Are there denominations which prefer using the name "Yeshu‘a" instead of "Jesus"?

Christians, in general, do not believe that Jesus' name is 'magic', in the sense that if you say the word your prayer is somehow more effective. The exact version of the name used is not therefore important. "In my name", as Jesus says, can mean a number of things including "with my authority" and "in accordance with my wishes".

It's true that Yeshua is probably a better rendition of the original name than Jesus. However the confusion of changing it - unless you have a good reason - would probably outweigh the advantages.

The only denomination that I know of that uses Yeshua on a regular basis are the Messianic Jews, particularly Jews for Jesus. That's because the name Yeshua is already familiar to many of them, so it isn't nearly as much of a disconnect. It also emphasizes Jesus' Jewishness.


Does Catholic doctrine teach that atheists go to heaven, too?

The short answer is No.

The misconception that Pope Francis has in any way changed Church teaching or turned us into universalists was explicitly addressed by quite a few Catholic bloggers recently. In particular, Fr. Dwight Longenecker states states it like this:

  Unfortunately for those who wish to paint Pope Francis as a lovable
  liberal, in fact, the Pope is simply affirming certain truths that any
  somewhat knowledgable Catholic will uphold. First, that Christ died to
  redeem the whole world. We can distinguish his redemptive work from
  the acceptance of salvation. He redeemed the whole world. However,
  many will reject that saving work. In affirming the universality of
  Christ’s redemptive work we are not universalists. To say that he
  redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved.

The Catholic Church, not unlike other Christian groups, has always taught that Christ's redemption is for all. It's always taught that the "Mystical Church" extends beyond the visible Church. And while the visible Church is the "normal means" for salvation, God is not limited by those means.

To be clear, atheism is still a sin according to the Catholic Church — and always will be. But, all of us are sinners. And the best any of us can do is continually re-submit ourselves to God. The "gotcha" that the Pope may have intended to highlight is simply that God is big, transcendent, and mysterious: He doesn't operate exclusively under the name of "God."

Even within the scope of scripture and Catholic literature, God is known by a lot of names, each of which tends to arise for the purpose of meeting sinners "where they are." An atheist may be averse to "God" so-called by Christians because of our hypocrisies, not realizing that our God (Christ) and their Truth, Source, Life, or Love are alluding to the same being.

The role of the Church is not to condemn. It's to continually recognize the truthiness and goodness already in people and draw them deeper into truth. This is exemplified by Paul in Acts 17:22-34, wherein he recognizes and elaborates on a single shred of truth the Athenians confess, the idol to "an unknown god."

And it's important to remember, we're all on a truth spectrum. None of us, presumably, are living in a state of complete knowledge or complete ignorance. According to Catholic theology, it's less important where we are on the spectrum than it is in which direction we're actively trending.


Have LDS missionaries stopped preaching door-to-door?

The LDS Church has a manual called "Preach My Gospel" that serves as a guidebook for missionary work. It is mostly directed at full-time missionaries, although non-missionaries use it for study or reference as well. As of today, in the ninth chapter, titled "How Do I Find People to Teach?", under the section on "Finding through Your Own Efforts", it provides a list of acceptable activities, which includes the following:

  Go from home to home or talk to people on the streets.

Until that changes, the LDS Church will not be discontinuing all door-to-door preaching work.

It is actually a common misconception that most LDS missionary work is done through door-to-door proselytizing. If you look at some of the other suggestions in the aforementioned chapter of Preach My Gospel, you'll see that it is only one of many suggested ways of finding people to teach. The articles that you cite are referring to the fact that, since 2013, the church has been experimenting with using online proselytizing tools in addition to other methods of finding people to teach.


What is Catholic Church's view on capital punishment?

The Catholic Church does not forbid capital punishment.

See the section on the 5th Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") of the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

  Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. (Ps. 100:8).

See also:

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment by Edward Feser & Joseph Bessette (2017)


Did Neanderthals have a soul? From when do people exists/have soul?
Do animals have souls like human beings?
The Catholic Church teaches that animals may have mortal souls whereas modern man (after Adam and his descendants) has an immortal soul!
Do animals have souls? Do plants have plant souls? Although not a defined dogma, it is permitted for Catholics to believe Neanderthals may have possessed an animal, yet mortal soul only.
The soul is the principle of life. Since animals and plants are living things, they have souls, but not in the sense in which human beings have souls. Our souls are rational–theirs aren’t–and ours are rational because they’re spiritual, not material.
Animals and plants can’t do anything which transcends the limitations of matter. Although some animals seem clever, they don’t actually possess conceptional intelligence. They can’t, for instance, conceive of the abstract notion of justice.

Most people have experienced the sadness of witnessing an animal die, usually a beloved pet who brought great joy throughout their short lifespan. During the grieving period, it’s common for parents to tell children that there’s a special place for all the animals who have departed from their world – like a pet heaven.
This image of a pet no longer in pain and experiencing paradise can certainly alleviate the worry of a young child wondering where their favourite animal has gone to, but is there any truth to the claim?
The Church has no official teaching on the matter of pets entering heaven, but there are theological principles that can direct us to what answer is most probable.
Catholics believe that all living things have souls, and this includes not only humans, but also plants and animals. When a living thing dies, the soul separates from its body or organic makeup. In the case of animals, the soul goes out of existence. However, the souls of human beings are radically different from the souls of other living things. Whereas the souls of animals are contingent upon their material makeup, human souls remain in existence after death because it is immaterial.
This means that that human souls can’t be destroyed, and so are immortal.
Reasonable
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said in a sermon in 2008, that when an animal dies, it “just means the end of existence on earth”. It’s reasonable to believe then that all animals that die before the Second Coming and the creation of the “new heaven and new earth” will cease to exist.
This, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that there won’t be any animals after the Second Coming.
Some theologians argue that animals flourished in the Garden of Eden, before sin entered the world, and so there’s no inherent or theological contradiction in positing that God could create more animals.Animals were present when the fullness of grace abounded. However, others argue that there will be no need for animals to exist in the new creation, which pertains to ultimately knowing and loving God. Of course, this is all just speculative, and we will only really ever find out the answer at the end of time.

“The souls of human beings are radically different from the souls of other living things”

Do animals go to heaven?

Ultimately, this question should deal with the prospect of whether or not the Neanderthals had the intellectual ability to worship God. In other words were the Neanderthals more animal like or human like?
For those who believe in evolution, the Catholic Church allows the faithful to believe in this theory. The Church equally makes some qualitative point that are to be observe in this domain.
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

In other words, either Adam and Eve were created as the Scriptures literally tells us or Adam and Eve somehow evolved from some preexisting humanoid form such as the Neanderthals. Only Adam and Eve along with their descendants were infused with the gift of an immortal and rational soul. Thus Neanderthals would not have possessed an immortal soul! They simply possessed a mortal soul like that of any other animal lower in dignity than man.

Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands. - Hebrews 2:7

The human lineage of  Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.
Although they say nothing is written in stone, with the exemption of the Ten Commandments written by God, there is lots of room for debate on this issue of human evolution. This is just one perspective.
Just today the news made headlines:

Remains of nine Neanderthals found in cave south of Rome May 8, 2021.

My personal dilemma is whether the Sasquatch (Bigfoot) a living relic of the Neanderthal???


According to the Catholic Church, what is meant by the prophecy, "A bruised reed he will not break . . ."?

St. Matthew 12:20 = Isaias 42:3.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary quotes St. John Chrysostom (hom. xli) on this verse:

  The bruised reed. The prophet here shews the mildness of our Saviour, who, though he could have broken them like a reed, and as a bruised reed, yet would not do it; and though he could have easily extinguished their rage and anger, yet he bore with it for a while, with singular clemency, till he should send forth judgment unto victory, i.e. till justice shall have appeared triumphant, till Christ shall have fulfilled all things, and raised his most illustrious trophy: till the Gentiles shall have placed their confidence in his most adorable name, and the Jews have no plea, notwithstanding their unparalleled obduracy, to make in reply.

St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea ("Golden Chain") cites more Church Fathers on this verse, such as:

  St. Augustine: So He neither bruised nor quenched the Jewish persecutors, who are here likened to a bruised reed which has lost its wholeness, and to a smoking flax which has lost its flame; but He spared them because He was not come to judge them, but to be judged by them.

and

  St. Hilary: Or, he means this bruised reed that is not broken, to shew that the perishing and bruised bodies of the Gentiles, are not to be broken, but are rather reserved for salvation. "He shall not quench a smoking flax, shews the feebleness of that spark which though not quenched, only moulders in the flax, and that among the remnants of that ancient grace, the Spirit is yet not quite taken away from Israel, but power still remains to them of resuming the whole flame thereof in a day of penitence.

and

  St. Jerome, Ep. 121, 2: Or the reverse; He calls the Jews a bruised reed, whom tossed by the wind and shaken from one another, the Lord did not immediately condemn, but patiently endured; and the smoking flax He calls the people gathered out of the Gentiles, who, having extinguished the light of the natural law, were involved in the wandering mazes of thick darkness of smoke, bitter and hurtful to the eyes; this He not only did not extinguish, by reducing them to ashes, but on the contrary from a small spark and one almost dead He raised a mighty flame.

and

  St. Remigius: … "He shall not break the bruised reed," refers to His shunning His persecutors that they might not be made worse…


How do parables communicate the inspired word of God?

The parables of Jesus do not 'communicate the inspired word of God'. They, themselves are the inspired word of God. For God - that is to say the Son of God - actually spoke them on earth from his own lips.
If when one hears (or reads) the parable, if one does not perceive and hear God speaking to one's own soul then there is an explanation :
Jesus said :

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mark 4: 11 and 12 [KJV]

Some (who are within) will understand, and believe and will obey the concept of the parable.
Some (who are without) will see, yet not perceive ; hear and not understand.
Jesus also said :

And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Mark 4:13 [KJV]

The parable he speaks of is the parable of the sower sowing seed. Some fell in fruitful ground and flourished. Some fell on the wayside, in stony ground, among thorns - and bore no fruit.
If one does not perceive the meaning of this, first parable, one will not appreciate any other parable.
This first parable is about receiving the word of God into the heart in such a way that it flourishes there.
But if the word of God does not penetrate, and flourish within the heart, then there will be no perception or understanding of any of the parables which Jesus spoke.


What is the current and historical viewpoint on universal salvation as a doctrine in the Catholic Church?

In the past, various saints, apparitions and other authoritative sources have stated that many people are in hell or go to hell. For example, the Marian apparitions in Fatima stated that "many souls perish in hell" and included a graphic vision of hell. In many cases, these sources have listed specific categories of people that will go to hell.

The current catechism also states:

  The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

However, later in the same chapter:

  God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. [...] the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"

In another chapter titled "the necessity of baptism":

  The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.
  [...]
  "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."

The latter part is a quote from Lumen Gentium, a document produced by the Second Vatican Council.

In short, as per the catechism the Church decrees that hell exists, and lays out under what circumstances a person may or may not go to hell. However, it does not state that any given person or group did go to hell, and Catholics have differing opinions about this.

Universal salvation is an allowable belief in this framework, but it is not the mainstream.


What is the oldest surviving photograph of someone who was later canonized as a saint?

St. Bernadette Soubirous (1844-1879), the Lourdes visionary, is the first saint of Ann Ball's Modern Saints: Their Lives and Faces to feature a photograph:

  Bernadette was photographed often and her pictures were sold everywhere; she joked, "I am on sale for [ten cents] at every street corner!"

The photograph above was taken at some point in the 1860s.


Were (at least some) Babylonians (at least somewhat) righteous?

In Habakkuk 1:12b-13, at least the prophet is claiming that even fallen Israel is more righteous than Babylon (emphasis added):

  O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.  Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.  Why then are you silent while the wicked swallow  up those more righteous than themselves?

If one looks at the book of Daniel, one gets an impression of how righteous Nebuchadnezzar was not that long after the conquest of Judah.  He is easily angered and prideful.  When told by the astrologers that "No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer." (2:10b [NIV]), he was outraged to the point that he planned to execute all the wise men of Babylon.  While one cannot judge an entire people by their leader, moral character tends to leak both ways (from the culture to the leaders and from the leaders to the culture).

If one looks at the book of Judges, one sees that God repeatedly hands over his chosen people to those who appear to be less righteous (and certainly less favored).

Psalm 78:34-38 seems noteworthy in this context:

  Whenever God slew them, they would seek him; they eagerly turned to him again.  They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.  But then they would flatter him with their mouths, lying to him with their tongues; their hearts were not loyal to him, they were not faithful to his covenant.  Yet he was merciful; he atoned for their iniquities and did not destroy them.  Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.

While a passage like Jeremiah 2:11 (where Israel is not even as good at henetheism as other nations) may indicate that Israel was even more wicked than Babylon--and a strong case can be made that given the greater favor and greater revelation their unfaithfulness was more wicked (e.g.,  Hebrews 2:1-4--the dreadfulness of neglecting such salvation--or Isaiah 5:4--where God's special favor produced wild grapes and justice would be harsh--or even Matthew 23:33-39--where treatment of the prophets accumulates guilt)--, it seems that it is the Righteous One striking his people that is the kindness (cf. Psalm 141:5) and not that he is leading them into greener pastures.

If one again looks at the book of Daniel, one might see another reason for the exile: to reveal the truth to "that ruthless and impetuous people" (Habakkuk 1:6 [NIV]).  As with Joseph in Egypt, the Babylonians were exposed to people of extraordinary integrity and to supernatural signs of favor because of the exile.

As with Jonah--and even at the time of Jesus with the money changers and animal sellers in the court of the Gentiles (rf. Matthew 21:12-13 where the most stinging portion of the quote from Isaiah 56:7 is left out, "house of prayer for all nations")--the people of God had forgotten that they were to be a light to the Gentiles, blessed to be a blessing to all peoples (Genesis 12:3).  (E.g., the queen of Sheba was not meant to be drawn simply to praise the greatness Solomon but to see behind this the greatness and love of God [rf. 1 Kings 10:1, 9].)


In Reformed Covenant Theology, why does the covenant sign of circumcision pass away but the Abrahamic covenant of which it was the sign of does not?

The Heidelberg Catechism says that baptism has replaced circumcision. (Emphasis mine).

Q & A 74
Q. Should infants also be baptized?
A. Yes.
Infants as well as adults
are included in God’s covenant and people,
and they, no less than adults, are promised
deliverance from sin through Christ’s blood
and the Holy Spirit who produces faith.
Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant,
they too should be incorporated into the Christian church
and distinguished from the children
of unbelievers.
This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,
which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.

Bannerman in The Church of Christ II, p. 98 says the following:

Circumcision was independent either of the introduction or abolition of the law of Moses, and would have continued the standing ordinance for admission into the Church of God as the seal of the covenant of grace, had not baptism been expressly appointed as a substitute for it."

Pierre C.H. Marcel in The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 157 says the following:

One may admit that during the Mosaic period circumcision acquired a certain typical significance. But originally it was a sign and seal of the covenant which was made with Abraham. In so far as it was a type, it naturally vanished with the appearance of the anti-type, and even in so far as it was the seal of the covenant it gave place to an unbloody sacrament expressly instituted by Jesus Christ for the Church, and recognized as such by the Apostles, for, thanks to His work of redemption, Christ put an end once for all to the shedding of blood.

For the second part of the question, namely, why circumcision is associated with the law of Moses by the Judaizers, the answer is simple. Circumcision is part of the Mosaic law! While it is true that circumcision was first inaugurated with Abraham, it is repeated in the law of Moses. Jesus mentions this in John 7:22-23:

Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well?

So the Judaizers aren't exactly incorrect to associate circumcision with Moses, even though Moses was not the first to circumcise.


From the literal perspective, the truth whispered in the ear, are we literally to proclaim that truth from the roofs?

How Literal?

Is the "literal perspective" well defined? On the one hand, if everything is taken strictly literally, things just don't make sense. There are contradictions. At the other extreme, if nothing is meant to be taken literally, everything is ambiguous. If you assume that the message of the Bible is actually true and meant to be taken seriously, there has to be a position in the middle, and I don't know if that qualifies as the "literal perspective."

Perhaps a useful question to ask about how to read a passage is, "Does this make sense if it is understood literally?" or "To what extent is this meant to be taken literally?" If you look at the broader context of the passage, or the Bible as a whole, is there any conflict with a strictly literal interpretation? A literal interpretation is the default, but it is not always the correct way to understand what's written.

Your question about Jesus' command in Mt 10:27 is about how to reconcile this statement with other passages if it is to be taken literally. I will try to answer a similar question: How literally should we take Jesus' command in Mt 10:27?

But first,

Proverbs

Proverbs cannot reasonably be assumed to be a compendium of ubiquitously applicable, absolute assertions. It is a collection of wise sayings that, at least, are generally true, if not always true. Any given maxim may be always true, but it doesn't have to be just because it's included in the book. For example:

  Proverbs 26:5-6 (NASB)
  Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
  Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

These two things cannot both apply in all situations. A strictly literal interpretation of these two maxims (and the underlying assumption that Proverbs is full of statements that are always absolutely applicable) is nonsense.

Your use of Proverbs in harmony and disharmony with Jesus' command is not a Safe Way™ to use Proverbs. Without justifying that a given proverb is genuinely applicable and unilaterally binding on the situation that Jesus is addressing, it is exegetically risky to put those two statements together (or compare them for disharmony—something Biblical critics waste a lot of time doing).

Is it Reasonable?

In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending the disciples out on a specific task, and is giving them advice (and commands). If we read the pieces of his commands strictly literally, he might be telling us never to keep secrets. But, does that make sense? No. The wisdom in the other verses you pointed out says as much. To read his words this way creates a contradiction. If we're proceeding from the assumption that the Bible is true and makes sense, we cannot accept this reading.

An Alternate Reading

This might be debatable, but when I read his words,
"What I tell you…" and then "what you hear whispered in your ear…," it sounds like they're both speaking of what Jesus will tell us (as if he is the one who will be whispering in the disciples' ears). The context of this passage has nothing to do with gossip or bad habits. It has nothing to do with secrets. It's about these disciples going out to proclaim the message to everyone. Earlier in Jesus' address, he says, "do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say." The context of the "whisper" points to Jesus/God/the Holy Spirit telling the disciples what they should say. They will hear it "whispered in [their] ear," and they are to "proclaim [it] upon the housetops."


What is a mystical experience according to Catholicism?
Sounds like the million dollar question that everyone wants to know, but is extremely hard to actually narrow down and answer.

Mystical theology is the science which treats of acts and experiences or states of the soul which cannot be produced by human effort or industry even with the ordinary aid of Divine grace. It comprises among its subjects all extraordinary forms of prayer, the higher forms of contemplation in all their varieties or gradations, private revelations, visions, and the union growing out of these between God and the soul, known as the mystical union. As the science of all that is extraordinary in the relations between the Divinity and the human spirit, mystical theology is the complement of ascetical, which treats of Christian perfection and of its acquisition by the practice of virtue, particularly by the observance of the counsels. The contents of mystical theology are doctrinal as well as experimental, as it not only records the experiences of souls mystically favoured, but also lays down rules for their guidance, which are based on the authority of the Scriptures, on the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, and on the explanations of theologians, many of them eminent as mystics. - Mystical Theology

Many Catholics consider mystical experiences uniquely a being something involving ecstasies, visions, etc. only. But in reality, it is far more complicated than that. In essence, in all revolves an individual’s level of union with God through contemplation!

In many spiritual traditions there is talk about “mystics” or “mysticism.” In the Catholic Church, this has a particular definition and describes a number of saints who are known as mystics.
The word mysticism is not surprisingly related to the word “mystery.” In this context being a mystic is automatically shrouded in mystery and is difficult to describe to someone on the outside.
On the other hand, mysticism in the Christian tradition is quite simple and in a certain sense is the goal of every Christian.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains, “Mysticism considers as the end … the direct union of the human soul with the Divinity through contemplation and love, and attempts to determine the processes and the means of realizing this end. This contemplation, according to Mysticism, is not based on a merely analogical knowledge of the Infinite, but as a direct and immediate intuition of the Infinite.”
A mystic is someone who desires union with God and actively tries to foster that union. At times this union is miraculously expressed through spiritual ecstasies or visions, but it is not always the case. A true mystic does not seek out these extraordinary experiences, but they often occur because their heart is in such a profound union with God.
Mystics are often mysterious people as they live partly in this world, and partly in the next. Their union with God is so close that they have a difficult time remaining on earth as they desire more and more to be fully united with their ultimate love.
The Church is full of mystics and in a certain sense, all saints could be considered “mystics” in their own way. Each desired to be fully united with God and followed his will to achieve that end. Some of the more famous mystics are St. Padre Pio, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.
In a certain sense, the goal is not to become a mystic, as if it were a title to be gained, but to achieve a profound and loving union with God. This is why we should all be “mystics” in our own way, aiming our lives to that ultimate goal that would be fully realized until the end of our life. -What is a Christian mystic?

In the end, any mystical experience is simply an experience due to a higher degree of union with God. In most cases this is simply an interior infusion of graces into the soul, accorded to certain souls closely united to the Divine Trinity through prayer, contemplation and penance.
This can be easily confirmed in the French literary works of La vie spirituelle et l'oraison, d'après la Sainte Ecriture et la tradition monastique by Mother Cécile Bruyère (12 October 1845 – 18 March 1909) which I have had the pleasure of reading several times.


How does Reformed Theology reconcile Jesus' meaningful temptation and impeccability?

This is admittedly a difficult problem that Reformed theologians have addressed in several different, though related, ways.  Louis Berkhof mentions several approches to reconcile the "reality of the temptations of Jesus" with the idea that he could not sin:

  that in the human nature of Christ, as in that of the first Adam, there was the nuda possibilitas peccandi, the bare abstract possibility of sinning (Kuyper);
  that Jesus' holiness was an ethical holiness, which had to come to high development through, and maintain itself in, temptation (Bavinck);
  and that the things with which Christ was tempted were in themselves
  perfectly lawful, and appealed to perfectly natural instincts and
  appetites (Vos).

Unfortunately, Kuyper's work does not appear to be available in English (in either complete or summary form); the reference Berkhof gives is "Dict. Dogm., De Christo, II, pp. 59–108."  So in the brief examination of several views that follows, we'll refer to John Frame, Herman Bavinck, and Wayne Grudem (who follows Geerhardus Vos).

Different types of possibility and ability

John Frame addresses the temptation and impeccability of Jesus in the context of a larger discussion on the nature of possibility and ability in his Systematic Theology.  It is too simplistic, he says, to insist that any particular thing is either "possible" or "impossible," and mentions several categories of possibility.  Something might be logically possible, such as the statement, "John read the entire Bible in 30 seconds," but not physically possible.  And though it was physically possible for Jesus's bones to have been broken, since they were human bones, it was metaphysically impossible, because God's decree prevented it in order to fulfill prophecy (John 19:36).

On the question of the temptation of Jesus, then, Frame says:

  Could Jesus sin?  Perhaps the best short answer is that, yes, he was physically and mentally capable of sinning, but no, he was morally incapable, since he was perfectly holy.  Could he struggle with temptation?  He could struggle against physical obstacles; why not against mental and spiritual ones as well?  As a man, and therefore as a divine-human person, he could struggle mentally with Satan's proposals, growing in his understanding of their nature and consequences, maturing in his ability to relate these to the will of his Father (Luke 2:40, 52).  He understood, surely, how evil tempts a man, what pleasures, however fleeting, are to be found in sin.  Yet he saw all of these in their true perspective and rejected them.

Development of ethical holiness

Herman Bavinck sees the temptation of Jesus as a means of manifesting his innate holiness.  The holiness of his human nature was not like the holiness of his divine nature:

  The goodness or holiness of Christ according to his human nature is not a divine and original holiness but one that has been given, infused, and for that reason it must also—in the way of struggle and temptation—reveal, maintain, and confirm itself.  Infused goodness does not rule out acquired goodness.

Good fruit, Bavinck says, must come from a good tree, but the goodness of the tree is demonstrated by the goodness of the fruit.  "Similarly," he argues:

  Christ had to manifest his innate holiness through temptation and struggle; this struggle is not made redundant or vain by virtue of the inability to sin.  For although real temptation could not come to Jesus from within but only from without, he nevertheless possessed a human nature, which dreaded suffering and death. [...] And in those temptations he was bound, fighting as he went, to remain faithful; the inability to sin was not a matter of coercion but ethical in nature and therefore had to be manifested in an ethical manner.

Facing temptation without relying on the divine nature

Wayne Grudem, following Geerhardus Vos, argues that Jesus faced and conquered temptation in his human nature alone.  Grudem contextualizes the difficulty in our understanding of the hypostatic union, and concludes that thanks to his divine nature, it was indeed impossible for Jesus to sin – but that, as the second Adam, Jesus had to rely on his human nature to defeat temptation, just as Adam did:

  Jesus met every temptation to sin, not by his divine power, but on the strength of his human nature alone [...].  The moral strength of his divine nature was there as a sort of "backstop" that would have prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptations.

Grudem cites the example of the temptation to turn stones into bread – he had the ability, thanks to his divine nature, to do this, but by relying on that ability to conquer the temptation, he would have failed the same test that Adam had failed and could not have earned salvation for us.

As for James 1, Grudem argues that this is similar to other distinctions we must make with respect to the hypostatic union:

  His divine nature could not be tempted with evil, but his human nature could be tempted and was clearly tempted.  How these two natures united in one person in facing temptations, Scripture does not clearly explain to us.

Summary

After his summary of attempts to deal with this difficulty, Berkhof writes:

  But in spite of all this the problem remains, How was it possible that one who in concreto, that is, as He was actually constituted, could not sin nor even have an inclination to sin, nevertheless be subject to real temptation?

So ultimately Reformed thinkers admit that there is a mystery here – the explanations they provide are ultimately inadequate to fully explain the scriptural teaching that Jesus was both tempted and unable to sin.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III, §372
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 3.2.1.B.2.e
Frame, Systematic Theology, 820–822
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 538–539
Vos, Biblical Theology, 339–42


Are there any specific rules on everyday life at all in Christianity?

As broad as it may appear, here is how we can summarize it.

  Matthew 22:35-40 (NIV)

  One of them, an expert in the law, tested him
  with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the
  Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and
  greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your
  neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
  commandments.”

Christians should live their every day life by following two simple commandments,

Love your God with all your soul and with all your mind
Love others as yourself

Our customs/rituals on how we show our love to God may vary but they all fall under the same command. Christians should practically demonstrate God's love to others.


Why did this Early Version of the Watchtower Magazine include Crosses, and what do these other Symbols on the Magazine Represent?

The Jehovahs Witness teaching of the symbol of the cross was changed about the 1930's by Joseph Rutherford.
Prior to this they accepted the cross that is widely accepted in Christendom today.
So the magazine would still have a cross on it as it's publication was prior to this time

Facts about Jehovahs Witnesses

As far as the symbolism on the magazine is concerned.  I would at a guess say that the top left hand corner is meant to represent Christ being King.  And the top right as being the guardian or defender of the Watchtower


According to Catholicism must we all suffer in life?

Sometimes people focus too much on Christ's sufferings and not how much he poured out His love on the cross. Redemption by Christ was not so much achieved by how much He suffered, but how much He loved us (CCC 616). Suffering without love has little to no value, or even be senseless. However, suffering with love for your brethren is what counts. You will be judged by how much you loved in your life (St. John of the Cross). Thus, to answer the OP's question, indeed, we all need to suffer, because nobody will enter the Kingdom of Heaven without having loved.


Why did Pope Francis say, "When we encounter the Cross, do we turn to Mary," rather than to Christ?

Mary is the mother of the incarnation.  If the incarnation matters, then Mary matters.  Mary matters because God mattered to Mary.  Mary said “be it unto me according to thy word”.

  John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ; Mary bore the Word that became flesh.  She did this as a humble servant.  When we look to Mary, we look to the reality of the incarnation. We look to the heart of a mother, the human mother of Jesus Christ.

We are to have the heart of Mary and want what God wants for us, setting aside our agenda, our will, and doing the will of God the Father through the overshadowing presence of the Holy Spirit. This is what Mary did while yet on Earth.

  Matthew 12:47-49  Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren…For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mary physically bore the “Son of Man” who in glory is the “Son of God”.  Surely, it is foolishness to attempt to divide the incarnation (Mary) from the risen Lord (Jesus Christ).

So, when we turn to Mary, we turn to the incarnation, and this is not turning from, but towards, Christ.


How do those who believe the Son is not Almighty God interpret Revelation 2:23?

Jehovah's Witnesses have not published an article specifically explaining this verse within the context of the Trinity, but the fundamental argument being presented is a common one: God's actions and Jesus' actions are the same, so they must be the same.
The Bible describes the relationship between God and His Son in great detail, and from this Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God, but that he imitates his Father and is given authority by his Father. For example, when the Jews were accusing Jesus of "making himself equal to God," Jesus responded by saying:

John 5:19-24
“Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner. For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, so that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes alive whomever he wants to. For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.

This verse shows that Jesus has been given the authority to judge and that Jesus acts like God, not because he is God, but because he sees God and imitates him. Jesus gave the ultimate example of how the rest of God's children should also imitate God.—Ephesians 5:1, 2.
There are many other verses which also describe how Jesus was given authority. Daniel spoke of it prophetically, and Jesus and Paul both attest to how it came true.

Daniel 7:13, 14
“I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.

Matthew 28:18
Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

Philippians 2:9-11
For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Therefore, Jesus has the authority and power to be the Judge of peoples' minds and hearts because God commissioned him with that responsibility. Prior to that, however, God dealt with Israel alone, functioning as the only reader of hearts in the Hebrew Scriptures. Some verses refer to Jesus as "the arm of Jehovah" because he accomplishes God's will.—Isaiah 40:10; 53:1; John 12:37, 38.


What should I expect at a Roman Catholic funeral?

Is the mass the same as a Sunday mass..

Same basic format as Sunday mass, but read from a different part of the book.
What happens at the burial...

This is not part of the Mass and doesn't even necessarily need to coincide with the Mass for the Dead.  It's pretty much the same as at any other secular(ish) event.
Where is the eulogy given...

A eulogy is not part of the Mass, the Mass is for the repose of the soul of the deceased, not to honor his or her life.

However, eulogies are often given, after the priest has spoken his homily (about halfway through mass)
Is it practical to skip the mass...

That's entirely cultural and subjective.  The only thing a non-catholic shouldn't do at Mass is receive the Eucharist.  Beyond that, do what is comfortable.  Chances are very good that over half of the people with you are cultural Catholics and wouldn't give a hoot if you sat through the whole Mass.

One thing than is probably acceptable (at least in a traditional sense for those who are not fully accepted into the Catholic Church) would be to leave after the homily (or the eulogy).  That way all you're hearing is the stuff you've probably heard before and all the stuff you're missing is the stuff you might feel uncomfortable either in participating in or visibly avoiding.  So then you can mill around for half an hour or so and join the entourage to the cemetery when you see the casket being carried out of the church.
What are the cultural/social norms around interacting with the mourners?

It's always dependent on the circumstances, but generally Catholic funerals are pretty happy events, even if the death was fairly tragic.  My brother, who died at 29, was an awful experience, but I got hugs from nearly everyone in the entire town and felt good to have the support of everyone who knew him
Are you supposed to bring a dish to the luncheon?

Probably not (unless it's a funeral of epic proportions) this is usually handled by the ladies of the Parish who seem to have the uncanny ability to materialize tons and tons of food out of nowhere.

more info on Funerals from the US Council of Catholic Bishops. Apparently, in extraordinary circumstances, non Catholic's can read at the Mass.


How do Calvinists interpret 1 John 2:2 in light of Limited Atonement?

Calvinists see the "whole world" in this passage as referring to the elect throughout the world, particularly emphasizing that Christ died for Gentiles as well as Jews.
Examples
Examples of this approach abound.  John Gill:

that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also (source)

Similarly, Matthew Poole writes:

i.e. for all that truly believe in him, all the world over. (source)

John MacArthur more thoroughly explains his view of John's intention here:

In the Jewish context, they understood Day of Atonement, they understood the language of propitiation. John is telling them that the sacrifice that Jesus offered is not just for the nation Israel, it's now for the world because the Lord is calling out a people for His name from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. (source; emphasis added)

Many other Reformed theologians take similar approaches, including John Frame (Systematic Theology, 907), the Reformed Study Bible, Louis Berkhof (3.3.6.B.4.a), and John Piper (source).
Exposition
We can dive a bit deeper into the analysis of one Reformed theologian to get a better understanding of the rationale for this view.  Simon Kistemaker (Exposition, 253–255), referring to the oft-cited "sufficient for the whole world but efficient for the elect" language, agrees with Calvin that while this is true, it is not in view here (see Calvin's commentary).  He argues:

The phrase the whole world relates not to every creature God has made, for then the fallen angels also would share in Christ's redemption.  The word whole describes the world in its totality, not necessarily in its individuality.

In defense of this idea, Kistemaker points to 1 John 3:16, where he sees John, after making a distinction between the "children of God" and the "children of the devil," saying that "Jesus Christ laid down his life for us" (emphasis added).  He also argues, citing A. T. Robertson, that a different Greek word could have been used if John meant to say that Christ died for every individual:

John chooses the adjective ολος (whole) instead of πας (every, all) to communicate the idea of universality.  The word ολος has "an indefinite meaning which πας does not have."


What are Christians called who believe in a non-intervening God?

The idea of a God that set things in motion but does not, and has not intervened since is a concept central to Deism.

The view has a long history, and has had a few supporters, but is not by any means the predominant view within Christianity.  Deists also reject the notion of divine revelation, including Scripture.  It's not necessarily a Christian concept, but there are people who might self-define as Deists and also as Christians.  They would, however, be more likely to have more in common with "Christian Atheists" than with mainstream Christians.  Rather than seeing Christ as the Son of God, or as God Incarnate, they'd see him as a good moral teacher.

There are a few sites on Christian Deism in the 'net including this one,


Does the Nicene Creed suggest a strict division of responsibilities within the Trinity?

I don't think the intention of the council fathers was to divide the job/responsibility of Creation between the three persons. Saying the Father does not give life or the Spirit did not make heaven and earth would probably be considered heresy in the early Church.

The Orthodox Church in America states that, "There is no will and no action of God the Father which is not at the same time the will and action of the Son and the Holy Spirit." ... The action of each is the action of all; the action of all is the action of each. And the divine action is essentially one."

Also saying that a person contributes to a single creative will could be understood as saying that the will is not in full control of the person, and that therefore the person executes the will like a robot. Which is also not correct. The CCC 258 sheds more light on this issue:

  For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle." However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property.

I understand these are not the references from the actual the authors of the creed, but rather current interpretations of their words. But I think they are in union with that of the council fathers. For example the quote within CCC 258 is directly taken from the Second Council of Constantinople.

Then one might ask why the council fathers used this distinction. I assume that they had a very hard time (as we still do) explaining the trinity and that its three persons are distinct persons while having the same will, power, action without sharing these attributes, rather being in full possession of them with harmony at the same time.

In conclusion, all things that are done by God, are done by the Father, through the son, in the Holy Spirit.


How to define an independent interference by God?

Your question makes the assumption that some good things occur as the result of divine interference, and that others occur by way of chance.  This is a faulty assumption.

  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. - James 1:17 NIV

So in answer to your question, what would true independent divine interference 'look' like?:

It would look like a good and perfect gift.

Now I know your question isn't asking specifically about "good things," but more generally about determining whether "personal experiences" are divine.  I think the same litmus test can be used, though.

Was the personal experience a "good and perfect gift?" If so, it came from God.

Any genuine personal experience with God also won't contradict any other part of scripture.

I believe most protestants (and possibly other groups) value personal experience, but always in light of scripture.  Personal experience is considered a very real, and valuable thing, but without an ironclad standard (God's word), it is too easy for it to contradict reality (and even for one experience to contradict a later one, experienced by the same person).


What is the general Baptist stance on pacifism?

I am a Baptist and my husband is a Baptist preacher. I will answer your question, but first let me state that yes, with many questions, you will find that Baptist have no consensus. Why? Because we believe in "Individual Soul Liberty" which can be defined as
"Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9" as quoted from this site http://www.garbc.org/about-us/beliefs-constitution/baptist-distinctives/

We also believe that believers who study God's word, will grow; and at different stages of growth may interpret God's word differently.  We will not have full understanding until we get to heaven.

So we do not dictate what others believe. We point members and non-members to the the Word of God. Those who know Christ as their Savior can be guided by the Holy Spirit, if they maintain their fellowship with God. Those who don't know Jesus as their Savior , can be guided by what God has made obvious in the universe, although in the end, all men will fall short, because we are all sinners.
So what does this have to do with being a pacifist?
We point to God's Word and we look at it in context, and how it relates to the whole picture of God presented in the bible.
Yes, God says "You shall not commit murder". However, this is generally interpreted as premeditated, revengeful murder, committed out of selfishness.

There are many places where God commands His people to go to war and even to kill off all who are not His people. (in that area and time - not a as principle for every believer)
In 1 Samuel 15:3 Samuel the prophet tells Saul the king that the Lord says," Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
Then in verse 9 it says, "But Saul and the people spared Agag (the King of the Amalek) and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed."
And in verse 19  Samuel says to Saul,
" Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?”
In verse 33, Samuel, the prophet kills Agag.
From this passage and other similar passages, we can see God is not opposed to any and all murder at anytime,by anyone.

Baptist believe the bible teaches that all national leaders,whether good or evil are appointed by God, and the job of the national government is to protect the people. Therefore, under the right circumstances, going to war can be obedience to God, especially if it is what is generally considered self-defense.
However, if a believer felt strongly that what the government was doing went against God's word, then we would say that individual should not violate his conscience. Always obey God first, then man's laws.

To explain why most Baptist believe in fighting just wars, I am including a sermon printed the Baptist Faith and Message, a publication of the Southern Baptist Fellowship. http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Foundations-faith-peace-and-war

You will find plenty of Bible verse to back up the position in the article.  I do not consider myself a pacifist. One of my son's is a police officer, and may someday have to kill in the line of duty. As long as he follows both man's and God's principles, I do not believe he would be wrong in God's eyes.

God looks at the heart, (our motives-why we do things), and God cannot be fooled even though we deceive ourselves.


Does the Catholic Church have any mechanism to improve poor homilists?

The quality of Catholic preaching has been a matter of concern for quite a long time, but particularly since the Second Vatican Council. But there is relatively little specific instruction mandated (on a Church-wide basis) to ensure that homiletics is a topic of constant study for priests.
Primarily, I think, this is because the Church is quite decentralized in many respects. As I stated in the third paragraph of my answer to an entirely different question, the Church considers itself something like a federation of more-or-less local churches, called particular churches. Roughly speaking, each of these is headed by a bishop, or an administrative equivalent, who has the power to (among other things) decide how ongoing training for priests will be conducted.
One of the documents issued by Vatican II was a decree titled Presbyterorum Ordinis ("Of the order of priests"), which discussed some of the important tasks and requirements of the priesthood in light of the Council's changes. Part 19 of this document states:

Let priests more readily study and effectively learn the methods of evangelization and the apostolate. Let opportune aids be prepared with all care, such as the institution of courses and meetings according to territorial conditions, the erection of centers of pastoral studies, the establishment of libraries, and the qualified supervision of studies by suitable persons. Moreover, let bishops, either individually or united in groups, see to it that all their priests at established intervals, especially a few years after their ordination, may be able to frequent courses in which they will be given the opportunity to acquire a fuller knowledge of pastoral methods and theological science.

Thus the importance of supervised study in evangelization was already foreseen.
Nine months after the promulgation of this decree, Pope Paul VI issued a general letter motu proprio ("on his own account") titled Ecclesiae Sanctae ("Of the Holy Church"). Among other things, this dealt with how the norms of Presbyterorum Ordinis would be implemented. Section 7, which corresponds to Part 19 of the prior document, reads:

Bishops either individually or collectively should make provisions that all priests, even if engaged in the ministry, complete a series of pastoral lectures in the course of the year immediately after ordination and that they attend at specified times other lectures in which an opportunity is given to their priests both to acquire a fuller knowledge of pastoral methods and of the theological, moral and liturgical sciences, and to strengthen their spiritual life and to share their apostolic experiences with their brother priests.
Bishops or episcopal conferences should also see to it that, according to local conditions, one or several priests of proven learning and virtue are chosen as moderators of studies to promote and arrange pastoral lectures and other aids which are considered necessary to foster the scientific and pastoral training of priests of their own territory: study centers, mobile libraries, congresses on catechetics, homiletics or the liturgy and other subjects of this kind.

(emphases added)
Thus, the formal instruction is simply that each bishop, alone or in conference with other bishops, decide what's necessary to help their priests, and how often they need to be helped. Nothing further, or more specific, is ever stated.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has a section of their website dedicated to improving homiletics; it has published, or linked to, documents emphasizing the importance of good homilies and discussing how to improve one's homilies, as well as links to resources from other Catholic organizations intended to help priests improve their preaching.
There does not appear to be any mechanism of the specific sort that you mention, of the bishop's representatives "grading" a practicing priest on his homilies. I'm not familiar with any discussion of such a possibility, or any discussion of why it might be considered a bad idea.


What does giving up free will and giving it to Jesus mean?

I hope that I can help here.

A couple months ago I got engaged. I prayed a lot about the decision and felt like it was a good move in my life. One that would be hard but would be worth it. Well, 2 weeks ago my fiancee broke up with me. That was one of the hardest days of my life. And it would of been so easy to say, "I prayed; it felt like a good choice, I was doing everything right, why did God allow this to happen?"

I could have blamed God and Jesus for all the pain I felt. Instead because of experiences I have had in the past I turned to Jesus and God and relied upon their love and grace. I have in the last two weeks learned more about my relationship with my Savior then I think I have in the rest of my life. I still hurt, true, but I have comfort in the knowledge that my Savior and my Heavenly Father love me and have a plan for me that will lead to even more happiness then I had with my fiancee.

So to me turning your will over to the Savior means trusting Him in those hardest parts of your life. Knowing that it will strengthen you and that Christ has other plans for you.

Scripture reference was asked for so here goes:

  (KJV) Matt 16:24-25 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Applying this to my story above. I could have ignored Christ and tried anything and everything to get my fiancee back. That may or may not of worked but I would not of drawn as close to my Savior as I have in the last couple weeks.
So I see it as literal; I think my burden or cross sucks, but I accept that Christ has a plan for me and I trust in Him and because I do I have found a measure of comfort and peace that I could not have found anywhere else, given the situation.


There is no agreement on this within the movement:

some believe that adherence to the Oral Law, as encompassed by the Talmud, is against Messianic beliefs
some deny the authority of the Pharisees, believing that they were superseded, and their teachings contradicted, by Messianism
some call rabbinic commentaries such as the Mishnah and the Talmud "dangerous and state that followers of rabbinic and halakhic explanations and commentaries are not believers in Jesus as the Messiah
some are selective in their applications of Talmudic law
some exercise serious observance of Jewish halakha


Why do Salvation Army members wear uniforms in the church?

As a Soldier of The Salvation Army, I wear my uniform, in the same way others might wear a cross around their neck or something, the uniform identifies the wearer as a soldier of The Salvation Army, but more importantly as a Christian.

This excerpt from the New Zealand. Fiji, Tonga Website answers the questions "Does a soldier have to wear the uniform, and why?"

  Today, not all Salvationists wear uniforms—it has become a personal choice. But the reasons for wearing a uniform are unchanged—to show a commitment to a war against evil; a personal testimony to the wearer's own Christian faith and practice; and to signify to those in need that the wearer is available to help or listen.


How does one discern a calling to the vocation of religious life?

Here are some resources:

Vocation to the Religious State by St. Alphonsus de Liguori
Vocations Explained: Matrimony, Virginity, the Religious State and the Priesthood by A Vincentian Father.
Vocations by Rev. William Doyle, S.J.
Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery by Fr. Richard Butler, O.P.

See also Pope Pius XII's apostolic constitution Sede Sapientiæ on vocations to the religious life says (part II.) that two necessary conditions must be met when discerning a vocation: that one is called by God and called by the Church.


Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife on the birth of Jesus?

Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife at the time of Jesus' birth? What do the traditions of Catholic Church say about it?
The short answer is eemaha! That is right eemaha, which is Eskimo for maybe!
The Gospels are silent on this point and the Church has not pronounced on this subject matter.
The Apocryphal Gospel of St. James states that a midwife came to the assistance of Mary’s birth of Jesus, but she arrived too late and the Infant Jesus was already born. Although the Church does not recognize this book in her biblical canon, it is the very source she uses for the names of the parents of the Virgin Mary: Joachim and Anne!

Chapter 19
(1) And I saw a woman coming down from the mountain and she said to me, "Man,
where are you going?"
(2) And I said, "I am seeking a Hebrew midwife."
(3) Replying, she said to me, "Are you from Israel?"
(4) And I said to her, "Yes."
(5) Then, she said, "And who is giving birth in the cave?"
(6) And I said, "The one who has pledged to be married to me."
(7) And she said to me, "She is not your wife?"
(8) And I said to her, "She is Mary, the one who was raised in the temple. I won her by lot to be my wife. (9) She is not yet my wife, but has a fetus from the Holy Spirit."
(10) And the midwife said, "Really?"
(11) And Joseph said to her, "Come and see."
(12) So the midwife went with him. (13) And they stood near the cave and a dark cloud was hovering over the cave. (14) And the midwife said, "My soul glorifies this day, for today my eyes have seen a miracle: salvation has come to Israel."
(15) And immediately, the cloud withdrew from the cave and a great light appeared in the cave so that their eyes could not bear it. (16) And a little while later the same light withdrew until an infant appeared. And he came and took the breast of his mother, Mary.
(17) And the midwife cried out and said, "How great this day is for me, for I have seen this new miracle."
(18) And the midwife departed from the cave and met Salome and said to her, "Salome, Salome, I have to describe this new miracle for you. A virgin has given birth, although her body does not allow it."
(19) And Salome said, "As the Lord my God lives, unless I insert my finger and investigate her, I will not believe that a virgin has given birth."

Blessed Catherine Emmerich revelations suggest that no midwife attended the actual birth of Jesus. Thus Mother and Child were alone and totally at peace with one another.

Birth of the Child Jesus
I saw Joseph on the following day arranging a seat and couch for Mary in the so-called Suckling Cave of Abraham, which was also the sepulcher of Maraha, his nurse. It was more spacious than the cave of the Crib. Mary remained there some hours, while Joseph was making the latter more habitable. He brought also from the city many different little vessels and some dried fruits. Mary told him that the  birth of the Child would arrive on the coming night. It was then nine months since her conception by the Holy Ghost. She begged him to do all in his power that they might receive as honorably as possible this Child promised by God, this Child supernaturally conceived; and she invited him to unite with her in prayer for those hard-hearted people who would afford Him no place of shelter. Joseph proposed to bring some pious women whom he knew in Bethlehem to her assistance; but Mary would not allow it, she declared that she had no need of anyone. It was five o'clock in the evening when Joseph brought Mary back again to the Crib Cave. He hung up several more lamps, and made a place under the shed before the door for the little she-ass, which came joyfully hurrying from the fields to meet them.
When Mary told Joseph that her time was drawing near and that he should now betake himself to prayer, he left her and turned toward his sleeping place to do her bidding. Before entering his little recess, he looked back once toward that part of the cave where Mary knelt upon her couch in prayer, her back to him, her face toward the east. He saw the cave filled with the light that streamed from Mary, for she was entirely enveloped as if by flames. It was as if he were, like Moses, looking into the burning bush. He sank prostrate to the ground in prayer, and looked not back again. The glory around Mary became brighter and brighter, the lamps that Joseph had lit were no longer to be seen. Mary knelt, her flowing white robe spread out before her. At the twelfth hour, her prayer became ecstatic, and I saw her raised so far above the ground that one could see it beneath her. Her hands were crossed upon her breast, and the light around her grew even more resplendent. I no longer saw the roof of the cave. Above Mary stretched a pathway of light up to Heaven, in which pathway it seemed as if one light came forth from another, as if one figure dissolved into another, and from these different spheres of light other heavenly figures issued. Mary continued in prayer, her eyes bent low upon the ground. At that moment she gave birth to the Infant Jesus. I saw Him like a tiny, shining Child, lying on the rug at her knees, and brighter far than all the other brilliancy. He seemed to grow before my eyes. But dazzled by the glittering and flashing of light, I know not whether I really saw that, or how I saw it. Even inanimate nature seemed stirred. The stones of the rocky floor and the walls of the cave were glimmering and sparkling, as if instinct with life.
Mary's ecstasy lasted some moments longer. Then I saw her spread a cover over the Child, but she did not yet take It up, nor even touch It. After a long time, I saw the Child stirring and heard It crying, and then only did Mary seem to recover full consciousness. She lifted the Child, along with the cover that she had thrown over It, to her breast and sat veiled, herself and Child quite enveloped. I think she was suckling It. I saw angels around her in human form prostrate on their faces. It may, perhaps, have been an hour after the birth when Mary called St. Joseph, who still lay prostrate in prayer. When he approached, he fell on his knees, his face to the ground, in a transport of joy, devotion, and humility. Mary again urged him to look upon the Sacred Gift from Heaven, and then did Joseph take the Child into his arms. And now the Blessed Virgin swathed the Child in red and over that in a white veil up as far as under the little arms, and the upper part of the body from the armpits to the head, she wrapped up in another piece of linen. She had only four swaddling cloths with her. She laid the Child in the Crib, which had been filled with rushes and fine moss over which was spread a cover that hung down at the sides. The Crib stood over the stone trough, and at this spot the ground stretched straight and level as far as the passage, where it made a broader flexure towards south. The floor of this part of the cave lay somewhat deeper than where the Child was born, and down to it steps had been formed in the earth. When Mary laid the Child in the Crib, both she and Joseph stood by It in tears, singing the praises of God.

Ultimately, as far as Catholics go, one can believe one way or another on this subject matter. As the Church has not pronounced definitely on this subject!


What is the significance of Jesus' spitting on the ground in the book of John?

I will represent the Roman Catholic position on the verse.

Historically, St. Thomas Aquinas noted that this verse provided an example of Jesus' healing of sin. He cites St. Augustine for the interpretation that the blind man represents the human race. Sin is the spiritual blindness. When Jesus heals the blind man and allows him to see the light, he literally sees, which can be taken as a sign that he sees the error of his ways and wants to correct them by following the ways of God.1

Additionally, St. Augustine, the early church father, wrote that the clay represented the anointing, and the blind man represented the catechumen, because he was anointed but not yet washed. So, I wouldn't really say that it's washing off the anointment, because it may be the effect of the anointment that healed the blindness or sinfulness. The washing is to emphasize that the blind man is no longer a catechumen, or that he is a baptized believer.2 Meanwhile, the physical clay-and-spit is washed off, probably because that would be an eye irritant.

Source:

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John9.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm


What mainstream sects object to infant baptism?

Paedobaptism is the practice of baptising infants.  The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Lutheran Churches, Anglican and Episcopal Churches baptise infants.
Credobaptism, or adult baptism, is the practice of baptising only believers.  Baptists and Anabaptists, as well as many nondenominational Evangelical churches reject infant baptism.  The following denominations say that belief must precede baptism and infants cannot believe.

Baptists
Pentecostals
Churches of Christ
Christadelphians
Jehovah's Witnesses
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS/Mormons)

As for U.K. Methodist churches (which are similar in many respects to the Church of England), please read this article: https://www.methodist.org.uk/our-faith/life-and-faith/life-events/baptism-and-confirmation/
Reformed Protestant groups such as the Presbyterian Church in America practice infant baptism, but unlike the Roman Catholic Church, does not teach that such baptism saves the child. Instead, it teaches that infant baptism is a covenant sign and does not save, just the same as Old Testament circumcision was a covenantal sign that did not save.  Lutheran Churches, like the Roman Catholic Church, practice infant baptism and maintain that such baptism saves the child.
Christian denominations that oppose infant baptism would include the Baptists, Churches of Christ, and Pentecostal groups. They would deny infant baptism by saying that belief must precede baptism and that infants cannot believe.

Believer's baptism is one of several distinctive doctrines associated closely with the Baptist and Anabaptist traditions, and their theological relatives.  Among these are the members of the Restoration Movement.  Churches associated with Pentecostalism also practice believer's baptism.

In many nondenominational Evangelical, Baptist and Pentecostal churches, a ritual known as child dedication.  However, unlike baptism, the rite is centered upon the parents, who dedicate the child to God and vow to raise him or her in a God-fearing home. Although Dedication often occurs at the same age as infant baptism, it is not considered a replacement for baptism nor is it considered salvific for the child.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints completely rejects infant baptism. Little children are considered both born without sin and incapable of committing sin. They have no need of baptism until age eight when they can begin to learn to discern right from wrong, and are thus accountable to God for their own actions. People completely incapable of understanding right from wrong, regardless of age, are also considered as not accountable for their actions, and are not baptized.

In the Seventh-day Adventist Church, immersion baptism is not required for membership. However, if a person feels that he has received new information that makes a difference and/or has experienced a reconversion, it is available if he wants it.

Source: Believer's baptism (Wikipedia)


According to evangelicalism, did Jesus' divine nature suffer on the cross?

Just as there are differences of belief about the nature of Christ, there are some different ideas about this in some branches of Christianity. However the mainline orthodox belief has a pretty settled answer to this: yes.

Assuming ⓐ the trinity, one God in three persons and ⓑ that Jesus was God the son having two complete natures, the logic goes something like this. Different branches of Christianity use different terms for some of this, but the basic argument is the same.

The ‘cup’ as referenced in Jesus' prayer was God's divine wrath against sin.
Yes Jesus bore physical suffering as a human and his human nature bore the brunt of the pain the Romans inflicted.
But the significance of the cross was more than just a Roman torture and execution, he was also subjected to God's wrath.
“Why have you forsaken me?” was not a question about why he was left to hang on at tree, it was an expression of God turning his back on his son, subjecting him to ‘death’ in the sense of separation from God.
No human nature would have been able to bear that punishment inflicted directly by God — he would have neither the stamina nor the value to make such an action more meaningful than it was for the thieves he was crucified with.

Ergo the divine nature of God must have been subjected to and born the divine wrath side of things.

I question some time ago that asks about the same problem from a different angle, see How is Christ's death so significant? for a little more detail on the significance of “one man on a cross”.


If the Bible is open to interpretation, how does one know which one is right?

You have asked at least three distinct questions in your question... I'm going to answer the one that I think is the most directly answerable, and hope that it satisfies the others as well.

Why does the Bible need to be interpreted?

Every written work must be interpreted.

When most people I know ask questions like this, what they're really asking is, "Why wasn't the Bible written in clear, easy-to-understand language, for someone living in my modern, Western culture to understand without any special effort?"

And when phrased that way, the answer becomes rather obvious:

The Bible was not written with modern, Western culture in mind.  Nor was any other ancient text, religious or otherwise.

In fact, neither was any of Mark Twain's work.

When we read any literature, we must consider the culture in which it was written, and the audience to whom it was written.

Further, we have to recognize the various genres of literature contained within the Bible.  It contains poetry, prose, letters, history, law, genealogies, and likely other categories I'm forgetting at the moment.  Each of these must be interpreted differently as well--and always with a mind toward the culture that wrote it, and the audience it was written to.


Is the incarnation of Jesus permanent, according to reformers like Luther or Calvin?

The idea of permanent incarnation has been most famously expressed in the Council of Chalcedon, long before the Reformation – there Christ's natures are said to exist "indivisibly, inseperably."
Reformers like Luther and Calvin upheld the Chalcedonian definition, and this can be seen in their writings.  For example, here's a brief quote from Calvin:

While our whole Mediator is everywhere, he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in him [i.e., spirit and body] is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till he come to judgment. (Calvin's Institutes, IV.18.30)

In context, Calvin clearly holds that Christ continues to have both a spirit and a body, and that his body is in heaven, while is spirit is everywhere.
Here are two more quotes that come from a foundational document of one branch of the Reformation, the Westminster Confession of Faith:

So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person (Westminster Confession of Faith 8.2)
On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father (WCF 8.4)

So yes, leading reformers held that Christ still has two natures, both human and divine.


Why is hell for a literal eternity if it does not have literal flames and worms?

Biblical prophecies use symbols and analogies to convey truth. Very rare is the prophecy that is entirely literal. However, every symbol represents a concrete reality.

One commentator on prophecies (Ellis Skolfield) studied the context and the rest of scripture to understand the range of meanings that a time related word can hold. There are places where a day means a day, but in another place, it can mean a year. A week can mean seven days or seven years. Likewise a time can be a thousand years and a season can be one quarter of that, or 250 years. A month, being thirty days, can then mean thirty years, and an hour, being 1/24th of a day, is two weeks or so. But in every case, the prophecy takes a time period and applies a multiplier to it.

If you take the words eternity, forever, eternal, you are applying an infinite multiplier. No matter what you start with: minute, hour, day, week, year, century, millennium - if you multiply by an infinite value, you get an infinite time. BY this reasoning, eternity is not an analogy or a figure of speech or a symbol, it is literal.

There is another possibility. The King James renders one verse differently from modern translations. Revelation 10:6 says:

  6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven,
  and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that
  therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there
  should be time no longer:

Some people hold that this means time will actually stop. Time as a feature of reality will cease to exist. In this case, we enter eternity and an unchanging state. In that case, eternity means existence in an unchanging and unalterable state. In that case, Hell means existence in a timeless, unalterable state of separation from God.


Historical Apologetic used by 7th Century Christians towards Early Muslims Regarding the Hypostatic Union and Jesus' Title "Son of God"

James White discusses this in What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an. Here is the relevant quote with some emphasis added:

  One early source, the Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ’Abbās, directly connects the encounter with the Najran Christians with the text of Surah 4:

    Allah then revealed about the Nestorian Christians of Najran who claimed that Jesus was the son of Allah and that Jesus and the Lord are partners, saying: (O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate) do not be extreme (in your religion) for this is not the right course (nor utter aught concerning Allah save the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary) and through His word he became a created being, (and a spirit from Him) and through His command, Jesus became a son without a father. (So believe in Allah and His messengers) all the messengers including Jesus, (and say not “Three”) a son, father and wife. (Cease!) from making such a claim and repent ((it is) better for you!) than such a claim. (Allah is only One God) without a son or partner. (Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth) are His servants. (And Allah is sufficient as Defender) as Lord of all created beings and He is witness of what He says about Jesus.

  Chapter 4

(A complete copy of this Muslim source is available here).

This Muslim source claims that Jesus is not the progeny of God the Father and Mary -- which Christians would agree with -- and that it is an error to say that God is the Trinity ("Three") composed of the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the wife (Mary) -- which is a misstatement of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (this is part of an argument by White that the Qur'an is ignorant of the Christian understanding of the Trinitarian God and that therefore the Qur'an is not divinely inspired). A similar argument using the same Muslim source can be found online here.

The other interesting information from this Muslim source is that the Christian teachings were given to the Muslims by Najran Christians who adhered to Nestorianism. Since Nestorianism is heterodox and claims that Jesus has separate divine and human natures it's possible that the Muslims understood the Nestorian Christians as claiming that Jesus' human nature was the progeny of God the Father and Mary.

White mentions the Najran Christians a bit later in his book, too (emphasis added):

  The earliest biography of Muhammad’s life, of Ibn Ishaq, contains a passage that not only demonstrates how primitive is this understanding of the Qur’anic teaching of “three” but also makes an astounding claim. Referring back to the deputation from Najran, we read,

    They were Christians according to the Byzantine rite, though they differed among themselves in some points, saying He is God; and He is the son of God; and He is the third person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity. They argue that he is God because he used to raise the dead, and heal the sick, and declare the unseen; and make clay birds and then breathe into them so that they flew away; and all this was by the command of God Almighty, “We will make him a sign to men.” They argue that he is the son of God in that they say he had no known father; and he spoke in the cradle and this is something that no child of Adam has ever done. They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one he would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down.

  Ibn Ishaq records that Christians believe the Trinity is “He and Jesus and Mary,” as do numerous other sources...

  Chapter 4

From this Muslim source it sounds like the Christians were not in agreement regarding the nature of Jesus and the Trinity, and that the Muslims understood them as claiming that Jesus was the third person of the Trinity (with the Father and Mary as the other two).

White mentions in the footnotes that the Muslim encounter with the Najran Christians is traditionally dated to be AD 632.


Did a Seventh Day Adventist start the Jehovah Witness organization?

This page provides a brief history of early days of restorationist starting in the 15th century. As we get close to the mid 1800's certain names of persons  who would have some influence and association with Charles Taze Russell are mentioned.
One named George Storrs was a highly respected minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church. After he read a pamphlet penned by Henry Grew,that exposed the teachings of the immortality of the soul and hellfire as unscriptural, Storr began a diligent study of his own that at one point lead him to the teachings of the Adventist preacher William Miller.
It was Miller who:

was expecting the visible return of Christ in 1843. For about two years, Storrs was actively involved in preaching this message throughout the northeastern United States. After 1844, he would no longer go along with setting any date for Christ’s return, yet he did not object if others wanted to investigate chronology. Storrs believed that Christ’s return was near and that it was important for Christians to keep awake and spiritually alert, ready for the day of inspection. But he parted company with Miller’s group because they accepted unscriptural doctrines, such as the immortality of the soul, the burning of the world, and the absence of any hope for everlasting life for those who die in ignorance.
George Storrs died in December 1879, at his home in Brooklyn, New York, just a few blocks from what would later become the focal point of the global preaching campaign that he had so eagerly anticipated.

Storrs it seems is the only person mentioned in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses that had a brief association with Millerite Adventism.
2 things that should be noted:

Storrs is not a founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Millerite Adventism (Millerism) is not the same as Seventh Day Adventism.

Storrs was respected by  Charles Russell who said of him:

The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen gave us much assistance; but we ever sought not to be followers of men, however good and wise, but ‘Followers of God as dear children.’”
Yes, sincere Bible students could benefit from the efforts of men like Grew and Storrs, but it still was vital to examine God’s Word, the Bible, as the real source of the truth.

Another early restorationist named Jonas Wendell was a zealous Adventist preacher following in the spirit of William Miller.

Unknown to him, attendance at one of his presentations restored Charles Taze Russell's faith in the Bible as the true word of God, leading to Russell's ministry.

Still in answer to your question Russell was not at anytime an Adventist himself and in particular not SDA.


Are there any conditions which make oneself completely unredeemable in the eyes of God?

Jesus answers this one pretty clearly: such a sin does exist.

  Mark 3:28-29

  28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of
  men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

  29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
  forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does it actually say what constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and speculation as to its meaning tends to be all over the place.


John Mark's surname is actually Marcus, I Peter 5:13, a Roman name, so presumably his father was a Roman. There may have been implications in that, since Mary is an Hebrew name and there is a question of why Mary, presumably a Jewess, would marry a Roman and not a Jew.

The name of John Mark's father is not recorded in scripture, only his mother.

Peter speaks of John Mark in a fatherly way, I Peter 5:13 again, and one wonders if the Roman father was separated from the family and that Peter was a surrogate father to John Mark.

Paul tells us that John Mark's mother, Mary, was the sister of Barnabus, Colossians 4:10, and of course we know that Barnabus had an altercation, Acts 15:38, with Paul regarding John Mark going back to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13, during the first missionary journey of Paul leading Paul not to want him on the next journey and the parting of the ways taking place between Paul and Barnabus.

But Luke says, Acts 11:24, that Barnabus was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit. So it is a lesson that even good men may part company, one from another.

In the end, Paul commends Mark requesting Timothy, II Timothy 4:11, to bring him as he was 'profitable for the ministry' and, of course, he subsequently wrote a book received into the canon of scripture.

Perhaps Mark is the young man which he alone mentions who fled away unclothed when Jesus was arrested, the young man leaving his cloak in the hands of his would-be captors, Mark 14:52.

Then again, Mark is the only one to mention, Mark 16:5, a young man, clothed in white in the empty sepulchre after Jesus' resurrection so there is an allusion there to recovery and service in the context of both the fleeing young man and Mark turning back from the work of evangelism.

And maybe there is further cause for Mark being chosen to write the gospel account if it is the case that his mother had backslidden in taking a Roman as a husband. Here again, perhaps there is a message of recovery in Christ from every failure.

The only other name mentioned in scripture in connection with the household of Mary and her son John Marcus is Rhoda, Acts 12, the young girl who did not, at first, let Peter in when the angel released him from prison.

It is interesting, also, to note that the prayer was being made by a gathered company for Peter in prison and it was the household of Mary and her son John Mark wherein the prayer meeting was taking place.


Why does the Battle Hymn of the Republic say Jesus was born "in the beauty of the lillies"?

According to this site, the first draft of the song actually had the words

  In the whiteness of the lilies he was born across the sea

And then the final version of the song, which was first published in 1862 had the words

  In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea

That same site references a book by Edmund Wilson entitled Patriotic Gore: Studies in the Literature of the American Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966).  On page 96 of that book, the author suggests that the lyrics may be referring to Easter lilies (which are associated with the death and resurrection of Jesus).

Absent any reason given by Julia Ward for choosing those words, we can merely speculate as to why she chose them.  Based on the context, though, she was clearly wanting to convey the hope portrayed in Jesus' birth and the beauty of what He accomplished in stark contrast to the darkness underlying the rest of the song.


Is the Golden Rule really the Gold Standard?

Matthew 7:12 (NIV) sounds a lot like the Golden rule:

  So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

But it also says it's only a summary of the Law and Prophets, not that it's actually a hard-and-fast rule.

The problem with your example is it puts "others" at odds with each other... There are two "theys"--your friends, and those you would lie to.  The Golden Rule is not far-reaching enough to address these sorts of ethical situations.

I think the true "Gold Standard" is to love God and people (Luke 10:27). The Golden Rule is intended to provide a sort of definition of what it means to love others.  That doesn't mean it's air-tight in a logical sense.  But even so, if we all practiced the Golden Rule to the letter (even lying for our friends, as in your example), I suspect the world would be a much better place than it is now.


According to Catholicism, how should Christians react when an unbeliever dies?

According the Catechism of the Catholic Church

  Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one
  and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy
  Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way
  known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of
  the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does
  the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be
  saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism
  explicitly if they had known its necessity.

So, I'd say first of all that your question made be based on a false premise. But taking just the words of your question at face value, I'd refer you to 1 Timothy 2-4; Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and probably many other verses.

I'd also suggest that the proper response is no different from the proper response in an earthly context. When some malefactor receives proper justice at the hands of the courts, should we rejoice in their misfortune? Of course not. But we can be glad that their unlawful and predatory behavior will no longer continue, and hope that others who may be tempted toward such behavior may be dissuaded by the example of their punishment.

As to hell being a place of physical torture, again I'd have to say that your question is based on a false premise. The church teaches that,

  "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom
  alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created
  and for which he longs."

So from the perspective of the saved, basking in the splendor and glory of the beatific vision, such separation is torture, and so those metaphors are appropriate.

For me, the most cogent depiction of hell can be found in CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce". It answers the question I think you're getting at: "How can a loving and good God create clay-footed creatures whom he then condemns to an eternity of torture while they beg and plead for forgiveness and mercy". (Hint: He doesn't) Although Lewis was not Catholic, I see nothing in what he relates there that is inconsistent with the church's teaching. I recommend it most highly, especially if this question poses difficulties for you. It's an easy, fun read, to boot.