Lutheranism, Has God ordained all things?

In my study, I have noticed a heavy Calvinist influence on Lutheranism. In fact, Lutheranism is basically medieval Catholicism, which stresses that the sovereignty of God is absolute over all that is. Guess what? That is the exact first point to Calvinism.

Calvinism logically explorers the idea that the sovereignty of God is absolute. The result is basically this:
God has all power over all things, therefore, whatever happens God either
1) Let it happen, but it was the doing of a freewill being or reality separated from Him by sin (eg earth)
2) Stopped it from happening
3) Made it happen entirely.

Because of this logic, if you claim that God has absolute sovereignty over all that is, you must also claim that all that happens is ordained by God. Most Christian denominations will claim this, but quite a few do quietly, so as not to disturb the complacency of the congregation. Lutheranism is more vocal about it, but like most, has become quieter and quieter over the last century and a half.

As for the problem where you might find a paradox, where God is not the author of sin yet he ordains it by this logic is called antimony, which is actually not a paradox. A paradox is manufactured where an antimony is an observation of two facts, although logically derived in this case, that are seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable. Basically, the Calvinist, and subsequently the Lutheran, is willing to admit this seeming contradiction, but is not willing to abandon the entire theology because it starts with "The sovereignty of God is absolute and over all that is," because it is too well supported in the Scripture.


What is the eugenic "indication" in Casti Connubii?

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J., might have been that encyclical's ghostwriter. He describes the "eugenic indication" in his catechism on that encyclical, What is Marriage? p. 47:

What are some of the opinions that are current on the subject of feticide and abortion?[…] A eugenic reason [or "determining reason" to "allow feticide"] is to prevent the birth of children who would be monstrous or idiotic.

Also, pp. 51-2:

Is eugenic science then to be reprobated?[…] On March 21 of this year (1931) the Holy Office, with the approval of the Holy Father, declared that we must absolutely reject and hold as false and condemned by the Encyclical "Casti Connubii" of December 31, 1930, the so-called "eugenic" doctrine, as well "positive" eugenics as "negative," together with the means which it indicates for the improvement of the human race, by neglecting the laws of nature, of God, or of the Church, concerning marriage and the rights of individuals. [AAS 32 p. 118]


Does the theology of Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses admit that God was at one point ἄλογος?

If I’m understanding you correctly, this is your central claim:

  If God’s λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means “without reason, logic; irrational; illogical.”

Er, no. It doesn’t quite work like that. Here’s Witness theology, as I recall it.

God is God. Immutable. Unchanging. “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.” Malachi 3:6.

The Λόγος is a separate being (better known to us as Jesus, but bearing many other names besides, including Michael). The word is not, in this context, describing a quality of God, or an aspect of his nature. It’s a name. A person’s name. No doubt it’s a meaningful name, and the person so described is wise, but that does not mean that others lack wisdom, discernment, and rationality. Notably, God himself possesses all those qualities. And always has done.

  How do Arians and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses respond when it is said that their God was without reason, irrational, and illogical?

I don’t know. I’ve never heard it said before. As far as I’m aware, this question is unique to you. You’ve come up with a novel approach.

I must say that the concept of an irrational God becoming rational would be a rather artistically pleasing element to a creation myth, but it does not form part of Witness theology.


Google calendar for catholic holdiays/holy days of obligation?

Questions:

Of what denomination/s and region/s is this above calendar?

Is there some kind of catholic google calendar that covers all regions? Or at least a list of google calendar links for each region (eg the philippines, hong kong, united states, argentina, etc) ? Hopefully, it includes all the holy days of obligation for all regions.

I'm talking about Roman Catholic(ism).

1.) Of what region is this above calendar?
The liturgical calendar you linked to is what the Church calls a particular liturgical calendar for England. That much is obvious.
2.) Is there some kind of catholic google calendar that covers all regions?
Oh how I hate to use Wikipedia as a unique source of information, but the question is so vast liturgically speaking, that this is the only source with the vast information necessary. The article on the General Roman Calendar
The article gives the entire General Roman Calendar as well as particular liturgical calendars of the main religious orders as well as all local national liturgical calendars.

General Roman Calendar
For historical forms of the General Roman Calendar, see Tridentine Calendar, General Roman Calendar of 1954, General Roman Calendar of Pope Pius XII, General Roman Calendar of 1960, and General Roman Calendar of 1969.
The General Roman Calendar is the liturgical calendar that indicates the dates of celebrations of saints and mysteries of the Lord (Jesus Christ) in the Roman Rite, wherever this liturgical rite is in use. These celebrations are a fixed annual date; or occur on a particular day of the week (examples are the Baptism of the Lord in January and the Feast of Christ the King in November); or relate to the date of Easter (examples are the celebrations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary). National and diocesan liturgical calendars, including that of the diocese of Rome itself as well as the calendars of religious institutes and even of continents, add other saints and mysteries or transfer the celebration of a particular saint or mystery from the date assigned in the General Calendar to another date.
Particular calendars
The General Calendar is printed, for instance, in the Roman Missal6 and the Liturgy of the Hours.7 These are up to date when printed, but additional feasts may be added later. For that reason, if those celebrating the liturgy have not inserted into the books a note about the changes, they must consult the current annual publication, known as the "Ordo", for their country or religious congregation. These annual publications, like those that, disregarding the feasts that are obligatory in the actual church where the liturgy is celebrated, list only celebrations included in the General Calendar,8 are useful only for the current year, since they omit celebrations impeded because of falling on a Sunday or during periods such as Holy Week and the Octave of Easter.
The feast days of saints celebrated in one country are not necessarily celebrated everywhere. For example, a diocese or a country may celebrate the feast day of a saint of special importance there (e.g., St. Patrick in Ireland, Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in the United States). Likewise, a particular religious institute may celebrate its founder or members of the institute, even if that saint is not listed on the universal calendar or is included in it only with a lower rank. The General Roman Calendar contains only those celebrations that are intended to be observed in the Roman Rite in every country of the world.
This distinction is in application of the decision of the Second Vatican Council: "Lest the feasts of the saints should take precedence over the feasts which commemorate the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or family of religious; only those should be extended to the universal Church which commemorate saints who are truly of universal importance."

Simply scroll down to find the General Calendar of the Roman Rite. Further down you able to see all the Congregational Calendars (Each institute of consecrated life (religious institute or secular institute) also has its own calendar, with variations from the General Calendar). Continue further and you can read all the National Calendars and finally     Local calendars.
Eastern Rite Catholics have their own liturgical calendars and must found elsewhere as their calendars differ vastly when compared to the Roman Rite and even between themselves.
Here follows some examples of Eastern Rite Catholic Calendars:
Liturgical Calendar of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg, Canada
Maronite Catholic Lectionary


What exactly did Pope Gregory the Great mean by "Universal Bishop?"

In your question it would be very helpful to have a citation as to where in the writings of Gregory the quote is from. I followed the link provided and there is no citation there for the quote either. As a matter of fact, you can google the first sentence of the quote and find a few websites that also have the quote but leave it uncited. Knowing its context is crucial to understanding what it is saying. As a note of caution, taking Papal quotations out of context seems to be a cottage industry on the web.

The quote and its full context can be found here: Gregory to Mauricius Augustus | Book VII, Letter 33 | New Advent.

And an explanation of what Gregory was addressing can be found here:
Quick Questions (1992) | New Advent.

What follows below is taken from the New Advent article.

  "What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal
  Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who
  proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in
  588. Gregory condemned the patriarch's act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope. . . Predictably,
  anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of
  these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these
  statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the
  Bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops."

The two contexts are not in contradiction when they are properly understood.

Secondly, the second quote comes from a Church Council. Church Councils can produce dogmatic teaching. What is written by Popes can sometimes be considered Church teaching, but not dogmatic teaching. What is written in letters by Popes is not something that could not change. As to the status of what is quoted by Gregory, it seems to me that Gregory it not really trying to make a Church teaching, but is telling a particular person what he thinks.


What languages were used during Mass from paleo-Christianty until the Council of Trent?

In the earliest centuries of the Church, there wasn't a pattern of using liturgical languages, as much as trade languages.

In the East, Greek was predominantly used because whereas it was the first language of few people, it was a second language for many people. It's use could symbolize the internationality of the Church, but more practically, it made it possible for as many people as possible to follow along, if not understand every word. Interestingly enough, Greek predominated in Rome itself, because its heavily international population didn't all speak Latin. By contrast, in North Africa, Latin seems to have been the predominant language almost immediately. Outside of Egypt, Latin was the language of international affairs in North Africa because of its extensive colonization and coordination by Roman authorities. This was also the case in Spain, Britain, and non-Mediterranean France, other regions little influenced by the Greeks. When it was evangelized, Ireland experienced the Mass in Latin. (Nickerson, Jane Soames. A Short History of North Africa. New York: The Devin-Adair Co., 1961, p30.)

In the ninth century, permission was given by the Church to translate the Mass and related texts (such as the scripture) into what is now called Old Church Slavonic. At the time, it was a dated but not quite defunct legal and ceremonial language used in Slavic regions, essentially a mother language to the languages they were speaking at the time. The idea was the same - a single liturgical language for a broad swath of country and for many nations, not exactly native to any of them, but not entirely foreign, either. (Korolevsky, Cyril. Living Languages in Catholic Worship: An Historical Inquiry, trans. Donald Attwater. Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1957, p3.)

Additionally, Franciscan missionaries to the Mongols were given permission to translate the liturgical rites and the sacred scripture into their language in the 13th or 14th century, provided that the most noble and poetic version of the language be used. In like manner, Jesuits were given permission to translate the same materials into Chinese (Mandarin, I think) in the 16th-17th century, but because of the cultural climate in Europe at the time, they never actually made use of these permissions.

So long answer shortened: Latin was in use in the early Church but, ironically enough, not in the region of Latin's origin. The Church's primary concern was not exactly just that the Mass should be accessible. She was also concerned that the Mass should be transnational.

If you're wondering, while in the seminary, I wrote a paper on topic of liturgical and vernacular language in pre-Christian and Christian worship. My thesis is that the Church has always wanted both accessibility and transcendence in the worship of a God who transcends and makes himself accessible. (Here's a dropbox link. It doesn't seem like a very good way to share the file, but I don't think there's a place to upload or attach PDFs here: Vernacular and Liturgical Language in the Mass


Has ever a lunatic locked up in a insane asylum/psych ward converted to Christianity after having their soundness of mind miraculously restored?

After some searching, I managed to find some relatively recent anecdotes. As a disclaimer, I want to make clear right away that I'm not aware of any medical records or other kinds of supportive evidence for these testimonies. I'm just sharing what these individuals claim to have experienced, and each one is free to either take their word for it or remain skeptic.
1) God Helped Me Escape Insane Asylum! | Gary Whetstone
Very briefly, the story goes as follows: Gary was a successful and high-achieving student up until ninth grade, where he had a terrible car accident that severely impaired his physical health and destroyed all his sport-related dreams. He turned to drugs and hanging out with drug addict friends as an escape, his mental health heavily deteriorated, he began to hear voices and eventually broke into a house and tried to assault a woman and her husband. He was sent to an insane asylum, got locked up in an isolation ward, was about to be subjected to an experimental lobotomy type surgery that had always resulted in the patient's death, when suddenly a pastor visited him, prayed for him, the power of God fell over him, he totally recovered his mental sanity, and God's voice even guided him out of the isolation ward and the mental institution (sort of like Paul leaving the jail). There are many more details, and I highly encourage the reader to watch the full testimony.
2) Anointed Candy Bar Deliverance Case – R W Schambach
The video's description has a very eloquent summary:

Testimony starts at 2 min mark on the video. Anointed candy bar delivers woman who had been in an insane asylum for 30 years.
Acts 19:11-12 states:
“ And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.”

3) Insane Asylum (True Story)- B.H. Clendennen
Summary: a 76 year old woman approached Bertrand H. Clendennen and told him that God had told her that he was the one to pray for his husband to get healed. The catch: her husband had been in an insane asylum for years, with severe loss of memory (probably Alzheimer), couldn't even sit down on his own, etc. Bertrand visited the man, prayed for him and left. Very soon they received a phone call with the news: the 76 year old woman's husband was completely healed and on his way to meet them (the man had been released from the insane asylum).


Was Constantine The Great a Nicene Christian?

This answer is based on the following 3 resources I found:

A 2015 article Was Constantine the Great Baptized An Arian?
A 2012 paper The Spread Out of Arianism.  A Critical Analysis of the Arian Heresy published in the International Journal of Orthodox Theology
A 2005 article How Arianism Almost Won by Christopher A. Hall published in Christian History Issue #85

There was quite an upheaval between the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantine's baptism shortly before his death (AD 337) by an Arian sympathizer bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. But although Eusebius tried to bring back Arianism, he DID sign the creed, making him an Orthodox bishop.  Initially after Nicaea Constantine was strongly opposed to Arianism, ordering Arius's works to be burned.  But,

  [w]ithin ten years of the Council of Nicaea, though, Constantine became convinced that Arius’s ideas fell within the pale of orthodoxy, though the exact details of Arius’s position — at least as represented to the emperor in the years following Nicaea — remain somewhat murky.   What is clear, though, is that neither Constantine nor later sons such as Constans and Constantius were skilled biblical interpreters or theologians. These Roman emperors were more concemed to preserve the unity of the church than to engage in prolonged debates over what to them often seemed theological nitpicking. [...skipped...] Both Arius and Athanasius experienced Constantine’s displeasure. It was Constantine who in A.D. 335 ordered the first of Athanasius’s five exiles—the same year Arius regained the favor of the Roman emperor.  [from "How Arianism Almost Won"]

The resurgence of Arianism was fought in earnest only after Constantine's death, but then suffered a definitive defeat at the Council of Constantinople 56 years after Nicaea.

Therefore, it appears that since Constantine was not a theologian, he was under the impression that he believed the orthodox faith.

  ... as far as Constantine knew, Eusebius repented of his error in his letter and he was restored to his See and gained the favor of Constantine precisely because he was Orthodox. And it was from this canonical bishop of the Orthodox Church, Eusebius of Nicomedia, that Constantine received Holy Baptism, fully in canonical communion with the Church. Consequently, there is no hesitation on the part of the Orthodox Church, which takes the entire historical data into account, that Constantine the Great was baptized as an Orthodox Christian by an Orthodox bishop.  [from "Was Constantine the Great Baptized an Arian"]


What is a "human act" in Catholic moral theology?

Human acts
Prümmer, O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology pp. 7-8:

9. Three definitions which do not differ essentially from each other are usually given: a human act is one which proceeds from the deliberate will of man; or, an act which proceeds from the knowledge of the intellect and the impulse of the will; or, an act of which man himself is the master.
Therefore the following acts are not human:

Acts which proceed from the vegetative faculty in man, such as nutrition, the pulse of the heart, etc. For man is not the master of such acts, since they do not proceed from his intellect and will.

Acts elicited by those who are completely mad, by drunkards, by children without the use of their reason, by those under hypnotic influence. Such acts are not directed by a deliberate will.

The so-called "actus primo-primi" which occur so quickly that they precede the use of the reason and will, such as those sudden feelings of anger which arise from an unexpected insult. On the other hand those acts which are called "secundo-primi" and "secundo-secundi" are human acts, although the former are not so perfect as the latter through lack of complete attention.

Forced acts which are performed under the influence of external violence. Man is not the master of such acts.

Full consent & mortal sin
ibid. p. 69:

Three conditions must be verified for mortal sin:

There must be grave matter which is determined by the object and circumstances of the act (or omission) and which is made known to us as such in the first place through the teaching authority of the Church and her theologians. There are some sins which do not admit of slight matter and these are mortal sins "ex toto genere suo" (v.g., lust, blasphemy, etc.); in other sins the matter is not always grave (v.g., in theft, or fasting), and thus the sin may be venial. These are mortal sins "ex genere suo".
Full advertence to the moral nature of the act is required. Therefore where such advertence is defective, sins are always venial (or there may be no sin at all) because of the act's imperfection.
Full consent is also necessary, and this is always presumed to be present where there is full advertence and no external violence. Therefore fear and passion certainly diminish consent but do not destroy it, and they do not prevent mortal sin unless full advertence is lacking.

In practice there is often reasonable doubt whether all these three conditions were verified or not in a particular case. In such instances, if the confessor fails to reach a conclusion after prudent enquiry he must leave the matter to God's judgement but warn the penitent against future dangers of sinning. If the penitent is in doubt about one or other of the requisite conditions he should candidly reveal his doubts to the confessor and submit to his judgement.
In the following instances advertence and consent are imperfect:1. when an act is committed while half asleep or half drunk;
2. when the penitent is not in complete possession of himself, v.g., because of a sudden and most vehement surge of passion;
3. when a person is suffering from pathological states or feelings, e.g., hysteria, mania, phobia;
4. when the penitent can truthfully and certainly assert that he would never have acted in that way if he had thought about it seriously beforehand;
5. when the penitent in the face of temptation is immediately agitated and sorry because of the devout state of his conscience.


What is the difference between icons and idols in churches that permit icons?

Why do churches like the Catholic Church permit icons when idolatry is forbidden?
The simple answer is that they do not consider all images to be idols (just think of photographs), and believe that members of the Church are able to distinguish between a work of art and God without the need for direct enforcement: after all, Catholics believe that the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us, and still dwells among us in the form of the Blessed Eucharist, literally God present before us, as He was present before Thomas, who doubted.
Some possible definitions:

An idol is something worshipped as divine under the mistaken belief that it contains something divine or is itself God.
An icon is an image that reminds us of good people and events, sometimes viewed during prayer. Some particular images have sentimental value within a culture, and a rich history.

(Some people worship false gods using icons or images. This is idolatry not because they use icons or images, but because give worship to something in place of God.)
Idolatry is an especially internal sin, so the words of Matthew 7:1 are especially pertinent. If someone starts yelling "this is our god", then perhaps we would have good reason to believe that idolatry is being committed. Compared to the typical Catholic who merely looks at something religious to inspire prayer and worship to God.
The objections to using images seem to be:

that creating an image of God would be sacrilegious or spiritually improper. There are stories of native tribes that thought photographs stole a person's soul. Tales about vampires present them as having no reflection in a mirror, and as being invisible in pictures. Such views are not of God. They suggest that Jesus was not fully human, and that physical objects can even in principle be used to "trap" the divine. It is sinful and idolatrous to believe that a physical object has this sort of spiritual effect on God.

that it is confusing to humans to imagine God so closely tied to the world around us. But Jesus became true man, and was described as being very human in almost everything He did. Furthermore, the Bible depicts God as wrestling with Jacob in Genesis 32.

that images in particular are "disrespectful". There is no biblical basis for this point. Humans tell stories and draw pictures. These activities can be directed towards the praise of God, and it seems incoherent to suggest that communicating something through writing featuring God is fine, while images featuring God have something wrong with them (the only basis I can see for such a view is what I describe very negatively in point #1).

that there is something wrong with giving any attention to the "physical" world during worship. But this is absurd, because God made the world, and said that it was good. We believe in the resurrection of the body, and the body is "physical" in this way: it is a temple of God. We don't worship our own bodies because of that, but we do believe that physical things are in fact good and can be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.

that if the images remind us too much of other people, we will then turn attention away from God. But the whole of Hebrews 11 is a remembrance of good people. We must put God first, but we must also keep a second place open for people (both living and dead). The Bible on the subject of giving attention to other people:

Matthew 22:37-40
37
He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

This is a Catholic perspective from a very devout Catholic.


What's the difference between pastor, parochial administrator and parochial vicar in the Catholic Church?

A pastor is a priest with primary responsibility of the cure of souls over a parish (Canon 519)

A parochial vicar (Canon 545) assists the pastor in carrying out those duties, most often due to the size of the parish, but Canon Law also allows appointing a parochial vicar over a portion of the parish (for example a group within the parish which speaks a different language). A vicar is one who exercises authority on behalf of someone else (in this case, the pastor, which is known in Latin as the parochus).

Canon 539 requires the bishop to appoint a parochial administrator when the office of pastor is vacant and outlines the rights/obligations of the administrator (Which are somewhat more restricted than the pastor).

Canon Law on Pastors, Parishes and Parochial Vicars

Looking at the example given, before we have two priests jointly administrating two parishes with Fr. Mario VanVleck as Pastor and Fr. Zack Nelson assisting as parochial vicar. Afterwards, Fr. Mario VanVleck remains as pastor over the one parish but Fr. Zack Nelson becomes administrator over the other. Effectively, this means there are now two parishes separately administered each by one priest. At least for the time being, Fr. Zack Nelson's responsibilities are somewhat restricted and may be intended to be temporary.

It's quite possible that Fr. Zack Nelson was made administrator as a stepping stone to being pastor. He is quite likely a younger/newer priest and so the bishop is ensuring he has sufficient experience and is capable before appointing him as pastor.


What is the significance of the name "Jesus"?

Yeshoua (Joshua / Jesus) means "Jehovah Saves".

I'd say, that's a pretty good description of what he came to do - he came "to seek and save the lost."


What did Jonathan Edwards have to say about the fact that he owned slaves?

No, he did not address the issue of slavery in any published works.

We know this because of a recently published paper revealing an unpublished draft letter by Edwards that does deal with slavery. It is described by the paper author thus:

  It is the only known instance of Edwards writing, however abstrusely, about slavery. Also it discloses differing views on slavery at the local level, divided along lay-clerical lines.

Because of Edwards' letter writing process it is very difficult to determine his meaning from his drafts - for example lines through some passage might be deletions, or might indicate that they have been used in the final version. No copy of the sent letter exists.


Can a priest make disclosure of sin a part of penance?

Response: Yes and no, but generally no as part of the penance itself.

Let me explain.

Several things must be looked at here. A confessor can impose such a penance but there is always a caveat.

  Should Abusers Be Encouraged To Report Themselves?

  A priest who confesses sexual abuse in the sacrament of penance should be absolved and should generally not be encouraged by the confessor to disclose his acts publicly or to his superiors, a Vatican official said.

  Likewise, the confessor should not make the contents of such a confession public, said Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican court that handles issues related to the sacrament of penance. . . .

  When a priest confesses such acts, “the confession can only have absolution as a consequence,” he said.

It is true that Canon Law states that a confessor must impose a salutary penance:

  Can. 981 The confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.

Penancing an offender to turning himself could certainly would be a salutary penance for someone who breaks a civil law, but it also poses some problems for the confessor in the confessional. Rome is very serious about the integrity of the seal, and to keep anybody from even thinking about ways to circumvent it, the Code of Canon Law bluntly states:

  Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

  §2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

  Can.  984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

  §2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Although a confessor can not betray the seal of confession even in it's penance, it seems the most the confessor would be able to do would be to implore, encourage, urge, etc., the penitent to self-incriminate, either before Church or civil authorities.

There is still room for debate on this issue.


Should a Christian read books known to be heretical / blasphemous / against Christianity?

I'd give a similar answer to this question as I did the other one, except that having read some of these books already, I doubt I could read them now without being nauseated by what I'm reading.

There are certain things that, once you read them, you can't get them out of your head.  (pornography, for example).  I've read some very anti-Christian books and articles (in print and on the web) that sound very good on the surface.  (So again, the same caution I gave in the answer on that question applies.)

That said, some of the books on your list are full of the type of information we need to be armed against.  God calls each of us into a different ministry.  I tend to come across people of a certain mindset - atheists, agnostics, people who have serious and real objections to the very core concepts of Christianity.  In order to talk to these people and reach out to them, it is absolutely essential that I know where they are coming from.  Others (my Pastor, for example) would argue that this stuff isn't important because he tends to run across people who are open and seeking God, rather than those who oppose Him.  He'd probably tell you not to even look at this stuff, and to concentrate on the Word instead.  I guess if I knew less atheists, I might agree.

I just keep going back to the fact that if I hadn't been influenced by people who were educated and prepared for someone like me, I might not have ever been saved.

A while back, I blogged about a book I'd read called "10 Books that Screwed Up the World".  It contains several books not on your list that should be.  I think that if you are one of the people that God has called to reach those that have been corrupted by these teachings, then not only is reading these books OK, it is, in some ways, necessary.

The point is this:  You can't fight the enemy if you don't know the enemy.  the enemy is not the people who hold these beliefs, they are the beliefs themselves.  You can't hope to make a case against an idea if you don't understand the idea.

However, if you're reading these books because you simply enjoy them, I guess I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for doing so, but I know that I, personally, wouldn't be able to do it.  Walking with the Lord means being in agreement with Him, and obviously, you can't be in agreement with Him if you're in agreement with those who stand against him.

One final point that should really be a separate answer

Back to my statement about being nauseated. I figured out how to verbalize it:  I love God, and to read materials that purposely distort Him and cast Him in a negative light make me furious.  I would be just as furious if someone wrote a pornographic story about my wife or children.  It's offensive.  That's why I'd have a hard time reading these books, even if it does help me to be better prepared.


There is no list of items that "must" be blest by a priest (or a deacon), yet we Catholics are used to blessing everything.  There are items that can be required to be blest by a certain person.  The crucifix of St. Benedict is required to be blest by a deacon or priest.  There really isn't a source of which I am aware one can go to to find this kind of answer, but the catechism addresses it more in terms of general principles.  See CCC Chapter 4, Article 1, paragraphs 1667-1679.
In terms of blessing sacramentals, this is the general principle from the catechism:

Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a “blessing,” and to bless. [Cf. Gen 12:2; Lk 6:28; Rom 12:14; 1 Pet 3:9.] Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons). [Cf. SC 79; CIC, can. 1168; De Ben 16, 18.]
CCC 1669

Further, Canon Law states:

The minister of the sacramentals is a cleric who has the requisite power. In accordance with the liturgical books and subject to the judgment of the local Ordinary, certain sacramentals can also be administered by lay people who possess the appropriate qualities.
Canon 1168

The forms of sacramentals described in 1670 is expressed this way, "Among sacramentals blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first."
From this it is clear that liturgical and sacramental blessings require a deacon or priest.  It also implies ordinary Christians can bless outside sacramental and ecclesial (church) life (except in the case of solemn or major exorcism, see 1673).  It would be advisable for a Catholic to consult the parish priest or diocesan bishop concerning this to avoid dangers or going too far with it.


Should those who fall away and return to the church be baptized again? - Overview

"Should they get re-baptized"s off-topic - it's opinion-based. However, here's a sample of what some teach and practice.

In various Churches that I've attended, including Baptist, Evangelical Free, and local community non-denominational Bible Churches, getting baptized again is fairly common.

This is based on the belief that Baptism doesn't save us, but is, instead, an outward sign of obedience to God.

In such denominations, the belief is that being baptized doesn't do anything to save us.  Rather, it's a symbolic, outward profession of our faith, and our rebirth in Christ.

(Reference to back that up at Doing Baptism Baptist Style.)

In cases such as that, it's entirely appropriate to go through another baptism.  Re-committing your life to Christ is perfectly valid, and to go through a ritual that symbolizes this is perfectly OK, but not required.

They don't see it as necessary because to these groups, baptism wasn't necessary in the first place.

As an analogy, to groups that see Baptism from this perspective, it's no different than renewing your wedding vows.

More specific to your question, there are several denominations that address this.  For example, the La Vista Church of Christ has this to say in their article on the topic:

Reading the article makes it apparent that they believe that baptism does have an effect, yet they say that it's appropriate to do a second baptism, and also use the renewing of the vows analogy.

(I'd recommend the full article. This is just the closing paragraph)

  Being baptized is compared to the Old Testament practice of being
  circumcised. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision
  made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,
  by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which
  you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who
  raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:11-12). The very nature of
  circumcision is an act that can be performed only once. Similarly,
  baptism is related to marriage. "Husbands, love your wives, just as
  Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might
  sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that
  He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or
  wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without
  blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27). Marriage is for life. Some renew their
  vows, but that renewal doesn't make the original vow of non-effect or
  say that the couple was any less married prior to the renewal. Renewed
  vows have no true effect on a marriage, but still some people like to
  have the reminder.


Has Pope Francis indicated a position on the use of genetically modified mosquitoes for the control of Zika?

The Holy Father has not, to my knowledge, released a position on the Zika crisis in Brazil; much less on the experimental use of GM mosquitoes to fight it. The Brazilian Bishops' Conference, on the other hand, released a statement (reported in a Brazilian Catholic news site, in Portuguese) on the Zika crisis, mentioning the need to "wage war" on the mosquito.

They have not publicly commented on the GM mosquito plan, but no bishop has spoken out against it, either.

Here is a translation of the note:

  MESSAGE FROM CNBB ON THE FIGHT AGAINST AEDES AEGYPTI

    “so wilt thou recover me, and make me to live.” (Is 38:16b)

  The Pastoral Episcopal Council (CONSEP), from the National Bishops' Conference of Brazil — CNBB, gathered together in Brasília–DF, in the 3rd and 4th days of February 2016, calls upon the whole of the Church in Brazil to continue and intensify her mobilization to combat the mosquito Aedes aegypti, agent for Dengue fever, Zika and Chikungunya virus. With a great collective effort, which involves all sectors of society, we will be able to defeat these diseases that affect, without distinction, the entire Brazilian population.

  The Zika virus deserves special attention due to its probable link to microcephaly, although this has not yet been proven scientifically. The fravity of the situation has caused the World Health Organization to declare the microcephaly and the Zika virus international emergencies. The state of alert, however, must not lead us into panic, as if we were facing an invincible situation, in spite of its extreme gravity. Neither does it justify defending abortion for the microcephaly cases as, unfortunately, is the proposal of certain groups which are organising to take the issue before the Supreme Federal Tribunal in complete disrespect of  the gift of life.

  Let it be guaranteed, urgently, the assistance to those afflicted with these infirmities, particularly to the children who are born with microcephaly and their families. Health, God's gift and everyone's right, must be assured, in the first place, by public administrators. To them falls the implementation of policies which point to a public health system which both is universal and has good quality. In this direction, the Ecumenical Fraternity Campaign for this year contributes a good deal by bringing up the shameful reality of basic sanitation in Brazil. Without an effective national policy for basic sanitation, the whole effort in combatting Aedes aegypti is compromised.

  The commitment of each citizen is also essential to the task of eradicating this evil which defies our institutions. The principle of everything is education and co-responsibility. For that reason, we exhort the leaderships of our ecclesial communities to organise actions which add to the initiatives which intend to put an end to this situation. The actions for which the public sector is responsibe should be demanded and their progress must be accompanied. In celebrations and meetings, may clear and objective orientations be given so as to help people to become conscious of the gravity of the situation and also of the best way to fight these diseases and their agent. With everyone's effort, victory shall not elude us.

  May God, in His infinite mercy, make health spread through all the Earth (cf. Sir 38:8). May Our Lady of Aparecida, mother and patroness of Brazil, help us in our evangelic commitment to promote and defend life.

  Brasília, 4 February 2016

  Dom Sergio da Rocha
  Archbishop of Brasília-DF
  President of CNBB

  Dom Murilo S. R. Krieger
  Archbishop of São Salvador da Bahia-BA
  Vice-presidente of CNBB

  Dom Leonardo Ulrich Steiner
  Auxiliary Bishop of Brasília-DF
  Secretary-General of CNBB


In accordance to LDS doctrine, would Mary & Joseph need to be sealed (by proxy) in the temple?

Mary and Joseph must be sealed by proper authority (a Melchizedek priesthood holder with the authorization to perform the sealing) in order to receive the blessings of the sealing ordinance, including inheriting the highest degree of Celestial glory.  This is true for all of God's children.  I doubt an exception would be made for them.

What we do not know is when Mary and Joseph received this ordinance, if they received it yet at all.  That is not officially part of Mormon doctrine or records as far as I know.  It is possible they were sealed by Jesus and/or the apostles while they were living or had their ordinances performed vicariously under the authority of the apostles after they passed away, but it is not certain.

In essence, they are required to be sealed, but the Church does not claim to have official records of their sealing.  Due to the current policy against performing ordinances for famous persons (as well as the uncertainty you mentioned), it is unlikely this ordinance will be performed in the near future.


Huxley? Agnoticism and Christianity. Both at the same time?

Since I am unsure as to what you preceived from Huxley, I am taking the liberty of inserting the most common concept of agnosticism.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
ag•nos•ti•cism n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual
phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

The idea that there is no actual way of proving either the existance or non existance of God does not fly in the face of Christianity.
Christianity is faith based, or that is to say that:

It is based on believing in things which cannot be authanticated by any of the five senses.

It derives its existance from pure belief that there is a supreme power (God), and that he controls all things, and is able to dictate events and circumstance.

It is a basic precept of Christianity that God sent his son Jesus to be an acceptable sacrifice, which would obliterate our debt of sin.

It is also a basic precept that the Holy Bible is the word of God which he himself inspired the various authors to write, and it is his unadultrated word.

The key word here is faith, if there were physical proof of the existance of God then it would no longer be faith it would be knowledge.
The best definition of faith comes from the Bible itself:
Hebrews 11:1  KJV

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So if God is capable of all things, you might wonder why he doesn't just give proof and be done with it, that way everyone would know and all would be just jim dandy.
Well things would not be just jim dandy:
Genesis 1:27  KJV

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So just what that implies is that man has the same characteristics that God has, and God has a free will, or in other words he can change his mind anytime he want's to; just like a woman does.
So if man has the same characteristics as God man must also have free will. That therefore means that man has within his power the choice to either accept or deny the sovreignty of God.
If there were proof then there would be no choice, because there would be factual backup for God's sovreignty. Could God abolish man's free will? of course he could, but then man would no longer be in the image of God.
Many Christians, and I am one, believe that God will never interfere with man's free will, and so there will never be definitive proof of God's existance. Certainly there is ample proof that the events as described in the Bible are true, but not the existance of a Supreme being.


What do red garments represent for leaders in the Catholic church?

Vestment Color Indicating Liturgical Season

With respect to vestment color, the appropriate document for the Catholic Church is the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which has quite a long section on the color of vestments as part of Chapter VI, "The Requisites For The Celebration Of Mass".

With respect to colors of vestments in general, paragraph 345 states:

  Diversity of color in the sacred vestments has as its purpose to give more effective expression even outwardly whether to the specific character of the mysteries of faith to be celebrated or to a sense of Christian life’s passage through the course of the liturgical year.

As far as wearing red in particular, paragraph 346 gives us:

  As regards the color of sacred vestments, traditional usage should be observed, namely:
  ...
      b. The color red is used on Palm Sunday of the Lord’s Passion and on Friday of Holy Week (Good Friday), on Pentecost Sunday, on celebrations of the Lord’s Passion, on the “birthday” feast days of Apostles and Evangelists, and on celebrations of Martyr Saints.

I can't find what I consider an authoritative description (clearly attributable to Church hierarchy or to official Church teaching) of why red is chosen for those days specifically, although (as you point out) red can indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit through fire (as on Pentecost), or can indicate blood (as in the celebration of Good Friday or of the feasts of martyrs).

The mere fact that red can or could be used to indicate other things does not mean that it is in fact used to mean those things in the Catholic Church, and certainly not that the use of red is thereby any less appropriate.

Cardinals Wearing Red Vestments

I did find a reference in a story from EWTN, which cites a formula the Pope uses when he gives a new cardinal their red biretta (their hat):

  The Pope places the biretta on the cardinal's head and pronounces a formula which includes the following words: "(This is) red as a sign of the dignity of the office of a cardinal, signifying that you are ready to act with fortitude, even to the point of spilling your blood for the increase of the Christian faith, for peace and harmony among the people of God, for freedom and the spread of the Holy Roman Catholic Church".

Again, then, we're back to red as a representation of the (potential, at least hypothetical) spilling of (one's own) blood for the Church.

This is part of the new rite for the creation of cardinals, which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1991. It is reasonable, however, to believe that this interpretation of the color symbolism dates back considerably further than that time - indeed it appears that the word cardinal with the meaning of "a particular shade of bright red", and indeed the name of the bird called "the cardinal", is due to the red vestments used by the cardinals.


If a Pope does something wrong, or less than ideal, who is he representing?

The Pope is not "the face of God": he is "primus inter pares"1 (the first between equals) - he is not "more bishop" than any other bishop, or "more perfect" than any other man. He is a sinner like all of us, but it's wise and the Church (under Holy Spirit's guide) choose him as chief.

He is not infallible (except in some special occasions, but historically it happened only two times) and he often consult other bishops for his decisions

1 "primus inter partes" is not an official title of the Pope (it refers to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, chief of Orthodox church). The official title of the Pope is "Vicar of Christ", but it's only a semantic difference. The Sacrament of Ordination has only 3 steps, and the pope has the "fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders" just like other bishops. Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop and similar are human titles, no related to Sacraments - Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church


If you believe that Messiah Jesus is a human being what logic you have to guess that he could be a God or son of God?

The Christian logic is that God (Allah) incarnated into a baby that was miraculously conceived within Maryam's womb without sexual intercourse, a doctrine called the Virgin Birth.

While being Jesus, God remains the Father simultaneously, so at no point in time God loses any of His divinity nor his greatness.  Obviously it was God's will and His Divine power which made this possible.

Why did He do this?  In order for God (Allah) to save humanity from original sin so all human beings who are willing to make Jesus our Lord and Savior will have eternal life

The logic is:

Only God can fully forgive sin
Only 100% human can be the representative to be in solidarity with humanity

Therefore Jesus has to be fully God and fully Human, a doctrine called the Hypostatic Union.

Addressing the objection:

  By that answer you are decreased the greatness of God (Allah)

In the Christian logic (the doctrine of Trinity), God is still fully God, so there is no reduction of God's greatness by being human.  Jesus as a man, prays to God the Father, who remains fully divine.  It is not like when God incarnated into Jesus there was no God in charge anymore.

  Allah never be similar with human being at all

In the Christian logic, God is the creator of all the universe, including human beings.  Why is it that the Creator cannot assume a human body?  God is Almighty and All powerful.  Islam believes this too.  It is the other way around that is not possible.  No human can become God.  Christians don't believe this is possible.

ADDENDUM

For a much more precise "technical" description of the Incarnation please see the Catholic Catechism on this line from the Nicene Creed: "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary."
Sola Gratia's answer is also very good.


First Occurrence of "Sea of Forgetfulness" in Christian Literature

The first published use of this phrase can be attributed to Cardinal Pole, in a speech given to the English Parliament in 1554, regarding England's return to Roman Catholicism under Queen Mary:

  This I protest before you, my commission is not of prejudice to any person. I come not to destroy, but to build: I come to reconcile, not to condemn: I am not come to compel,
  but to call again: I am not come to call any thing in question already done, but my commission is of grace and clemency, to such as will receive it. For touching all matters that be past, they shall be as things cast into the sea of forgetfulness.

The speech was recorded and published in 1555, but the rise to fame of "sea of forgetfulness" can be attributed to the speech being reprinted in the first edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, published in 1563.

The influence of Foxe's work was huge: it was placed alongside the Bible in many English churches in the 16th century, and was republished in many forms over the following centuries.  As one of the most popular works in the early English-speaking Protestant world, it's not surprising that this phrase would be picked up and used widely.

The original text in Foxe's work can be found in this critical edition.  The critical apparatus notes Foxe's source for the text.

There's also an early 18th century edition, and many cleaned up text versions.  The speech is also recorded in histories of the English parliament.


Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God equips humans today with the gift of prophecy?

No Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that the gift of prophecy is given in our day.

We believe that the gifts given to early Christians served a special purpose in establishing that Gods favor had shifted away from the nation of Israel and was upon the followers of Jesus Christ the Messiah.

However those gifts like healing ,speaking in tongues, prophesying etc came to an end not long after the death of the apostles.  Insight on the Scriptures says

  Gifts of the Spirit. In the first century C.E. miraculous gifts attended the baptism with holy spirit. These served as signs that God was no longer using the Jewish congregation in his service but that his approval rested on the Christian congregation established by his Son. (Heb 2:2-4) On the day of Pentecost, miraculous gifts accompanied the outpouring of the holy spirit, and in each case mentioned thereafter in the Scriptures where the miraculous gifts of the spirit were transmitted, at least one of the 12 apostles or Paul, who was directly chosen by Jesus, was present. (Ac 2:1, 4, 14; 8:9-20; 10:44-46; 19:6) Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those who had received these gifts passed off the earthly scene.


How similar was the resurrected body of Jesus to his physical human body?

Oh man this is a good question!
As always, coming from a Catholic perspective:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about resurrection generally:

What is "rising"? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection.
How? Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself"; but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but Christ "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body," into a "spiritual body" [Documents and Statements of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215]

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel.... What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.... The dead will be raised imperishable.... For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. (1 Cor 15:35-37, 42, 52, 53)

What I get from this is essentially that it's not clear, and it's not going to be clear until it happens, just exactly how Jesus' or any other person's resurrected body works. Of course things like growing tired, getting hungry, and eliminating food waste are natural processes; there's nothing wrong with them (though at least in the case of the last we have privacy restrictions and taboos relating to it). But resurrection gives us a "glorious body", and no one knows how that's going to work.
On the other hand, the older catechism, the Catechism of Pius V, is possibly a bit more definite:

Not only will the body rise, but whatever belongs to the reality of its nature, and adorns and ornaments man will be restored.

This seems to indicate that since these processes "[belong] to the reality of [the body's] nature" now, they will in the future. On the other hand, one of the qualities which this Catechism attributes to the resurrected is

impassibility, which shall place them beyond the reach of suffering anything disagreeable or of being affected by pain or inconvenience of any sort.

That certainly seems to mean that at a minimum there will be no upset stomachs :-) It might also be interpreted to mean that any of these processes that might be considered an "inconvenience" of sorts might also be eliminated.
I looked as well at Aquinas' Summa Theologica; that doesn't really seem to have anything that I could reasonably apply. So that's all I've got.
I'd have to go with the modern Catechism's apparent answer: "We really don't know."


According to Catholicism, can demons force or misguide you into receiving communion?

No one can force you to sin, including demons, because sin requires free consent of the will.

Addressing "Whether the devil is directly the cause of man's sinning?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 80 a. 1 co.), St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

  Sin is an action: so that a thing can be directly the cause of sin, in the same way as anyone is directly the cause of an action; and this can only happen by moving that action's proper principle to act. Now the proper principle of a sinful action is the will, since every sin is voluntary. Consequently nothing can be directly the cause of sin, except that which can move the will to act.

and ibid. q. 3 "Whether the devil can induce man to sin of necessity?" co.:

  The devil, by his own power, unless he be restrained by God, can compel anyone to do an act which, in its genus, is a sin; but he cannot bring about the necessity of sinning.

In other words, he cannot force one to choose to sin. He can, however, make sinning appealing so that one voluntarily chooses to sin.


How does the LDS Church decide what is included in their scriptural canon?

It seems useful to consider the example of D&C Section 138. Section 138 was a revelation from 1918 but not added until 1981. A section from Sperry Symposium Classics: The Doctrine and Covenants from chapter 22 with the heading From Scripture to Canon describes a process which no doubt illustrates the general manner in which the leaders of the Church would undertake to update the 'LDS canon' as others may call it. The pertinent quote is:

  At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of
  the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval
  was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price...

The answer is apparently that all 15 apostles approve such a change, and we can easily assume acting on prior consideration and after seeking inspiration from God.


Why do Catholics observe Eucharist every Sunday?

Do they observe (mass) on other days too?

Yes. Each and every day except on Good Friday and holy Saturday (excluding Easter vigil). And btw Catholics don't observe mass like a show, they participate in it.

Why is Eucharist observed in Catholic parishes every Sunday?

Just to help Catholics attend mass on Sundays. Why on Sunday? Because it is the day of the Resurrection: the new creation.

Are Catholics obligated to attend the mass every Sunday?

Yes they are. To be precise, they have to attend mass on all Holy days of obligation, in which all Sundays of the year are included.


As "New" is a fairly relative term in terms of a religion with a history spanning nearly four thousand years, I will attempt to give an answer by dating the concept of a worship pastor and document the earliest references I was able to locate.

The term "Worship Pastor" appears to be a relatively new term. The Google Books search engine provides a convenient ability to filter based on copyright (publication) date which allows us to search based on year. While Google has indexed several libraries worth of works, it still represents a fraction of English literature ever written. Nonetheless, it is still useful in establishing and trending the rise and fall of certain vernacular in writings and can allow us to establish at least a rough era.

According to this measurement, the actual term "Worship Pastor" does not appear in literature until 1987 in a work titled Exploring Worship: A Practical Guide to Praise & Worship by Bob Sorge. In this Work, Jonathan Stockstill is designated as the Worship Pastor of the Bethany World Prayer Center located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The concept of a worship pastor however, dates much earlier (according to the same measurement). Prior to this timeframe, the worship pastor was typically designated as the Musical Pastor. The concept of music as worship is well established and one need only look at the Psalms to see the connection, so I will not dwell on the point that a music pastor is a kind of worship pastor.

A search on the term "Music Pastor" reveals that this concept dates to the late 1800s with the term first appearing in the 39th volume of Dwight's Journal of Music in 1880.

In an article entitled "Reform of Church Music" attributed to a "Mr. Thayer" he opens by stating

  I cannot forego the opportunity of saying a words about organs and organists. Whether professed Christian or not I believe the organist's first duty is to consider his playing and all his acts in the sanctuary as worship.

Mr. Thayer goes on to state

  These most briefly stated are the organist's duties and responsibilities; and I believe that he should be fully prepared for them before he assumes the office of musical pastor, or attempts to lead others in the service of the sanctuary.

Still later, he says

  The true church organist is a musical pastor who must speak to the hearts of the people, Whoso among us does not feel this, is not yet worthy of his sacred calling.

This tends to indicate that the church organist (who most certainly predated this development by several hundred years, in addition to choral and musical directorship in the church setting) underwent a conversion to a more formal leadership and pastoral role at the end of the 1800s.

Indeed, the second reference I was able to locate of the organist-as-pastor in a paper titled "Church Music" by Albert J Blakesley (the Organist of the Second Congregational Church in Waterbury Connecticut) included with the minutes of the 23rd annual meeting of the General Conference of Congregational churches held at New Haven on June 18th-19th in 1890 supports this conclusion. In this paper, Blakesley states

  A church should no more think of having an unchristian man for an organist than such a man for a pastor and teacher. An organist has been rightly described as "the musical pastor" and the term ought to fit every man who sits at the organ desk in divine service... and he must be a good musician, just as good as can be had; but piety before technique and good taste rather than manual dexterity are the qualities to seek.

Taken together, these references indicate that while the office of Musical Pastor did exist in some locales, it was still relatively uncommon and novel idea. Research indicates that this changed relatively shortly thereafter with references being plentiful after turn of the 20th century.


How widespread is the safe environment program in Catholic Catechetical programs?

I remember having to do something similar when I was hired at a parish in Mill Creek, Washington, US, in 1993. Thus (based purely on anecdotal evidence) in the United States such programs have been around for at least 20 years in at least some dioceses.

The website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has a page on the "Safe Environment" program, and another detailing a document known as the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People".  This document (PDF file) includes "Essential Norms", canon law specifically binding on dioceses in the United States. These Norms do not direct dioceses to have a "safe environment" program; however, the Charter itself, in Article 12, states:

  Dioceses/eparchies are to maintain “safe environment”
  programs which the diocesan/eparchial bishop deems to be
  in accord with Catholic moral principles. They are to be conducted
  cooperatively with parents, civil authorities, educators, and community
  organizations to provide education and training for children,
  youth, parents, ministers, educators, volunteers, and others about
  ways to make and maintain a safe environment for children and
  young people. Dioceses/eparchies are to make clear to clergy and all
  members of the community the standards of conduct for clergy and
  other persons in positions of trust with regard to children.

This Charter is described on the "Frequently Asked Questions" page of the USCCB's Committee for Child and Youth Protection as a "uniform policy" and states, on that page:

  Dioceses and eparchies have been required to meet Safe Environment expectations since 2003 and should plan on meeting those expectations for the foreseeable future.

(emphasis added)


How do those who hold doctrines that God is omnipotent and omniscient answer what 1 Corinthians 1:25 implies?

Looking at the context, one can see that the weakness and foolishness are seemingly so from a perspective of Jews (for whom the weakness of the cross is a stumbling block--this seems to be implied in the mocking presented by the chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law in Matthew 27:41-43, that God would express his power by physically saving his servant) or Greeks (for whom the cross seems foolish).

  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:21-24, NIV)

This can be further seen by how Paul goes on to explain that God chose the weak and foolish things in the world to shame the strong and the wise of this world.

The comparison is between the weakest and most foolish seeming thing--the Messiah crucified (which even Peter, after years of being a student of the Messiah, rejected as weak and foolish)--is greater than any worldly (or even diabolical) strength or wisdom.


What are the different views on the nature of 'hellfire'?

There are many perspectives in relation to Hell, but all of them relate to the fundamental question: What do you do with those who won't follow the rules?

A. My View

Revelation 22:12-17 (KJV)

  And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
  Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The picture being depicted here is: God/Jesus calling all who are thirsty for the water of life to step through the open gates of the city in order to satisfy it. Outside the gates are "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 21:8 adds "the fearful and unbelieving" to the list of those who are outside the gates. Those outside the gates are not drawn to the water of life because the thirst they have cannot be satisfied by it.

There have been, is, and always will be only two realms of existence. The first: inside the gates; and the second: outside the gates. Where are "the dogs, and sorcerers, ..., and the fearful and unbelieving" at this present time? They're right here, in the realm of existence where we currently dwell - outside the gates.

God has not created a third realm, tailored exclusively for the purpose of tormenting those souls who have no desire to dwell with God and be governed by Jesus, according to God's principles of life (the Law). No. This realm, the one we know so very well, is Hell. The evidence for that notion is overwhelming.

However, those who wish to be rescued from Hell, need only step through the gates into the other realm - the one where God dwells and the citizens are governed by Jesus according to God's principles of life (the Law). I make no apology for the repetition of that statement, because the simplicity of the Gospel cannot be over-emphasised.

This realm, the one in which we currently dwell, has yet to descend into the ultimate condition depicted in Revelation: fire burning with brimstone, where the smoke of torment ascendeth up forever and ever and there is no rest day or night, and their worm dieth not forever and ever. However, we are witnesses to the beginning of such woes every night we watch the news on TV.

Seven times, the Gospel of Matthew records Jesus as using the word Gehenna (Strong's G1067), which the KJV renders as Hell. It is a reference to the valley of the son of Hinnom that lay outside the city of Jerusalem, and to which access was afforded through the Dung Gate. It was a refuse site, and a place of perpetual burning, a completely apt depiction of the "hell fire" of a future existence outside the gates.

Destruction is the pursuit of human activity in the absence of God's input, and His input into this realm will last only as long as the fruit of its purpose can be harvested. When the last soul who wants to step through the open gates into the city, does so, God will close the gates, step away from this realm and leave it to those who won't let it go. It will then descend into the abyss that we see depicted in Revelation, because there will be no one left to stand in the breach to prevent it.

Why would anyone not want to let go of this realm?

The desire for power and authority. In the other realm, the citizens willingly submit to Jesus' authority, so no one who wants to rule in his own right will come within cooee1 of the gates.
Those who want to indulge their inclinations towards the flesh, sorcery, whoremongery, murder, idolatry, and deception will not come within cooee1 of the gates.
Those "good souls" who are not included in 1 or 2, but who fear what eternal existence would be like under Jesus' governance according to God's principles of life, will not come within cooee1 of the gates.
Those "good souls" who are not included in 1, 2, or 3, but who prefer to accommodate the evils of the realm in which they exist in preference to some airy-fairy, idyllic notion, will not come within cooee1 of the gates.

There are other views, of course:

B. The Traditionalist View

"Hell" is a realm distinct from heaven and earth that was/is/will be purpose-built by God for the eternal torment of those who won't play the game by His rules.

C. The Annihilationist View

There is no realm called "Hell", purpose-built or otherwise, and those who won't play the game by God's rules will simply cease to exist.

D. The Universalist View

There is either no realm called "Hell", purpose-built or otherwise, because every soul will eventually resign themselves to playing the game by God's rules; OR there is a purpose-built realm called "Hell" that will be deployed as an intermediate measure to facilitate the resignation of those who won't play the game by God's rules.

Conclusion

Let me use a timely child's Christmas song to summarise the simplicy of the Gospel and the existence of Hell:

  Be near me, Lord Jesus, I ask Thee to stay,
  Close by me forever, and love me, I pray!
  Bless all the dear children in Thy tender care
  And fit us for heaven, to Live with Thee there.

Suffering the fires of Hell is a matter of personal preference, as detailed in option A above under the heading, "Why would anyone not want to let go of this realm?"

We, in this realm, are already in Hell and have first hand knowledge and experience of what life in Hell entails, so no one will be taken by surprise when the gates to the city are closed. Each person stands outside the gates of the city until such time as either he/she expresses a desire to be "fitted for it", at which point the fitting process begins; or the gates of the city are closed (Luke 13:23-30).

When the last person who wants to be fitted for life within the gates of the city, is fitted, then the purpose for this realm will have been accomplished, and God will then step away from it, giving it as a possession to those who don't want to let it go. At that time, this realm will no longer have the input required to moderate the inclination of it citizens who will then, themselves, reduce it to the state of the "hell fire" existence depicted in the text of scripture.

1. Not within cooee is an Australian expression that means "not within the distance a loud resonant call would travel."


What is the meaning of the bronze serpent used to save the Israelites?

Jesus refered to what He was going to do, as a fulfillment of the true meaning of the bronze serpent being lifted by Moses in the wilderness (John 3:14-15).

  14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
  15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:14-15)

Similarities:

The Israelites were bitten by venomous snakes and were going to die // all people are 'bitten' by the Serpent and due to sin are going to die (the wages of sin is death)
God provided a way that people could not die due to the snake bites // God provided a way that people can be saved and not die due to their sin
The snakes were the cause of the problem (sin) and the bronze snake was the solution // Jesus was sinless, yet on the cross He was made sin for those that would believe on Him (see 2 Cor. 5:21), baring in Himself their sins
The lifted bronze snake was foolishness for some of the Isrealites, because they couldn't see what good is a statue of a snake when they had actual snake bites (and those died) but those that looked up to it with faith, lived // The cross of Christ is foolishness to those that perish, but to those who look up to it with faith, it is the power of God unto salvation! (see 1 Cor. 1:18)

Due to all those and other similarities, Jesus used the event with the serpent as an illustration, so that Nicodemus (a teacher of Israel, well aware of this event) could understand who Jesus truly was.

In brief the bronze serpent is an Old Testament image of the cross of Christ, and what He bore on it!

However we must be careful to worship Christ and not the cross, because many years after the event in the wilderness, some Isrealites started worshipping the bronze serpent (as an idol), as if it had saved them, when in fact it was God who saved them, using that means. (see 2 Kings 18:4)


Why did God spare Abraham's child but not Jephthah's?

Jewish and Christian scholars alike present many opinions and interpretations of the story of Jephthah and his daughter.  The ambiguity of the text and the fact that her sacrifice is not described in detail have led to much debate.  Some believe that she was literally sacrificed; some maintain that she was dedicated as a living sacrifice to God.  Some believe that the vow was valid and Jephthah was bound to it; some believe that it was fallible and therefore had no credibility.  Some believe that the vow was righteous; some believe that Jephthah sinned in upholding it.  The tragedy of Jephthah's vow and the sacrifice of his daughter is a highly debated topic among religious scholars.
 Early Jewish scholars unanimously agreed that Jephthah had literally offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice.  This view was not challenged until the middle ages, when a number of Rabbis including David Kimhi "endeavoured to establish the view, that Jephthah merely dedicated his daughter to the service of the sanctuary of Jehovah in a lifelong virginity." (C.F. Keil & F. Delitzch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 388)  Jephthah's mourning is then explained by the fact that "her father's race perished with her"  (G.A Cooke, Judges, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: University Press, 1918), 124) when she eventually died, because she was a virgin.  In this interpretation, it is the hope of succession within his household which becomes the ultimate sacrifice rather than the child herself.  This view is challenged by those who point out that in the same way Isaac was referred to as the yehid (only son) of Abraham, so too is Jephthah's daughter the yehidah (only daughter) of Jephthah.  Thus, she was not necessarily the only child born to him, for Abraham also had a son named Ishmael, but she was his favorite or beloved, as Isaac was to Abraham.
The girl's retreat to the mountains poses a number of questions that pertain to the meaning of the vow.  It would seem to those who do not take the sacrifice to be literal that if she had been facing a sacrificial death, it would have been contrary to human nature and to custom that she should go up into the mountains to bewail her virginity for two months.  She would rather have wanted to spend time with her father.  Moreover, "to mourn one's virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin." (Keil & Delitzch, 392)  However, those who take the vow literally contend that if she was only intended to live a life of celibacy, she would not have needed a period of two months to mourn her virginity; she would have plenty of time to mourn her virginity throughout the rest of her life.  A unique interpretation is presented by Gustav Baström.  Since, he suggests, one only bewails that which one has lost or is about to lose, the fact that the girl went up into the mountains to bewail her virginity suggests that she was to be dedicated as a sacred prostitute. (Boström, Gustav. Proverbiastudien (DATE): 116;  quoted in David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow, (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986), 31, n. 7)  Also unique, interpretation presented in the Mishnah suggests that the daughter did not go up to the "mountains," but rather to the elders "in the hope that they would absolve her father from his vow." (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 3, Exodus, trans. S. M. Lehrman (New York: Soncino Press, 1983), 163)
Whether literally sacrificed as a burnt offering or only dedicated, the intensity of the vow is made clear by Jephthah's reaction as he realizes his daughter is to be the offering.  Such reaction leads the reader to wonder if he had considered the possibility that his daughter would be the one to greet him.  However, the language of his vow reveals that it was not flippantly made.  It would seem that Jephthah intended to offer a human sacrifice for "beasts do not dwell in houses." (W.B. Riley, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist, vol. 4 (Cleveland, OH: Union Gospel Press, 1927), 261)  Augustine points out that "it is not, and was not, a customary thing for sheep to come out to meet a victorious general returning from the war.  Nor did he say, I will offer as a
holocaust whatever shall come out of the doors of my house" (Augustine, quoted in C.F. Keil & F. Delitzch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.Keil & Delitzch)385, n. 50) but rather whoever comes out.  The grammatical structure of the oath suggests that he had at least considered the possibility that a human being would come to meet him, and likely assumed it probable.  J.H.A. Bomberger maintains, however, that it was a two-part vow made by Jephthah: if a human being should come out of the house, it would be the Lord's, and if an animal came to meet him, it would be offered as a burnt offering.  This interpretation may seem favorable, but is not supported by other scholars.  The majority hold that "the two clauses . . . cannot be taken disjunctively . . . but the second clause simply contains a more precise definition of the first,-- Jephthah must at the very outset have contemplated the possibility of a human sacrifice." (Keil & Delitzch, 389)
In Eerdmans commentary, Dunn poses that the vow made by Jephthah was an attempt at manipulating Jehovah, so as to secure an insurance policy for the battle.  Thus the sacrifice of his daughter is a "severe lesson" towards "one who has tried to manipulate Yahweh, pinning the Deity down by the oath." (James D.G. Dunn & John W. Rogerson, Judges Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 197)  However, while Jephthah sees the desired result in his battle with the Ammonites, the cost is so great that the whole progress of events is seen in a tragic, negative light.  Another suggestion has been made by Bomberger:

"The vow itself is an expression of his burning zeal to save Israel.  He wishes to thank God with all his heart . . .  If, then, his vow brings a great sorrow upon Jephthah, God no doubt wishes to inculcate some great principle . . . In his zeal . . . Jephthah cannot remember any particular object sufficiently valuable to dedicate unto God.  He therefore
leaves it to God to point out the sacrifice.  He vows with all his heart; God accepts the vow, and suffers it to be realized in a manner which went beyond the expectations of Jephthah." (J.H.A. Bomberger, ed., "Jephthah," The Protestant Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia: A Condensed Translation of Herzog's Real Encyclopedia, vol 2 (Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1860), 696)

Jephthah's zeal does not negate the fact that the vow included possibilities, in fact, probabilities, that were contrary to the law.  Even if he had not considered that his daughter should come to meet him, the vow was unfitting for "had a camel or an ass or a dog come forth, [Jephthah] wouldst have offered it up for a burnt offering! [The Lord therefore] answered Jephthah unfittingly and prepared his daughter for him." (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 2, Genesis, trans. S. M. Lehrman (New York: Soncino Press, 1983), 527)  Can it be said, then, that Yahweh required a human sacrifice?  Most scholars agree that Jephthah's vow was voluntary on his part and not by the initiative of God; it was neither demanded by God, nor did He delight in it.  Unlike the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, "the deity never called out or spoke to [Jephthah].  He received no direction from the deity, [and] without direct communication to the contrary, Jephthah believed his vow to have been legitimate, successful, and, therefore, one that must be fulfilled." (Tammi J. Schneider, Judges, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 178)
Assuming, as most scholars do, that human sacrifice was abhorrent to Israel, a vow to make a human sacrifice would surely have been against the law.  The vow is therefore sometimes approached as fallible and not binding.  The Midrash states clearly that Jephthah was a fool who did not know how to distinguish between the different kinds of vows, else he would have been able to determine that his vow was invalid. (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 8, Ecclesiastes, trans. S. M. Lehrman (New York: Soncino Press, 1983), 126)  However, "the Bible seems not to fault him for honoring [the vow] once it was uttered." (Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 16)  One might expect some condemnation of Jephthah in the text after he put his daughter to death if he had done so in disobedience to the law.  Instead, he is listed in Hebrews 11:32 among the saints.  This tension has raised a need for some scholars to legitimate his vow as valid rather than fallible, for any dispute of the legitimacy of his vow causes a contention with the Hebrews scripture. (Schneider, 179)  Jephthah and his daughter understood the oath as an obligation that could not be nullified.  In their obedience to this belief and their surety that God had acknowledged the vow when he gave a decisive victory to the Israelites, they showed obedience, ultimate commitment, firmness and determination, all of which may be seen as positive attributes for those who are in the service of Jehovah.
It is possible that if the vow was valid, God had provided a method by which Jephthah could both fulfil his vow and save his daughter - a method which Jephthah either knew nothing about, chose not to apply, or believed could not be applied.  According to the book of Leviticus, the price of a female's life had already been established at 30 shekels of silver to be given to the Sanctuary (Lev 27:4).  Having just won this great battle, Jephthah could have easily afforded the required 30 shekels of silver.  It is a tragedy, then, that he did not know the Word of the Lord well enough to recognize this.  Jephthah is therefore "a man who had saved his country by loyalty to the Lord, and knew not how to save himself, in his ignorance of His Word." (Riley, 265)  It is further suggested by another Rabbi that even her "monetary consecration" was not required, "for we learned: If one declared of an unclean animal or an animal with a blemish: 'Behold, let these be burnt-offerings,' his declaration is completely null." (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 2, Genesis, 527)  According to this belief, Jephthah should have sold the unacceptable sacrifice of his daughter and bought with the money a proper burnt offering.
It is possible that Jephthah could have considered it impossible to redeem his daughter.  In his translation of The Works of Josephus, Whitson points out in a footnote that things devoted to destruction could not be redeemed. (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, in The Works of Josephus trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 144.  The reference is to Lev. 27:29)  If Jephthah had considered his daughter to be within this category, he could not have purchased her redemption.  Whitson states, however, that she ought not to have been placed in this category because God had not devoted her, rather her father had vowed her for sacrifice.  Like the firstborn children were redeemed by animal sacrifices, so should she have been redeemed.
Another possibility is suggested in the Midrash, which points out that his vow could have been annulled by the High Priest Phinehas.  Commentary suggests that it was pride that kept the vow from being annulled:
"But Jephthah remarked, 'Shall I, a chieftain and ruler in Israel, go to Phinehas!' and Phinehas remarked, 'Shall I, the High Priest and the son of a High Priest, go to an ignorant person!'  Between the two of them the poor girl perished and they were both condemned for her blood.  Jephthah's punishment was that limb after limb fell away from his body and was buried . . . [and] the Holy Spirit departed from [Phinehas] for two hundred years." (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 8, Ecclesiastes, 275)
Whatever his reason for not redeeming her, if Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering, most scholars agree that this was neither conformable to the law nor acceptable to God.  His fulfillment of the vow is therefore sinful.  Keil and Delitzch point out that the sin involved may have made the vow impossible to carry out.  In order to fulfil the vow, Jephthah would have had to go to the Levitical priests in order to have his daughter offered on at the tabernacle or before the Ark of the Covenant since this was the only place in which burnt offerings were made.  Keil and Delitzch suggest that the Levitical priests, who knew the law, would not have sinned in this way.  Alternatively, if Jephthah had attempted to sacrifice her upon some secret alter without mediation from the priest, "such an act would not have been described by the prophetic historian as a fulfillment of the vow that he would offer a burnt-offering to the Lord, simply because it would not have been a sacrifice offered to Jehovah at all, but a sacrifice slaughtered to Moloch." (Keil & Delitzch, 394)
That Jephthah offered his daughter as a sacrifice to Molech has been posed, but rejected by most scholars.  It is true that Jephthah was likely influenced by pagan religions.  He was the son of a harlot, cast out of his father's house on account of his birth, who became the leader of a renegade, "bandit band" (Riley, 258) of presumably pagan men.  It would also seem that "the form taken by Jephthah's vow is reminiscent of his half-heathen background" (Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F. Harrison, Judges, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 255) as the Bible holds no other instance of an Israelite making or carrying out such a vow to Jehovah.  It would seem, then, that human sacrifice was not offered to Jehovah, but to the pagan god Molech who was known to require it.  However, "it is inconceivable, with the diametrical opposition between the worship of Jehovah and the worship of Moloch, that God should have chosen a worshipper of Moloch to carry out His work." (Keil & Delitzch, 391)  The Spirit of God came upon Jephthah in order that he would win the battle for the children of Israel.  Such an endowment of God's power is never seen upon a worshipper of Molech.
A possible reckoning could be found in the consideration that Jephthah may have only believed himself to be worshipping Jehovah.  The Book of Judges is noted for being a time in which "every man did what was right in his own eyes" (Judg. 21:25).  Perhaps in the same way that the children of Israel worshipped the Lord in a way that was not in accordance with His will when they set a golden calf to symbolize and personify Him, so did Jephthah worship in a way that seemed right to him but was infuriating to Jehovah.  If human sacrifice was viewed as an act of worship to Jehovah Jephthah's time, and continuing for centuries after his death, it would explain why "later prophets were forced to wage war against child sacrifice." (David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986), 46)  If the practice was not widely accepted, it would not have needed such attention.  This is not to suggest that this form of worship was ever approved of or accepted by Jehovah, only that Israelite culture, having been influenced by surrounding religions, practiced it.  This explanation does not address, however, why one does not see human sacrifice performed more often if it was believed to be a form of worship.
If child sacrifice to Yahweh was practiced, this may be why, as the Talmud points out, the scripture Jeremiah 19:5 addresses three specific instances of human sacrifice:  "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind."  The Talmud suggests that God commanded not the sacrifice of the son of Mesha in II Kings 3:27, he spoke not of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, neither came it into the mind of God that Abraham's son Isaac would be sacrificed. (The Babylonian Talmud, trans. J. Rabbinowitz (New York: Rebecca Bennet Publications, 1959), 11)  Clearly human sacrifice is not encouraged by God, but it is significant to note that at least two of these instances - Jephthah and Abraham - clearly intended for their sacrifice to be offered to Jehovah.  Levenson contends that Mesha also sacrificed his son to Jehovah, only because he did not have the proper lamb available to him.  Jehovah then gave him the victory in battle.  Levenson does not, however, address why God would so honor any sacrifice of a Moabite king, and moreover why he would give him victory over the children of Israel.  Burney qualifies this divine intervention as being from the god Chemosh, not Jehovah.
Contrary to the majority belief that human sacrifice is, in fact, an abomination to God, some scholars point out that in the text itself there is not "any indication that child sacrifice . . . was inappropriate from God's standpoint.  [It is clear that he assumed she] could literally be sacrificed as a burnt offering to YHWH.  Had she not been fit to sacrifice, the vow would have been unfulfillable, which he obviously wishes were the case." (Levenson, 14)  Levenson suggests that child sacrifice was neither unheard of, nor forbidden in early stages of the Israelite religion.  He suggests that Jeremiah was the first to brand child sacrifice as idolatrous, implying that he did so because he disagreed with it.  Previous to the writing of the Book of Jeremiah, then, human sacrifice was not considered sinful.  Recent excavation of sacrificial ashes in Carthage suggests that while a child could be redeemed by a sheep, this redemption was neither required nor always practiced.  While this cemetery was in a Cannanite region, "the substitution of a lamb or kid for a child has a familiar ring [considering] YHWH's claim upon the first-born son in the Hebrew Bible." (Levenson, 21)  Levenson goes on to point out that although a ram was provided for sacrifice, Abraham was not commanded to sacrifice it instead of the child, only allowed to do so.  In fact, scripture found in the Book of Exodus (Ex. 20:22-23:33) "seems expressly to contemplate that the normal fate of a firstborn son is that he should be sacrificed to Yahweh." (C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970), 329)  Burney considers it significant that Exodus 22:29b does not qualify the statement "the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give to me.'"  A minority of scholars therefore believe that no sin was committed by Jephthah, but that he was fulfilling a vow to God that was not in discord with the law.
While some opinions clearly have more weight and basis in scripture than others, and certain beliefs support the majority opinion, it must be recognized that very few points are agreed upon concerning the vow that Jepthah made.  Scholars hold many different opinions on how, why, and on account of whom the vow was carried out.  With few contentions, most scholars agree that Jephthah intended to make a human sacrifice when he made the vow.  Many have reached a consensus that the daughter's fate cannot be determined with any finality.  All that is for certain is that this vow was made and carried out during a time when every man did what was right in his own eyes - the time of the Book of Judges.

REFERENCES:
St. Augustine.  Quoted in C.F. Keil & F. Delitzch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 385, n. 50. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

The Babylonian Talmud. Translated by J. Rabbinowitz. New York: Rebecca Bennet Publications, 1959.

Berlin, Adele, Brettler, Marc Zvi, & Fishbane, Michael, ed.  The Jewish Study Bible: featuring the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bomberger, J.H.A., ed. "Jephthah."  The Protestant Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia: A Condensed Translation of Herzog's Real Encyclopedia. Vol 2. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1860. 695-697.

Boström, Gustav. Proverbiastudien: 116.  Quoted in David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow, 31, n. 7.  Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986.

Burney, C.F. The Book of Judges.  New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970.

Cooke, G.A. Judges.  Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.  Cambridge: University Press, 1918.

Dunn, James D.G. & Rogerson, John W.  Judges.  Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Josephus, Flavius.  Antiquities, in The Works of Josephus.  Translated by William Whiston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Keil, C.F. & Delitzch, F. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament.  Translated by James Martin.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Levenson, Jon D. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity  New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Marcus, David.  Jephthah and His Vow.  Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986.

Midrash Rabbah, vol. 2, Genesis. Translated by S. M. Lehrman.  New York: Soncino Press, 1983.

Midrash Rabbah, vol. 3, Exodus. Translated by S. M. Lehrman.  New York: Soncino Press, 1983.

Midrash Rabbah, vol. 8, Ecclesiastes.  Translated by S. M. Lehrman.  New York: Soncino Press, 1983.

Origen.  On First Principles.  Book I, Preface, Section 8. Translated by G. W. Butterworth.  Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. & Harrison, Everett F. Judges.  The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.  Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Riley, W.B. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist. Vol. 4. Cleveland, OH: Union Gospel Press, 1927

Schneider, Tammi J. Judges.  Berit Olam.  Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.