Where does the Catholic church stand on governments supporting foreign groups or other governments that abuse human rights?

The answer seems obvious: No Church could publicly back any government or foreign group that abuses human rights. Historically, the Church's stance may have been different behind the scenes, as most well-known recently in South America.  However, Pope John Paul II issued a number of apologies for past wrongs, on behalf of the Church, and these should define the Catholic Church's present stance on these issues. He apologised for:

The legal process on Galileo Galilei, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
the Church Hierarchy's role in burnings at the stake and the
religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995).
the injustices committed against women, the violation of women's
rights and the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a
letter to "every woman").
the inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust ( (16 March 1998).
Catholic sex abuse cases (20 November 2001, email from a laptop in the Vatican)
the Church-backed "Stolen Generations" of Aboriginal children in
Australia
the behaviour of Catholic missionaries in China in colonial times.

Pope Francis seems unlikely to depart from the spirit of John Paul's apologies.


What does Western Catholic infant baptism and confirmation involve, especially with regard to being identified as a Catholic?

Children baptized as infants are recognized as being Catholics, regardless if the parent really bring the child up in the Catholic Faith or not. All children who die and are baptized in the Church may be buried in the Church. Even after the age of reason they will be recognized as Catholics, but are not allowed to receive other sacraments until the sacrament of confirmation and reconciliation have been received. Until then they are often seen as Catholics who are not practicing their faith.

The child must be properly educated in order to be confirmed in the Latin Rite. If he or she does not attend religious formation classes, they will not be confirmed or receive communion in the Church until properly instructed. Some such Catholics eventually attend RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) as adults in order to become fully incorporated into the mystical body of Christ.

Eastern Rite Catholics are confirmed at baptism.

I know some priests that will baptize the first child of parents that are of dubious in their possible commitments and will refuse baptism for a second child if the first is not instructed in the faith. Other priests will baptize a second and third child in the hope that parents will eventually educate the children as Catholics.

At the baptism of a child in the Catholic Church, the parents will receive a baptismal certificate.

The parish registry will contain the listing in addition of the child’s name, the parents names, the godparent’s names, the priest who performed the baptism and the name of the parish church where it was performed.

The place of baptism is very impossible for a practicing Catholic to remember. Each additional sacrament such as confirmation, marriage, ordination to the priesthood will be sent to person’s church of baptism and the information will be inscribed into the official baptismal registry of the individual. Catholics may request this information at any time. It is obligatory for entering a seminary or a Religious Order.

Here is an example for such a request from the Archdiocese of Toronto, Canada.


Did the early church believe that the damned would be eternally punished in a literal hell of fire?

Cold Case Christianity has a post detailing the statements on hell by a number of ante-Nicene fathers--it is a valuable resource in considering this questions; I discovered several of the quotations below from their research.
Perhaps the most graphic of these statements is that by Lactantius in the early 4th century:

For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again
be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies;
and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like
this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that
it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire…The
same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power,
will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace
as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself
with eternal nourishment (Divine Institutes 7:21)

In fairness, this is a statement made hundreds of years after the apostles. Some earlier sources are worth citing as well:
Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John, writing early 2nd century)

Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if
they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death. how much
more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake
of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart
into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him. (Letter
to the Ephesians 16:1-2)

Irenaeus of Lyons (writing late 2nd century)

the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are
judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth (Against heresies 3.4.2)

Irenaeus didn't really mince words. Relevant to the discussion of Irenaeus, you may find this article by Brad Kelly interesting: Did the early church believe in a literal hell of eternal punishment
Annihilationism
The earliest clear source for annihilationism (essentially that the wicked are annihilated rather than existing eternally) would be Arnobius of Sicca in the 4th century; the idea is discussed in detail by Talbot here. Talbot points out that Arnobius' ideas were repeatedly opposed by his contemporaries and later generations.
Conclusion
In general, it appears to me that the writings grew more extreme (and grotesque!) over time, but that in the earliest sources we find comments pretty similar to those in the New Testament. By the 4th century we see departure at both extremes (annihilation and...regeneration??).
But the early sources don't seem to be focused so much on the nature of the fire. They could be read to indicate either literal fire or as a metaphor of agony.
J. Warner Wallace summed it up as follows:

The Early Church Fathers, with very few exceptions, agree with
traditional views descriptions of Hell as a place of eternal,
conscious torment:

Hell is a place of judgment for those who have rejected God and denied Jesus as their Savior
Hell is a place of separation from God
Hell is a place of torment in which the rebellious are in anguish and pain
Hell is a place where the rebellious are tormented forever and are conscious of this torment for all eternity (In fact, the eternal
duration of their torment is often compared to the eternal duration of
the reward of the saved)

At the same time, the earliest Church Fathers are ambiguous on those
areas where the Bible is ALSO ambiguous.

The exact nature of the torment of the rebellious is unknown
The manner in which the rebellious are kept alive in spite of ‘deathly’ anguish is also un-described


In John 4:1-3, in whose name were Jesus' disciples' baptizing?

There's no indication of either.

  It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through
  the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He
  said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
  And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a
  Holy Spirit." And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And
  they said, "Into John's baptism." Paul said, "John baptized with the
  baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was
  coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were
  baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his
  hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began
  speaking with tongues and prophesying. (Act 19:1-6)

In Acts 19:1-6, there's no indication anyone had to be baptized again, other than John's disciples who still didn't realize Jesus was the Messiah.
In John 4, Jesus' disciples were already following Jesus, instead of John. There's no indication Jesus' disciples were baptizing in any name other than Jesus'.


Is the Promise of Regeneration Enunciated in the Old Testament?

There are approximately 25 to 30 instances where regeneration is promised in the Old Testament. Below are but three of those instances, others you can find through study.

  Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

This was the basic promise of God's covenant with Abraham.

  Isaiah 1:25 And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:

God's promise to those who return to him.

  Isaiah 32:3-4 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.

God's promise for our regenerated person and some insight into our resurrection bodies.

The Book of Job is also an enumeration regeneration of Job's person after his recognition of God as supreme.

There are many other stories in the Old testament dealing with regeneration, not only of the body but also the Soul. Looking for those specifics as we read the Bible opens a whole new world of understanding Jesus decent to the World.

Hope this helps.


According to Catholicism, does the eighth commandment (Do not bear false witness) obligate us to always tell the truth?

In questioning whether it is ever right to lie, there are usually two distinct questions:

What exactly is a lie? Is it necessary to always tell the whole truth, or can you withhold the truth if needed?
Is it always wrong to lie, or is it permissible to lie to prevent a greater evil? The classically debated case of this would be when a Nazi soldier comes to your door and asks if you are hiding any Jews. If you say "Yes", or refuse to answer, then the Jews will be killed. Is this sufficient reason to lie?

This article from Catholic Answers provides a great over view on the subject. I will do no more than summarize, and pull out some quotes. If you want a very quick summary, then it is: "there is no universal agreement on the matter; Catholic theologians disagree, and there is no definitive pronouncement from the church"

The first thing to be said is that the biblical text of the eighth commandment is strictly about telling untruths in a legal setting. There is good reason that even modern translations render it as "Do not bear false witness", rather than "Do not lie". The original quote is not about lying under everyday circumstances, but about lying in the courts. Nevertheless, most Christians would extend the prohibition to telling untruths in normal settings by 'moral reasoning' even if there isn't a clear biblical prohibition (though there are presumably some Bible-only Christians who would not).

Early Catholic theologians, e.g. Augustine and Aquinas, were mostly against the "necessary lie", and come down on the side of telling the truth in all circumstances. They took the view that God is capable of protecting those who might be harmed through your truth-telling - in our example example the Jews hidden in your house. However they did also agree that it was necessary to 'prudently protect the truth' - i.e. to avoid answering the question if at all possible.

More modern theologians have moved away from this view, and would argue for the 'necessary lie'. Most modern Catholics would also argue that it is right to tell a lie in the Nazi soldier example given above, even if they cannot articulate a philosophical reason why. The evil that results from the truth would be perhaps greater than the evil of the lie. One approach that was popular early in the century was the 'mental reservation', in which the speaker mentally interprets their answer to mean something different from what the answer might take it as. Thus the person would answer the Nazi soldier "No", and interprets their own answer to mean "There are no Jews here which you should be arresting and killing". (It goes without saying, and is universally agreed, that lying for your own personal gain, or except to prevent an evil, is always wrong, whatever 'mental reservations' you might employ.)

Another approach from some theologians is to replace the current definition of a lie from the Catholic Catechism, which is

  "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error" (CCC 2482, 2483)

with a slight variant:

  "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth."


Why doesn't the Pope try asserting doctrines ex cathedra to check if they're true?

Pope Pius XII—in his apostolic constitution that defines the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Munificentissimus Deus (1950)—describes the process in which he sought counsel from all the bishops of the world in the letter Deiparæ Virginis Mariæ (1946), where he asked them (§11):

  Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?

The response was almost unanimous.

Although a pope has the authority to define a dogma without asking for counsel regarding its "definability," it would be rash not to seek counsel.


How does the Catholic Church narrate the seal which was put on the tomb of Jesus?

The Catholic Church, like many other denominations, relies on archeological evidence to explain this matter.

The stone itself sealed the tomb!

  Mark 15:46 reads, “Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (NRSV). The Greek verb used in the last sentence of this passage is proskulisas. Von Wahlde says, “This is a combination of pros (meaning ‘toward’) and the past participle of kulio (meaning ‘to roll or roll along’).”

  Mark 16:3 describes the scene on Easter Sunday when Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome visit Jesus’ tomb: “They had been saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?’” The Greek word for “roll away” is apekulisen, which von Wahlde explains is “a combination of ap’ (meaning ‘away’) and … yes, kulio (meaning ‘to roll’).”

  The Gospels of Matthew and Luke use similar compounds of the verb kulio. Thus, all of these accounts imply that the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb was rolled. - How Was Jesus’ Tomb Sealed?

More information about this topic is available with the following articles:

Why was the stone in Jesus’tomb rolled out? (Catholic Answers
Holy Sepulchre (Catholic Encyclopaedia)


What kind of movement or denomination in Christianity made being a Christian a personal/individual choice?

The earliest reference I can find to individuals confessing their faith in Christ and asking to be baptised (as an adult believer) thereby making a  personal choice, dates back to the early 16th century when the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and went about re-baptising  adults who had previously been baptised as infants:

The early Anabaptists formulated their beliefs in the Schleitheim Confession, in 1527. Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when the candidate confesses his or her faith in Christ and wants to be baptized. This believer's baptism is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. Anabaptists are those who are in a traditional line with the early Anabaptists of the 16th century. Other Christian groups with different roots also practice believer's baptism, such as Baptists, but these groups are not seen as Anabaptist. The Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites are direct descendants of the early Anabaptist movement. Schwarzenau Brethren, Bruderhof, and the Apostolic Christian Church are considered later developments among the Anabaptists.
The name Anabaptist means "one who baptizes again". Their persecutors named them this, referring to the practice of baptizing persons when they converted or declared their faith in Christ, even if they had been baptized as infants. Anabaptists required that baptismal candidates be able to make a confession of faith that is freely chosen and so rejected baptism of infants. The early members of this movement did not accept the name Anabaptist, claiming that infant baptism was not part of scripture and was therefore null and void.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

I also found a reference to Martin Luther (taken from his Small Catechism) on the subject of the sacrament of holy baptism, which quotes Mark 16:16:

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Small_Catechism#IV._THE_SACRAMENT_OF_HOLY_BAPTISM

Although I could not find anything to suggest that Martin Luther denounced infant baptism and promoted the view that only believing and consenting adults should make a decision to come forward for baptism as a declaration of their faith in Christ Jesus, that does not mean to say such a quote does not exist.  The emphasis on individual choice is a distinct Protestant characteristic which came out of the Protestant Reformation.


What does "people of good will" mean in Encyclicals?

This use is generally a reference to the Greater Doxology which goes, in its second verse, "et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis": "And peace on Earth to the people of good will."

This is a translation of (part of) Lk 2:14, which goes in Greek "καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας": "And on Earth peace, to men good will", which has a slightly different sense. The Latin translation is traditionally attributed to St. Hilary of Poitiers in the mid-4th Century. This translation predates the Vulgate, but this part shows up the same in the Vulgate (in the previous verse, Jerome says in altissimis Deo where Hilary says in excelsis Deo).

Following the sense of the Greater Doxology and of the Scriptural passage, "men of good will" is a reference to those men who are well disposed to hear the Word of God and take it to heart, and who are referred to by the angels in the Gospel.


Hebrew New Testament with cantillation marks

Stu W wrote,

the New Testament is not sung, it is spoken--even in Messianic Jewish temples to my knowledge. As such you will not find cantillation symbols specific to cadence because no such cadence exists. By the 19th century, Hebrew had tense, and no such cadence was necessary for comprehension.

My research has yielded a contrary answer. According to Wikipedia, on the entry “Cantillation,” section “In Christian missionary uses,” it states,

The Jewish born Christian convert Ezekiel Margoliouth translated the New Testament to Hebrew in 1865 with cantillation marks added. It is the only completely cantillated translation of the New Testament. The translation was published by the London Jews' Society.

The following is an image of Matt. 1:1 featuring the cantillation marks:

References
Margoliouth, Ezekiel. הברית החדשה על פי המשיח עם נקודות וטעמים (The New Testament according to the Messiah with Vowel Points and Cantillation Marks). London: London Jews’ Society, 1923.


According to the Catholic Church, does abortion need to be confessed, and is it a mortal or venial sin?

I'm going to disagree slightly with Andrew Leach on this one.

As far as excommunication: since you obviously weren't a member of the Church at the time, excommunication is obviously impossible. The information Andrew gives on excommunication for abortion is valuable, though; you should certainly be aware of just how seriously the Church takes this action.

As far as "Do I have to confess this?"—Canon 988, section 1, of the Code of Canon Law states:

  A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.

You have, thus, an obligation to confess the abortion if it is a mortal sin. If it is a venial sin, you are encouraged, but not strictly obliged, to confess it:

  Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1458)

Similarly, the Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Council of Trent) states:

  All mortal sins must be revealed to the priest. Venial sins, which do not separate us from the grace of God, and into which we frequently fall, although they may be usefully confessed, as the experience of the pious proves, may be omitted without sin, and expiated by a variety of other means.

So the question becomes whether the abortion was, at the time you arranged for it, a mortal sin.

For a sin to be mortal, three things are necessary (see Catechism paragraphs 1857–1860):

Grave matter. The sin must be a serious offense against God's love; often this is interpreted as "a direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments".
Consent of the will. A sin, particularly a mortal sin, cannot be committed by accident, negligence, or coercion. It must be something chosen deliberately.
Full knowledge. The sin must be committed in the knowledge of its sinfulness.

Procurement of an abortion (which is how we refer to the action of a woman who has an abortion), as Andrew Leach points out, is very definitely "grave matter"; it is, in the Church's teaching, arranging for a human being to be killed. So that box is checked.

I don't think there's enough information in the question to assert baldly that full consent of the will took place. It appears probable from the way the question is phrased, though not definite, that there was no physical coercion taking place; nor do we know anything about the mental or physical stress that you were going through. This might—and I stress might—mitigate the seriousness of the sin.

Finally comes the question of full knowledge. Unfortunately, simply stating that you didn't believe at the time that the fetus or embryo was a human being is not necessarily enough to demonstrate that you didn't have full knowledge of what was being done. The Church does teach that certain moral truths are "written on the heart", and that if a human being could conclude, simply using natural reason, that an act was wrong, then you should have known it. But the question of whether one can conclude from natural reason alone that abortion is wrong essentially turns into the question whether one can conclude using natural reason alone that the fetus/embryo/etc. is indeed a human; and this I think is a vexed question. Thus, absent some more pastorally relevant information which doesn't appear in the question, I don't know that there's enough information to conclude with certainty that your act was based on "full knowledge" as the Church defines it.

All the above considered, my conclusion is: The information given in the question is insufficient to enable one to conclude with certainty whether or not this sin was mortal.

What does that imply about the necessity of confessing this sin? If the sin is not mortal, it is not necessary to confess it; but if the sin is mortal and one deliberately does not confess it, one abuses the Sacrament:

  So important is it that confession be entire that if the penitent confesses only some of his sins and wilfully neglects to accuse himself of others which should be confessed, he not only does not profit by his confession, but involves himself in new guilt. Such an enumeration of sins cannot be called sacramental confession; on the contrary, the penitent must repeat his confession, not omitting to accuse himself of having, under the semblance of confession, profaned the sanctity of the Sacrament.

(Roman Catechism)

What to do then?

The point of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to restore and renew one's relationship with God:

  It is called the sacrament of conversion because it makes sacramentally present Jesus' call to conversion, the first step in returning to the Father from whom one has strayed by sin. ... It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1423–24)

As with any relationship, openness is indispensable. Thus, it is probably a good thing to confess anything you might suspect to be a mortal sin, and certainly anything that is weighing on your mind.


Is an adult convert to Catholicism required to accept everything in the Catechism before he/she is baptized?

Caveat to this answer: Both priests gave you better pastoral guidance than you'll receive on an internet Q&A site.

No, that 100% target isn't a critical milestone for a neophyte, which is the state you'll be in at the Easter Vigil.  (One year won't do that volume justice in any case).

If you are "on board" with 97% of the 2865 articles you are strides are ahead of the average Catholic, and certainly most catechumens I've encountered.  Two points to consider:

Not all doctrines have the same value, but some may be deal
breakers. A person is not ready to enter the Church if he does not
believe in the Incarnation, or if he is militantly against a
fundamental moral teaching.
Having difficulty accepting or not understanding a given doctrine
is very different from rejecting it.  Actively rejecting a doctrine
(something that the Church proposes for belief) may constitute an obstacle
to entry.  It is not a problem to have difficulties -- many already
in the church experience difficulties with some teachings. These challenges represent an area for growth.

Your point on how impressively few in number are the cradle Catholics who know their own religion in detail reflects my experience as well (I am on my 6th year of serving in the RCIA ministry).  What your priests advised you matches our deacon's core message, and our pastor's guidance, which is emphasis on relationships (specifically the relationship with Christ, but it goes deeper than that) and being sincerely open to grow in your Faith.  The Catechism is but one resource in nurturing that growth over time.

An overly developed passion for legalism is a criticism that Jesus directed toward the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes in the scriptural narratives of his interactions with them.  To adopt a similar "letter of the law" approach to the Catechism, which is meant to teach the church -- all of the church, not just the folks newly entering -- would contradict His points made on that score.

This answer draws on experience in the very journey that you are currently undertaking: both as one who received the sacraments, and as one who now assists others in that same part of their faith journey. (Grateful for the assistance from @AthanasiusofAlex in paragraph 3, both bullet points)


Why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword?

Up until this point, the disciples had operated under the aegis of both Roman and Jewish law.  They were seen as just another group of disciples of some charismatic Rabbi.  If he had some strange ideas he was teaching, well, so did plenty of others.

But now, all that was about to change.  He was going to be taken by the Jews, tried and convicted and put to death by the Romans.  Suddenly their Master's public status was about to go from "eccentric Rabbi" to "criminal condemned for stirring up trouble with the Romans," which would turn those who supported him into fugitives, at least temporarily.

Here, he was trying to explain to them that they would need to be prepared to stay mobile (side note: the word fugitive comes from a Latin root meaning "to flee"): they would  need to always have a purse (for money) and a bag (to carry basic supplies) ready, and that a sword (for protection against other men) was to be more important to them than a cloak (for protection against the elements) in the days to come.

But as we see repeatedly throughout the Gospels, the disciples never really "got" the whole "Jesus is going to die and then be resurrected" thing until after it was all accomplished.  Here, they hear him talking about swords, and someone says "yeah, we've got a couple here already."  They just don't understand what he's trying to explain, and you can almost hear the Master's resigned sigh.  "Sure, that'll be fine."


Why are there inconsistencies in the New Testament?

As Narnian said, an answer to all of your listed contradictions would be huge and if you have a real problem with a specific one it should be asked as a separate question.

As a general answer to why there are inconsistencies in the New Testament lets look at some facts.

The gospels were written by mortal men who make mistakes. They were written at different times by the apostles some later then others so some of them would of had a better recollection of the events then others. On that note everyone perceives experiences separately, so this would of also contributed to their different accounts of the same event.

Finally look at the historical timeline. The New Testament is over 2000 years old. We read it today for the most part in English, which is not the original language. And there are always problems when reading translations because every language is different. For example many languages have emphasizers, words that add emphasis to an action or noun, which just do not translate into English because we don't use emphasizers. We don't have access to the original manuscripts so we can't check how accurate the translations are. Not to mention the fact that they were translated by men, who make mistakes.

None of these things detract from the validity or the message that is meant to be conveyed by the New Testament. Namely that God sent His Son to redeem the world because He loves everyone. And that His Son, Jesus the Christ was a perfect example for us to follow and pattern our lives after.

Edit: this part is just opinion and addresses the fact that for a great many Christians inerrancy is not really an issue because of the following:

Since that message comes across clear despite the inconsistencies there is no doubt at least in my mind that God inspired the writers and translators. Else how would we even have the New Testament 2000 years later in the condition that its in.


What is the scriptural basis for the conditionalist doctrine of hell?

Technically, a couple of different terms are being confused in the question.

Conditionalism is the teaching that immortality / eternal life is conditional upon a right standing with God.

Annihilationism is the teaching that anyone who is ultimately unrepentant will cease to exist, usually after a period of torment that accommodates to the amount of evil they have done.

While these are technically separate, they do often go hand-in-hand.

Conditionalism

Most defenses for conditionalism start out with a general summary of their main point: nothing in the bible explicitly says humans are inherently immortal; not their bodies, not their spirits, not their souls.

Specific appeal is made to a selection of texts that seem to illustrate as much. Some key texts include:

Genesis 2-3, since humans require fruit from the tree of life in order to 'live forever', which humans are subsequently forbidden from eating,
1 Timothy 6.16, which says God 'alone has immortality', taken to mean God alone is inherently immortal, while humans are dependent in some way,
Romans 2.7, First Corinthians 15.53-54, Second Timothy 1.10, etc., are understood to indicate that 'immortality' and 'eternal life' are gifts/rewards solely for those who are saved, necessitating a mortality and a temporal life as being the penalty for those who are not saved.

What Is Death?

Because conditionalism and annihilationism are teachings involving 'death', the discussion of course requires defining what 'death' consists of. It is frequently said by advocates of the traditional view ('eternal conscious torment') that 'death' should be defined as 'separation'. Bodily death is separation of the spirit/soul from the body, and spiritual death is separation of the spirit/soul from God. In both cases, the spirit/soul is believed to continue existing consciously in its state of death.

Conditionalists generally criticize this as a redefinition of the word. 'Death', they say, has always been defined as a cessation of life, consisting of a lack of all consciousness, comparable to a dreamless sleep. To support this definition, conditionalists again point to a selection of biblical texts:

Psalm 6.5: For in death there is no remembrance of you; in sheol who will give you praise?
Psalm 115.17: The dead do not praise YHWH, nor do any who go down into silence.
Psalm 146.4: When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his thoughts perish.
Ecclesiastes 9.5: For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.

This is in addition to the numerous texts throughout the bible that compare death to 'sleep', no matter who it is being described (e.g. 1 Kings 2.10; First Kings 22.40; John 11.11-14; First Thessalonians 4.13f).

With this altogether, conditionalists believe the bible broadly teaches that humans are not innately immortal, in any way, and that their natural end is to die and cease to exist.

Annihilationism

Where conditionalism defines human immortality as conditional upon a right relationship with God, annihilationism is defined as a direct punishment of death from God. Qualitatively, there is no distinction between 'death' and 'annihilation'; the latter word is used solely to clarify just what it is that 'death' consists of.

Again, on a broader level, annihilationists believe the bible teaches that humans who are ultimately unrepentant will suffer death / cessation of existence. Poetic idioms in the Psalms are said to accurately describe a lack of existence, prophetic metaphors are said to capture the essence of a lack of existence, and the 'plain meaning' of basic words are said to describe a lack of existence directly.

The final fate of the unsaved is:

To vanish like smoke (Psalm 37.20)
Like the snail that melts into slime, like the stillborn child that never sees the sun (Psalm 58.8)
Like smoke that is driven away, like wax melts before a fire (Psalm 68.2)
Like a dream when one awakes (Psalm 73.20)
Destroyed, wiped out all remembrance of them (Isaiah 26.14)
Stubble in a burning oven; leaving them neither root nor branch; ashes under the soles of the righteous' feet (Malachi 4.1-3)
Slaying of body and soul (Matthew 10.28)
Eternal punishment (Matthew 25.46)
Death (Romans 6.23)
Eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1.9)
Like Sodom and Gomorrah: turned to ashes, and condemned to extinction (2 Peter 2.6)
The second death (Revelation 2.11ff)

Resources

It is widely agreed, even by critics, that the best, complete treatment in favor of conditionalism and annihilationism is The Fire That Consumes, written by Edward Fudge. While it is difficult to speak on behalf of a broad spectrum of belief, Fudge's book is yet considered the masterwork defense of these two beliefs.


Mark 6:48 - Why was Jesus about to walk on water past the disciples?

The conundrum is summarized by William Lane:

  Because the text stresses that Jesus' coming to the disciples was the direct result of his perceiving their distress, the explanation that "he meant to pass by them" seems enigmatic, if not alien to the context.1

There have been three major approaches taken by commentators:

Jesus' stated "intention to pass by" the disciples is an explanation of how the event seemed to the disciples. R.T. France2 takes this view:

  In the narrative context the clause is best seen not as a statement of what was in Jesus’ mind but of how his approach appeared from the disciples' point of view

In support of this, he finds similar language in Luke 24:28,  where Jesus "acted as if he was going further" (see a question on Heremeneutics.SE if interested in that one), which is more clearly about the disciples' impression.
Jesus' stated intention was an expression of his desire to reveal himself as God. In this view, "pass by" means "pass in view of" rather than focusing on ignoring them or "walking on by".1  This is one plausible sense of the verb παρερχομαι, which has a broad semantic range. If so, verses 48b-49a could be rendered:

  ...he came to them, walking on the sea, for he intended to pass their way. They saw him...

Here the clause "for he intended..." is dependent on the preceding and provides an explanation for it. This is not the most obvious meaning of the Greek καὶ, but it is possible. The following verse then begins a new sentence, where the "but" in most translations is not required by the Greek.3

The emphasis on theophany in this passage finds support in verse 50 when Jesus reassures the disciples using the emphatic ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi) that is part of the "divine formula of self-revelation"6. This focus on the event as revelation of divinity does not deny that there is a shift in Jesus's plan as he walks.

  Yet, precisely at this most "divine" moment...he also displays his humanness, for his will seems momentarily to be thwarted. He wishes to pass the disciples by for their own good, to give them a full revelation of his identity, but...he is called back to earth by the necessity of ministering to them.7

Regardless of whether they understand Mark 6:48 as expressing the disciples' viewpoint (#1) or Jesus’ intention (#2), commentators consistently identify a reference to several Old Testament theophanies.4  The notion of God "passing by" recalls Moses's experience at Sinai (Ex 33:19, 22) where this same verb – παρέρχομαι – is used in both verses in the LXX. Also, in 1 Kings 19:11, God "passes by" (παρέρχομαι) Elijah on Horeb (1 Kings 19:11). An even closer parallel to Mark 6 is found in the Septuagint of Job 9:8,11:

  [The Lord,] who alone stretched out the sky
         and walks on the sea as on dry ground
  ...
  If he passed over me, I would certainly not see him,
         and if he went by  me, I would not even know. (NETS)

Here the transcendent Lord is represented both walking on water and "passing by"  (again, παρέρχομαι) Job.

To summarize how Christian commentators have addressed the OP’s question:

  Why was Jesus about to walk on water past the disciples?

Either "walk past" was just the disciples’ impression, or the term was chosen to reflect Jesus' decision to reveal himself as divine. Regardless, the OT background of passages where God appears to men figures centrally into the meaning of Mark’s account of Jesus' nocturnal sea-stroll.

1. William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. This commentary I also credit with the framework for this overview of exegetical approaches to this passage summarized here.

2. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Apparently also Cranfield, although I do not have access to that commentary at the moment.

3. An interlinear will show you that there is a word – δὲ – that corresponds to "but". However, in contexts such as this (immediately following a personal pronoun that changes the (grammatical and topical) subject from the preceding clause), the δὲ likely functions primarily to change the subject rather than to introduce a logical contrast. If so, it is appropriately left untranslated or, as proposed here, represented by the start of a new sentence. Note that this shift of (topical) subject is against the proposal in #1 which holds that the last part of verse 48 has the disciples primarily in view.

4. In addition to the two cited above, James A. Brooks, Mark (New American Commentary), Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991; Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (The Anchor Yale Bible), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

5. Brooks, ibid.

6. Lane, ibid.  This formula is known in the NT primarily in the Gospel of John, and this is one of the few "absolute" (i.e. without complement) uses of the phrase as a claim to divinity outside of that book. (The other two are also in Mark: vv 13:6 and 14:62.) The Old Testament background is frequently traced to Ex 3:14, although Deut 32:39 via the LXX, Isa 43:10, and 45:18 via the LXX, have been considered more likely in recent scholarship focused on the issue.

6. Marcus, ibid.


Were some parts of the law abolished or "not one jot will by any means pass from the law"?

Many Christians agree that there are three distinct kinds of laws in the old testament, and that one of them is eternal.

The moral law that declares how man should live.
The civil law that was the legal structures for the ancient nation of Israel.
The ceremonial law that declared how ancient Israel was to worship.

The moral law is believed to be eternal.  While it's not perfectly clear what's in the moral law and what is in the other two categories the Ten Commandments as well as passages like Deuteronomy 6:5 are in the moral law.

Both the examples in your question would fall into the ceremonial law.  Many Christians believe that the ceremonial law was either abolished at the death of Christ or completely fulfilled at the death of Christ.  Obviously Christ was and is the eternal sacrifice.  The specific sacrifices of the Old Testament are no longer needed.  As for circumcision it too is fulfilled in a different way.

  Philippians 3:3 (ESV)

   3For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—

As for the civil law which would include the punishments specified for crimes and the like, it obviously ended when ancient Israel as a nation-state ended.

That said, while some of the laws in the Old Testament don't hold direct sway over our lives any more, remember:

  2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)

   16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.


What are the requirements for godparents in the Roman Catholic Church?

Disclaimer: Though I am a Catholic, I am not a canon lawyer, nor a theologian, nor a priest. I am reasonably certain that my answer is correct and in accordance with Church law; but if I am in error I will gladly receive correction.
Unfortunately, it appears that such a couple as you describe is not eligible to be godparents at a Catholic baptism.
The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church has a whole chapter on godparents—"sponsors" is the technical term—but before we go there, let's talk about the Catholic theology of baptism.
The Catholic understanding of baptism differs from that of some Protestant denominations in that Catholics consider baptism as a necessary thing. The  Catechism of the Catholic Church calls baptism

the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit ... and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission.

(paragraph 1213)
Describing what the Sacrament of Baptism actually does, the Catechism explains:

it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God." [cf. Titus 3:5, John 3:5]

(paragraph 1215; emphasis added)
This being the case, the Church reasons, why would one not want to baptize one's children at as early an age as possible?

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.

(paragraphs 1250, 1251)
The Church therefore considers it very important to ensure both that children are baptized and that baptism is used as an introduction to and support for their Christian and Catholic life. To that end, they have several canons discussing baptism, who can be baptized, requirements for parents of children being baptized, and (importantly for our question) requirements for baptismal sponsors. These requirements are essentially the same in the Latin Church's Code of Canon Law as they are in the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, which governs the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches. I'll review the Latin Church's rules.
The rules appear in Book IV, Part I, Title I, Chapter IV of the Code of Canon Law, "Of Sponsors".
The sponsor at an infant or child baptism has two functions: first, to stand as a witness for the parents' desire to have their child baptized; and second, to help the child grow up leading a Christian and Catholic life (cf. canon 872). With this in mind, the Church imposes restrictions on potential sponsors intended to ensure that they can appropriately fulfill this second function. The restrictions appear in canon 874, section 1. Each sponsor must:

be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

This restriction makes sure that the sponsor is close enough to the family that they will be easily able to interact with the child, and that they are willing and able to do what a sponsor needs to do.

[They must] have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

This is to make sure that they are psychologically mature enough to ensure that the child does what a Catholic needs to do—even when it's not easy for the child, and when it's not easy for the sponsor.

[They must] be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

This is the restriction at the core of your question. The restriction here is to make sure that the sponsor understands what, exactly, is involved in leading a Catholic life, and in helping another to do so.

[They must] not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

In other words, they have to be in good standing with the Church, and not be at risk of passing on any opinion to the child, or engendering any opinion in the child, which might not be congruent with Church doctrine.

[They must] not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

This is so that the child gets a "second chance" in the event that the parents are (or become) unable or unwilling to raise the child Catholic.
Because the couple you mention do not fulfill the requirements of part (3), they would unfortunately be ineligible to be godparents.
It may be possible for the priest to ask the bishop to dispense from that particular canon; I would imagine, given the importance the Catholic Church attaches to baptism, that a dispensation would probably not be granted even if it's possible.


Are Catholics allowed to call Mary 'perfect' by virtue of her Immaculate Conception?

Your own question contains the answer

If by "perfect" you mean "sinless", and that the Immaculate Conception as the Church teaches means Mary was conceived immaculate in the womb of her mother i.e. without contracting original sin, then her Immuculate Conception was just the beginning.

Think of Eve [and Adam] created sinless and in innocence until they fell.

In CCC 493, the Church teaches that by the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long, and therefore from your taking sinless to mean perfection, Catholics can say mary was perfect all her life long because by the grace of God she remained sinless all her life long.

Please note that all of us are called to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect except our path unlike that of Mary is by forgiveness of our sins and our purification from them.


Philippians 4:8 is an excellent guide when considering whether the lyrics in a song, or the words in a book, or a television programme, are appropriate for a Christian to read/see:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

It is the lyrics that determine whether a song is “acceptable” for a Christian to listen to. If anything leads you to think about or get involved in something that does not glorify God, it should be avoided.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/secular-music.html

Songs that ask us to imagine there’s no heaven, and that there is no God (for example) fail to focus our minds on things from above and are dishonouring to God.  However, within the bounds of Christian liberty it is up to individuals to exercise their conscience in such matters.  Nobody has any right to tell you what you should, or should not listen to, read or watch.  If your conscience troubles you, then act accordingly.
Having said that, this sort of question is likely to be closed because Christianity Stack Exchange is not in the business of giving pastoral advice.  Please take our tour to find out what sort of questions are allowed, and how to avoid asking questions that will attract opinions (which is what I’ve done – oops!)  https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tour


What was the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees?

Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots were the four primary religious/political factions of the time.

Pharisees were keepers of the Law and held the entire (what we would call) Hebrew Bible as the word of YHWH. They emerged from the exile as the dominant faction because they (correctly) connected Israel's abandoning of the Law as the reason for the punishment of exile. As such, they created "fences" to attempt to keep people from even coming close to replicating this behavior and casting Israel into exile and further punishment.

Sadducees were more affluent and were also more sympathetic to the Hellenistic movement. They acquiesced quite a bit to the influence of the prevailing powers (Greece, and then Rome) because they realized it was economically and politically advantageous for them to do so. They also only held the Pentateuch as their authoritative Scriptures.

Essenes held themselves to a higher standard of piety - including voluntary poverty, abstinence, and other forms and degrees of asceticism. Additionally, they lived in a tighter community (Jerusalem had an "Essene Quarter") and may have influenced the early Christian community (of Acts 1-11). Some of them took a more radical approach on this communalism and established the community of Qumran.

Zealots were just that. They believed that change could only be affected in the ruling powers through force, and likely had not real religious leader.


What evil things did Alexander the copper-smith do to Paul in 2 Tim. 4:14 that led to Paul saying God will recompense him?

John Chrysostom, one of the Early Church Fathers, wrote, in his Homily 10 on Second Timothy, that Paul was referring to his trial when he said Alexander had done him much harm. The next verse relates that he (Alexander) greatly withstood Paul's words, opposing his message, and the verse after that is clearly about Paul's trial , saying he had nobody to support  him during it.   On this view Alexander was a principal and effective opponent of Paul and probably a witness, and major complainant,  against him. He may also have turned others against Paul, perhaps being the cause of the lack of support for him which he mentions in verse 16. Gill's Exposition suggests Alexander had done great injury to Paul's character and had reproached and reviled him as a man of bad principles and practices.

It is likely Alexander was from Ephesus, and may have travelled to Rome expressly to cause difficulties for Paul. Timothy is thought to have been either at Ephesus, or on his way there, when Paul wrote to him which suggests he (Alexander) may have returned there.

Many commentators suspect that this Alexander the Coppersmith was the same Alexander mentioned in Acts 19 v33. This was at a riotous assembly in Ephesus provoked by Demetrius, a silversmith. Demetrius was concerned that Paul's preaching was damaging their trade, causing a slump in demand for religious artefacts associated with the temple of Artemis. Demetrius gathered together other metalworkers to protest Paul's damaging influence on their trade. The word "Coppersmith" doesn't just mean coppersmith, it refers to any manufacturer of metalic products, and so Alexander the Coppersmith  would likely have been involved. A large and tumultuous gathering resulted, many participants not knowing what was going on or why they were there(verse 32).  This Alexander was then thrust forward by the Jews and attempted to speak to the crowd, gesturing them to quiten down so that he could make a speech. He was presumably seen as a potentially powerful orator, which again suggests he may be the same man as our Alexander 'Smith.  We do not know what he wanted to say, partly because he never got to say it. Instead the crowd began chanting "Great is Artemis, Great is Artemis", and continued doing so  for two hours until eventually the Town Clerk succeeded in dispersing them (verse 41).

The fact Alexander didn't, in the end, get to make his speech has not stopped later generations from speculating about it. Calvin, in his commentary, suggests that Alexander was a Christian believer and intended to speak in defence of Paul and of Christianity, and that he was willingly risking martyrdom by attempting to do so. Chrysostom, however, wrote that Alexander was attempting to inflame the matter. Matthew Henry suggests that the Jews who thrust him forward wanted Alexander to denounce Paul as an enemy of Judaism, as well as of Artemis and the metal industry.

If Alexander was not  a Christian his animosity for Paul may have begun there.

Another mention of the name Alexander occurs in 1 Timothy chapter 1 verse 20. This Alexander is a pparently a renegade Christian believer who Paul has "delivered to Satan" for blasphemy, speaking against the truth. If this is Alexander the Coppersmith then the animosity between the two men may date from there, if not before.

Paul's remark that God will recompense Alexander Coppersmith may simply mean Timothy should not attempt to do so himself. Leave it to God.  Paul is warning Timothy to be careful of him.


How does "Lead us not into temptation" need to be interpreted?

The word lead is nearly as unambiguous in Greek as it is in English -  εἰσφέρω (eispherō) - and the word for temptation - πειρασμός (peirasmos) - can mean temptation towards evil, just as in English.  It should be noted, though, that whereas in the preceding verse - forgive us our debts (Matthew 6:12), or forgive us our sins (Luke 11:4) - the Evangelists write in the imperative mood in Greek (i.e. as a sort of command), both Matthew and Luke use the subjunctive mood in the following verse.  What we normally see as lead us not into temptation could just as well be rendered may you not lead us into temptation, or perhaps may you never lead us into temptation.

While one might be tempted [sorry] to read a meaning of "test" rather than "tempt" into peirasmos, I don't think this is the best approach here.  Instead, one should probably also see and lead us not into temptation in opposition to the other clause in the verse, but deliver us from evil (or the evil one - the Greek can be read either way and was).

In his lengthly sermon on just this verse, Cyril of Alexandria - a 4th century Greek speaking to Greeks - explained:

  There is a certain close connection in the clauses: for plainly it follows from men not being led into temptation, that they are also delivered from evil; or perchance, were any one to say, that the not being led into it is the same as the being delivered from it, he would not err from the truth.1

In other words, Cyril is saying that the way to understand the verse is that it is a supplication to God to deliver one from evil in general and not - "God forbid" one might add - into temptation.

1. Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke, Sermon LXXVII


While this isn't true for all branches of Christianity, the vast majority of Christianity believes God to be Omnipresent - that is, everywhere at once.

From http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog11.htm

  God is Omnipresent

  The attribute of God by which He fills the universe in all its parts
  and is present everywhere at once. Not a part, but the whole of God is
  present in every place. This is true of all three members of the
  Trinity. They are so closely related that where one is the others can
  be said to be, also.

That page lists several verses from Scripture that support this attribute of God.

See also

http://www.theopedia.com/Omnipresence_of_God
http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/050700.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2690
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-omnipresence-of-god/

This generally goes along with the idea that God is Spirit (John 4:24), and not a physical being of flesh and bone.  Although some denominations, like the LDS, teach that God is a being of flesh and bone, and that omnipresence has a slightly different meaning.

For many Christians, God is also not limited to our universe. As the self-existing Creator of the universe, He us greater than it, and not limited to the universe.

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/finger.html


Have Christians opposed "Good Luck" wishes?

Yes in Word of Faith circles we are trained not to say good luck as there is no such thing as luck. We say other things like "I'm praying for you", "God bless" and "it will work out". The verse we go in relation to this like many others is Mark 11:22.


Did Pope Francis overstep any official Catholic boundary when he criticized Trump?

There is no doctrine, policy or convention in the Catholic church that prevents a priest, or any church leader, from pronouncing on the rightness of some action or belief.

Historically, over the last thousand years or so, the Pope and other church leaders have pronounced on the policies and conduct of many world leaders. In recent times the Pope has condemned Apartheid, Communism, the Rwandan genocide, restrictions on the Cuban church, and much else.

It has to be pointed out that Pope Francis did not pronounce Trump a non-Christian, but pronounced the actions described to him by a questioner as those of a non-Christian, leaving open at least the possibility that the actions described in the question did not accurately reflect Trump's stance. Trump is also far from the only Presidential candidate both advocating wall-building and claiming to be Christian.


Is there any connection between the country of origin of Popes and nearby large gatherings of Catholics or Councils?

No. Because until St John-Paul II, few popes traveled, and those that did, didn't travel much. There was no expectation of a Pope's homecoming, in the sense of the Pope returning to his country of origin.


Why do Jehovah Witnesses think that the cross doesn't have hands?

The Jehovah's Witness use of the word stake instead of cross is based on scholarly examination of the original Greek manuscripts.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

  "stauros denotes, primarily, 'an upright pale or stake.'...Both the noun and the verb stauroo, 'to fasten to a stake or pale,' are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed 'cross.'"

Oxford University’s Companion Bible says:

  "The evidence is...that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle."

History shows that the cross is a pagan symbol that predates Christianity, but that the churches allowed its adoption in order to facilitate conversion of pagans. Witnesses reject the cross as a tradition that does not have a Biblical basis.


What were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, according to Mormons?

As PyRulez points out, the text from Moses 8:13-16 offers a larger perspective on what was actually going on in Genesis 6:

13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.
15 And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice.
16 And it came to pass that Noah prophesied, and taught the things of God, even as it was in the beginning.

Joseph Fielding Smith in "Answers to Gospel Questions" 1:136-137 (search for the text "first two verses in Genesis, Chapter six") answers the question "Will you kindly explain the meaning of the first two verses in Genesis, Chapter six?" While I am not aware of the official canonicity of this publication, the answer to this question seems in line with the LDS canonized corpus as far as I can tell, and Joseph Fielding Smith was president of the church and I think was president at the time this book was written.
The full text of President Smith's answer is too long to include here in full.  I will paraphrase and quote the most relevant points.
First he states that the notion that the "sons of God" as mentioned in Genesis 6:2 are heavenly beings who came down is false.  (He actually calls it a "foolish notion [that] is the result of lack of proper information".)
President Smith then references Moses 8:13-16 as I have above.  He uses these verses to establish that the "daughters of men" in Genesis 6:2 are actually the daughters of the sons of Noah.  President Smith then offers this commentary:

Because the daughters of Noah married the sons of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause that brought to pass the universal flood. You will see that the condition appears reversed in the Book of Moses. It was the daughters of the sons of God who were marrying the sons of men, which was displeasing unto the Lord. The fact was, as we see it revealed, that the daughters who had been born, evidently under the covenant, and were the daughters of the sons of God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood, were transgressing the commandment of the Lord and were marrying out of the Church. Thus they were cutting themselves off from the blessings of the priesthood contrary to the teachings of Noah and the will of God.

So, the answer to your question is that the use of "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is likely a mistranslation or some other error that occurred over the centuries, and according to Moses 8 the daughters of the sons of God (Noah's granddaughters) married the sons of men (men who did not have the priesthood).


According to Catholicism, in what cases is Purgatory necessary?

Very good question that I would like to see if I can answer to your satisfaction or at least give you some pointers to where to obtain a deeper understanding of the mystery of what happens to our soul after death. You can find biblical passages in my references that support this understanding by the Church and has been expanded and deepened over the centuries, but nevertheless, for sure, nobody knows, only God.

Purgatory is not only necessary for the reasons you list but also is necessary, but not limited to, erasing from our soul, not the sin per se, but the tendency for us to sin. Since we would go to purgatory "after" our personal judgement with Christ at which point we would have accepted Him or rejected Him.

This is call "Concupiscence." Here is an extract of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia under this subject:

  Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting.

For an easy way to envision this, take this example: how come, even though Christ has forgiven us, in the case of Catholics via the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession or in protestant circles, by Accepting Christ as my Savior and be saved, we still sin and do bad things? It is very, very hard to work on our bad behaviors and tendencies and we see we fall again and again. I am talking here about the true at heart and honest to themselves believers, not the people that say one thing and do another or never had the intention to amend their ways.

So, purgatory is where we work away, with the Grace of God, that last remaining tendency to not do the will of God freely and instantly, with no second thoughts of what we want or what makes us feel good. It is the point where there is no distinction between our will and God's Will.

In the case of the Good Thief on the Cross, we do not know what that infusion of Grace my have been to participate and witness the agony and sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. He may have been transformed so deeply by the experience that when Christ says to him "Today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) his passage through Purgatory may have been just an instant or a few hours. Then again, we don't know what a day is (or the sense of today) in the language of eternity.

So, with God's infinity Mercy and Love, he has given way to ensure we have all that we would need in order stand in front of him in His Kingdom with a soul as pure and white as snow to praise and glorify him through eternity!

God bless!

Reference

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1031


What does the word Glory mean in the Bible?

Have you ever used Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek? I often come here with questions on the meanings of words.

Paul said that man is the image and glory of God, and that woman is the glory of the man; also that the man is not without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. -- Man as we know was created first. Jehovah was asked if it was good for man to be alone, "No" he replied. So He and God created woman. Man was created after God's image, Woman was created after Man's image.

Here is what glory means in 1 Cor 11:7 according to this site. Out of the definitions I am not sure which one fits the best.

Take a look, use Strong's Concordance, it is a wonderful tool.  It is for both Greek and Hebrew.


Is it possible to believe in Jesus, pray to Him and be baptized and yet not get regenerated?

Acts 19:1-7 has an interesting story that may have bearing on this:

  1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
     They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

  3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

  “John’s baptism,” they replied.

  4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

Of interest here is the fact that John & Jesus preached the exact same same Gospel, so this was really, really close. The question is whether there is something magical about the syllables "G" and "Sus", which, especially bearing in mind that this wasn't originally in English, is unlikely.

What is more interesting is that clearly John's baptism was one of repentance - the very sine qua non of an altar call - and yet, clearly that's not enough.

What I surmise from this text is either:
(a) that inflowing of the Holy Spirit is therefore the choice of the Holy Spirit. While repentance was clearly a pre-requisite, it almost seems as though these people needed to accept the grace that the Spirit entails, even above and beyond repentance.
or (b) that it is in fact Jesus himself that is the key aspect of regeneration.


Are Followers of Christianity Allowed to Love Whomever They Choose?

Christians are called to love everybody – even those that people would not normally love. This is modelled best by Jesus Christ himself, who loved outcasts, sinners and failures like myself.

This is fraternal love that all of us must have for our common man. When it comes to romantic love, there's slightly more to it.

Christians are asked/commanded earliest in Deuteronomy to not marry unbelievers because they could potentially be read astray. Elsewhere, the bible is riddled with literature about being "unequally yoked" or married to an unbeliever.

That said, we all have free will and can marry or date whomever we want. The question that usually will be on a Christian's mind though, is "Will this please God and be an act of worship to Him?". We also know that being unequally yoked wouldn't please God. Because of this, we choose to seek romantic relationships with Christians only, despite having free will. Why? Because we love God. Why do we love God? Because he loved us.

What happens if a Christian is married to an unbeliever? Are they to leave them?

Pretty much the only time divorce is allowed biblically is when adultery has occured. No adultery, no grounds for divorce, even if it's an interfaith marriage. The Christian party is asked to love and serve and lead a holy, God-pleasing, God-glorifying life as an example to their spouse.

What about dating? Can my Christian girlfriend dump me because I'm not a Christian?

Yes, she can. She can become aware of how the relationship may be getting serious, leading toward marriage, thinking about if the marriage will please God, realizing it won't, and then ending it.

The thing about Christianity is, God comes first, no matter what, no matter how hard it can be. Why? Because to him, we come first.

I hope that was helpful!


Does the Bible talk about denominations?

I think the situation in Corinth is comparable to there being different denominations.

  1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (ESV)
   10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." 13  Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

This passage also quite clearly shows what Paul thinks of the situation. He talks more in-depth about this in chapters 3 and 12.


Did the Jews waiting for their Messiah associate him with the creation of the world?

Surprisingly some ancient rabbis did actually draw the connection of the Messiah to the creation of the world. Under this classical Messianic text, a connection was made:

  There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
  and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
   And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
  the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
  the Spirit of counsel and might,
  the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. (Isaiah 11:1-2, ESV)

Accordingly there is an ancient rabbinic reference recorded by the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim that understands this Spirit, to be the Spirit of the Messiah in the creation of the world.

  In Gen. 1:2, the expression, ‘Spirit of God,’ is explained of ‘the Spirit of the King Messiah,’ with reference to Is. 11:2, and the ‘moving on the face of the deep’ of ‘repentance,’ according to Lam. 2:19. So in Ber. R. 2, and in regard to the first point also in Ber. R. 8, in Vayyik. R. 14, and in other places. (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by Alfred Edersheim)

Although it is found in scripture that Messiah is also God, it was not commonly understood that the Messiah was God by the Jews until it became evident during Christ's life on earth.  Yet this does not mean that the Messiah was not believed to be pre-existing before his physical appearance.  The idea that he was preexisting and associated with the Spirit of Jehovah was quite commonly understood. Although they did not see things clearly they did see enough to recognize the truth when they finally saw it in Christ manifested in the flesh.  Why else do we suppose so many Jews first put their faith in him as their Messiah and God?


In heaven, will we desire to receive more intimacy, affection, and care from all others compared to our earthy life (catholic)?

The Divine Comedy relates some idea of movement of the will in heaven, in other words, those beatified constantly are filled by God and yet desire him more and more. This is reflected in Dante's "visual" experience: constant movement, swirling motion, etc., especially canto XXXIII. Contrast this with the scholastic idea of beatitude, which on the whole seems to me much more static and aligns closely with your first view. You can see Caroline Walker Bynum's work "Resurrection of the Body" for a brief overview of Dante's dynamic vision of the Beatific Vision vs the Scholastics. Neither of these viewpoints are necessarily dogmatic, but both sources have been proven orthodox so I think you could in good conscience hope for whichever one you find more edifying so long as the basic belief in the fulfillment of desire, vision of God, etc is maintained. Personally, I find Dante's conception much more beautiful and mystifying. This is completely off the top of my head after a long day, so please correct any inaccuracies there may be.
I'll go ahead and quote Dante at length here: Canto XXXIII ~line 90 following St Bernard's prayer to Our Lady, Dante is overwhelmed by the vision of light:

     > *Substance and accidents and their relations
      I saw as though they fused in such a way
      That what I say is but a gleam of light.

      The universal pattern of this knot
      I believe I saw, because in telling this,
      I feel my gladness growing ever larger.

      One moment made more slip my memory than
      Twenty-five centuries reft from the adventure
      That awed Neptune with the shadow of the Argo.

      So my mind, held in absolute suspense,
      Was staring fixed, intent, and motionless,
      And by its staring grew the more inflamed.*


How do Protestant Christians understand the “Sabbath-rest for the people of God” in Hebrews chapter 4?

What does it mean for Protestant Christians to enter into the Sabbath rest for God's people as described in Hebrews chapter 4?
Since joining mainstream Protestantism in the 1980s (baptised in a British Baptist church), I soon learned from many a sermon that the idea of this ‘Sabbath rest for God’s people’ has a two-fold aspect.
(1) Resting from their own works by trusting utterly in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Christians do good works but not in order to enter into God’s rest; on the contrary, supposing that one must do things in order to be at peace with God results in distress – ceaseless striving to be good enough, as if what Christ had done was insufficient to bring peace with God. Spiritual ‘resting’ in Christ is the present, on-going ‘rest’ in this world where we can be at peace with God, despite all else going on around us. “O rest in the Lord, wait patiently for him... Wait on the Lord and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land.” (Psalm 37:7 & 34)
(2) In the world to come, it will be the joyous rest of being in Heaven and actually in God’s presence, away from the strife, turmoil and often misunderstood business of just trying to live as a Christian in a largely godless world.
The points made in Hebrews 4 must include chapter 3, which is the foundation for the writer’s conclusion in 4:8-11. The example is drawn of the sin of disbelief by Israel at the borders of Canaan, which prevented them entering into God’s rest back then. Believing, acting faith is key to entering in to rest with God. Disbelief and disobedience denies us the rest God would give us. This link is made in this Protestant book (originally published in 1899; my quote is from the 1978 reprint):

“For faithful though he was, Moses was only a servant within God’s
house, while Jesus was a Son over it… the writer first of all
impresses upon his readers the need of this continued faith and
perseverance (c. iii.7-19), and then shows them that there is still a
true Sabbath-rest after which to strive, of which the rest of Canaan
offered to their fathers had given them the promise (c. iv. 1-13).”
The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews by George Milligan (p 62)

A 2011 Protestant book detailing core doctrines for Christian disciples makes the same point:

“Paul’s legalists had misunderstood the true nature of the law: to
lead us to Christ, not to lead us to self-salvation. The demand for
faith does not turn faith into a work. On the contrary, it is a
command to cease our labors and enter God’s rest (Heb. 4:10). We are
commanded to repent not only of our immoral life that we once approved
but of self-trust, which is the greatest sin of all – the chief form
of idolatry.” (p 267) “The Everlasting Sabbath of the New Heavens and
Earth is the heading on p 452. Pilgrim Theology by Michael Horton,
Zondervan

The Sabbath is a day of rest, and the literal 7th day of the week rest of the old testament becomes, for the Christian, the 7-day-a-week rest of peace with God due to the finished work of Christ on the cross. A Christian who rests in faith while being busy working for the Lord knows this non-legalistic constant rest of faith even now, on earth. Then, in the Everlasting Sabbath to come, the words of Revelation 14:12-13 could not be more inspirational:

“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from
heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the
Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from
their labours; and their works do follow them.”

The condition for entering into that Sabbath rest of Hebrews 4:9-10 is active, believing faith.


Do Catholics view other religion as a sin?

"whose God ?"
There is only one God, the creator of the heavens and the earth:

Ps 95:5 For all the gods of the Gentiles* are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.

*i.e., unbelievers
St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., commentates on this verse:

St. James [2:19] says, “the devils also believe and tremble;” and, as David alludes to false gods, especially in this Psalm, he, therefore, assigns a reason for our God being feared above all gods, when he says, “For all the gods of the gentiles are devils; but the Lord made the heavens;” that is to say, God is to be feared above all false gods, erroneously adored by the gentiles, because the gods of the gentiles are not true gods, but demons, who, through pride, have revolted from the God who created them, and have been doomed by him to eternal punishment; “but the Lord,” instead of being a spirit created, is a creating spirit, who “made the heavens,” the greatest and the most beautiful things in nature, as well as everything under its canopy, that is, all things created.

Worshiping false gods is the sin of idolatry.
False gods are airy nothings:Pohle's Dogmatic Treatise vol. 1:

The Book of Wisdom devotes several chapters76 to the refutation and condemnation of Polytheism and Idolatry. In fact, Holy Scripture never tires of denouncing Idolatry as foolish and impious, and the pagan deities as “not gods,”77 “lies and vanity,”78 “wind and vanity,”79 airy nothings.8076. Wisd. 12-15.77. 2 Kings 19:18; Jer. 2:11.78. Jer. 16:19.79. Is. 41:24; Dan. 5:23.80. Ps. 95:5; not אֶלוֹהים, but אֱלִילִים, i. e., nihila ["nothings"].

To worship them violates the First Commandment:

Exodus 20:2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

In the ¶ after what I quoted in my answer to "Do Catholics view atheism as a sin?", St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 3 co.):

Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God.


Spiritual gifts and their exercise within today's Catholic Church

I'm only a novice, but I have been researching this subject lately and I would be happy to provide you with what little insight I can.

Different Catholic churches will have different positions on cessation vs continuation.

Typically Catholic churches hold a view point of cessation, however, Pope Francis in particular has been increasingly accepting of Charismatic Catholics (the word "Charismatic" here is implying that they believe in the gifts from 1 Corinthians) and he has invited them to the upcoming jubilee.

http://georgiabulletin.org/news/2014/06/pope-invites-charismatics-vatican-2017-jubilee/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

Hope it helps!


What is the biblical/logical basis for rejecting the "physical" interpretation of Christ's being the Only Begotten Son?

Christ is God's begotten son, which to relate it to human terms means he was born of God.

Lucifer, on the other hand, is a fallen angel who was created by God as were the other angels, just as man was.

  Colossians 1:15-17 NIV
  15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
  creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and
  on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers
  or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
  17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

These verses tell us that Christ was the firstborn, and all things were created through him.  This includes all things in heaven such as the angels.


How do we recognize Elijah when he will come before the day of Lord?
In the Book of Revelation we read about two witnesses who will be God’s prophets that will prepare the world for Christ’s second coming.

The Two Witnesses
11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.” 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.
7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days the breath[b] of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven. - Revelation 11:1-13

Who are these two witnesses. Most Christians think it will be Elijah and Enoch. Some think it may be Elijah and Moses.

In the Book of Revelation, the two witnesses are two of God's prophets who are seen by John of Patmos, during the "Second woe" recorded in Revelation 11:1-14. They have been variously identified by theologians as two people, as two groups of people, or as two concepts. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the events described in the Book of Revelation will occur before and during the Second Coming. The two witnesses are never identified in the Christian Bible. Some believe they are Enoch and Elijah, as in the Gospel of Nicodemus, since they are the only two that did not see death as required by the Scriptures. Others believe them to be Moses and Elijah because they appeared during the transfiguration of Jesus, or because Enoch was not Abraham's descendant. Some also believe that they are Moses and Elijah due to the description of what they are to do. They have the power to shut the heavens (Elijah) and turn water into blood (Moses) - Two witnesses

In any case, if Elijah and Enoch do show up there is no sure way that we will be able to recognize him at. The Scriptures simply tells us what to look for, but not the absolute certainty that they are going to be clearly identified by believers at all.
Look at the uncertainty that surrounded the ministry of Jesus himself:

Peter's Confession of Christ
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”… - Matthew 16:13-15

There will certainly some who will be able to recognize the Two Witness, but how and when will have to be determined as the future events partaking of the Second Coming of Christ unfold!
For myself, it is not an impossibility that Elijah will preach to the Jews and Enoch to those who are neither Christian or Jewish. For Christians, we have our Church leaders to help us prepare for the Great Day of Christ’s Return.
Nothing is written in stone!
Theodoret wrote that Elijah would do just that:

"Paul insists that only a part of Israel has been hardened, for many of them believe.  He thus encourages them not to despair that others will be saved as well.  After the Gentiles accepted the gospel, the Jews would believe, when the great Elijah would come to them and bring them the doctrine of the faith.  The Lord himself said as much: 'Elijah will come and will restore all things.'"


According to authoritative Catholic exegetes, does 2 Cor. 6:14 forbid Christians from working with non-Christians in the workplace?

John Chrysostom is a 4th century Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church and he does not interpret the passage this way:

  He said not, 'Intermix not with unbelievers,' but rather dealing
  sharply with them, as transgressing what was right, 'Suffer not
  yourselves to turn aside,' says he, For what fellowship have
  righteousness and iniquity?

  Homily XIII on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians


How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?

The Bible advises wisdom, not naiveté:

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV):

  20Do not despise prophecies, 21but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Proverbs 2:9-11 (ESV):

  9Then you will understand what is right and just and fair—every good path. 10For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. 11Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you.

Although the scientific method, properly applied, is simply a rigorous way to test everything and hold fast what is true (note: not necessarily good, but similar in spirit), one can decorate all sorts of whims and falsehoods with the appearance of science.  Pseudoscience delivers no more wisdom and knowledge than superstition simply because it pretends to be science; you have to actually rigorously apply the scientific method for it to work.

Thus, Christians should adopt the same stance towards pseudoscience--that it is not knowledge, not wisdom, and not to be held fast--as they do towards superstition.


Why did the Old Testament command to kill?

Personally, I think that the primary difference is that the New Testament "gives to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's".  There is, in essence, in the Christian faith, a separation from what is legal and what is right in faith in Christ.  Whereas the Old Testament is both the law of God (those things that an individual should or should not do), which Christians still believe, and the law of the land of Israel (the legal consequences for disobeying the moral law).  Christians no longer adhere to the latter because they are dispersed among the nations (we don't stone people anymore for violating the moral law, we obey the legal system that is over us).  The same would technically be true of Jews. Jews are not stoning adulterers in the United States but allowing the United States' legal system handle those things.  Or if we prefer Biblical cases: Daniel did not stone the Babylonians for the evil they did when he was in Babylon.  Daniel kept to the moral law for himself...the law is good...but he did not pursue Israeli civil and criminal punishments against the Babylonians.

When Jesus refused to stone the woman caught in adultery, He did not say that the law against adultery was bad, and he did not say that stoning was wrong.  However, he did not stone the woman.  There seem to be two grounds for this: 1) It was against Roman law for them to stone the woman, and 2) Mercy and forgiveness are greater than the law of sin and death. While it is not wrong to punish someone for their sins, it is also not wrong to forgive, and forgiveness is greater. Pretty much the entire book of Romans will do more justice to this idea than I can give here.

Two additional things to note:

Jesus did not abolish the law (Matt 5:17).
Jesus did not lower the bar of morality but raised the bar.  Now lust is adultery (Matt 5:28), etc.

As to specifically killing.  In the United States, we do kill 1st degree murderers at times, and it's legal to kill in self-defense.  Many Christians support these laws and would kill in self-defense.  Though, some Christians like the Amish would not even kill in self-defense to my knowledge.

Ultimately, regardless of the laws of the land, the Christian is charged to do what is right, which is never illegal in any country:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23, emphasis added)


Is there a sense in which Stephen was the first Catholic saint?

Saint Stephen was the first martyr, at whose stoning Saul/Paul was present.

He doesn't get the honour of "first saint".
The rules have almost certainly changed since antiquity, and are now fairly rigid (two miracles are required, at least).


According to the Holy Spirit's infallible inspiration of scripture, is anything ever recorded that is unnecessary or curious?

Nothing is unnecessary within scripture: everything mentioned in scripture is essential and not merely curious, because all scripture is useful for teaching, refutation, correction, and training in righteousness:

  2 Timothy 3:16-17
  16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17
  so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Regarding study, and we may presume especially study of the trivial, take care to not exhaust yourself:

  Ecclesiastes 12:9-14
  Epilogue. 9
  Besides being wise, Qoheleth taught the people knowledge, and weighed, scrutinized and arranged many proverbs.
  10
  Qoheleth sought to find appropriate sayings, and to write down true sayings with precision.
  11
  The sayings of the wise are like goads; like fixed spikes are the collected sayings given by one shepherd.
  12
  As to more than these, my son, beware. Of the making of many books there is no end, and in much study there is weariness for the flesh.
  13
  The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this concerns all humankind;
  14
  because God will bring to judgment every work, with all its hidden qualities, whether good or bad.

(An aside: Christ does have a very important genealogical history through His Blessed Mother, Mary.)


How is "every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" not contradictory to the "narrow is the way leading to life"?

How is “every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” not contradictory to the “narrow is the way leading to life”?

The Romans verse in context is referring to disputes between Christians.

The "narrow way" refers to those from the population at large who have become Christian.

Even the nation of Israel had the problem of the "broad way" that leads to destruction.

  Judges 17:6  In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man
  did that which was right in his own eyes.

The Romans verse is talking about those who have already entered in by the narrow gate by allowing Christians the elbow room to have their doctrine a little wrong.

  Romans 14:2  For one believeth that he may eat all things: another,
  who is weak, eateth herbs.


According to the Catholic Church, can one be a heretic and still obtain salvation?

Heresy is distinguished as follows:

Material heresy

occult (hidden)e.g., privately thinking there are 4 Divine Persons
publice.g., preaching that there are 4 Divine Persons

Formal heresypertinacious adherence to heresy even after corrected by an ecclesiastical superior or tried for the crime of heresy in a canonical trial*e.g., continuing to preach that there are 4 Divine Persons even after having been censured (cf. the theological censures/notes at the end of this answer) or excommunicated*cf. ch. 9 "Proving the Crime of Heresy", pp. 229ff. (PDF pp. 242ff.), of True or False Pope

If one is invincibly ignorant that he holds a material heresy, he can possibly be saved; however, formal heretics cannot be saved, especially if their heresy is against the four truths absolutely necessary to believe for salvation—viz., that

"he [God] is", i.e., that God exists (Heb. 11:6)
God "is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb. 11:6)
the Second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature (Incarnation)
God is Three Divine Persons in one God (Trinity)

Note: There is unanimous consent among Catholic theologians that truths #1 and #2 are absolutely necessary to be explicitly believed in order to be saved, but not all theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, et al. excepted) think that explicit belief in truths #3 and #4 is necessary; cf. True or False Pope p. 113 // PDF p. 128.source