Background
Although Calvinism and Arminianism are often presented as polar opposites, they have a common heritage. Jacobus Arminius studied under Calvinist teachers and was himself a Calvinist when he began his ministry. So it's not a surprise that the two systems share a common framework.
But Arminius eventually questioned some of the tenets of Calvinism, and his disciples published a document titled Five Articles of Remonstrance outlining what they believed Calvin had gotten wrong. Calvinists in response developed their own five points, which have become well known by the acronym TULIP.
Differences
The differences between Calvinism and Arminianism is expressed in these five points, but at the core, there is really only one significant, irreconcilable difference between these systems.
Calvinists believe God alone determines who is saved and who is not, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Arminians believe that God expects us to cooperate with him in order to bring about our salvation, that God will not save someone against that person's will. There is no way to reconcile these two positions.
Calvinists and Arminians also disagree about God's fundamental character. For Calvinists, God's sovereignty is his most important attribute. For Arminians, God's most important attribute is his love.
This is not to say that Calvinists believe God is not loving, or that Arminians believe God is not sovereign. But a Calvinist would reject any teaching (e.g., libertarian free will) that might imply God is not completely sovereign. Likewise, an Arminian would reject any teaching (e.g., limited atonement) that might imply God is not completely loving.
In other words, this is not necessarily an irreconcilable difference; a case can be made that the difference is more a matter of emphasis than of complete disagreement.
Similarities
Despite their differences, both Calvinists and Arminians share a faith in the same Christ. We use the same Bible and we both take it seriously. We share a common heritage going back through the early Reformers. Both Calvinists and Arminians should be equally comfortable with the professions of the Nicene Creed and other early ecumenical statements of faith.
Calvinism and Arminianism are defined as theological systems solely in how they differ from each other, but the points we have in common are much more numerous than our differences.
Summary
Are Calvinism and Arminianism compatible? Not if the goal is to agree on all our theology. But if the goal is to worship and glorify Christ, then Calvinists and Arminians both have something to contribute, and we can learn a lot from each other.


Did John Calvin teach that God creates certain souls only to be destroyed?

More or less, yes, but the question is slightly misleading by the word 'only' (but about that later).  As this discussion is so complex and visited by so many people with so many quotations, etc., I prefer to try and give you a summary view from many years studying many books on the subject. Mine is not the 'only view' but really on this question you can only get a well-read opinion.

Calvin, like St. Augustine before him believed in dual predestination, whereby God determines in advance of one's birth, if they will ultimately perish or be saved. However unlike St. Augustine who did not believe that we could obtain clear assurance that we are 'the elect' the reformation largely developed by Luther and then in some sense 'systematized' by Calvin, as you say, added the belief that one could and should enjoy the confidence of knowing they are 'elect'.

The doctrine is more or less just a simple resignation to some bible verses that seem to say exactly the same thing.  For example if one just accepts these words without much resistance they automatically become a Calvinist of some sort:

  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “ For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
   You will say to me then, “ Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “ Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:17-24, ESV)

Now it is difficult to accept this doctrine for two reasons, one good and one bad.  The good reason is that we say but 'What about God's love?' and the bad reason is just human pride that will not accept being liable to destruction on any account but 'demands' God's love, even when fully deserving eternal wrath.

Now we come to the word 'alone'. This is the hinge where controversy turns, because it either allows God to be full of love for sinners, or refuses it. If we were to say, 'Did God only created the Devil and the apostates in hell, for the 'sole purpose' of simply suffering, in order that God might be glorified' we would be going a tad further than what anyone has ever believed as we would absolutely be excluding his love for sinners in every way. We would not allow any other reason (.i.e., some loving reason) for their being created other then their destruction (which seems like hate to me).  If we say that 'God created the Devil and apostates in hell, full knowing that they would only end up in hell, although they may have served another purpose, yet, nevertheless as they will be in hell, it is now there ultimate purpose for being created as respects there own life', we would be more along the lines of a Luther or Calvin.

But back to the question about God's love.  Here is where Calvin does seems to fail somewhat, compared to say Luther. Luther would say, yes God chooses without men's will determining anything, yet he would also say God loves each one and to resolve the contradiction he would say, I do not know, it is a mystery, both are true and the answer is hidden from puny men.  Calvin would not directly disagree with Luther but he simply would leave some of the encouragements about God's general love for all, absent from the discussion, leaving some with the impression that his view of God was a cruel one.  In this sense yes, as great as he was in explaining so many doctrines possibly better than any other before him since the Apostle Paul himself I think he makes the impression that his hear was starting to grow a little cold on this subject as he did not seem to make much effort countering the balance of election and God's boundless love. In other words, I am a Calvinist and although I do not disagree with anything Calvin said on the subject of election, I do disagree on what he left out of the subject, which other like Luther put almost front and center.

Now regards assurance, this is quite straightforward. The Calvinist belief is that anyone who sincerely believes in Christ, and has at least some moral assurance from a changed life aft conversions and a sense of their adoption by the Holy Spirit, proven foremost by their love of other believers, can and do entering into a blessed assurance of their eternal blessed state.  I guess we could say this is the warmer side to Calvin, for although he has little heart to consider God's love for the damned, he swings the gates wide open for the enjoyment of God's love without fear for any who flee from God's wrath to the dying love of Christ.

While generations before Calvin and Luther had to suffer without any assurance of their good state, performing penances and various works that were not able to cleanse the conscience, believers now filled with assurance really had the impetus to break away from every kind of cold legalism.  If you read Christian history, what really happened after Calvin was an explosion of missionary work across the globe as had never been seen before. This was partly due to the discovery of the new world and exploration of Europeans, but at the same time knowing God's love without fear, must have made people have a bit more heart for the lost and the opportunity of finding eternal security.  Therefore although the doctrine seems to have a cold edge to it, it many ways it seems to produce a warm effect and confidence in the free love and grace of God.  Seems almost like a contradiction, yet, so does the love of God and his dealings with Pharaoh.  Maybe Luther had it right. Don't try and explain it just believe both. God loves everyone and he elects some to heaven and some to hell according to his unknowable judgments and omniscience.

Note: ( I apologize that I do not have the time to collect a bunch of quotations to prove my summary but I actually have already posted them all in other answers on the same subject, so If asked about a particular point I might add a link to another answer where requested.)


God is eternal and everlasting; "omni" word for this?

Eternal is a Latin word

  late 14c., from Old French eternel "eternal," or directly from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus "of an age, lasting, enduring, permanent, everlasting, endless," contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age" (see eon). Used since Middle English both of things or conditions without beginning or end and things with a beginning only but no end. A parallel form, Middle English eterne, is from Old French eterne (cognate with Spanish eterno), directly from Latin aeternus. Related: Eternally. The Eternal (n.) for "God" is attested from 1580s.

If you are looking for a word that says "omni" you could try to coin "omnitemporal," but eternal has better usage. Sempiternal means "always", but again, not and "omni".


Did the Israelites/Hebrews have their own slaves or servants?

The Israelites and Jews had slaves throughout the biblical period, as various passages of the Bible attest. Exodus 12:44 talks of the purchase of slaves and the need for them to be circumcised, which implies that these were non-Hebrew slaves. As the question implies, it seems anachronistic that the fleeing slaves would have had slaves at the start of the Exodus or even at any time during the forty years of wandering, but Exodus 12:44-45 does not necessarily mean that the fleeing Israelites actually had slaves at this stage -- it can be read as a teaching or instruction for when the Israelites would soon have slaves.

More importantly, it is anachronistic that they could even bear to think of enslaving another human as they had so recently been enslaved. God would need to have been incredibly insensitive to bring the subject up at this early stage in the Exodus. However, modern scholarship states that this was not written during the putative Exodus nor for the people of the Exodus: it was written as instructions for the Jews of much later times. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the Book of Exodus was written by at least three authors at various times during much of the first millennium BCE. If these laws were seen as having the imprimatur of Moses, who received them from God during the Exodus from Egypt, then they must be obeyed by all future generations.


Yes and no, depending on what you mean by "active".

According to orthordox Christian teachings, there will be no re-incarnation of Jesus. His next appearance will be in glory and judgement when nobody on earth will be in a position to question the description given of Jesus current position:

  Philippians 2:9-11 (ESV)
  9  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10  so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In other words, according to the main traditions claiming to be Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike) anybody in any circumstance currently claiming to be a re-incarnation of Jesus is a fraud. As long as there is wiggle room for anybody on the planet to deny such a claim, the denial sticks.

This belief makes it really easy to root out the fakes:

FOR applicant IN jesus_reincarnations RETURN legitimate=false;

If by 'active' you mean:

"Do we examine the circumstances of every applicant and keep a running list of possibilities?"

Then no. That would be a waste of time.
"Do we have a clear and definitive answer for whether such applicants are frauds?"

Then yes. All of them.


What is the Wesleyan Church's View of Initial, Progressive, and Entire Sanctification?

This answer is taken from the, Wesleyan Church’s Articles of Religion 14.

Sanctification: Initial, Progressive, Entire

We believe that sanctification is that work of the Holy Spirit by which the child of God is separated from sin unto God and is enabled
to love God with all the heart and to walk in all His holy
commandments blameless. Sanctification is initiated at the moment of
justification and regeneration. From that moment there is a gradual or
progressive sanctification as the believer walks with God and daily
grows in grace and in a more perfect obedience to God. This prepares
for the crisis of entire sanctification which is wrought
instantaneously when believers present themselves as living
sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, through faith in Jesus
Christ, being effected by the baptism with the Holy Spirit who
cleanses the heart from all inbred sin. The crisis of entire
sanctification perfects the believer in love and empowers that person
for effective service. It is followed by lifelong growth in grace and
the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The life of
holiness continues through faith in the sanctifying blood of Christ
and evidences itself by loving obedience to God's revealed will.


What Christian denominations (if any) permit gay marriage?

The United Church of Christ:

  Churches in the UCC can sanctify same-sex unions.[28] The resolution
  "In support of equal marriage rights for all", supported by an
  estimated 80% of the UCC's 2005 general synod delegates, made the
  United Church of Christ the first major Christian deliberative body in
  the U.S. to make a statement of support for "equal marriage rights for
  all people, regardless of gender," and is hitherto the largest
  Christian denominational entity in the U.S. supporting same-sex
  marriage.[29] This resolution (and the sanctification of same-sex
  marriages), however, is not supported by some congregations.[29] Of
  particular note, the Iglesia Evangelica Unida de Puerto Rico, a
  long-standing conference within the UCC, voted by a 3–1 margin to
  withdraw its affiliation with the UCC over the same-sex marriage
  issue.[30] And the Biblical Witness Fellowship, a conservative
  evangelical organization that is a small but vocal voice within the
  denomination, accepts only heterosexual marriage.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ#Same-sex_marriage


According to the Gospel of John, on which day of the week was Jesus crucified?

There are some difficulties with the chronology of Christ's trial and crucifixion, so I definitely cannot give you a specific day of the week and say it's certain. John 19:14 (EMTV) says, "Now it was the Preparation [Day] of the Passover ...". The other gospels do not state what day it was before the crucifixion, but all four gospels do mention it later, when Jesus' body is removed from the cross.

John 19:31 says  "it was the preparation [day]" and "that Sabbath was a high day", presumably meaning it was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Mark 15:42 and Luke 23:54 both mention the preparation day. Matt 27:62 uses the rather odd expression, "the next day, which is after the Preparation [Day]" to refer to the feast day itself.

It is clear that Jesus was crucified the day before the feast of Unleavened bread. Traditionally it has been believed that it was Friday, since Saturday is always a Sabbath. The gospels are consistent with this, assuming John was pointing out that the next day was not only a Sabbath, but also the day of the Feast, which is kept as a Sabbath regardless of the day it falls on.

The gospels are also consistent with the Feast falling on a different day of the week, since it would still be appropiate to call the day before a "preparation day". Some Christians have proposed either Wednesday or Thursday as the day of crucifixion, but the gospels do not explicitly tell us what day it was.

Apparently the Jews in the first century thought of the three spring feasts as parts of a single celebration, which it sort of is (Passover, killing of the lamb in the afternoon; Unleavened bread, begun with eating the Passover lamb right after sundown; and Firstfruits on the Sunday within the week.

Argument for Friday only

Since I originally wrote this, I found a book by Samuele Bacchiocchi, "The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection". This online chapter claims the Greek word for "preparation" always meant Friday, and would not have been used for a Special Sabbath on another day. If Greek language studies support his viewpoint, then the traditional Friday date becomes more probable. I am not qualified to evalute this.

My original conclusion

The traditional idea of a Friday crucifixion assumes that the Sabbath they were preparing for was the weekly Sabbath, and presumably also the first day of the Unleavened Bread feast. While that is possible, it is also true that the first day of the Unleavened Bread is always a Sabbath, regardless of which day it falls on. The passage you quote from John's gospel is therefore consistent with the named Sabbath being any day of the week.

Presumably Christ was crucified on Nissan 14, the day originally specified as God's Passover day, the day the Passover lamb was to be killed. The Feast of Unleavened bread began right after sundown, which would be the beginning of Nissan 15.

Theoretically, Nissan 14 could have fallen on any day of the week. There is a historical tradition that it was Friday, and that should not be ignored. If Nissan 14 fell on Thursday, then the 15th would be the special Sabbath and the 16th would have been the regular weekly Sabbath. In this case, we would expect the women to wait two days before returning to the tomb. If the 14th were earlier in the week, it is not clear why the women wouldn't have returned to the tomb on the 16th.


What are the details for the Catholic position on the inspiration of Scripture?

From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

  105  God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."DV 11

  "For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

  106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

Considering that the human authors are true authors, the Catholic position most closely approaches "Kerygmatic Inspiration". That being said, the Church places an importance in understanding the context of the original authors and how they conceived the word to better understand what they meant in each passage. Quoting Dei Verbum (emphasis, again, mine):

  However, 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.

  To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

In other words, the Inspiration isn't in the particular words used, but there might be Inspiration in the way that the sacred author employs metaphors and similes, which a given translator might miss and leave out of the translated text.

This means that it is often fruitful to study the original languages and compare the Greek and Hebrew versions of Scripture to the modern translations, at least for priests and higher-level scholars. There might be some insight which is more obscure in English or other modern languages, but clear in the Greek — as an example, the difference in verbs when Jesus asks St. Peter "Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" and St. Peter's answer in Jn 21:15–17.

In summary, we do believe that translations can be Inspired and fruitful, but that Inspiration can only be certified through long and continued use, so the Greek and Hebrew originals are still important.


What happens if someone who is not elect tries to seek God?

[...] does the mere act of seeking God mean that the person must be elect?

Yes.

Reformed theology must be understood wholesale. If you pick and choose some ideas and don't put them in the context of all the other ideas it stops making much sense. This has to do with the presuppositions involved.

From a Reformed perspective the answer to this question is really easy. If anyone seeks God, they are the elect. They will find him because it isn't dependent on them in the first place (this is where irresistible grace comes in). It is only those that God has first called that will seek him, and those he calls he will save (meaning they are elect).

  Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)
  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Reformed theology finds no place in that continuum for half-way measures. Of course in this life all we ever see is snapshots somewhere short of "glorified", but those who seek God will find him because they only sought God in the first place because they had been called (and justified).

Of course you might have lots of people that say they seek God and don't find him, but if they do not find him this is only proof that the thing they were seeking was not God but a counterfeit. Many are those who think they are following God who actually are not. What they wanted and followed was a God of their own imagination, not the one true God. They will be surprised to learn that they never knew God.

  Isaiah 48:8a (ESV)
  You have never heard, you have never known, from of old your ear has not been opened.


What did the early Christian twice weekly fasts consist of?

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity on this topic points us to The Shepherd of Hermas.  This work is dated to about the same time as the Didache (last first or early second century) and bears some similarities with it, and describes more specifically how a Christian is to fast:

  First of all, be on your guard against every evil word, and every evil desire, and purify your heart from all the vanities of this world. If you guard against these things, your fasting will be perfect. And you will do also as follows. Having fulfilled what is written, in the day on which you fast you will taste nothing but bread and water; and having reckoned up the price of the dishes of that day which you intended to have eaten, you will give it to a widow, or an orphan, or to some person in want. (Similtude 5, ch. 3)

We quickly notice the limitation to only bread and water, but the fast is not merely self-denial with respect to food, but an emphasis on purifying oneself spiritually and showing generosity to the needy.


What is the mainline Protestant understanding of "unceasing prayer"?

I suspect that differences of opinion might extend all the way to the individual level, rather than being settled upon by any particular denomination.

(So: what do you think it means?)

Inasmuch as I've grown up in the larger protestant tradition, I suppose my opinion might be worth more than nothing, so here goes: it sounds like an attitude to me; the continual practice of keeping short accounts with God, just another angle on loving God and loving your neighbor, just as Philippians 2 is an angle on the same.

I could be wrong, and I'm not a professional, so...


What does the Bible say about how we should pray?

The subject of prayer during the reformation also took on a revised meaning.  The reference I think best illustrates this is John Owen’s Works Volume 4 - ‘A Discourse of The Work of The Holy Spirit in Prayer; With a Brief Inquiry into the Nature and Use of Mental Prayer and Forms.’
In this work Owen makes several key concepts, which to me, represent the ‘reformed view’ of prayer and opposed some previous traditional views that were seen as apostasy from the biblical view. The traditional views being rejected by Owen were any view that pretended of some ‘secret steps’ to prayer as possibly proposed by monkish institutions or ‘prayer books’ that sought to replace the personal need of prayer according to ones own peculiar situation.
In this work Owen argues the following basic tenants.
First Owen uses a prophecy in Zechariah to stress that prayer is a general work of the Holy Spirit in all believers. Not only so but it is a primary function of the Spirit in our lives and hence of our faith itself.

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. (NIV Zechariah 12:10)

He further establishes the root of his argument here:

Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (NIV Galatians 4:6)
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. (NIV Romans 8:26)

To reduce his many words into a summary, this lays the foundation of the reformed view, for basically as the Spirit is the Spirit of the ‘Son’ and of ‘supplication’, prayer is what binds us into communion with God by faith in Christ whereby we learn what to pray and how to pray and are enabled to do so with a Christ centered faith and power.
First of all without the Spirit we do not know what to pray.  Inwardly the Spirit desires that we conform to the image of Christ by faith, but we are not even aware of our own sins or needs, without the Spirit groaning for our deliverance with in us and manifesting our needs to us.
Secondly, the Spirit makes know to us how the atonement and work of Christ is able to provide an answer to what we need. As we learn what our needs are and bring them to God and the study of his word, the Spirit by faith in Christ opens up his word and assures us in particulars, according to our private needs, what God’s will is and that he is able to supply all our needs accordingly.
Third, the Spirit makes us feel as God’s children with ‘bold-free access’ to God. Children trust that their parents will help them and so frequently approach them with all their requests over and over. Often it is ‘hidden guilt’ that keeps us from coming to the throne of grace boldly, which explains our atheistic prayer-less life. This is actually unbelief and I have made a very very long post against the work of guilt and fear in our secret hearts here and is related to our desire to approach God by prayer.  With guilt we may be compelled to the duty of prayer but will never know what it is to pray in the Spirit, for that work will be a work of the flesh.
The end result of a reformed view of prayer is that it is entirely connected to our relationship with God.  Prayer takes the gospel, digests it and expresses the desire for God’s will and kingdom in our lives, in the desire, love and earnest seeking of his will for ourselves and our neighbors – it is our 'faith-pulse' even if we are barely ware of it.
The result of prayer, therefore, is that our whole state of faith depends on it, and if our faith is weak, we need quite time with God to strengthen it in order to do the more difficult matters such as the reference made to casting out a powerful demon, which the Apostles who were at the time weak in faith, we not able to do. This type of prayer, though extending into verbal public prayers as occasions will require, cannot be replaced by any supposed ‘secret method’, or published ‘prayer book’ but is the most intense, intimate and personal aspect of our relationship with God and his word.  Some of the best types of prayers, as illustrative examples, are those offered by the Apostle in some of his epistles.


Neither Roman Catholics nor just about any other Christian denominations believes that the Bible contains every detail possible.  As John writes, These things are written that you might know that Jesus is the Christ.

Just about every accepted theory of inspiration suggests that the Bible that the words we have are "sufficient" (and that is the Theological(TM) term) - meaning they are enough - not exhaustive.  Evangelicals are more likely to harp on things like sola scriptura than Catholics who believe in the Magesterium - but even they would reject the need for such a minor detail.

As Mark Shea, a catholic apologist writes:

  Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred
  Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium -- are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

  (in Not by Scripture Alone, edited by Robert A. Sungenis, Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997, chapter 4: "What is the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition?," 169-210; quote from 181-182)

In Pope Clement XI's Prayer for all things necessary for salvation, for example, supplicants pray:

  I beg of Thee to enlighten my understanding,
  to inflame my will,
  to purify my body,
  and to sanctify my soul.

  Give me strength, O my God,
  to expiate my offences,
  to overcome temptations,
  to subdue my passions,
  and to acquire the virtues proper for my state.

  Fill my heart with tender affection for Thy goodness,
  hatred for my faults,
  love for my neighbour,
  and contempt of the world.

The name of Noah's wife is exceedingly unlikely to inform any of these things.


I assume this is for lent?

Wikipedia indicates your mother is correct. In part it says:

  In the Roman Rite Lent starts on Ash Wednesday and finishes on Holy Saturday. This comprises a period of 46 days. This includes 6 Sundays which are not considered part of Lent because Sundays are days of celebration for Catholics.

You should consult a priest or trusted member of your faith about how this type fast is done. You also  may be wise to inquire of your doctor about your specific situation and if this can be done without impacting your health.


Does the Bible support the concept of male spiritual headship?

Yes. No. Maybe.
This is all really tied up in the idea of Federal Headship. The most obvious Scriptural example of this is Adam and Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive

This is developed a lot more in the  epistles, but the general idea is that Adam acted as a representative for all of mankind: a distinctly spiritual head. Christ of course acted as the same, working the other way.
So, the question is, to what extent does everyone after Adam carry on his spiritual federal headship?
In Genesis 22:18 God says to Moses

in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,
because you have obeyed me voice

Paul confirms this in Galatians 3:6-7

just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as
righteousness." Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons
of Abraham.

You could make similar demonstrations for prominent biblical characters such as David, or Noah. If Noah had not "by faith" (as Hebrews said) obeyed God and made the arc, his descendants would be doomed! (Mostly because they wouldn't exist)
So there seems to be a sense in which God uses the faith of a spiritual "father" (I suppose that's why we call them the patriarchs?) to direct the spiritual status of their descendants.
And of course, how can we forget the most weighty declaration of this in Exodus 20:5-6

...for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of
those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth
generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Cultural Adaptation?
I suspect (perhaps this could be asked on Judaism.SE) that this idea of federal representativeness or headship became quickly ingrained in Jewish culture. As a result, all throughout the Old Testament families are put to death because of the sins of the father. In Numbers 16, Korah's entire household. In 2 Samuel 21, 7 of Saul's sons are put to death for his unresolved sins against the Gibeonites.
It seems, then, that while this might not always be a 100%, black-and-white, specific case, that in general the father acts as the representative for the family - be it a moral, spiritual, or any other -al issue.
And now?
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul seems to generalize this even further:

If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to
live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband
is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made
holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,
but as it is, they are holy. (vs. 13-14)

Regardless of what "made holy" means, there's a couple interpretations here that might support the federal headship theory:

Paul is reassuring  his audience that, even if the father (the spiritual head) is an unbeliever, his wife makes the children holy in his stead
Both parents, whether husband or wife, contribute to the child's "holiness" and so Paul is generalizing federal headship further to both parents, not just the father.

Paedobaptists like myself would say there is definitely an element in which the parents contribute to the status of their children in the covenant community:

Acts 2:39 The promise is for you and your children...

So yes, there is definitely some biblical support for this idea and I (and I suspect most Evangelicals) would agree that to some extent the Father specifically (but also the mother) have a sort of "spiritual" leadership.
But no, it's not as if every father is acting as a second Adam, determining the righteousness of his children.
So depending on what exactly you mean: yes, no, maybe so


Location of the tabernacle in Catholic churches?
To understand why many churches have their tabernacle in places other than over the classical position of behind the main altar we will have to take a walk down memory lane and then try to understand the present situation from an historical perspective.
We must acknowledge that we are living in a very modern society and as such the Church must do all in her power to promote reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament, as well as putting safeguards in place To avoid any irreverence being done towards the Blessed Sacrament.
Now, I am going to let Fr. George Saunders do a little explaining on the subject, as his explanation is quite balanced and has a good historical background also.

To approach this question fairly and adequately, we need to understand some of the liturgical laws through history surrounding tabernacles. Actually the first norms governing tabernacles were promulgated in the Middle Ages. Until this time, no uniform custom regarding where tabernacles were located in churches existed.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) decreed that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a secure receptacle and placed in a clean, conspicuous place. The Synods of Cologne (1281) and Munster (1279) stipulated that the Blessed Sacrament be kept above the altar, sometimes in tabernacles shaped like doves and suspended by chains. (An example of this type of tabernacle is on exhibit in the medieval collection of the National Gallery of Art.)
Overall, during these times, the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in four possible ways: in a locked cabinet in the sacristy, a custom originating in the early Church; in a cabinet in the wall of the choir area, or in a cabinet called the "Sacrament House," which was constructed like a tower and attached to a wall near the altar; in a "dove" receptacle suspended from the baldachino above the altar; and in a tabernacle on the altar itself or in the reredos of the altar.
In the sixteenth century, the Blessed Sacrament became customarily reserved in a tabernacle that was placed on the altar or part of the reredos. However, only in 1863 did the Sacred Congregation of Rites prohibit the use of suspended doves and sacrament houses.
The liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council prompted a "rethinking" of the location of the tabernacle in the church. Two important points must always be kept in mind: First, reverence for the holy Eucharist must be preserved and promoted. The "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" reminded us that the holy Eucharist is "a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (No. 46).
Second, the significance of the offering of the Mass itself, where the holy Eucharist is confected, must be preserved and promoted. The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" asserted, "Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the source and summit of the Christian life, they offer the divine victim to God and themselves along with it" (No.11).
Accordingly, the "Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery" (1967 issued regulations (later incorporated into the new "Code of Canon Law") concerning tabernacles (cf. No. 52-57 and Canons 934 944): The holy Eucharist may be reserved only on one altar or one place in any church, and a vigil lamp must bum at all times to indicate and honor the presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. This tabernacle must be immovable, made of solid and opaque material, and locked to prevent theft or desecration of the Blessed Sacrament. The tabernacle "should be placed in a part of the Church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer" (Canon 938).
Here is where some confusion emerges. To promote prayer and devotion, the "Instruction" stated "It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently, and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures" (No. 53).
For example, at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, which has a constant flow of tourists, the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in Our Lady's Chapel located behind the main altar, this beautiful chapel provides a quiet place for the faithful to pray without the distraction of the comings and goings of people. A similar situation exists at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington.
However, this recommendation does not necessitate the interiors of "old" churches be destroyed to move the tabernacle. The "Instruction" stated, "In adapting churches, care will be taken not to destroy treasures of sacred art" (No. 24). Moreover, any renovation should be done with "prudence."
Moreover, the "Instruction" recommendation does not prohibit having the tabernacle in the center of the church, stating, "the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place" (No. 54). The tabernacle can be located in the "center of the church," perhaps on an elevated area behind the altar so as not to diminish the attention to the Eucharistic sacrifice. Actually, I think the visual alignment of the tabernacle and altar emphasizes best both reverence for the Holy Eucharist and the significance of the sacrifice of the Mass.
From a purely educational perspective, the goodness of having the tabernacle in the body of the church either in the center, or at least to the side, is that it fosters devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. For instance, people genuflect in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. Since the one day most parishioners visit their church is on Sunday, having the tabernacle visible in a prominent and conspicuous location makes them aware of the Eucharistic presence of our Lord. The people are more mindful that church itself is the "House of God" and a sacred space, not just a meeting house. In an age of doubt and disbelief, we need to do all we can to promote and foster devotion to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. - Placing the Tabernacle

For those visiting St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, you will notice that the tabernacle is not over the main altar, but in a small side chapel in order to promote more reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. The amount of tourists that the Basilica has every day, makes this a viable solution for maintaining proper reverence in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

The Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 August, 1863, forbade the use of these Sacrament-Houses. Thus they disappeared, or ceased to be used.
The legislation of the Gode on the tabernacle is contained in the three canons 1268, 1269, and 1271. The first speaks of the place where the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved, or where the tabernacle should be placed; the second, of the tabernacle itself, of its position, of its construction and its ornamentation; and the third, of the lamp before the tabernacle.
The three paragraphs of canon 1268 that bear on the subject, read as follows:

The Blessed Sacrament cannot be reserved continually or regularly on more than one altar in the same church.

The Blessed Sacrament is to be reserved in the most prominent place of honor, and therefore, generally on the main altar, unless there is one more conveniently located and better suited for the veneration and worship of this august Sacrament. The rules regarding the last three days of Holy Week, however, must be observed.

In cathedral, collegiate, and conventual churches, in which choir functions are held at the main altar, the Blessed Sacrament is, as a rule, to be reserved in another chapel or on another than the high altar, in order not to interfere with the services. - The Tabernacle: Its History, Structure and Custody


Do Evangelicals see Catholics as pagans?

Evangelicalism is not in itself a "confession". It is more of a general grouping of similar confessions. As such, it is a bit hard to pin down on a specific point of doctrine like your question calls for.

That being said, we could paint with a broad brush and describe some of general leanings. Every one of these will be wrong for at least some Evangelicals.

There are some evangelical groups that consider some other evangelical groups to be apostate* (not true churches). However, these tend to be exceptions rather than the norm.
Most evangelicals tend to hedge salvation more on the basis of belief rather than church membership. In other words, even if they believe the Roman Catholic church to be a bogus organization and many of its doctrines to be false, they will acknowledge that some of its members are legitimately Christian.†
Most evangelicals specifically reject many of the doctrines, most of the structure and all of the authority of the Roman Catholic church. Those that do accept any of the above do not recognize it in full, but only in the parts that are in agreement. They would reject almost everything to do with Mary, but might agree one some points about Christ. They will reject the notion that any Pope could ever speak infallibly while agreeing that Scripture invokes a system of appointed leaders over churches.
Most evangelicals believe that due to the dangers of the false doctrines woven in among some true ones, it would be a bad idea to place ones self under the sole direction of the Roman Catholic church. As such, people who do are often regarded with much skepticism as the creed they have hence subscribed to is dubiously compatible in any way with their own.
The issue of where to draw a line between a "false God" and "the right God not properly understood" is a tricky one to draw. Most evangelical circles would use some of the more basic and early creeds (such as the Apostles & Nicene Creeds) as a measuring stick for whether the right God was being worshiped. A non-triune God or a religion that doesn't recognize Jesus as God's only son for example would be considered to be worshiping a false God, while if those and some other elements were in place but his works and words were badly misinterpreted it may be just a matter of mistaken doctrine without actually being a "false God".

For an overview of the issues involved here, I highly recommend carefully reading a blog post from my friend Kevin Bywater entitiled Do Muslims, Mormons, and Christians Worship the Same God? in which he works to articulate the core theological problem involved no matter whether the right answer is yes or no. As one of the basic points, he notes that "Worshiping God wrongly is tantamount to worshiping the wrong god(s)."

In light of the previous point, Catholisism started out with some of these same creeds and many participants still hold to them. However evangelicallism would, in general, say that it has wandered very far from them with all the things it has added. In doing so, the waters are so muddy that's its hard to get a pure drink of living water there.

Most Evangelicals also recognize that there are Catholics and there are Catholics. Some in the US might be viewed as partners and there are even major ecumenical talks always going on somewhere or another. On the other hand much of Latin America and Europe are so far gone from even Catholic teaching that it would be impossible for most evangelicals to recognize them as Christian.

One notable reference on this would be the Westminster Confession. While only some subsets of evangelicalism would fully hold to this confession, it is indicative of their varying positions that in it's original format, Chapter XXV Article VI identifies the Pope as the antichrist himself:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

More importantly, it is to be noted that this statement has been removed from the revised version most commonly used in the US and much of the rest of the world in modern Reformed churches. The statement now accepted by most people holding to this particular confession reads simply:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.

* I have avoided using the term "pagan" because the context of your question indicates we probably don't have a common understanding of what it means.

† My personal stance on this issue is that salvation is a gift from God. Correct belief isn't what saves us. Therefore it is possible for some who believe straight up wrong things about salvation to be saved. However this is no excuse to not seek to learn which doctrines are true, and God uses his word properly preached as an instrument in effecting salvation so we should put high priority on true teaching even though we know it isn't necessarily a matter of salvation whether people believe exactly the right doctrine.


How come Good and Evil fruit brought from same tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden?

Thanks for asking. There are some important principles here.

First it is important to understand that in Matthew 7 Jesus is not talking about trees. He is using trees as a metaphor for people. To try to learn about trees from his statement is a wrong approach.

Looking at the Garden of Eden, the Tree was in fact bringing forth good fruit - its purpose was to produce fruit which gave knowledge of Good and Evil, and it did. The tree itself wasn't doing anything wrong. It did not bring forth either Good or Evil, but only the knowledge of them.

The problem was not that the fruit was bad, but that Adam and Eve were doing something with it that they weren't supposed to do. They were told not to eat it and they did.

There are plenty of trees today that give fruit that has a good purpose, but that purpose isn't for eating. The Horse Chestnut comes to mind. If you try to eat a Horse Chestnut you will get very sick, but that's not because the chestnut tree gave bad fruit - it's because you ate something that wasn't for eating.


How is Article XVII of the Articles of Religion defended by Arminians?

We are elected “in Christ”, as both the article and Ephesians 1 affirm.  In the OT, Israel were the elect people of God with God choosing them to show his love to the rest of the world and to be an example of a Godly society.  This did not guarantee the salvation of every Israelite.  If a non-Jew wanted to be part of the elect people of God, s/he could by their own free choice decide to become a proselyte,  whereby all the blessings of election are conferred.
Being elected 'in Christ' means that God has predestined the members of Christ's body to show forth his love to the world and to be an example of a Godly society.   He also chooses that these people will have life eternal. By declaring and living in allegiance to Christ one is made part of this 'new Israel',  and thereby one gains both the benefits of salvation (as pre-destined by God that we should), and also the task of witnessing to God's glory by word and action, as God also has chosen for us.
I am fairly certain that the above free-will view was not what the author(s)  of Article 17 intended,  but they do seem to have left the back door open to those who do not believe that everything is predetermined and that we are mere puppets in God's play. I will gladly walk in through that back door and give myself to the task of evangelism (a task which is undermined by such Augustinianism and Calvinism).


What is the opinion of the LDS Church in regards to unbaptized people's taking communion?

The breaking, blessing, and partaking of the bread and water constitutes the sacrament ordinance in the LDS Church. It's how one renews their baptismal covenants. If one has not made those covenants, it is of no matter. (Parents often encourage their children to take the sacrament to prepare them to one day renew their covenants and to teach them the value of the ordinance. Others discourage it because it has special meaning.)

Either way, the sacrament is not withheld from individuals while being passed, whether they are visitors or not. It is perfectly acceptable for visitors in an LDS congregation to partake of the sacrament:

  Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of it.

(from Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 20.4.1)


Comparison of church services between Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church

Sixty years ago this question would have been simpler. The differences were starker then, but also there was much less diversity within each denomination. Roman Catholic masses were in Latin, many parts were inaudible, and the participation of the  congregation was almost entirely passive.  Church of Ireland communion services were audible, in English, and  the congregation were expected verbally to join in more of the prayers. The Roman Catholic mass was always the Tridentine Mass and the Church of Ireland communion service was  very close to the liturgy of Archbishop Cranmer, with minor revisions. Neither had changed very much since the sixteenth century.

Today, the Roman Catholic church (normally) uses the "New Order" Mass produced after Vatican II, within which are several alternatives and options, including a choice between  four Eucharistic Prayers (four normally, but actually there are other options in particular circumstances). The Church of Ireland has two orders, a traditional one and a contemporary one. The traditional one (Order 1)is still very close to Cranmer, while the contemporary one (Order 2) is closer, in structure, to the Roman Catholic service. The contemporary one contains many flexibilities , options, "may say" rubrics and "or an alternative" rubrics. It offers a choice of three Eucharistic prayers.

This diversity makes it harder to say what is being compared with what.

In terms of "customer experience" such as style of music (if any), length of homily/sermon, availability of beverages, difficulty in refusing beverages etc., variation exists more within each denomination (and even services at different times in the same building) than it does between  the C of I and the RCC.

There are differences between the content and wording  of the RC mass and the Church of Ireland equivalent due to   different emphases  in doctrine between  Catholics and Protestants.  These can affect, for example,  the overall structure of the service, the  explicit sacrifice of the already consecrated bread and wine, praying to saints, the prayer about that the bread and wine  being for us the body  and blood, and prayers for the institutional church.

STRUCTURE - FIRST PART OF THE SERVICE

In the  RC mass the penitential rite is at the start, after the greeting. It may consist of a general confession followed by absolution and a Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy), or some alternative.  After this come the bible readings, the creed and the sermon or homily. Next up are the Prayers of the Faithful (also called the Universal Prayer, Bidding Prayers or Mass Petitions), which pray for the church and the world in general and/or  some specific persons or situations. Only after this  does  the Liturgy of the Eucharist itself begin.

In the traditional order (Order One) of  the Church of Ireland service the main penitential rite is not at the beginning of the service, but after the Universal Prayer. However, before the bible readings either the ten commandments, interspersed with the Kyrie Eleison (in English), are read out, or else Christ's summary of the Law from Matthew 22 vv  37=39 is read.

In Georgian times, particularly, the service would not proceed beyond the Universal Prayer, except a few times each year. These normally included at least  Christmas, Easter  and Whitsun. Even if the service was going to proceed many might leave the church at this point, only those intending to receive the bread and wine remaining. The invitation  or exhortation is quite  solemn, perhaps emphasising the belief that Holy Communion is not something to be undertaken lightly.

  Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in
  love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life
  following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in His
  holy ways, Draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your
  comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly
  kneeling upon your knees.

In the Order Two (Contemporary) C of I service the confession may be just after the reading of the Law, or later in the service,  and may take various forms. The reading of the commandments may also be interspersed with verses from the New Testament, generally giving a  New Testament positive matching the Old Testament negative. For example, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is followed by "Let everyone speak the truth" (Ephesians 4 25).  Another option is for the Beatitudes  (Matthew 5) to be read at that point.

STRUCTURE - SECOND PART OF THE SERVICE

The highlight of the liturgy is the Institution Narrative in which the priest tells the story of the Last Supper. This includes the words of consecration "This is my Body" and "This is the chalice of my blood" and "Do this in remembrance of me".  There are  other prayers both before and after this. In the RC service, and in the Order Two C of I service, there are further prayers after the consecration and before the bread and wine are consumed. In Order One of the C of I the bread and wine is consumed immediately after the Institution Narrative.  This places a particular Protestant  emphasis on the idea that the sole purpose of consecrating the bread and wine is so people can eat and drink the Body and Blood, and not for any other purpose.

SACRIFICE OF THE CONSECRATED HOST

In the Roman Catholic mass what happens after the consecration, and a proclamation, is that the consecrated bread and wine, by now believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ, is offered to God. The wording varies between the different Eucharistic Prayers. The following is from Eucharistic Prayer One (the Roman Canon):

  we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty
  from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy
  victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the
  Chalice of everlasting salvation. Be pleased to look upon these
  offerings with a serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as
  once you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the
  just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering
  of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice and a spotless
  victim. In humble prayer we ask you, Almighty God, command that these
  gifts be borne by the hands of your holy angel to your altar on high
  in the sight of your divine majesty.

In the Church of Ireland services God is asked to  "accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving"  both in Order One,  and in Order Two Eucharistic Prayer One.  Eucharistic Prayer Two has only "we proclaim His perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the Cross".   In Order One the body and blood have already at that time been consumed, but in  Order Two they have been consecrated but not yet consumed.

A little later in the service Order One has we "offer and present unto thee ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice" whereas Order Two has, after the consumption, "Through Him we offer you our souls and bodies to be a living sacrifice".

In all the Church of Ireland versions there is a reference to Christ having already made the perfect sacrifice.

To summarise, in the Roman Catholic services the consecrated bread and wine is offered to God. In the Church of Ireland the congregation, after consuming the consecrated bread and wine, respond by offering themselves. (This last remark  refers to the words used in the services, not necessarily the full underlying eucharistic theology of either the RCC or the C of I.)

PRAYING TO SAINTS

In the Confession in the Roman Catholic Mass members of the congregation  ask  "Mary ever-Virgin, all the angels and saints and you my brothers and sisters" to pray for them.  In the Tridentine Mass the confession itself is addressed to God, Mary, Michael, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul,  all the saints and the priest, and these same saints  are also asked to pray for them.

In the Church of Ireland service saints are not spoken to.

In the RC Eucharistic Prayer One, and in the Tridentine, there is a prayer called the "Communicantes".  This is a prayer made  "in communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph her spouse, your blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew (and optionally 21 more saints) we ask that through their merits and prayers in all things we may be defended by your protecting help.

Eucharistic Prayer Three refers to the saints "on whose constant intercession in your presence we rely for unfailing help".

In the Church of Ireland service there is no reference to the merits or prayers of the saints, though in some versions there is a reference to the fellowship of the saints. Reliance on the merits or prayers of the saints is not considered a normal feature in Protestant practice.

PRAYER THE BREAD AND WINE WILL BE FOR US THE BODY AND BLOOD

This is part of the Eucharistic Prayer and so differs depending which version is used. This is sometimes called an epiclesis, that is an invocation of the Holy Spirit.

In the Church of Ireland Order One the prayer is

  Grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine
  according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in
  remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most
  blessed body and blood.

In the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayer One (based on the Roman Canon of the Tridentine mass) the prayer is

  Make it spiritual and acceptable so that it may become for us the Body
  and Blood  of your most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ.

Neither of these, Roman Catholic or Church of Ireland, specifically requests the involvement of the Holy Spirit (although if in fact  His involvement is necessary to the process, then it is implicitly requested). The Roman Catholic one envisages something being done to the bread and wine, whereas the Church of Ireland one is very unclear as to what, if anything,  must happen in order  that the Body and Blood may be partaken of. This reflects Protestant scepticism as to trans-substantiation, without (in this liturgy) specifically ruling it out, or defining what else might be involved.

In the other three Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayers God the Father (who is being addressed in the Eucharistic Prayer) is asked to sanctify the bread and wine,  by means of  the Holy Spirit.

The  Church of Ireland Order Two Eucharistic Prayer One says

Grant by the power of the life-giving Spirit that we may be made one in your holy church and partakers of the body and blood of your Son.

This requests involvement of the Holy Spirit but whether He is expected to act on the bread and wine, or on the people, or both, or in some other way altogether, is unspecified.

The involvement and invocation of the Holy Spirit is regarded as very important by the Eastern Orthodox churches. If in some respects the Catholic and Protestant services are closer than they once were, in this respect there is something of a rapprochement with the East.

INSTITUTUIONAL CHURCH

Roman Catholic masses  contain, in the Eucharistic Prayer,  a prayer for the peace and unity of the church, with specific mention of the Pope and the bishop. Other prayers for the world and the church are often made in the Universal Prayer also called  Prayers of the Faithful.  In the Order Two Church of Ireland service similar prayers, which would not normally mention the Pope,  are made at the same point of the service  as the Prayers of the Faithful, which are called in the Church of Ireland service "intercessions". In Northern Ireland the Queen is normally mentioned, though not in the Republic of Ireland. There are several optional suggested patterns for the C of I Order Two intercessions which all mention bishops and clergy before the Queen (or in the Republic the President) and civil authorities, but these are only suggestions.

The Order One Church of Ireland service has its own Universal prayer which begins "Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here in earth".  After praying that the universal church be inspired with the spirit of truth, unity and concord it continues

  We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes
  and Governors; and especially thy servant Elizabeth our Queen, that
  under her we may be godly and quietly governed; And grant unto her
  whole council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that
  they may truly and impartially minister justice, to the punishment of
  wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and
  virtue.

(This is the version the C of I uses in Northern Ireland, there is a modified form for  use in the Republic.)

It continues:

  Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and Curates, that they
  may, both by their life and doctrine, set forth thy true and lively
  word and rightly and duly administer thy holy sacraments.

This reflects a view of the institutional church, the bishops and clergy, as simply one facet of the Christian community, whose functions are preaching the word and administering the sacraments. In the worldview  expressed in Order One the civil authorities are no less  part of the church, and their particular functions are to ensure justice and to maintain true religion.   A lower view of the importance of the church hierarchy is common in Protestantism. The increase in secularism, and the growing presence of non-Christian religions, is perhaps  a challenge to such a view.

The Roman Catholic Mass (ordinary form can be seen here.

The Roman Catholic Extraordinary form with English translation can be seen here.

The Church of Ireland services are on this site but it is necessary to scroll down. Holy Communion One is Order One and Holy Communion Two is Order Two.

The Bishop of Down and Dromore, Rt Rev Harold Miller, who was involved in the C of I liturgical revisions of 2004, has written about them here.


What is the view of Jehovah's Witnesses on John 18:36 "My kingdom is not from this world"?

This is actually a verse that Witnesses would know well, and quote often. It is on the basis of this verse that Witnesses avoid politics (and, generally, careers which would result in fame). Witnesses do not vote; do not join political campaigns; do not donate to political causes; and do not join political parties. This is all on the basis of John 18:36:

  Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”

To the Witnesses, Christ's “Kingdom” is not a simple synonym for “Heaven”. Furthermore, “this world” is not a synonym for “planet Earth” or “the physical universe”. In other words, the verse you reference has, to the Witnesses, very little relevance to the beliefs you’re asking about.

“This world” is the current political/social system. Witnesses try to avoid being caught up in it much, as explained above.

“The Kingdom” is God’s system, implying a structured rulership over subjects, living here on Earth in the “new system”. That Kingdom is, in fact, eternal. I don’t know where you got the idea that it isn’t. (It will be briefly interrupted 1,000 years in, but after that it’ll go on eternally.)

Living on Earth is not supposed to be a second-best. It is, in fact, the original plan for humanity. The few who go to heaven to be kings of the Kingdom (“joint heirs with Christ”) are the anomaly.


If God cannot change, then why does His wrath need to be appeased?

You misunderstand the model.  But it's a common misunderstanding.  One that comes up often enough that there's a standard answer from Apologetics.  Here is is in my words:

The statement that God doesn't change means that His nature doesn't change.  His Nature includes many attributes that never change:  Goodness, holiness, He is Just, Righteous, and executes Judgement.  None of these change.

His attitude toward us can and does change.  This is not only consistent with the idea that His nature never changes, it is necessary if His nature of righteousness never changes. If God is righteous, He must punish sin.  Therefore, if we are in sin, He must punish us.  If He is forgiving, then His attitude toward us must be able to change from wrath to forgiveness.

I am a parent.  I love my children.  I will always try to do what's best for them, which means I will praise them when they deserve praise, I will punish them when they deserve punishment, I will comfort them when they are hurting, and I will burn with anger if anyone hurts them.

The fact that I can be angry with them when they are naughty and please with them when they are good does not mean that I change.  I remain the same.  Who I am does not change, my nature does not change. Neither does the fact that God can be angry with us, and then forgive us means that He changes.

More on this at Apologetics Press, on the question of "Does God repent?"

Excerpt:

  For instance, during the Patriarchal Age in which they were living,
  Noah and his contemporaries had received instructions on how to live
  righteously (see 1 Peter 3:18-20), and as long as they continued in
  this manner, God’s presence and blessings would abide with them. But
  when they became sinful and unrepentant, He no longer could condone
  their actions. As a consequence of their sinful rebelliousness, God
  withdrew His spirit (Genesis 6:3), and pledged to send a flood to
  destroy all mankind except Noah and his immediate family (6:7). God
  was grieved (6:6), not because He did not know that this series of
  events would happen, or because He somehow “regretted” having created
  man in the first place, but because, having given man the choice to
  serve Him or reject Him, man had chosen the latter with such
  unanimity. When we hear God described in terms such as “sad,”
  “joyful,” etc. that frequently are used to describe human emotions, we
  must remember that such descriptions are not intended to imply that
  God is emotionally vulnerable in the same way that humans are (cf.
  Acts 17:25). Rather, such descriptions are intended to show that God
  is compassionate and loving.


The UK website for the Alpha Course can be found here. There are others for each country, so use Google to find yours. The Wikipedia entry can also be useful.

The Alpha course is extremely popular across the world and in many denominations. It originated in the Church of England, and it is exactly what you expect - an introduction to the core of Christian belief, Mere Christianity style. It is not specific to Anglican beliefs, and has been used by a huge number of churches of many denominations.

One of the key things about Alpha though is that it is intended to be more than a lecture series. It is key to the course (assuming it is being done properly) that it is done in a discussion framework. The lectures should be followed by a discussion in a small group, to which Christians and seekers are free to contribute. Ideally there should be food as well - the guidelines for running the course recommend it.

The only slightly controversial aspect of the course is that it does teach that the Holy Spirit may give supernatural gifts, such as speaking in tongues, to Christians. It doesn't claim that those gifts are essential, and it doesn't talk about more controversial gifts. Some churches choose to omit those parts of the course.

Some churches choose to modify the course in other ways, but the one you see is unlikely to be a different course. Ask whether it includes lectures by Nicky Gumbel - if so then you are getting the real deal. I would personally make sure that there is an opportunity for discussion as part of the course. In my experience omitting that misses the point.


Was Islam originally considered to be a Christian sect?

Islam isn't, nor has it been considered a Christian sect, either by Muslims, or by Christians.

An article here argues that Islam is a Christian Heresy:

  Belloc states "It began as a heresy, not as a new religion....It was a
  perversion of the Christian religion...an adaptation and a misuse of
  the Christian thing."

But there is a distinction to be made. Further reading:

  Unlike all the other heresiarchs "[T]he chief heresiarch, Mohammed
  himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth, and
  doctrine to begin with.  He sprang from pagans.  But that which he
  taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified.  It was the
  great Catholic world - on the frontiers of which he lived, whose
  influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by
  travel-which

A Christian sect would be a sect that sprang out of Christianity at some point.  Islam does not meet this definition.  Instead, Mohammad borrowed some teachings from Christianity.

Or, if you want to phrase it differently, you could say that there is a commonality between Christianity and Islam, but that commonality is not based on Islam evolving from Christianity (as a sect would do) but rather that there is simply commonality due to similar beliefs.

As for the article saying that Islam is a Christian Heresy, it might be more accurate to state that Islam is partially based on Mohammad borrowing or agreeing with teachings that Christianity considers heretical.


If baptism washes away original sin, why do women still get periods and pain?

The Catechism is not exactly a clear to get an answer to this question.  Although the Bible says that pain during childbirth is a punishment (as well as man's toil, which I can attest to and woman being subjected to her husband, which I can't exactly attest to but I've heard things about in antiquity).

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle
CCC - 405

The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.
CCC 1279

The Bible does not say what the effect of Sanctifying Grace is and freedom from original sin is, other than being able to live forever in heaven, which is worth all the pain and toil in the world.
The fact is, that you still have, in addition to the aforementioned curses as a result of original sin, something called concupiscence

Etymologically, "concupiscence" can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the "flesh" against the "spirit." Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.
CCC - 2515

And concupiscence is what mainly separates someone who is free original sin (like Our Lady and Our Savior) and the rest of us.
The big question is, whether the Blessed Virgin Mary had pain during childbirth, and several mystics and theologians posit that she did not.


What is the scriptural basis for the Holy Spirit speaking to you through other people's words?

I do not think that there is any direct scriptural basis for God speaking through other people. This means that (to my knowledge) there is not a specific Bible verse that iterates this crystal clear.

But after close inspection, you can see that God speaks in miraculous ways. He used Balaam to speak. Even though Balaam was not a Christian, and was rebellious, God used miraculous ways to speak.

Know I know this isn't exactly the kind of situation you're talking about, but it is something to think about. God will talk to you in many different ways.

Sometimes while I'm coding, I'll listen to (christian) music as well. Twice in the course of a half-hour, the words I was typing matched with the song. And it just got me thinking, "Wow, God is amazing. He can use any method to speak." He can use any method he wants to talk to you. Dreams, other people, even sitting down in your room! Yeah, that happened. God uses amazing ways to accomplish his will. And if speaking to you is His will, it'll get done.


The prophets of the Old Testament frequently brought warnings, adjuring the people (or the recipients of the message) to change...or else.

  Deuteronomy 18:22 (NASB)
  When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken.

This is the real test of any prophet.

The prophets frequently performed miracles or knew things that they couldn't have known (Nathan, 2 Sa 12:7) to prove that they were from God. Some had already an already established reputation as a prophet (i.e. Elijah, Elisha, ...) and didn't need to prove it every time they delivered their messages.

I suspect that in addition to these things, the people to whom the messages were sent could tell that the message was real because it rang true in their consciences. Typically, when God tells people to do something (as opposed to warning them about their sin), he adds a miracle as a "signature." (Is 38:8)


Whose morals are being referenced by NT authors in the expression "sexual immorality"?

The most word used is "porneia" (πορνεία), and according to Strong's means "illicit sexual intercourse" - particularly fornication, or sexual intercourse outside marriage. This of course is the real point here - Paul isn't slamming sexual desire and intercourse as a bad thing - look at Song of Solomon. What he is warning against is sex in the absence of the covenant and institution God anointed to accompany it.

This leads into the more general entry in Strong's - "idolatry" - because that's what it is - it's taking something without taking it how God intended it.

So to the question of "whose" morals - it's quite clearly God's morality - the only morality that matters. Hopefully, that lines up with the body of the church - but it needn't and often doesn't align with the morals of society. Romans 1 clearly condemns homosexuality despite the fact that it was rampant and accepted in the culture.

The point is, "sexual immorality" is not a relative term. A lust-ridden man can't justify his pornographic addiction because according to his terms, "sexual immorality" is "actual" sex. It's on God's terms. Always.


Why do the Jews in the OT in Joshua, Kings, Chronicles always list their war spoils after each battle?

Just going for the obvious answer here, but even if you do attack someone just for being evil, and you end up killing them, they've left a lot of stuff behind that they don't have any use for anymore.

Also, particularly in the early years of Israel, these spoils were not used for personal enrichment, but for providing for the Tabernacle and funding the Lord's work, and the Lord took that pretty seriously. See Joshua chapter 7, which takes place immediately after the battle of Jericho, for an example of what happened when someone broke the commandment to bring the spoils to the house of the Lord.


What is the biblical basis for all people meeting God when they die?

The short answer (from the Bible) is that after a person dies, they await the resurrection when they will face judgment.  Nobody is excused.

  Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:27–28)

There are two resurrections, of the righteous and the unrighteous.  That covers everybody.  We are judged on what we did while we were alive:

  And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. (Revelation 20:12)

The writer of the book of Ecclesiastes summed up the meaning of life this way:

  For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:14)

There is no biblical basis for thinking Saint Peter is standing at the gates of heaven to either allow or deny access.  It's a charming thought, but not quite right!


Is voluntary passibility consistent with an essentially impassible God?

This short 2015 First Things magazine article The Impassible God of the Bible - Replying to Some Objections mentions one potential objection to the passibility of God.

Concluding paragraph:

  Put positively, because the Christian God is radically transcendent (which “impassibility” gestures toward), therefore God can take human nature to himself without displacing it or destroying it. And because the transcendent God has taken human nature to himself, the suffering which God undergoes in that nature is redemptive, rather than simply passive victimhood and solidarity with us. Because it is God who suffers in Christ, that suffering is not simply the suffering a fellow-sufferer who understands but is instead the suffering of One who is able to end all suffering by overcoming it in resurrection and ascension and immortality. Paradoxically, perhaps, it is only by affirming impassibility that we can maintain the deepest soteriological import of the suffering God takes on himself in and through the Incarnation.

The paragraph can be read as a potential objection to God's passibility, even at the most obvious example where God is passible (the suffering of Christ for us), by saying that merely suffering together is not sufficient to be redemptive.

Using an analogy of God as an ideal psychoanalyst / counselor, God is willing to journey together with our suffering: cry together with us, angry with others who harm us, understand our pain, etc.  But if the counselor is so overcome with our suffering that he/she becomes incapacitated with sadness / anger / hopelessness, how can the counselor help us?

Therefore, when the counselor is out of the counseling session, the counselor needs to be "impassible" when reviewing his notes about us.  He/she needs to be able 1) to see our blind spots (which is not possible if the counselor cannot "get out" of our situation) and 2) to suggest avenues for healing.

In the same way, God, while being impassible, can still identify with our suffering.  I think the doctrine of impassibility of God properly understood still allows for this, and thus passages in Scripture where God is portrayed as angry, pained, compassionate, etc. can coexist with His impassibility.  One way is to go with this writer's approach by "reflecting deeper on the doctrine of God and the Trinity as well as Christology."


Does the Bible say anything about a Conscious and Unconscious Mind?

2 Peter 2:12 talks about unrighteous men who indulge the flesh. The verse describes them as "creatures of instinct" and "unreasoning animals".

It seems significant that they are described as being moved by "instinct" rather than "reason".

This seems to indicate that it is error to be led by the "unconscious mind" at the expense of the "conscious mind".

I'm not sure "walking" should be classified as "unconscious", though; indeed, if it were, you may walk into traffic without thinking, as a sleep-walker might. ;p


Why are the White Cliffs of chalk not taken out by the Flood?

Who says they weren't?

The famous cliffs of Dover looked very different thousands of years ago. Prior to the flood, during the time of Doggerland, there weren't any cliffs there at all, just rolling hills. It wasn't until the sea levels rose around 6,500–6,200 BC that the UK was cut off from the mainland and the water started eroding the hillside. The flood occurred ~4,000 BC, so the cliffs would have been relatively new still since the sea levels rose. We've seen far more erosion since the flood. The cliffs historically have eroded at a rate of about 1-2 inches per year, by that figure we can assume the cliffs may have extended up to half a kilometer further into the ocean at the time of the flood. The rate of erosion has since sped up, the cliffs are eroding at a rate of almost 12 inches a year now. Mass wasting events continue to occur on the cliffs, the most recent being in 2012 (see photo below).  Most undoubtedly the flood would have caused significant mass wasting events at the time, particularly after the flood waters would have receded, but there have been a few thousand years of waves beating against the shore since then to cut the cliffs back again. It won't be too long before the pile from the event shown below gets cleaned up by the waves, and the cliff looks like itself again.

The cliffs of Dover continue to be taken out by the sea year after year:


No, it is not correct to entertain this belief, as demonstrated by a few specific instructions issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In fact, their letter Declaratio de associationibus massonicis ("Declaration on Masonic Associations") was published in 1983 as a response to exactly this question.

It appears that the decision not to list the Masonic associations in the new Code was an editorial decision. Apparently the editors decided that if they listed specific groups, they might create the mistaken impression that only the groups in the list were forbidden. Instead, they decided to describe the groups more generally.

Here is the text of the (authorized English translation of the) letter:

  DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS

  It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.

  This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.

  Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

  It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981).

  In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation.

  Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983.

  Joseph Card. RATZINGER
  Prefect


Why does the (N)KJV put Jesus' name in all caps in Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31?

I'm pretty sure this is just a typesetting decision---more akin to using quotation marks.
For example, when the Gospels say what was written on the sign above Jesus' cross, they tend to typeset the message in all caps:

And the superscription of His accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mk 15:26
And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. - Lk 23:38
And set up over His head His accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS - Mt 27:37
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. -Jn 19:19-20

On the other hand, an identical construction occurs only a few verses before the Lk passage for John:

But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. - Lk 1:13

One other thing to consider, since Jesus' name is Semitic---and in Mark's case its meaning has bearing on the story ("for he will save his people from their sins")---it may be because it was in a different language (though of course, still written in the Greek script). The difficulty here is that the KJV doesn't capitalize transliteration elsewhere.


You'll notice in the second picture (the OP posted) the man does not have his arms folded, and I'll restate the comment that other forms of prayer (clasped hands, or clasping hands with others in a circle) are not discouraged as long as the person is reverent. (see other LDS pictures) 1

  Why do LDS cross their arms during prayer?

They are taught in primary how to get ready to pray by folding your arms, bowing your head, and closing your eyes.

There is no official reasoning that I can see other than that with folded arms children can not be as disruptive/un-revenant during prayer. When missionaries teach how to pray there is no mention of what the hands/arms do, leading me to the assumption that it doesn't matter as much as the prayer itself. 2

  What is the origin of this practice?

There are legends that the pretzel was invented by European monks in 610 AD as a reward to children who learn their prayers. He calls the strips of baked dough, folded to resemble arms crossing the chest, 'pretiola' ("little reward[s]")... Moreover, the three holes within the pretzel represent the three persons of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 3

Also, see this Q&A.

  Why did the LDS church choose to deviate from the practice of folding hands and what was the purpose behind this change?

See first statement and first answer.

1 https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/christ-praying-nephites-henninger-art-37745?category=category/book-of-mormon-all-gospel-art&&lang=eng, https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/family-kneeling-prayer-889739?lang=eng, https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/quote-andersen-prayer-1173305?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng#p146

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretzel#History note there are no primary sources for this legend


How old was Moses when he parted the Red Sea and how old was he when he wrote the ten commandments

According to the Bible, in Exodus 7:7 it states:

  And Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three years old when
  they spoke to Pharaoh.

Therefore, Moses was at least 80 years old at the red Sea and at Sinai when he received the 10 Commandments from the LORD. To be a bit more specific, it took about 2 months to reach Sinai, but they spent 2 years at Sinai according to Numbers 10:11:

  Now it came to pass on the twentieth day of the second month, in the
  second year, that the cloud was taken up from above the tabernacle of
  the Testimony.

So Moses was 80 or 81 years of age when he reached Sinai and 82 to 83 years of age when they left.


In the comment right above yours in the referenced question, What is the biblical basis for dual-covenant theology? (I'm sorry I can't link because I don't have enough rep and I need to save them for references below), the author answers the first part of your question and his references in that question apply as well.

"Also bear in mind that proponents of DCT rarely refer to it as "dual covenant theology" themselves, it is mostly used as a pejorative by opponents of this school of thought. Another term often used is the German word Sonderweg, so I suggest you also use that as a search term. DCT is the standard position of denominations of traditional Judaism (eg, Conservative, Modern Orthodox, Haredi, Hasidic, etc), and is popular among some segments of Liberal Protestantism and Messianic Jewish movements. – Meir Illumination Aug 15 '15 at 5:34"

I have also noticed some "liberal" Baptist preachers that I mention below.

For the second part as to who specifically in Christian faiths espoused DCT, it seems to be a dirty term because none of the pastors will admit to believing in DCT when asked directly, but the teaching speaks a different story.

Pastor Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and John Hagee are just three prominent names.  Many many more are listedoing in an article here. http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Falwell-Jews-can-get-to-heaven and here https://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/pat-robertson-dual-covenant-theology-heretic/ (again I apologize I can only provide two links because of my low rep so I can't expound much farther without being in danger of making statements without enough reference quotes)


Who do Catholics say the Mary in Matthew 27:56 is?

Different Mary, although James and Joseph were considered especially close to Jesus. They were called "brothers of Jesus" in the same vein as the word "brother" is used figuratively today: a bond of friendship close to that of family.
On Mary's perpetual virginity, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (emphasis mine):

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."


In which Christian groups is "prosperity theology" derogatory?

I'm sure there are several denominations that do not believe in a Prosperity Theology. I can speak from a Baptist perspective. The primary reason to disagree is the idea of following a prescribed set of rules leads to automatic financial blessing from God. I have heard this described as a "vending machine" concept of God - if I put certain things in, God will give me other things in return.

But God works his will, not ours. If our will is in alignment with His, then we are in the best place we can be, but that is not a guarantee of any particular type of blessing. The only blessing that can be guaranteed is salvation to those who believe.

Many of the patriarchs were wealthy, but many of the disciples were not. Are we to believe that they were unfaithful?