How do theistic evolutionists view the Fall of Man? I haven't really decided what to think about the creation of the world. I'm very familiar with the concept of evolution, scientifically, and if I didn't believe in God I'd certainly believe in evolution.

However I'm not sure about the theological aspects of evolution. I consider the Fall of Man to be very important in Christianity. If man didn't fall, the "sinful" behavior would have actually been built into us by God (or God's mechanism). It would be difficult to explain how we're responsible for our actions, then. At least that's the way it feels to me.

Now, I'd like to know a few things from a theistic evolutionism point of view. If there are many different views, please tell all that fit with the assumption of evolution.

Was the Fall of Man a historical event?
Is the description of the Fall in Genesis 3 literal?
(*) How come we are accountable for our deeds?
(*) Where did original sin come from? (or does it not fit with theistic evolution)

(*) If you think the Fall wasn't historical

EDIT: question number 4 was added afterwards.

My view is 1) in a way, 2) no, 3) read on!

Consider two snapshots in time.

No humans around yet, just plants, animals and so forth. Lacking free will, they have no
moral responsibility, and the concept of "sin" makes no sense.
Humans exist. We have free will, moral responsibility, and conflicting tendencies: we are born to trouble (as sure as sparks fly upward, Job 5:7), but we are also loved by God and are drawn to him, since we are formed in his image.

The creationist viewpoint is that between 1 and 2 came the events of Genesis 1:26 through 3:24, as literally described. Evolutionarily, what took place is that humans evolved from our animal ancestors, gaining self-awareness and the ability to make moral choices. Unfortunately for us, that means that we can choose poorly. I read the story of Eden as a narrative exposition of this basic problem of the human condition.

So for your question 1, I think of the Fall as historical in that between step 1 and step 2, we fell; but not strictly as described in the Genesis story.

Our tendency to be tempted (Genesis 3:1), the resulting disobedience to God's will (3:3) and the desire to take his place (3:6) have resulted in our shame (3:7), alienation from God (3:10, "I was afraid"), from his creation (3:17-19), and from one another (3:12, Adam blames Eve). We had to wait for the promised seed, Christ, to defeat sin (3:15). By following him, we can regain the eternal paradise that had been denied (3:22-24).

These facts do not depend on there being a specific couple, Adam and Eve. Now, it's possible to counter this by pointing to passages like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, which in the NIV reads

  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

How can we view Christ as the new Adam, if there was never an old Adam? Actually, the literal interpretation has a problem in that Genesis 3 doesn't pin all the blame on Adam: Eve was tempted first, and they both ate the fruit. So I think that Paul has to be speaking figuratively in any case, using Adam as the stand-in for all of humanity. In the same way, there is Romans 5:12-21, saying that after the first sin of the first man, we are all sinners, but now we can all be redeemed through Christ. This redemption doesn't come about through physical descent, so I don't see a reason to say that we sin only because we are descended from a sinner. To me, it makes more sense to believe that Paul was speaking in a midrashic way about Adam, and that sinfulness is inherent to our (present) human nature, than to impose a literalist view on the text.

But whether or not the Genesis account is taken literally, from step 2 onwards, we are in the same spiritual and moral position. As Don Marquis put it in archy hears from mars,

  [earth] is in charge of a
  two legged animal called
  man who is genuinely
  puzzled as to whether
  his grandfather was a god
  or a monkey
  i should think said mars
  that what he is himself
  would make more difference
  than what his grandfather was
  not to this animal i replied
  he is the great alibi ike of
  the cosmos when he raises hell
  just because he feels like
  raising hell
  he wants somebody to blame it on

Could be
Could be - or sort of
Because we know the difference between good and evil?
Original sin is a concept I do not fully understand, though I don't reject it. I think of it as something we all fall into as soon as we can think.

I am inclined to believe in some sort of theistic evolution, although my doubt has been growing the past years. Anyway, my harmonization (of evolution and the Bible) goes like this:

Man is simply an advanced ape
At some point in time (could be 10000 years back) God decide to give us Spirit and to give us value. From that point on, even though no physical change occurs, we are humans. Before that, we were simply advanced animals.
The Fall is most likely not literal, but depicts the process of humans now choosing actions which benefits themselves over others, as animals must - but humans shouldn't. It could perhaps be a literal story, but I doubt it was significant in the sense that it somehow caused every other human to change. Anyway - in that moment - the humans really did understand (at least in a new way) the difference of good and evil.
Because of our Spirit, we understand the difference and can in a way choose to be accountable. If we reject to be accountable, we reject an offer to become a real person/human and slide back to the previous "animal state" (to phrase it poetically).

I think this harmonization does the best job of preserving the truth of the Bible and our best scientific knowledge.


What is the physical evidence for a global flood? Young Earth Creationists believe in a young earth, followed by a literal global flood based on the belief that Scripture is written as history.  Often, in comments, discussion forums, and discussions in general, they will refer to "overwhelming physical evidence" that backs up their theological belief.

What phsyical evidence do they teach or believe can be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?

The Answers in Genesis website has an article that covers historical records of the flood -
Comparison of secular historical records, where they look at 200 flood traditions from across the world.  95% of the traditions had common elements with the Genesis account and described a worldwide flood.

Answers in Genesis also provides a number of articles describing geological evidence for a worldwide flood: Geological Links

Mammoths and other large creatures are not the only things to have been fossilized. Leaves and insects have also been found fossilized in rock; something that could only happen at great speed under colossal pressure, the exact conditions of the  Flood


Biblical support for why something is a sin? I have heard, seen, and been in religious debates in the past where one of the participants eventually falls back on a line something akin to "it's a sin because the Bible says not to do it" or "it's a sin because God said so". Understandably, this sounds and feels like a cop-out to many people, especially people who have not acknowledged the sovereignty and authority of God. It is not surprising that they want to know the reasoning, to understand the why and not just the what of an imposition.

I am far from an expert on the Bible, having only read it in its entirety the once. However, it is my instinctual estimation that most, if not all, of the sins (and requirements) that the Bible enumerates are given at least some degree of justification, either inline with the admonition or elsewhere in scripture.

I know, however, that this is just an instinct, which is why I'm bringing the topic up here, in hopes of finding either support or reasoned contradiction of the theory. This leaves a few questions:

Can you cite any examples of commands, admonitions, prohibitions, etc. in the Bible where there seems to be no explicit justification?
Is there any scripture that talks about whether God explains His commands or not? For (slightly comical) example, does God ever say "I will not give you commands you do not understand" or conversely "I'm the boss, deal with it"?
If there is a command without scriptural justification, what is the right course of action in defending the command? (I realize this last question is more about apologetics, but I am curious about this, too)

It's like when your kid asks questions.

Kid: "Why do you work?"
Me: "To earn money."
Kid: "Why do you want to earn money?"
Me: "So that I can support you and mommy."
Kid: "Why do you want to support me and mommy?"
Me: "Because I love you and mommy."
Kid: "Why do you love me and mommy?"
Me: "I love you and mommy because Jesus told me to love you and mommy."
Kid: "Why did Jesus tell you to do that?"
Me: "Because he loved us first."
Kid: "Why does he love you?"
Me: "Ummm....."

Ultimately, every question we ask about anything in scripture will ultimately come down to an "Ummm..." at the end of it.  In other words, at some point, we have to accept that some things are true and good, simply because they're true and good, and are based in the character of who God is.  Why he is who he is will always be a matter of "Ummm...".

The issue comes, of course, when a person's own instincts about right and wrong don't agree with the scriptural, Biblical concept of right and wrong.  Of course, this comes down to the person's understanding of who God is.  Our own depravity is our handicap when it comes to determining right from wrong, and also our handicap when it comes to having the humility under God to admit that we might be wrong.  Combine that with our educated society, and you have a culture of people who won't believe anything they can't understand.

Mark Driscoll puts it this way: Our education has surpassed our intelligence.

The problem with your first question, is that any explicit justification that would be given anyways would ultimately come back to the fact that God gave us the command, which would ultimately be based in his character.  Love is defined by God (because God is love), not by us, and the great problem in dealing with explanations of sin, is that these conversations usually have two people who start with different presuppositions.  Given that, we can't properly defend a command, without both parties understanding the nature of God.  Without God as anchor, we're all lost at sea.

So what's the answer, if there's a command without scriptural justification?  Don't try to defend the command, try to change the presupposition.

The only way to change presuppositions is to point people towards Jesus.  Those who don't believe in Jesus have nothing to gain from "cleaning up their act".  They're still fallen, and without Christ.  The best they could hope for is a nice, sanitized, relatively nonviolent life that would still end with their soul in hell.  Pointing the unbeliever to Jesus, and explaining his unconditional love, and his death on the cross is the best way to bring about a realization of what is right and what is wrong in that person's life.  Just as a child doesn't want to disappoint a good father, one who is in Christ will ultimately grow to grieve disappointing his heavenly father.

In short:

Every commandment ultimately, when put up to a depraved mind demanding answers about why, will ultimately fail when presented with any justification regarding any sin.  It's only when we stop demanding justifications that we begin to accept the command as right.  Some people stop when the justification is "so that it doesn't offend someone else", and some people stop when the justification is "so that it doesn't offend God."
I don't know of any scripture that talks about whether God explains his commands or not.  Some he does, some he doesn't.  Sometimes, the best explanation is "For I am your God."
The right course of action is to not defend the command, but to present Christ, and allow the introduction of the Holy Spirit into a person's life defend the command for you.  Those who do not have the Holy Spirit don't need to obey a command, they need Christ.  If the person's refusal to acknowledge the command as right is preventing the person from admitting their own need for Christ, switch to a different command, then use the fact that it is broken to point them again to Christ.  On the other hand, for those who are believers, you should hopefully be able to point towards the Bible, and hopefully that will be enough.

On a practical note, I once knew a guy who believed that some of the Bible was true, and some of it wasn't.  I told him to get a magic marker, find 2 Timothy 3:16, and mark it out, then proceed through reading the Bible, marking out all the parts he disagreed with.

He gave up pretty quickly.  The Bible is meant to be accepted as a whole, and not in part.

The professor of russian Orthodox Church Osipov defines sin not as law given by God to human, but as advice. Human, don't do this, this will cause you to bleed. Do not harm yourself. So your question is actually about why this or that thing is harmful.

So if you think about love to enemies, holding off your own wishes and other words of Christ, you definitely will see that fulfilling them brings joy for human and disobeying them causes him to suffer.


Why is "fornication" used to describe the actions of "Babylon the Great" in Revelation 18? For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.”—Revelation 18:3 (NWT)

I was wondering if anyone would be able to explain, in what way(s), "Babylon the Great" engaged in "Fornication"?

In layman's terms, fornication is often used as an allegory for idolatry. In the same way people are unfaithful to spouses by fornicating in the usual sense of the word, idolatry is "cheating on" God.

More at http://www.thewholetruthnow.com/2PORNEIA.htm and http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine/fornication_defined.htm

From the second link above:

  In Revelation, we again see a clear link between the act of
  fornication and idolatry:

  Revelation 2

  14   But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a
  stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
  unto idols, and to commit fornication....
  20   Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,
  to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat
  things sacrificed unto idols.

  John is clearly speaking out against the practice of committing the
  sexual act of idolatry and then eating meat sacrificed to idols in
  that act of worship.

  If you do a word study on Fornication, you will see that it is
  condemned in context to Idolatry EVERY time.  100% of the references
  to fornication are in context to idolatry.

similarly, several times in Scripture, idolatry is described as "whoring after other gods" such as in

  Judges 2:17 KJV

  And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a
  whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned
  quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the
  commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.

SPIRITUAL FORNICATION

Most would-be bible scholars prefer that literal fornication and adultery are one and the same. This scenario presents too many problems seeing that the scripture makes a clear distinction. They are not consistent in their interpretations, whereas, on the one hand they say, they are the same, but on the other, they are different. That being true, the same would apply to the spiritual. As noted in the companion article "Spiritual Adultery" in this web site, spiritual adultery is considered as being a friend with the world. However, spiritual fornication goes far beyond that.

"James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.""

"Galatians 5:19-20 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness.....Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,"""A clear distinction is made between adultery, fornication and idolatry.

"1 Corinthians 6:13 "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.""
"1 Corinthians 6:18 "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.""Far too many people get caught up in their emotions of personal dislikes for whatever thing it is and totally disregard what God has to say about the matter. They are going to have their way or else. There is absolutely only one sin against the body and that is fornication.

"1 Cor 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,.....Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.""

Here again, there is a distinction made between fornication and homosexual activities.

"Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.""

Here homosexuality is attributed to fornication, but we shall see at the end of this discussion that there are several other sins that also fit the description.

The Lord Jesus Christ used many parables to impart spiritual lessons by way of the illustration of literal things. This is a common practice today whereby, we also explain more complex matters by simple things that are easily understood. It is my belief that literal fornication can be best understood first by understanding the spiritual. Why? Because there is much more evidence in the bible regarding spiritual fornication.
God Almighty used an explicit allegory in Ezekiel 23:1-21, to reflect the great spiritual whoredoms of two women represented as Samaria and Jerusalem. Idolatry is also considered adultery."Ezek 23:37 "That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.""

Never in the entire bible does the scripture identify the adulterer as married or single, but only the wife as an adulteress in the sin of adultery. However, the two exceptions is that God is identified as the husband of Israel the wife. Spiritually we are married to Christ and the wife (the Christian) can commit adultery against her husband Christ. Where the fleshly man is concerned, it does not make any difference whether married or single, the sin is the same.

"Jer 3:8-9 "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also......And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks."

Jer 3:14 "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:"

Jer 3:20 "Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD."

Jer 29:23 "Because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours' wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and am a witness, saith the LORD."

Ezek 16:32 "But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!"

Hosea 4:13-14 "They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery......I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.""

Some of the more recent translations of the bible add a great deal of confusion to the subject by improperly translating the word "fornication" as "sexual immorality." Of the thirty two places in both testaments of the KJV, all are found as fornication. In the NKJV, seventeen are rendered "sexual immorality" and fifteen "fornication" None in old testament are rendered "sexual immorality" in the NKJV. Why? Obviously they do not pertain to divorce.
"Sexual immorality" covers a myriad of sins and therefore, divorce is further enhanced by reason of a selection from this broad spectrum of sins. The words used by the NKJV range from, harlotry, fornication and sexual immorality, of which in some places are not consistent with the context of the scripture. Therefore, the use of the modern versions in this matter of properly understanding the meaning of fornication only leads one into circles.


What reasons does Christianity give for "Why There Must Be A God?" I realize this question could also be addressed on Philosophy.SE, but I am very interested to get specifically the Christian perspective on this issue.

I was raised Catholic, but have left the Church in the last few years because of conflicts between my beliefs and the Church's. My lack of belief has definitely negatively affected my relationships with my family and I would really like a reason to believe once more. I suppose my real problem is that I have a hard time seeing a scenario, given what we have learned about the universe, that requires God to exist.

The question I would like to pose is, "According to Christianity, why must there be a God?"

There are several classical arguments for believing in God, including:

The cosmological argument, which says that (logically) everything exists because it is caused by something else or because it has always existed. It says that everything that has been caused by something else must be caused by something else and so on until you get to something that is without cause. A thing without cause must always have existed. The first cause is God.

The teleological argument argues that the universe looks as if it has a design and a purpose. It argues that this is because it has a designer who gave it a purpose. It asks for a reason for the order in the universe, for natural laws and principles, and finds an explanation in God.

The ontological argument argues that God must exist if you can imagine that He exists... I'm not sure why, to be honest.

The moral argument says that naturalistic explanations of morality, love etc. are inadequate to explain the existence of morality, love etc.

Each of these arguments has received considerable attention by philosophers and theologians, with counter-arguments and counter-counter arguments having been debated for centuries. At the very least, however, some version of these arguments may remove intellectual barriers to faith and position you to accept the possibility that God is real.

Of course, even if you accept the veracity of one of these arguments, the God in its conclusion isn't necessarily the God of Christianity. Nevertheless, the conclusion of these arguments does appear to be compatible with Christianity. Moreover, some writers suggest that the cumulative effect of the arguments is to validate the Christian world-view.

For most Christians, rational argument is only a part of why we believe. Instead, we choose Jesus on the basis of religious experience or because he fills an emotional or pragmatic need. In my view, nobody can be certain of God's existence (or non-existence), but you can look at the balance of probabilities. As such, we each have to take responsibility to look at the arguments in the light of our experience and then decide for ourselves what to believe.

Universe without a Creator?  It is a simple impossibility.  If so then why so much of order and so much of compatibility.  I have already said about order existing in the universe in my earlier answer. Now a little probing about the compatibility. It is impossible to get compatibility in the living things by the process so much hyped by atheist and called evolution.

Assuming for the sake of argument that evolution is tenable, then   the least we can accept that a evolution can do is to evolve a creature to a better creature,  but not create a compatible mating creature to it. My question is, how the existence of male and female in every type of creatures came into being through evolution. A male cannot evolve into female over the years. What a fallacy to believe that it happened through evolution? Take the simple case of organs for reproduction. They are exactly compatible to each other. How this can happen through evolution? Unless there is some external force who made this happen and the other intricacies in them, which I would not like to dissect further here.  There are so many other things which are both unique as well as compatible between male and female and unless there is a master designer this would be impossible to imagine that it happened through evolution.

You can understand God and know Him only through faith and not by human reasoning. If that was the case then He would be just like a creature not Creator...Think of Stephan Hawkings.. such a genius..Possibly this is God's way of preventing humans from knowing too much about Him.

The posts that I see which are against existence of God appears to be from well informed people and from those who have mastered science.  Be it known that there are many renowned scientist who have done deep research in many fields of science and yet they are still believers in a Creator. With miniscule knowledge of science and relying on the books from authors who in way have any scientific background to their repute can be dangerous. They are only misleading by ignorance of not having complete knowledge of science. I am sure none of those who have posted these answers, have actually witnessed any of the experiments that these scientist claimed to have proved and I would not expect them to do so. Yet they believe what is told to them just because it is recorded lately and not 2000 years back. You know what I mean.

One thing that I found, out of place in a para of quantumSoup is “why not follow teachings of Muhammad?  This looks like firing from shoulder of foe in arms. Why to follow the teaching of Mohammad?  @Shredder has already clarified in his comment and I would append that the message that is emanating from his preaching is diametrically opposite to that of Jesus. Sporadic preaching about indulging in violence and participating in that violence towards some refusing to follow him and his ultimate death completely contrasts to Jesus who preached love and only love to the extent of loving your enemy and practiced these teaching in his lifetime. This too, leaving aside his Divinty which is a different topic. He even mingled with sinners to make them change their lives and to bring them on right path...and death could not over power him but was raised to life after death. Draw your conclusion from this.


Why is the number 666 considered evil? People always make jokes about the number 666 and how it's evil and such. What is the basis of this?

It is the number of the Beast in Revelation:

  Revelation 13:18 (ESV)
   18  This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Its significance is often claimed to be that the Emperor Nero, during whose reign Revelation was written, has a name with the numerical value 666. Citing Wikipedia:

  The Greek spelling, "Nerōn Kaisar", transliterates into Aramaic as "נרון קסר", nrwn qsr. The Aramaic spelling is attested in a scroll from Murabba'at dated to "the second year of emperor Nero." Adding the corresponding values yields 666.

Personally, I'm not really satisfied with this explanation at all and am waiting for other answers.

The triple 6 basically signifies that the person is sealed/marked unto condemnation by the unholy trinity (i.e. the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet), just as the believers are sealed with the stamp (Rev. 3:12), which has on it written the name of God (Jehovah), the name of the city of God (New Jerusalem, the metaphor for the Holy Spirit) and the new name of God (Jesus, since He is the same Jehovah, but now just come in flesh, 1 John 4:2).

Every person gets sealed with the spirit of faith in what he/she believes for salvation (Eph. 1:13; 2 Cor. 4:13). So, for example, if I believe that an idol will save me from hell, my heart would be filled with a spirit of faith in things that cannot save me. Every myth or false doctrine can be symbolized by a 6, because they are creations and because God created everything in 6 days, so that everything created can be symbolized by a 6. Only truth, which is God, cannot be symbolized by this number 6, since God was never created (He always "was"). Faith in truth for salvation, on the other hand, would seal me with 777 on my forehead/arm, i.e. the Holy Trinity. God/truth (John 14:6) can be symbolized by a 7 because God is Eternal Life/eternal rest (John 14:6), and because the Sabbath, which is the 7th day, is a day of rest.

Note also that the same spirit (of faith) which seals us, will likewise rest in our hearts, because it is written that people "believe" by means of their heart (Rom. 10:10). So, if I am not a Christian, for example, I will have 666 in my heart. If, however, I am a Christian, I would have 677 in my heart. Not the full 777 (that's what seals me, but it's not completely what will be in my heart), but only double 7, because one place is occupied by our sin-nature. Not the sin-deeds but the sin-nature. Our sin-deeds get washed away, but our sin-nature can only be washed (not washed "away") and disinfected, like the broken skin of the beaten man by the roadside, to whom ministered the Samaritan.

Our sin-nature, however, gets washed and atoned for when Christ fills our heart to the brim (Romans 8:10). Our sin-nature is with us until we die, and all we can do now is to wash our soul from all past sin-deeds, and get clothed with the double garments of the Spirit, i.e. get filled with the Spirit to the brim. Christ will fully heal us from it only when we meet Him on the other side. It is here to keep us humble by preventing us from exalting ourselves into thinking that we are the sinless God (1 John 1:8; 2 Corinthians 12:7-8).

Note that guilt is like hot coals, it quickly burns holes in our wineskin (Lev. 5:3), causing the wine to spill out and not be able to fill us anymore. This is what we should be aware of most, because if we keep our conscience clear, it is very easy to get refilled, since everything we ever do or say comes from our heart (Matthew 15:11; John 10:38), yet nothing can come out from our heart unless it fills it to the brim first (Luke 6:45; Psalm 23:5)! That means that whenever we do or say something from the Gospel, which can be only done by the Spirit (Luke 6:35-36; 1 Corinthians 12:3; John 15:5; 1 Peter 1:21), we get filled with the Spirit!

As for what the beast is, or the dragon, or the false prophet, the false prophet is everyone who represents those who preach false salvation doctrine (this includes atheism, for example, which is a form of faith, except faith here is faith in the absence of deity, as well as the non-existence of "salvation", in the after-life sense). The beast is every government that outlaws the "saved" kind Christianity (e.g. Europe of Middle Ages, many of today's moslem countries, North Korea, Soviet Russia, etc.). And the dragon is just the devil. The collective false prophet looks like the lamb because he offers his own doctrines as true, just as Christ would offer His, causing people to worship his religion/faith/"image"/idol, just as Christ tried to get people to worship truth/God. He would share ethics with the beast, and would try to get people to obey certain laws of the beast that God would just never give us faith to do, like burning incense to an idol or facing death (Rome the first few centuries A.D.), for example. Often the false prophet would be in charge of the beast altogether. For example in ancient Rome the caesar would also be the high priest. Another example is king Nebuchadnezzar of ancient Babylon erecting for himself a statue and making a decree to cause everyone worship his image. A recent example is Hitler when he outlawed sheltering the Jews.

Please note, that by "saved" Christianity I do not mean Catholic church, because they also believe they'll be saved, but this faith is based on the doctrine of Purgatory, which says everyone will be saved eventually. The kind I meant is the one that preaches that we shall be saved as long as we keep our souls washed of sins (even the unforgivable can be forgiven, since God's mercy triumphs over all of His condemnations, James 2:13), and clothed with the robe of the abundance of the Holy Spirit (lukewarm heart does not count, Rev. 3:16). Hope this helps.


Is there a scriptural support for "man are ‘half animal, half angel’"? The Philosopher and Critic of Christianity Ludwig Feuerbach wrote:

  “My only wish…is to transform friends of God into friends of man,
  believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work,
  candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians
  who, by their own admission, are ‘half animal, half angel’ into
  persons, into whole persons.”

Is there an instance in the Bible when men are described as " ‘half animal, half angel’"?

There is a verse in Genesis that gives room for such interpretation:

"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were
born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were
attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord
said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his
days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those
days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the
daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty
men who were of old, the men of renown. The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." — Genesis 6:1-5

So, based on this text, some interpret that the "sons of God" were angels, who had sexual relationship with women, thus giving birth to "half animal, half angel" creatures.

When we consider the context of this text we can better understand what Moses is explaining. In previous chapters we are given a glimpse of two competing lines, the godly line of Seth and the wicked line of Cain. Having established the antithesis in the garden, after affirming that there would be a constant struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent we are given snapshot pictures of each of these armies.
We see Seth’s line about the business of exercising dominion, in submission to the Lord. We see Cain’s line dishonoring the law of God and making names for themselves. But the future is not mere co-existence between the two lines. The drama builds toward the great crisis of Noah’s flood right here in chapter 6. The great change, what creates the great downward spiral of humanity on the earth is that the two lines come together as one. That is, the godly line of Seth, the sons of God, seeing how attractive are the daughters of men, the wicked line of Cain, decide to take them as wives. The end result, however, isn’t mere dilution. It’s not that the now joined line becomes morally lukewarm, but that evil spreads, grows, deepens.
source

I hope this helps.
Blessings!

There is a verse that gives room for such interpretation:

  "So he brought the people down to the water; and the Lord said to
  Gideon, "Every one that laps the water with his tongue, as a dog laps,
  you shall set by himself; likewise every one that kneels down to
  drink." And the number of those that lapped, putting their hands to
  their mouths, was three hundred men; but all the rest of the people
  knelt down to drink water. And the Lord said to Gideon, "With the
  three hundred men that lapped I will deliver you, and give the
  Midianites into your hand; and let all the others go every man to his
  home." So he took the jars of the people from their hands, and their
  trumpets; and he sent all the rest of Israel every man to his tent,
  but retained the three hundred men; and the camp of Midian was below
  him in the valley."
  (Judges 7:5-8)

Another verse:

  But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he
  answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to
  the dogs."
   (Matthew 15:25,26)


What does R. C. Sproul mean by the 'essence' of God? R. C. Sproul discusses and defends the Trinity in this book, What is the Trinity? He explains that God is one essence, composed of three persons, and that the existence of three persons in one essence does not contradict the law of non-contradiction. Now, what does he mean by 'essence'? Why does he use the term 'essence' instead of 'entity'? Does he use the term 'essence' in the same way he would use it in 'the essence of a squirrel' or 'all the squirrelness about the squirrel that makes up the squirrel'?

I realize that there is a similar question: What do we mean by person?  But this one is more focused on the word, essence, which I believe is a technical term in Christianity, not the word person.

To R. C. Sproul and many other Christians, the word essence is a near-synonym of being or substance in a philosophical sense.  It is the English word that he feels best conveys the meaning of the word that the Greeks used when describing unchangeable, ultimate reality: ousios (the present participle of the Greek verb "to be").
Sproul adopts a Platonic understanding of essence, as opposed to existence, saying that essence:

is the being element of something, the substance of it.

This he contrasts with existence, "which is the becoming element."  For Sproul, the key is that the word essence communicates immutability or changeless being.
Now, to your follow-up questions.  Regarding the word entity, we know from the above that Sproul doesn't regard it as close a synonym to ousious as essence.  As to why, we might speculate that in modern English entity tends to add a sense of separateness.  Historically, though both words are rooted in the concept of being, essence enters English earlier and is based on an earlier form of the Latin word esse (to be).
Sproul doesn't employ an example like "squirrelness" in this or his other teaching on the Trinity that I've been able to uncover.  But an analogy like that would likely have some merit, since he regards the essence of something as that which is unchanging and defining.  But the difficulty of understanding the "essence of a squirrel" is obviously magnified when attempting to understand the "essence of God."
Regarding the Trinity, Sproul contrasts essence with subsistence, with the latter term meaning "to stand under":

Thus, [subsistence] gets at the idea that while God is one in essence, there are three subsistences, three persons, that stand under the essence. They are part of the essence. All three have the essence of deity. [...]
There are distinctions between [the members of the Godhead], but the distinctions are not essential, not of the essence. They are real, but they do not disturb the essence of deity. The distinctions within the Godhead are, if you will, sub-distinctions within the essence of God.

For more of Sproul's teaching on this topic, see his booklet What Is the Trinity, chapter 4.  He goes into a bit more detail in a video lecture.  He also touches on the doctrine of the Trinity in other works, including Essential Truths of the Christian Faith.
Etymologies of essence and entity are from m-w.com.

R.C. Sproul discusses and defends the Trinity in this book, What is the Trinity? He explains that God is one essence, composed of three persons, and that the existence of three persons in one essence does not contradict the law of non-contradiction. Now, what does he mean by 'essence'? You also have three parts, you have your mind (the creative source for your creativity)[Father], you have your vibrational existence (the body and your words)[Son], and you have your attitude (the emotional result of your perspective)[Spirit]. Webster's defines essence as (the basic nature of a thing : the quality or qualities that make a thing what it is).

Why does he use the term 'essence' instead of 'entity'? Your ability to think is not a separate entity from yourself. It is still you thinking, it is still you that it there, and it is still you that is in a good mood or in a bad mood.

Does he use the term 'essence' in the same way he would use it in 'the essence of a squirrel' or 'all the squirrelness about the squirrel that makes up the squirrel'? If you thought a lot should I call you a thinker, if you also dance? Should not all the parts define who you are?

I realize that there is a similar question: What do we mean by person? Sorry do not know.

But this one is more focused on the word, essence, not the word person. I believe it's a technical term in Christianity, hence the tag. That works.


What is the biblical argument against having a concubine? It is generally accepted that "having a concubine" = "not socially accepted." However,

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Having concubines was mentioned in the Old Testament.
I cannot find any New Testament verse against having concubines.

Thus, the question:

What is the scriptural evidence against a man having a concubine?

Overseers and deacons are told to be a one woman man in the pastoral epistles, and Christians are told to model the behavior of these men. (1 Timothy 3:12)

Additionally, Ephesians 5 roots the institution of marriage in creation and demonstrates that its intent was always to point to the profound mystery revealed: Christ's marriage to the church. As a picture of a healthy monogamous marriage in pre-fallen creation, it demonstrates that the creation ideal of marriage applies to Christian marriages.

As Jesus said that certificates of divorce were allowed due to hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8) but in the beginning it was not so, he demonstrates that for a time, these non-ideal marriages were permitted though they were never a good thing. As people indwelled by the Spirit, they were expected to be in line with the restoration of creation, and the modeling of the Christ/Church marriage.

Finally, Calvin himself denounced Lamech and Laban as perverters of the original mandate for having one wife in his commentary on Genesis.

Q1) So, is having a concubine a sin....?
Q2) what is the Biblical meaning of concubine?
Q3) what is the different between concubine and fornication ?
............................................
Please all my brethren, let bare in minds that concubine and fornication are not the same according to the Bible.
Oh Yes, Abraham never fornicated but he had two concubines.
What of the king who had ten concubines?
Did the Bible specified that those who had concubines fornicated?
...........................................
References relating to concubines:

About the concubine of Abraham

Read: Gen. 16:1-4 ( Hagar - Abraham's 1st concubine)
Read : 1 Chronicles 1: 32 ( Keturah - Abraham's 2nd concubine)

About the concubine of a King; be it king David or any other king.

Read:  2 Samuel 15:16 ( a King had ten concubines)
Read: 2 Samuel 20:3  ( a King had ten concubines)

About  the concubine of another king

Read: Judges 19:1-4
Read: Judges 19:20


Do Catholics believe everything in the bible is true as written? I thought I remember at some point learning that Catholics believed everything that was mentioned int he bible actually happened. Things like Noah actually having 2 of every animal on one ark, Jonah living inside of a whale, etc.

Is this true? Are there groups that believe things in the bible happened as written?

OP asks:

  Do Catholics believe everything in the bible is true as written?

<meme>You keep using that word, "true". It does not mean what you think it means.</meme>

The short answer is "Yes, and not quite", if by "true" is intended a flatly literalistic understanding of everything written in the Bible. (On the problem of "literalism", not restricted to Catholic interpretation of Scripture, see James Barr, "Literality", Faith and Philosophy 6(4) (1989): 412-428.)

Dei Verbum

A good way to get a handle on Catholic understanding of Scripture is to read the document from the Second Vatican Council (which met throughout 1962-1965) entitled Dei Verbum (which also has a helpful article on Wikipedia). That document both affirms that

  the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (Ch. III ¶ 11).

It also immediately goes on to acknowledge that

  since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words" (Ch. III ¶ 12).

[Emphasis added by me.] In practice, then, one needs to consult approved teachers of the church to know in any particular case whether such-and-such a case is to be taken as literally true. (And the church has a teaching office in this regard: "It devolves on sacred bishops 'who have the apostolic teaching' to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels" [Dei Verbum, Ch. VI ¶ 25].)

Examples

OP gives two examples: "...Noah actually having 2 of every animal on one ark, Jonah living inside of a whale...". Between them, they suggest the scope of possibilities open to Catholic "belief" about the Bible, as displayed by the Jerome Biblical Commentary, published in the wake of Vatican II, and having the nihil obstat (explanation) and imprimatur  (also explained):

Noah - The article on Genesis describes its stories as "history", but in a heavily qualified way, since this "history" has a divine origin, purpose, and unity:

  Because it is supernatural, the purpose is beyond the effective control of modern scientific history. Therefore, the ultimate meaning of Genesis, like that of the other books of the Bible, will always elude the historian who works outside its religious postulates. (p. 8)

Meanwhile, the events of the "primitive history" (Genesis 1-11) are "facts", "events of a cosmic order that affected universal man", so that the "first 11 chapters of Genesis present truths based on historical facts" (p. 8). In practice, for the flood story, the composite nature of the biblical account -- made up of material from "J" and "P" -- is a given, and the source of the story found in Mesopotamian flood accounts, with parallels noted and discussed: "The non-biblical versions reflect pagan mythology... In the biblical story, the one God, supreme lord of the situation, decrees the flood because of man's sin" (p. 15). The "cosmic" nature of the whole story is repeatedly stressed.

There is no special consideration given as to the pairs of animals (6:20; nor the tension with there also being "seven pairs" instructed in 7:2-3).
Jonah - is taken to be a product of the period 400-200 BC (p. 633; and roughly Hellenistic, then), and asserts

  Although scholars differ as to the term that should be used in determining the literary form of Jonah, they would agree that the book is not to be classified as history. ... Jonah is to be classified as a didactic narrative, satirical in tone with a profound theological purpose. (p. 634)

Conclusion

Hopefully this makes clear how it is that Catholic teaching affirms that the Bible is true, but that at the same time, this is not to be understood in terms of taking all its statements "literally".

Within most denominations including the Catholic Church, there are some who believe in a literal interpretation of creation and the flood, and some who don't.

As stated in Geremia's answer, the Catholic Church teaches,

  The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives that correspond
  to objectively real and historically true events, no myths, no mere
  allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.

  1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission (Latin original)

but Pope Francis says:

  [God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the
  internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to
  develop and to arrive and their fullness of being... And so creation
  continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until
  it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge
  or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things...

  "Francis inaugurates bust of Benedict, emphasizes unity of faith,
  science". cna. 27 October 2014. Retrieved 3 November 2014.

So it is not clear as to what is the official position of the Catholic Church on this.

Most people have a kind of hybrid belief. They take some things of the Bible as literal and some as figurative. Taking certain writings as figurative is fine when the Bible is explicit that it is figurative. Some of these include prophecy and parables. Nevertheless, the Bible tells the account of creation, Noah, and Jonah as real, literal, historic events.

For instance, the great majority of Christians believe in the story of Jesus as it is written in the Bible. In fact, I don't know any Christian who doesn't, though there may be some. However, in the Bible Jesus talks about Noah as a literal person that lived in an actual time and went through a world wide flood.

  37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of
  Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and
  drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah
  entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took
  them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

  Matthew 24:37-39

This is problematic because if Jesus is real, and God, why would He refer to Noah and the time of Noah as real, if it was simply figurative?

Jesus says the same of Jonah:

  For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so
  shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
  the earth.

  Matthew 12:40

In other words, if Jonah did NOT spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale, because you don't believe it happened, then neither did Jesus spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

In this light, a hybrid belief in the Bible doesn't make sense. Either you believe the Bible is all fairy tale, or the Bible is all real and true. It either happened or it didn't, there is no middle ground here. Either the Bible is, like it claims, the word of God, or it is not. Just really can't have it both ways, if you want to be consistent.


Why does the bible never specifically condemn premarital sex? Most Jewish and Christian scholars define πορνεία (sexual immorality) to include premarital sex. However, where either the old or new testament mention specific sexual immoralities, it's never included.

In Leviticus 18 many specific acts are condemned, but not premarital sex. Likewise, Paul spoke specifically of incest in 1 Corinthians 5, adultery and prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6, and homosexuality in Romans 1. If premarital sex is indeed immoral, it is obviously the most prevalent form of immoral sexual acts by far, so then, why doesn't he repeatedly warn against it?

The reason premarital sex is not mentioned specifically is because engaging in sex was what consummated a marriage. In essence, the first time a couple engage in sex, they are married.

  If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
  -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)

This is the case with virgins who are not betrothed. Betrothal, on the other hand, is considered to be legal marriage in every respect, waiting only for its consummation by sexual union.

  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Joseph was compelled to "put away" Mary, because the evidence as he initially saw it suggested his wife had committed adultery.

Additional Comments

Paul, like every religious Jew who cared about righteousness, understood that Leviticus 18 was the yardstick against which all sexual activity was to be measured:

Leviticus 18

If you aren't in the green circle, says God, then the land will eventually spew you out "when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;"

God is a nation builder, and best practice in regard to sexual union is essential in order to achieve it.

Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians is Paul's attempt to deal with various questions that had been put to him by the Church at Corinth, and the very first issue he addresses is immediately relevant to the concerns of the OP.

  It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
  -- 1 Corinthians 7:2

Paul is advocating celibacy, which he elaborates on later, but he understands that not everyone is like himself. So, here he suggests: if you desire to touch a woman/man, then find yourself a wife/husband in order to avoid fornication.

In Paul's theology -- if you're having sex and are not of the "one flesh" mindset, then you're a fornicator or an adulterer. He couldn't be any clearer.

Conclusion

In our modern culture, sex is much less about having children than it is about pursuing pleasure. This clearly wasn't true of the Jewish culture as we have it depicted in the Bible, where sex was mostly about building families.

The underpinning principle in regard to sex is found right back at the beginning of the biblical narrative:

  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
  -- Genesis 2:24 (KJV)

This "one flesh" union can only happen ONE TIME.

This answer is extracted from my article, "Is Sex Before Marriage Forbidden in the Bible?" For the full version, please follow the link.
The Bible does not forbid sex before marriage
The reality is that the Bible is nowhere near as clear about sex before marriage as many Christians seem to think it is. In fact, though the Bible does generally condemn sexual immorality, there is no clear prohibition against premarital sex in the Bible.
No matter how upsetting this may be to some people with traditional moral values, that’s the fact of the matter
However . . . before you jump right into the sack, there’s more to it than that . . .
The Bible forbids adultery, and values marriage
The Bible simply doesn’t say much specifically about premarital sex. And some of what has been interpreted as applying to premarital sex doesn’t really apply to it.
What the Bible does condemn in no uncertain terms is adultery. However, even though premarital sex is traditionally considered fornication, it is not adultery. Adultery is when one or both of the people engaging in sex with one another is married to someone else. Strictly speaking, the commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14) does not apply to sex before marriage.
The Bible presents marriage as a relationship that is sacred because from the beginning God created two human beings to be united into one. Based on this, we can conclude that:

If the people engaging in premarital sex think there is nothing wrong with promiscuous and adulterous relationships, and just want to sleep around with no restrictions or boundaries, it is a serious issue.

But if the people engaging in premarital sex value marriage and want to be in a committed, monogamous relationship, it is not such a serious issue.

Does the Bible give a green light to premarital sex, then?
No, it doesn’t.
But it doesn’t give a red light either.
Let’s take a closer look at the Bible’s yellow light on sex before marriage.
The Bible says that marriage comes from God
First, the Bible says that God created two people to be united into one, and that this relationship is to be honored.
In the first creation story, God creates man and woman together:

God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

In the second creation story, God forms woman from a rib taken from the human being that God had created (in Hebrew “Adam” means “human,” not necessarily “man”), and brings her to him so that the two may become one:

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:21–24)

(On the two creation stories and what they say about the relationship between man and woman, see my article, “Man, Woman, and the Two Creation Stories of Genesis.”)
In the New Testament, Jesus refers to the second creation story in establishing marriage as a relationship created by God:

Jesus answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4–6)

And just one more for now. In the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament, it says:

Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers. (Hebrews 13:4)

This should be enough to show that according to the Bible, marriage is created by God, and is to be respected and honored as a God-given relationship. (Assuming, of course, that the people in the marriage are living in a godly way.)
The real question about premarital sex, then, is whether it contributes to marriage or damages marriage.
But before we get to that, let’s look at a few places where the Bible talks about premarital sex. The clearest ones are in the Old Testament.
The Bible takes a pragmatic approach to premarital sex
Let’s be honest. The Bible is full of imperfect people who do imperfect things. The only person who is presented by the Bible as sinless is Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 4:15).
In the Old Testament, laws could be quite harsh against those who broke God’s laws. Adultery, in particular, carried the death penalty (see Leviticus 20:10).
What about those who had sex before marriage?
Here, the law was more complicated, and more pragmatic.
If a woman got married, and it was then discovered that she was not a virgin when she got married, her offense was punishable by death (see Deuteronomy 22:13–21).
Yes, this was sexist and unfair. The same rule did not apply to men. But that was an earlier and more brutal age. This law was their way of assuring a man that his children were his own.
By the same token, if a man raped a woman who was pledged to be married, he was subject to the death penalty, while the woman was not to be punished at all (see Deuteronomy 22:25–27).
What if the woman was neither married nor pledged to be married?
In that society, it was assumed that an unmarried woman (who wasn’t a prostitute) would not allow a man to have sex with her, because the consequences for her would be catastrophic. So if an unmarried man did have sex with an unmarried woman, unless there was some proof otherwise, it was considered rape, and the man was to be punished for it—but not by the death penalty:

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28–29)

In other words, the man was subject to a large fine payable to the woman’s father (which was basically a bride price) and to the ancient Hebrew equivalent of a shotgun wedding, from which he could not escape through divorce.
Of course, these laws are not in force for Christians today. We have made huge social, scientific, and spiritual progress since then—which is why most of those harsh Old Testament laws simply don’t apply anymore.
In the Bible, acceptable sex is connected to marriage
But consider the pragmatic meaning of that law about sex before marriage. If two people engaged in sex before marriage, they were required to get married in order to preserve the woman’s honor and hold the man responsible for his actions.
Another way of saying this is that in Old Testament times, the laws about sex were aimed primarily at enforcing the sanctity of marriage.
In the New Testament, there are no such detailed laws about how to handle various cases of sex before marriage. Instead, there are more general injunctions to avoid fornication and adultery, and to honor marriage through faithfulness and purity in one’s marital life. (And purity did not mean abstinence from sex.)
From this brief survey of what the Bible says about sex and marriage, we can draw two conclusions that support the ones I stated above:

Promiscuous and especially adulterous sex with no intent to marry is forbidden in the Bible.
Premarital sex that leads to marriage, though not ideal, is tolerated in the Bible, and is handled in pragmatic fashion to preserve social order.

This is what I meant when I spoke earlier of the Bible’s yellow light on sex before marriage. The Bible does not forbid premarital sex as many Christians claim. But it does consider it non-ideal, and either requires or encourages those who engage in it to move toward marriage.
In short, the Bible generally teaches that sex should be connected with, or lead to, marriage.
But once again, the Bible does not forbid sex before marriage—as upsetting as that fact may be for some conservative Christians.
To apply all of this specifically to the question: the Bible does not condemn premarital sex because the Bible is pragmatic rather than dogmatic, and it is more concerned with the sanctity of marriage than it is with exactly how we get there.


What is meant by "God is Omnipotent"? I'm questioning my own understanding of the term "Omnipotence" in response so a comment on one of my answers.

In the comment, the poster included a definition of Omnipotence taken from the Wikipeda article on Omnipotence. (Emphasis mine)

  A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.

This means that God, if He is omnipotent could:

Create a square circle
Create a triangle with four sides
The ever-so-famous create a rock big enough He can't lift it.

I have personally never understood His omnipotence to mean that He could do logically impossible things as shown above.  Instead, I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis, in his statement:

  His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible,
  not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to
  him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to
  say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold
  free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about
  God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning
  simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It
  is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to
  carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his
  power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even
  when we talk it about God.

As far as I know, and in the Christian circles I'm familiar with, the position that I hold, which C.S. Lewis so eloquently states is the commonly held understanding of the word "Omnipotence", but I run into people here and there that stick to the idea that God can do the logically impossible.

So rather than sticking to my assumption, I'm asking the community:

Are there any traditions/denominations that hold to the "God can do anything, even the logically impossible" definition of Omnipotence?

Short Answer: When we say "God is omnipotent" we mean "He has the power to do whatever He pleases".  There are other definitions, such as "capable of doing anything man can think up", but by such definitions He would not be considered "omnipotent".

Semantics

As indicated in the wikipedia post you linked, there are many definitions for the word omnipotent.  As with many of the heavily debated topics in Christianity today, the controversy arises when we begin to mix two different definitions during a debate.  (Other examples: "evolution", "knowledge", "free-will", "love", "life", "evil", and so on.)  The word omnipotent literally translates as "all-powerful", but as usual, the meaning of the word is determined by the person using it, and is clarified by the context of their usage.

So here's the story behind this controversy: Christian theologians have studied the Bible and noticed some things about God (such as His great power), and have summarized those things using simple terms (such as omnipotence).  For a Christian, the word omnipotent is simply a term used to refer to the teachings of Scripture about God's great power - nothing more, nothing less.  Heathens (in their blindness and ignorance) have noticed Christians attributing "omnipotence" to God, have used a different definition of the word which is based on a misunderstanding of the Christian usage, and have then used this heathen definition to attack and accuse Christians.  Modern Christians (in their laziness) often accept the heathen definitions, neglect to study the topic in Scripture, but have faith that God must be omnipotent, and then try to reconcile their view of God with the heathen definition.

The solution to all of this confusion is for Christians to study the Scriptures and understand what was originally meant by the term omnipotence in Christian theology, and stop trying to train "unreasoning animals" to understand things which are impossible for them to understand, and which they are unwilling to accept.  With that said, let's take a quick look at the definition commonly used by heathens.

The Heathen Definition

Heathens often use the word omnipotent to mean "capable of doing anything."  Modern (naturalistic) heathens have a field day in debates using this definition, because it opens up all sorts of nonsensical attacks, such as "can God create a rock so big He cannot move it?", which is essentially the same as asking, "does God have the power to create a situation in which He is powerless?", or even more plainly, "does God have the power to not be God?"  As C. S. Lewis pointed out, this is nothing more than shrewd, nonsensical wordplay.

A Scriptural Definition

Let's look at what the Bible says and see what sort of picture is actually painted in Scripture.

  “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” -Revelation 1:8

Passages such as this one teach us that God is "almighty".  It is most accurate to think of this word as meaning "God has unlimited might, which enables Him to do anything He wants to do", rather than interpreting this to mean "it is possible for God to do anything we can think up."  The following passage describes this more clearly:

  our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. -Psalm 115:3

In other words, once God desires to do something, He has the power to do it, and He does it.  This does not mean that God has the capacity to do whatever we can think up.  It means God has the power to do whatever He wants to do.  Of course "what He wants to do" is going to be consistent with His nature.  As we learn more about the nature of God, we can better understand what sorts of things He would do, and can better understand how He works, how we should pray, etc.  For example, God is love, God is good, God is just, and so on.

The Difference

Thus, by the Christian definition, there are things God cannot do, because He cannot contradict His nature.  For example, He is faithful, so He cannot be faithless;

  If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. -2 Timothy 2:13

Another example is that since God is truth, He cannot lie:

  God, who cannot lie, promised... -Titus 1:2

So by the Christian definition, God's actions are limited by His nature, while the heathen definition requires that God be capable of anything -- even things contrary to His "nature."

How to debate with heathens

Heathen: "Christians say God is omnipotent, but that's impossible.  Let me illustrate with a question: Can God create a rock so big He cannot move it?  If you say yes then He can't be omnipotent because He can't move it, and if you say no then He can't be omnipotent because He can't make a rock that big."

Christian: "That question doesn't really make sense.  The rock you described is a nonsensical object.  The size of a rock doesn't change God's ability to move it.  That's like asking if God can make a ball so green that He can't roll it; the color of a ball doesn't impact God's ability to roll it anymore than the size of a rock impacts God's ability to move it."

Heathen: "My point is, if God is omnipotent then He should have the power to do anything, but does He have the power to make a contradiction?  Can He create a square circle?  Does He have the power to limit His power?"

Christian: "You are confused about the meaning of the word omnipotent when it is used by Christians.  We use that word to refer to God's ability to do whatever He wants to do.  Your example is equivalent to asking if God has the power to not be God.  Not only is that nonsensical, but it would require God to act contrary to His nature, which He cannot do."

Heathen: "So God isn't really omnipotent?"

Christian: "God is almighty and does whatever He pleases.  There are things He cannot do, such as lie, so if your definition of "omnipotent" includes the capacity and ability to do anything man can think up, then He would not be "omnipotent" according to your definition."

Heathen: "So God isn't really omnipotent.  In that case He can't be God."

Christian: "You are using heathen definitions and heathen criteria for classifying a being as 'God' to show that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist.  Not only is this arrogant and insane (since the human brain is far too small to draw such a conclusion), but your method presupposes your conclusion that there is no God.  If God were real, He would be the only one qualified to explain His attributes and nature, and it would be our job to learn from Him.  Christians believe He has done this in Scripture.  If you wanted to see if the Christian view were internally consistent, you would have to look at Scripture, and according to Scripture, you would need to know Him in order to understand His ways.  So if you are interested in knowing the truth, start by seeking God in prayer and reading Scripture.  Once He begins to open up your eyes to the truth, these things will begin to make more sense to you.  If you are not interested in knowing the truth, feel free to continue scoffing at God, but these arguments only 'disprove the possibility of God's existence' from a perspective which presupposes His non-existence.  This is what the Bible refers to when it says 'the wisdom of this world is foolish to God'."

To answer your question: I think some Calvinists hold the belief that God can do the logically impossible, but that's a wild guess. Omnipotence means that the entity is able to do anything and know anything at any point in time.

I like explaining this at the hand of a computer metaphor: God is the programmer/architect and can introduce code anywhere in the program or "bring up a debug console" as it were, to view the properties of anything He desires.


Why do most Catholic Churches not say the Nicene Creed anymore and instead say the Apostle's Creed? Through our Creed, we profess our faith.

My question:
Why do Catholics say Apostle's Creed more than Nicene Creed?

For example, we don't say Nicene Creed in Catholic Liturgical Mass or rarely do we say it. So why did this transformation take place?

I have been a practicing Catholic for 65 years and in all those years in multiple parishes and different dioceses I have NEVER heard the Apostles Creed used in place of the Nicene Creed except since the 2011 change made it optional for Lent and Easter seasons.  I have lived in Europe for a few years and
never heard the Apostles Creed used in place of the NiceneCreed there either.  I am puzzled by so many responses that attest to
the contrary.

... why did this change take place?

Introduction

First of all you should note that about 50 years ago the mass was in Latin language so using the Creed in local language is quite new.

In my youth in the 1980s the Apostle's Creed was already more common than the Nicene Creed (which was only rarely used in that time) so the change you are describing must have begun directly after changing from Latin to local language.

In the parish where I grow up the Nicene Creed was nearly never used in the 1990s. And when I was going to the mass in other cities I had the same impression.

Some theologian told me that sometimes the church law is changed to allow something which is already "illegally" done in many parishes for more than 30 years.

If it is true that using the Apostle's Creed in the mass was not officially allowed before 2002 or 2011 then this change of the church law seems to be one example for such a change.

And I doubt that in such cases you'll find any written document that describes why something is done:

When such a practice begins it is illegal according to the church law. So nobody dares to write some document why this is done. And 30 years later when the practice is officially allowed nobody can remember why and how everything started 30 years before.

My suspicion

I have a very strong suspicion why the Apostle's Creed is commonly used in German speaking countries. It's some ambiguous sentences in the German translation of the Nicene Creed. I can't judge other translations.

  Through our Creed, we profess our faith ...

... which means: You are publicly saying what you believe in and you stand behind what you are saying. And this of course implies that you understand what you are saying.

Now let's have a look at the German translation of the Nicene Creed. As an example you'll find these words:

  ... gezeugt, nicht geschaffen ...

Having compared the English to the German translation I suspect a "simple" translation problem here: The word "gezeugt" definitely does not match what is written in the English translation!

I myself understand the German translation of the sentence in a way that Jesus Christ did not exist at the beginning of the universe but he is the result of a random biological process.

(And this is not the only sentence in the Nicene Creed which I at least do not understand.)

Translation errors in the Creed however are fatal:

Either you say the Creed in the mass - than you say that you believe in something you actually don't believe in.

Or you don't say the Creed (that's what I do if the Nicene Creed is used) - then it will be rather silent in the church.

Maybe this is the reason why priests in the parishes started to use the Apostle's Creed instead of the Nicene Creed in the end of the 1970s in Germany.


Where does the idea that you cannot conceive of light until you see it come from? A friend of mine is an atheist. I told him that his disbelief is an effect of his ignorance and gave him an example.

So I told him to imagine a person, who was born and lived all his life in a dark room. This person will not have an idea of the light until he or she will see it.

He enjoyed my argument and asked me to give him the book where I got this thought experiment. I think I must have read it before, because I couldn't invent it myself. Can you help me remember where I read it?

C S Lewis, apparently in Mere Christianity, does mention the concept of not knowing the concept of dark or light:

  My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

[I don't have a copy, and Google Books doesn't help with an authoritative source, probably because Lewis's writings are still in copyright.]

The concept is present in C.S. Lewis's "The Silver Chair" (towards the end, when the witch is seeking to convince the Children, Puddleglum and Prince Rilian that Narnia & Aslan are just fantasies - and it's actually not even all of life - just a long time), I wouldn't be surprised if he  also had something to that effect in "Mere Christianity".


What did Paul mean when he called Jesus the "firstborn from the dead"? note: All Scripture quoted is from the King James translation.
I have noticed that Paul referred to Jesus as the firstborn numerous times:

Colossians 1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Romans 8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Colossians 1:15  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Hebrews 11:28  Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
Hebrews 12:23  To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

I am especially interested in the phrase "firstborn from the dead" from  Colossians 1:18. Was Paul referring to being dead to sin or being dead physically and being resurrected to eternal life, Something even more elusive to me?

In a family, the firstborn son had special privileges that set Him above all others.

Jesus, in ushering in the resurrection for all, had the privileges of that firstborn son.

Note: For a long time, I used to think of this strictly in chronological terms - but it isn't warranted.  Elijah & Elisha resurrected dead people. Lazarus and Jairus' daughter were also raised before Jesus' resurrection - so it can't simply be a matter of being the first raised to physical life.

As to eternal life, which Jesus ushered in, sure - but not physical.

Jesus is truly the firstborn from the dead - in that He was raised never to die again.
Unlike the others who were resurrected in the mortal body and who eventually died, Jesus resurrected with an immortal body, like the Saints who will resurrect at His second coming.

Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Jesus said:

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

There is one person who resurrected to gain immortal life before Jesus - that is Moses. We find Moses in the mount of transfiguration talking with Jesus. Jude confirms that Moses was resurrected by Michael, the archangel.

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

But even Moses was resurrected in Christ.

John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

John 5:25-29 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

And again Jesus said:

Rev 1:17,18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

In Christ, in the promise of Christ's victory over death and hell, Moses was resurrected.

1Cor 15:12-19 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.

In other words, everyone who is resurrecting to eternal life will resurrect only because Christ has resurrected from the dead and has won the keys of hell and death. He is the one who has been given the authority to resurrect the saints. Thus, Christ is indeed the firstborn of the dead. Those who sleep in Him will be resurrected by Him in the last day.


What is the significance of Noah, after the flood, getting drunk and cursing his son who saw him Naked? A strange passage in the beginning of Genesis contains the account of Noah who, after surviving the flood, planted a vineyard and made wine. After he drank the wine and became drunk one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked, tells his two brothers about it and they cover Noah up. After Noah wakes up he figures out what has gone on while he is asleep and curses Ham and his descendants.

Here is the passage: Genesis 9:20-27 (KJV)

  20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

What is meaning/significance of this passage? I have heard that it was used to justify slavery in the 17th and 18th century. I suspect that the Israelites used it to justify their invasion of Canaan in ancient times.

Is there not a better, more spiritual or redemptive interpretation on this passage?

I certainly think the clarify of the passage is a bit lacking.

As I understand verse 22, Ham "saw" the nakedness of his father...perhaps not just as in accidentally, but more of a deeper "examination" of his fathers nakedness? There is no mention of what Ham's thinking was...perverse or spiteful...disrespectful...but I think the difference between Ham's attitude and his brothers attitude in relation to their father's state is clearer given the rest of verse 22, and verse 23: Ham told his brothers...jokingly, mockingly, making fun of his father?...and his brothers in turn respectfully covered their father without looking at him at all.

There is probably some facet of culture not included in biblical text here, but it does seem clear the difference between Ham's "seeing" and his brothers "backing in, faces turned away, and covering their father" that gave Noah reason to curse Ham's offspring, and bless Japheth and Shem. While it may not usually end up with a curse, I believe the same kind of behavior from a mans son's today would result in some kind of punishment for a son that showed a lack of respect to a father, regardless of whether that father's own choices resulted in a disappointing state. Children respecting their fathers is a fundamental teaching of the bible.

I personally feel there were several plausible reasons why Noah got drunk, aside from the reasons I think it's more important to attempt to examine the spiritual reasons for the story being told in the first place.  I tend to believe that with drinking and substance usage being so prevalent in society that God knew it would be a pretty big issue for people someday.

I could be wrong but what I got out of it is that God wants us to know that, while we are instructed not to be drunkards and to be of a sound mind and sober.  Maybe God knew that there would be problems that would cause some people to fall once in awhile.  He doesn't want us to fall into sin and get drunk or high but he does want us to know it happens due to things like stress chronic pain emotional pain and many other triggers.  if these things catch us off guard the message is even the people of God occasionally fall in this area so if it ever happens to one of us repent and move on.


From a trinitarian perspective, how do you biblically reconcile Jesus dying and Jesus being God? I've heard non-trinitarians say, "The Bible says God can't die, therefore Jesus isn't God.

First of all, does the Bible even say that God can't die (I assume it does, or at least it implies it). I believe that God can't be snuffed out of existence. If it does say it or imply it, in what sense is the word "die" or "death" used, and what evidence or reason do you have for your answer?

I know that Trinitarians distinguish Jesus dying (biological death of His body) and God hypothetically dying (being snuffed out of existence), but how do we prove this difference biblically? I hope that's a coherent question. To clarify, some non-trinitarians would say that distinguishing meanings of death in the Bible is just ad hoc or grasping for straws. How do we prove that this difference in meaning is biblical and not ad hoc?

The Doctrinal Position
Trinitarian position usually includes the doctrine of Jesus's having two natures in one person (Hypostatic Union).  Armed with both the doctrine of Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, the standard explanation of what happened when Jesus died on the cross is as follows:

The Divine nature of Jesus did not die or cease to exist
Neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit died on the cross
The body of God the Son in his human nature died and was buried
Although the human body of God the Son died, the hypostatic union of two natures was never separated, broken, or compromised

Source: Did God Die on the Cross?: The Trinity and the Crucifixion
Answering your questions
Q1: Does the Bible even say that God can't die?
Answer: Yes, see several Bible verses such as

Isa 40:28: ... The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of all the earth. ...
1 Tim 1:17: All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.
Deut 33:27: The eternal God is your refuge, and his everlasting arms are under you. ...

Q2: [paraphrase] How do Trinitarians explain that Jesus truly died as a human being but yet retains His Divine Nature who never die?
Answer: Quote from the article above for the explanation:

As mentioned above, human nature doesn’t cease to exist in death; rather, the body perishes but the soul/spirit lives to God. Jesus’s human nature—like ours—still existed in his death, because the soul/spirit is immortal and thus the human nature still lives in/not in the presence of God. If Jesus’s human nature died/ceased to exist for three days, this would indicate not only a death of his soul, but also a split in his person—only half of Jesus would exist for three days while his body was in the tomb. We need to affirm, then, that the human soul/spirit of Jesus remained alive (thus, his nature did not die), but that he experienced a real human death like all of us: body in the ground, soul/spirit with the Lord. And his resurrected body, like ours one day, was raised imperishable and he now lives as the God-man who will never die again.

Q3: What's the Biblical evidence for the answer of Q2?
Answer:
STEP 1: Trinitarians look at the Bible verses below as the starting point (with straightforward plain sense interpretation).

Jesus is God: see supporting Bible verses such as

John 1:1,14: In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.
John 10:30: The Father and I are one.

Jesus died: some supporting Bible verses:

John 19:30-33: When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.  It was the day of preparation, and the Jewish leaders didn’t want the bodies hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath, because it was Passover week). So they asked Pilate to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. Then their bodies could be taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus. But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was already dead, so they didn’t break his legs.
Mark 15:37: Then Jesus uttered another loud cry and breathed his last.
1 Pet 3:18: ... He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit.

STEP 2: Trinitarians then came up with the doctrinal position above as the straightforward logical way to reconcile them, yielding the explanation in the answer to Q2 above.
Conclusion
The straightforward meaning of the Bible verses and the explanation preclude having to "grasp for straws".

To understand spiritual Death and Life in regards to Trinitarian doctrines of the Resurrection, consider John 4:24 in relationship to Psalm 51:13 where we learn the Holy Spirit (Ruach Qadesh, ר֥וּחַ קָ֜דְשְׁ ) is the bond that joins us to YHVH.
[Psalm 51:13]
"Do not cast me away from before You, and do not take Your holy spirit from me."
(אַל־תַּשְׁלִיכֵ֥נִי מִלְּפָנֶ֑יךָ וְר֥וּחַ קָ֜דְשְׁךָ֗ אַל־תִּקַּ֥ח מִמֶּֽנִּי )
By rejecting the Holy Spirit, you would reject your relationship with the Father. This is why Simon (Peter) repents three times in John 21 to parallel the rejection of his bond to Yeshua, three times in Matthew 26.
If Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth had rejected knowing the Father, then He would would have been considered dead within the faith. - In the Gospel accounts, Yeshua the Messiah remains faithful to YHVH by ministering a restoration of Torah for the resurrection of His people, which means Yeshua's soul never died.
The doctrinal debate regarding Resurrection is explained by Yeshua to the Sadducees in [Mark 12:26-27]. Yeshua corrects a misunderstanding of the resurrection in God, stating : " Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
It is interesting when readers of the Gospel mention Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth as having "died" on the cross, since spiritual death refers to the worship of idols or disowning the Father.  There is no verse in the Gospels that states Yeshua of Nazareth worshipped idols or deified men like Caesar. Instead we read about Yeshua's life in the Father by rejecting the diefied Caesar in Mark 12:17.
Mark 12:17 not only describes biblical death in idols versus biblical life in YHVH, but also alludes to our spirit as the "image" of God instead of our body.


Is the Eternal imperative? I just had an interesting conversation at Ask The Atheist: http://asktheatheist.com/?p=1860

Essentially, I asked: Do atheists believe that everything came from nothingness or do they believe that something has always been?

The conclusion of the conversation was that there is an eternal imperative and that the eternal imperative is likely extra-dimensional.

This line of reason I am told is an old argument, is this in fact so and in light of new Scientific evidence that supports a divine creator; is this line of thought being advanced within Christianity today?

The idea you are referencing - that God started everything from nothing - is called creation ex nihilo.  It is by far the most common Christian understanding of how the world came to be.

In Genesis, the first words we have say that:

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

This presupposes that there was nothing, then God acted, and then there was something.  This is not altogether unlike the Big Bang, in which there was {nothing | nothing that bears any resemblance to our world}, and then something happened, and there was the universe.

The term eternal imperative is not one with which I am familiar, but Aquinas' cosmological argument and more specifically the argument from contingency may be what you are referring to.

While rarely the first argument we turn to, it hasn't necessarily been rejected. The very simplistic idea is that because things exist, there had to be a thing that caused them to exist, necessarily proving God.  The "First Cause" argument is still relatively popular.

You will note, however, that the argument itself is not contingent on science - it is derived theologically, using methods of logic which originally came from theology and philosophy - a set of techniques that "science" later incorporated into the scientific method.

The 'creation from nothing' theory is not Biblical. It clearly says in Genesis 1: 2
'And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters'.
That means there was 'waters' at the beginning.
The earth/matter was unformed.
The deep/space was without energy.
The only thing that was there was water.
That's what the Bible says.
So the right question to ask is:
What is meant by water?