in my previous church who held this view, but I was never able to get a straight answer from her as to why. Was this just a personal perspective, or is this a widespread perspective amongst Christians? If there is an anti-rock music movement amongst Christians, where did it originate? What is the basis for the belief? Are there particular Bible verses or doctrinal stances that underpin the anti-rock stance? In answering the question, note that I'm not interested in debating whether or not rock music is *actually* immoral. I just want to know if / why groups of Christians believe it to be so.

WE read in Is 7:14 (KJV): > Therefore the Lord himself shall give you **a sign;** Behold, **a virgin shall conceive**, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Of course, the Gospels explicitly speak of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. But, **before the Gospels were recorded**, there must have been a way in which the people awaiting the Messiah became aware of the virgin birth of the Son of God. In fact, Joseph must have taken Mary home as his wife, on the initial days of her pregnancy, as we see in Mtt 1:24: > When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. That would mean that Mary, for the public eye, was a married woman staying with her husband before the childbirth and not a virgin *per se*. We do not see the Gloria- singing angels or the Wise Men from the East mentioning the virgin birth; nor does the Baptist make a mention to the effect. On the contrary, the public would later refer to Jesus as the son of Joseph (Mtt 13: 55) In fact, very few people including Mary and Joseph, a couple of their relatives like Elizabeth and some of the disciples knew of the virgin birth of Jesus by the time he entered public life. But then, whom was the sign as mentioned in Is 7:14 meant for? My question therefore is: **How did the Virgin Birth of Jesus prove to be a “sign” as prophesied in Is 7:14?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

A comment to another question that I had asked said that the LDS does not accept the NIV as a correct translation. Based on that comment it seems that they only accept King James Version (KJV) which, according to the Wikipedia article , is also known as King James Bible or Authorized Version. **The questions I would like ask are:** 1. Is the KJV from 1611 the only translation accepted by Mormons, or are there other translations they accept, such as perhaps NKJV? 2. What Bible translations do Mormons use in countries where KJV does not exist in local language, such as Sweden?

For instance, in the *Tim LaHaye Prophecy Bible,* in his notes for Rev. 7:1-8: "... we are given an insight into the divine protection of the earth from powerful winds by the assignment of powerful angels and the sealing and **ministry of the 144,000 witnesses.** ... We can only imagine what **evangelistic success these 144,000 servants of God** will have." Where do people get the idea of ministry for the 144,000? Is it stated somewhere in the OT? I don't see any evangelistic work during Revelation's last days by men, only by an angel in Rev. 14:6.

I've been reading through the book of Ezekiel lately, and am confused by 26:14. The verse states that Tyre would never be rebuilt, but there is in fact a city called Tyre in roughly the same spot in modern-day Lebanon--it's the biggest city in that country, in fact. Skeptics across cyberspace love to pull up issues with 26 and 29, but I find most of them to be pretty trivial--*except this one*, which is giving me fits. GotQuestions says that Tyre being less impressive now (which it is, to be fair) means it was never "truly" rebuilt, but I don't think that's a very convincing argument. I also heard somebody say that large swatches of Tyre were archeological digs and thus not being rebuilt--this does not seem to be the case, judging by satellite photos. It also can't be the case that one of the two Tyres (Island vs Coastal) was restored but not the "real" Tyre, because modern Tyre covers both sites and most of the causeway that Alexander built betwixt them. **I'd like to ask how you all reconcile this passage, especially if you have any novel takes on it**. The main counterpoints I can think of are: 1) A rebuild in the sense described would almost certainly require being built on the same land, and *maybe* with some of the same assets--I couldn't just create Tyre, Nebraska and call it a rebuild. Given Alexander's causeway having mucked up the terrain so badly (and torn down all surrounding ruins to build it), a "rebuild" may be definitionally impossible. I'm not sure about this one, because it's not like there was just a Tyre-shaped hole in the earth--there *was* still ground, and Tyre *had* been on top of it, so would that be the same ground? 2) I am unsure *where* modern Tyre started, but it is possible I suppose that it could have started off-site and urban sprawl reclaimed the old location--thus, you may not call it a "rebuild" of old Tyre, but an expansion of new Tyre. Again, this is a definitions game that I'm not confident in. 3) Technically, it could simply be unfulfilled--somebody else could throw Tyre into the ocean again. This may stretch plausibility though. Please help me out here. Everything else in the chapter seems to line up dandy, and it's frankly embarrassing that I can't reconcile a town smaller than my state capital. EDIT: Something I remembered from a conversation with a mutual was that in Bible times a city would likely not be considered proper without defensive walls & such. Tyre has not had those since Alexander, and thus may not, within the Biblical sense, be considered a complete rebuilt city. EDIT AGAIN: Re-reading the passage, it occurs to me that the prophecy may be discussing Tyre *as a country*. I believe I am to understand that Tyre was independent of national rule and was thus effectively it's own country (the world was a lot smaller back then), until Nebuchadnezzar made the city a vassal state. I don't know if this is a valid tack, as the word city is mentioned later in the chapter--but I think back then, a fortified city and a country were somewhat synonymous (thought not of course entirely interchangeable. Jerusalem was not Israel). Can somebody who knows more about the history/culture of the Near-East chime in on the merits of this point?

I came across universalism recently and there they state that "even Sons Of Perdition cast into outer darkness" will be saved. Is this true of universalism?

We read in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, 9 (NRSVCE): >I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness... We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. If one puts oneself, by imagination, at the time of the Exodus, one would hear of Yahweh and not Jesus Christ. As such, Paul's way of interpolating the redemptive role of Christ to the time of Exodus, calls for elucidation. My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the reference made by St Paul to Christ while discussing the irresponsible behavior of the ancestors during Exodus?

---------- God sent Jonah to prophesy to the Babylonian city of Nineveh, which he did with the greatest of reluctance, thereby effecting the largest mass conversion of a city up to that time. It's possible that Nineveh was a "random" city, but that's probably not the case, given its size and strategic importance. Instead, what made Nineveh significant enough to be chosen in God's eyes? Was Nineveh the "second" city of Babylon, after the capital, in the manner of New York City versus Washington D.C.? Did Nineveh have a "Sodom and Gomorrah" reputation, making it the worst city of Babylon? Was Nineveh unusually open and "cosmopolitan," thereby making it the easiest city to convert? Or was there some other reason that I have overlooked? **Edit:** I now know that Nineveh was the former capital of Assyria, which was a very cruel, sinful city as depicted in sources such as this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIomxIWFBsY It was conquered by Babylon, a slightly "milder" country, and was Babylon's "second" city. All this made it a plausible target for God's wrath. Facts such as those in the link make it possible to answer individual points based in the question objectively.

I understand that the Catholic Church direct some prayers to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. For me it would be strange to address my prayers to anyone outside the Holy Trinity. Do Catholics pray to any other individuals other than God? Is praying 'to' individuals other than God widely practiced in any other denomination? If so, who do they pray to and why?

In Epistle to the Hebrews 1:8, the text says: >“But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever…’” This appears to depict the Father speaking to the Son in a way that suggests a distinction between them. Modalism (often associated with Oneness theology) teaches that the Father and the Son are not distinct persons, but rather different manifestations or modes of the one God. Given this, how do Modalists understand passages like Hebrews 1:8 where: - One speaker (identified as God) addresses another (the Son), and - The Son is explicitly called “God” while still being spoken to? Additionally, how do they reconcile this with other similar passages where the Father and Son appear to interact (e.g., prayers of Jesus or statements like “the Father is greater than I”)?

I've seen people advocate widow celibate for the reason of a happy reunion of the marriage bond in Heaven. As I understand it, this appeal is based on the rejection of polygamy, which is based on the rejection of lustful feelings towards a woman outside the marriage which is considered a lechery . According to a Czech master's thesis I've read, Christianity has surmounted polygamy as Jesus establishes the equality of man and woman: "*There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.*" Galatians 3:28 However, I don't consider this a sufficient basis. So what does Christianity base the rejection of polygamy and widow remmariage base upon? Thank you!

According to Reformed Theology (the predominant view or an overview of slight variations within), how is the impeccability of Jesus reconciled with the idea that his temptations were authentic to the point he can sympathize with our own (sinful) human temptations? There would seem to be a contradiction that if he was unable to sin then how was he legitimately tempted to sin? And yet we are told he has in [Hebrews 4:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A15&version=ESV) , > For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, **but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.** [ESV] And James could be understood as saying it is our fallen heart that allows us to be tempted: > But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. ([James 1:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1%3A14&version=ESV)) **If Jesus is sinless and cannot sin then in what way is his temptation comparable to our own?** ----- *"This is not a duplicate" Disclaimer:* While a good answer may discuss the exact nature of Jesus' temptation and impeccability, the focus of the question is in the context of their interaction with Hebrews 4:15 and how the tension between the two is resolved. *Assumptions:* - Reformed Protestant perspective. - Jesus is and was impeccable. - Impeccability is the inability to sin. - Jesus experienced temptation in a way that is meaningful to us. ----- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14809/24841 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14116/24841

Several prophetic passages appear to describe a sequence involving Israel’s regathering, a global invasion, and divine intervention. I’m trying to understand whether these are meant to be read as one unified future event, and specifically whether the intervention is identified with the return of Jesus. **1. Regathering of Israel:** >Ezekiel 36:24 — “I will take you from the nations… and bring you into your own land.” **2.Invasion by Nations** >On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.(Zechariah 12:3) **3. Divine intervention involving the Mount of Olives:** >On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5 You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake[a] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.(Zechariah 14:4) **4. Recognition of the one who was pierced:** >“They will look on me whom they have pierced…”(Zechariah 12:10) Within futurist interpretations, are these passages understood as describing the same end-time event, and is the one standing on the Mount of Olives in Zechariah 14 identified with Jesus Christ—meaning that the splitting of the Mount of Olives occurs at His return as part of God’s intervention during the invasion of Israel?

Before Jesus cried out to God on why he had abandoned him.The Bible tells us that it was **noon** which means that it was midday, and **darkness** covered the whole land for three hours till the ninth hour. Then the power of the sun was restored and life continued. I sometimes interpret this to mean that God was angry with the Jews for crucifying Jesus and it was a warning alongside the earthquake that they had done something terribly wrong to provoke God's wrath but then, I really feel like there is some spiritual significance behind this event. Did the sun go off because God's anger was provoked or was it a foreshadow of what would happen right before his second coming?

From what I understand, the devil is not a character who appears obviously in any part of the Bible. If this is true, when was it that Satan/the devil began to terrify people who called themselves Christians, and why?

In Gospel of Matthew 27:3–5, Judas Iscariot is described as feeling remorse after seeing that Jesus “was condemned,” returning the thirty pieces of silver, and then taking his own life. Some have suggested that Judas may not have initially expected Jesus to be executed, but perhaps thought He would only be arrested or punished and released, and that his remorseful reaction (that led him to commit suicide) was triggered by realizing the authorities intended to kill Him. - Do any major Christian traditions or theologians support this interpretation? - How is Judas’ remorse understood across different denominations? I am interested in answers reflecting established Christian theological perspectives (e.g., Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox), rather than purely speculative views.

Some Christian traditions reject the doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) and instead emphasize that works play a role in salvation. In passages like James 2:24, it is stated that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” while other passages such as Ephesians 2:8–9 emphasize salvation by grace through faith, “not of works.” For those traditions that hold to a works-inclusive view of salvation: - What specific role do works play in salvation (e.g., justification, sanctification, or final salvation)? - Are works considered necessary conditions, evidence of genuine faith, or contributory causes of salvation? - How are these views reconciled with passages that seem to exclude works from salvation? I am particularly interested in answers grounded in the teachings of specific denominations or theological traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), rather than purely personal interpretations.

Where can I find old Holy Office decrees that are not contained in the *Acta Sanctæ Sedis* (1856-1908) or in the *Acta Apostolicæ Sedis* (1909-present)? For example, I want to check out the citations for canon 1258 of the 1917 Code listed here: > **S. C. S. Off.**, 23 mart. 1656, ad 4; 13 nov. 1669; decr. 20 nov. 1704; > 9 dec. 1745; > > litt. (ad Vic. Ap. Algeriae), 21 ian. 1751; > > (Mission. Tenos in Pelopponeso), 10 maii 1753, ad 1; > > (Algeriae), 14 sept. 1780; > > (Kentucky), 13 ian. 1818, ad 1; > > (Queebec), 23 febr. 1820, ad 1, 3; > > instr. (ad Ep. Sanctorien.), 12 maii 1841, n.2; > > instr. 22 iun 1859; > > (Sanctorien.), instr. (ad Archiep. Corcyren.), 3 ian. 1871, n. 2; > > (Columbi), 14 ian. 1874; > > (Tunkin. Central.), 29 mart. 1879; > > (Bucarest), 8 maii 1889; 19 aug. 1891; > > instr. 1 aug. 1900; > > 24 ian. 1906; > **S. C. de Prop. Fide** (C. G.), 17 apr. 1758, ad 2; > > 15 dec. 1764, ad 3; > > (C. G. - Antibar.), 2 aug. 1803, ad 1; > > (C. P. pro Sin. - Cochinchin.), 2 iul. 1827; > > (C. G.), 21 nov. 1837; > > instr. (ad Vic. Ap. Scopiae), 26 sept. 1840, ad 14; > > litt. (ad Vic. Ap. Aegypti), 3 maii 1876 I tried to find the last citation in the Acta Sanctae Sedis but couldn't, does anyone know where I should look? I'm interested in all the citations for the canon except *Ex illa*, *Ex quo*, *Inter omnigenas* and *Dolorem*. If anyone can help me find any of the above documents or others cited in the canon I'd appreciate it. Any language is good.

Is it okay to do something good with a good intention, but you got the idea from a horrible idea and originally had a bad intention toward doing it?