What is the decree that Pope Gregory IX issued in 1231?

I believe that I have the text you need, more or less at any rate.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope Gregory IX states:

In February, 1231 ... the pope enacted a law for Rome that heretics condemned by an ecclesiastical court should be delivered to the secular power to receive their "due punishment". This "due punishment" was death by fire for the obstinate and imprisonment for life for the penitent.

I've added the emphasis to demonstrate that the pope did not intend this to be the case universally, but simply as a law for the area controlled by the diocese of Rome.
After some research, I've found the original text in Latin. The passage in question begins with the phrase "Excommunicamus et anathematizamus" and ends with "irritum et inane".

Here is my (own) translation of the document, to the extent that my Latin allows it:

We excommunicate and anathematize all heretics, Cathars, Patarenes, Poor Ones of Lyons, Passagines, Joseppines, Arnaldists, Speronists and others by whatever name they are known1; indeed their appearances are different, but they agree in the fact of their falsity, with their tails tied to each other. (?) Those who are condemned by the church, indeed, ought to be left to secular law and punished with the punishment they owe; clerics should first of all be removed from their orders. If however those from the aforesaid [groups], after they were detected, wish to return to fulfill a suitable penance, they should be cast into prison forever (?). We pass judgment on those believing in heretics or their errors similarly.
In the same way, we have recognized those who conceal, defend, or honor heretics as subject to the sentence of excommunication, holding firm, so that if anyone at all has been marked out by excommunication, he will not exercise care over anyone in his stubborn errors. By the law itself may he become disreputable; nor may he be admitted to public offices, nor to councils, nor to choosing anyone for such things, nor as a witness in court. Indeed let him be intestate, so that he may not have the right of making a will, nor may he accede to hereditary succession. None of these people may receive any power for any business reason at all; nor may any be permitted legal hearing of any cause whatsoever. If [the heretic] has been a lawyer, he absolutely may not be admitted to his clients. If a scribe, his completed documents are by that fact [the fact of his excommunication] made of no legal weight, but are condemned as their author is condemned; and in similar circumstances we command the same sort of thing to be observed. And further, if [the heretic] has been in clerical orders, he is to be removed from every office and benefice. If however any of these sorts of people, after they have been pointed out by the church, do not fear to avoid [that is, perhaps, "do not fear to avoid such a sentence" - but the Latin is not clear to me here], let them be struck down by sentence of excommunication, and of punishment with other penalties, as appropriate.
On the other hand, those who are found to be infamous only on suspicion (unless following consideration of the suspicion as well as the quality of the person, they demonstrate their innocence by a fitting penance), shall be struck with the sword of anathema, and are to be shunned by all until they make appropriate satisfaction. This shall continue until, if they have persisted in their excommunication for a year, from then on they are to be condemned [as] heretics. Thus, legal declarations and appeals of this sort of person are not to be heard.
In the same way, none of them may exercise the office of judges, advocates, and notaries; let them be deprived of any other such position perpetually. Again, do not offer the Church's sacraments to pests of this sort, nor may they accept alms and offerings; similarly with hospitallers and templars and members of a religious chapter: let them be deprived of their official status of any sort, to which they can never be restored except by special permission of the Apostolic See [i.e. the Pope]. As well, whoever presumes to hand over [the bodies of] such people for a Church burial, until they acknowledge that they lie under an appropriate penalty of the sentence of excommunication, [the sense of this is unclear] they shall not merit the benefit of absolution, unless they publicly dig the grave with their own hands, and throw in the bodies of these sorts of condemned people. And that place shall forever lack a burial. [I.e. no one else shall ever be buried there.]
Furthermore, we strongly set down as a rule, that it is not permitted to debate the Catholic faith with any lay person at all, either publicly or privately; and whoever does otherwise, let him be held in the chains of excommunication.
Next: if someone who knows heretics, or any others who hold secret meetings, or who are at variance with the common practice of the faithful in life or in habits, let him take care to point [these people] out to his confessor or to someone else, through whom he can be reasonably sure that [the matter] will be brought to the notice of the bishop; otherwise let him be punished with the sentence of excommunication.
Now the descendants of heretics, or those who shield or defend them, may not be admitted to ecclesiastical office until the second generation [i.e. the children may not hold such offices, but the grandchildren may].
Whatever is enacted to the contrary, we declare null and void.

1These are names of various heresies which were apparently prevalent in Rome in the early 13th century.


What about all those who just don't know?

Not my personal position, but the Catholic position is "yes, they're OK as long as they behave", recorded in Lumen Gentium (Second Vatican Council, 1964) - emphasis is mine:

  Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.


What symbols are preferred among certain denominations more than others?

What symbols are preferred amoung certain demonimations more than others?

Christian Liturgical Colours vary somewhat amongst the various Christian denominations, yet most are relatively the same for the most part.

For example:

  Methodist churches

  Methodists use a colour scheme similar to those used by Lutherans and Catholics, although the practice is not universally followed. The United Methodist Church, prior to the early-1990s, used red solely for Pentecost, even including the Sundays after Pentecost Sunday, with the use of green being reserved for the season of Kingdomtide, which usually lasted from late August/early September until Christ the King (the last Sunday in Kingdomtide). Since the publication of the 1992 Book of Worship, the UMC has followed the ELCA practice of wearing red only for Pentecost and Reformation Sunday and green for the rest of the Pentecost season.

  Reformed Churches

  The Presbyterian Church (USA), or its predecessor denominations, has sanctioned the use of liturgical colours and promoted their use in The Worshipbook of 1970, the 1993 Book of Common Worship and the 2018 Book of Common Worship. Advent and Lent are periods of preparation and repentance and are represented by the colour purple. The feasts of Christmas Day and Christmastide, Epiphany Sunday, Baptism of the Lord Sunday, Transfiguration Sunday, Easter Season, Trinity Sunday, and Christ the King Sunday are represented by white. Green is the colour for periods of Ordinary Time. Red is for Pentecost Sunday, but may also be used for ordinations, church anniversaries, and memorial services for ordained clergy. Red or purple are appropriate for Palm Sunday. During Holy Week, purple is used until the church is stripped bare on Maundy Thursday; the church remains stripped bare on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, though in some places black might be used on those days.

  Similarly, the United Church of Christ includes indications of which liturgical colour to use for each Sunday in its annual calendar. The general Western pattern is followed, with either purple or blue recommended for Advent.

More on colour symbolism within Christianity can be found here: Color Symbolism in Christianity.

Crossed Keys are a Catholic symbol of papal authority.

  According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised the keys to heaven to Saint Peter, empowering him to take binding actions. In the Gospel of Matthew 16:19, Jesus says to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven." Saint Peter is often depicted in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox paintings and other artwork as holding a key or a set of keys.

  The keys of heaven or keys of Saint Peter are seen as a symbol of papal authority and are seen on papal coats of arms (those of individual popes) and those of the Holy See and Vatican City State: "Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him [cura ei totius Ecclesiae et principatus committitur (Epist., lib. V, ep. xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)]". - Keys of Heaven

The Phoenix was a symbol of the resurrection according to some Early Church writers. This is also a recognized Catholic symbol for the resurrection, but many would not recognize it as such.

  Several writings have been attributed to Clement, though most are believed to be spurious. However, he did leave one epistle that is widely considered to be genuine, a letter to a church in Corinth. It begins by saying that the delay in its sending from Rome was due to “sudden and successive calamitous events,” which appears to be a reference to the persecutions of the emperor Domitian. The date of the message is open to some debate, but if we make the assumption that Domitian’s persecutions ended with the emperor’s death, then it seems likely that it was written somewhere around 96 C.E.

  The letter seems to have been a response to a situation in which some members of the Corinthian church rose up and deposed certain of their elders. Clement’s exhortations to return to former behavior are derived from both the Old Testament and examples drawn from the early church. This places him in an era when the Hebrew Scriptures were still providing definitive instruction for the conduct of the church, rather than being relegated to secondary status as they were by later generations. The letter is also concerned with reinforcing the truth of Jesus Christ’s resurrection and the hope of a future resurrection for human beings.

  It is in this regard that we encounter a puzzling passage. In chapter 25, Clement writes: “Let us consider the strange sign which takes place in the East, that is in the districts near Arabia. There is a bird which is called the Phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives 500 years; and when the time of its dissolution in death is at hand, it makes itself a sepulchre of frankincense and myrrh and other spices, and when the time is fulfilled it enters into it and dies. Now, from the corruption of its flesh there springs a worm, which is nourished by the juices of the dead bird, and puts forth wings. Then, when it has become strong, it takes up that sepulchre, in which are the bones of its predecessor, and carries them from the country of Arabia as far as Egypt until it reaches the city called Heliopolis, and in the daylight in the sight of all it flies to the altar of the Sun, places them there, and then starts back to its former home. Then the priests inspect the registers of dates, and they find that it has come at the fulfilment of the 500th year.” - The Phoenix and the Early Church

  Herodotus, Lucan, Pliny the Elder, Pope Clement I, Lactantius, Ovid, and Isidore of Seville are among those who have contributed to the retelling and transmission of the phoenix motif. The phoenix symbolized renewal in general, as well as entities and concepts such as the Sun, time, the Roman Empire, Christ, Mary, and virginity. - Phoenix (mythology)

Many more Catholic symbols can be perused at the Catholic website: Fish Eaters.


Jesus definitely ate lamb because lamb is eaten at the Passover festival.

  Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had
  to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make
  preparations for us to eat the Passover.”  (Luke 22:7-8, NIV)

A goat could also be used instead of a sheep for the Passover.

  The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you
  may take them from the sheep or the goats. (Exodus 12:5, NIV)

Jesus was a Jew and Jews are meat eaters. Except the Unclean Animals (pork,snake,shellfish etc.), Jews eat varieties of meat and Jesus was not an exception.


To trace the evolution of church institutions, as well as where Catholics and Protestants disagree about them, one will find that they agree on the facts but disagree on their meaning. There is nothing in the ‘facts’ that cause dispute, but as in all never-ending disputes, it is the prior assumptions that divide us. The cause in this subject is probably attributed to the mentality of either fully trusting or easily doubting ‘tradition’. However, to answer the question and to fix a date in history where Catholics and Protestants will generally divide over the interpretation of the facts regarding the development of Church institutions, it is not that difficult to do. All we have to do is locate at what date ‘additional titles’ of church officers, not found in scripture, became widely used in the Christian world.

As Protestants put all church traditions below authority of scripture there is generally no dispute in the basic primitive officers within a local church, such as a deacon or a bishop; the bishop, acting as a spiritual overseer and a deacon acting more administratively. Although even here we should mention that the title ‘deacon’ or ‘bishop’ mean varying things, based on one’s own tradition or interpretation of scripture. Yet as at least these titles themselves seem to exists from the times of the Apostles into the period of the council of Nicea, at which point we have certainly already passed the date were are looking for, we can disregard the evolution of those titles.

A practical date can be more or less equated with this question: ‘When did the term ‘arch-bishop’ and ‘arch-deacon’ first become widely used?’ This is a valuable data point because although a protestant might not oppose these offices (high Anglican), at a minimum, these terms are not found in scripture and indicate a development in church institutions. In addition, as Protestants generally believe in the separation of church and state, or at least a distrust of the state as a legitimate influence in church decisions and structure, this question also points to roughly the same date: ‘When did the primitive church lose it’s independence from the state and receive influence from the state onto the evolution of its subsequent church institutions?’.

With this approach we can take our best approximate date to be after the Edict of Milan (313AD) and prior to the Council of Nicea (AD 325).  This might seem like too narrow of a guess but there are two striking facts to support this narrow window. First, one can’t overestimate the impact of Constantine, the most powerful person in the world, becoming a Christian and actually intervening in church disputes eventually calling for all Christian leaders to convene a council in order to settle the debate over the nature of Christ. As wonderful as his conversion was to the Christian world in ending persecution and elevating the church into levels of honour never imagined just a few years before, the worldly exaltation and adjoining of state with church would naturally have an impact on it’s institutions for it’s officers would, in one way or another begin to report to the state and be determined by the state going forward.

Second the use of new ‘arch-’ terms did not appear in any historical documents until (as coincidence would have it?) this very same century.  Naturally these new titles would help increase the official level of bureaucracy in the church, as it ascended in political power, in order to help organize the state and the church together under a brand new and totally unexpected era!  Any large organisation under one powerful state, naturally needs auxiliary offices as compared to a simple ‘home church’ one might find in the New Testament or found during the very recent previous persecution of the Roman government. As later early history would show, this organization became especially important to any 'ambitious' bishop as it facilitated the administration of church offerings, with ‘city’ bishops collecting ¼ of all tithes and by the 8th century actually having power even over the collection of ‘rural’ assemblies revenue, increasing an ever growing luxury.

  "All offerings to the Church were originally in the disposition of the bishop, who was bound to dispense them to all who were on the list of the needy, whether they were clergy, widows, strangers, or poor. The earliest general rule is that of the Council of Antioch in 341 (c. 25), which is a general regulation for all Church property....The earliest regulation is that of Pope Simplicius in 475. It rules that of all the revenues of the Church and offerings of the faithful, one fourth is to go to the bishop; one fourth is to be divided among the clergy according to their several deserts; two fourths are to go to the fabrics of the churches, and to the maintenance of strangers and the poor. The regulation was recognised in later times by being incorporated in the body of Canon Law (c. 28, C. XII., qu. ii). (THE GROWTH OF CHURCH INSTITUTIONS by the rev EDWIN HATCH, p108)

and

  "The regulation took the form of requiring that baptisteries should only exist in places in which the bishop appointed them. It was first made in one of the earliest councils of the Carlovingian Reformation, that which was held by Pippin at Vernon, in Normandy, in 755. The regulation had the effect of dividing all churches outside the bishop’s own church into two classes, those in which baptisms could be performed and those in which they could not....It is evident that baptismal churches claimed a superior importance over the other country churches; it is also evident that they claimed a share in the newly sanctioned payment of tithes. (THE GROWTH OF CHURCH INSTITUTIONS by the rev EDWIN HATCH, p86)

This state-church organisation eventually led to national boundaries as would seem inevitable. The struggle over power in this new found world of luxury split the Eastern Churches from the Western with both claiming to be the only churches remaining that have always followed the traditions of the Apostles.

Having noted the date of the rapid change upon church structure as a natural result of the conversion of the Roman emperor, one must not think the Protestant Reformation immediately returned perfectly to the primitive structure of the New Testament, or even uniformly believes that it’s the right thing to do today. However one can see the main cord cut with Luther. Although separation of church and state would not really become a necessity until various denominations would settle in America with the need to live together, Luther paved the way for this eventual development by rejecting a more fundamental structure, namely the decisions made by ‘church councils’. Luther heartily rejected aspects of the first council recorded in ACTS (as did every other Christian) and also various parts of the next major council of Nicea. Following Luther's line of thought, 'if many decisions' made by church councils can be rejected, then the 'church institutions' that they establish or support can also be rejected. So the scarcity of such complicated hierarchies is no longer recognised.

No complex organizational structure can be maintained without group ‘councils’. Luther’s basic argument was that the council in Jerusalem as recorded in ACTS (ACTS 15:39) establish temporary rules about eating blood, etc. which was only applicable when Jewish traditions were slowly being put to death. These temporary rules were a kind of mercy to 'weaker brethren' who had grown up with them from the womb and found them too offensive to overcome when beginning to fellowship with Gentiles. Therefore, since nobody followed everything from the first council, there is no need to follow everything from any council. Luther then reviews the Council of Nicea and although fully supporting the main purpose for which the Emperor called the meeting, namely to defeat the Arian heresy, he notes the many embarrassing squabbles that the bishops added, over church institutions etc. He notes that this was added to the agenda the following day after the Empower had left and thinks the emperor would have never had enough patience to listen to such childish squabbles.

Luther’s effort in showing the greed and childish behaviour of many bishops at the council of Nicea leads to the original cause of why the church institutions developed into a power structure, why it lead to a split between east and west and why eventually Protestantism was brave enough to lead the path towards ultimate separation of church and state in the America.

  "The same council (Nicea) likewise decreed that the Roman bishop should, in accordance with an old custom, take charge of the suburbicarian churches, just as the bishop in Alexandria had charge of those in Egypt. I cannot and will not explain the word suburbicariae because it is not my word; but it seems to mean the churches located up to that time in Italy around the Roman churches, just as the churches in Egypt were adjacent to the churches in Alexandria. Let whoever wants to interpret it do so, but I still understand it to mean that this council gave the bishop of Rome no dominion over his surrounding churches, but entrusted them to his care; and it did not do it as though it had to be done “by divine right,” but because of an old custom. Custom, however, does not mean scriptura sancta or God’s word. Furthermore, it took the churches of Egypt (also in keep keeping with an old custom) away from the bishop of Rome and entrusted them to the bishop of Alexandria. Likewise, it is to be assumed that the churches in Syria were entrusted to the bishop of Antioch or Jerusalem, since they are farther away from Rome than Alexandria or Egypt.
  Now if this council is to be valid in our churches and go into effect, we must first condemn the bishop of Rome as a tyrant and burn all his bulls and decretals. There is no bull or decretal in which he does not boast vociferously and menacingly that he is the supreme head and lord of all the churches on earth, to whom everyone on earth must be subject, if they wish to be saved. This is exactly as much as saying, “The Council of Nicaea is false, accursed, and damned for taking from me domination over all things and for making the bishop of Alexandria my peer.” (Luther's Works Vol 41 p41)

In conclusion, the subject is massive but actually pivots on a few simple ideas in history in the fourth century. Catholics interpret them in such a way as to secure the 'infallible leadership of the Pope', tracing it to the New Testament itself under Peter. Eastern Orthodox interpret them in such a way as to retain the claim of original tradition also, however without the aggression that it claims the Catholic Roman Bishop tried to wield causing the split. Protestants, generally interpret the scriptures themselves to predict a very early falling away of the true traditions of the Apostles as people were predicted to begin to focus on ‘external rites’ and superstitions or harsh disciplines, in contrast to the inward evangelical realities of the gospel (e.g., 1 Tim 4:1-3). In addition Protestants commonly see St. Augustine’s focus on a real and ‘elect’ church, versus a mere external church, as a natural result of the joining of church and state, whereby so many 'insincere confessors' were politically manipulated to gather into its walls. Thus a kind of church within a church was dormant under St Augustine influence until the time of the reformation, at which point it largely came out under various national organization structures of the reformation.  Thus history seems to provide all three major Christian groups very confident positions from the mere facts. The real issue of contention is that all three groups claim that anyone who merely believes in Christ is a Christian 'without any doubt!', but both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox essentially mean …and belong to our external body as proof of such faith (or for the ignorant have a disposition to become part of our external body if sufficiently instructed in the light of their traditions).  This is the main point that divides the three groups.


According to Orthodox trinitarianism, can the Father exist without the Son or Holy Spirit?

Your statement is correct in principle, but the vocabulary could lead to some incorrect conclusions.

  the father does not require the son or holy spirit to exist

could be understood to mean that at some time the Father could have existed (or possibly even did exist) without the Son or the Spirit existing. This is not correct as the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father.

Likewise,

  the son and holy spirit are dependent on the father for their existence

is true as the Father is the source of the Trinity. However we must not understand 'dependent' to mean the Son and the Spirit are in someway conditional -- that if things had gone differently there could have been (for example) a Father, Sister, and Heartbeat instead.

The Father is the Fountainhead of the Holy Trinity, and it is not possible for there to be a Fountainhead without that which flows from it, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding.


Why does Jesus have to be fully God and fully man? Is it not sufficient to be the son of God and fully man?

Your question is whether God could, or perhaps should, have chosen to save us other than by becoming incarnate himself.
To begin with, the Incarnation is an act of grace. From the teaching we have received in the sacred scriptures, we know that the coming of God into the world, in the person of Jesus Christ, was a free and unmerited gift of God's love.

God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (John 3:16)
God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

There are many more passages I could have quoted. But my point here is that God was in no sense obliged to dwell among us. His sacrifice of himself was freely given, as the ultimate act of love.
The Biblical testimony does show that, in the way it did happen, the joining of human and divine natures in the person of Christ was capable of bringing about our reconciliation with God.

If while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:10-11)

Might this have been possible if Jesus was not fully God - but only a lesser divinity? The letter to the Hebrews, which you cite, says in chapter 1 that the son of God is more than a mere angel; he is "the exact imprint of God's very being" (v3), temporarily made "lower than the angels" (2:9) in order to be the direct link between God and ourselves. He is more than a servant of God, more than an ordinary prophet or priest or king. This is the free gift of God: he did not send the messenger we asked for, but came himself (9:11ff).
It is this teaching that Leo I expressed in his Tome, famously received by the Council of Chalcedon with the acclamation, "This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles." With more than an echo of Philippians 2, he wrote:

The proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours.

The theology of this letter was also influenced by Augustine, who wrote in De Trinitate 13.13:

Those then who say, What, had God no other way by which He might free men from the misery of this mortality, that He should will the only-begotten Son, God co-eternal with Himself, to become man, by putting on a human soul and flesh, and being made mortal to endure death? - these, I say, it is not enough so to refute, as to assert that that mode by which God deigns to free us through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, is good and suitable to the dignity of God; but we must show also, not indeed that no other mode was possible to God, to whose power all things are equally subject, but that there neither was nor need have been any other mode more appropriate for curing our misery. For what was so necessary for the building up of our hope, and for the freeing the minds of mortals cast down by the condition of mortality itself, from despair of immortality, than that it should be demonstrated to us at how great a price God rated us, and how greatly He loved us?

In this way, Augustine asserts God's sovereign capacity to find some other means for our salvation, but also the fact that the Incarnation was the best possible means - the one most expressive of God's love. Thomas Aquinas, citing these and other authorities (Summa 3.1.2), finds additional reasons, including the idea that the union of natures is essential to lift us above the dominion of evil spirits and the slavery of sin. This is only an elaboration of the fundamental Biblical doctrine of Christ's sacrifice being the supreme act of love, because of his full divinity. A lesser sacrifice would be a lesser expression of the love and grace of God.


What specific foods and drinks are forbidden by the LDS (Mormon) Church?

From Mormon.org:

Our body is a precious gift from God. To help keep our bodies and our
minds healthy and strong, God gave a law of health to Joseph Smith in
1833. This law is known as the Word of Wisdom (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:1-21).
In addition to emphasizing the benefits of proper eating and physical
and spiritual health, God has spoken against the use of:

Tobacco.
Alcohol.
Coffee and tea.
Illegal drugs.

God promises great physical and spiritual blessings to those who
follow the Word of Wisdom. Today, the scientific community promotes
some of the same principles that a loving God gave to Joseph Smith
nearly two centuries ago.

Reading the comments on the site linked above, the reasoning for the prohibition of these substances is that they impair the clear use of the mind; this is essentially the same principle why drunkenness is forbidden in Catholic moral teaching: free will and intelligence are gifts from God which allow us to know and love Him, so the voluntary impairment of these is wrong. St. Thomas Aquinas, on the question of how much are we allowed to drink, answers that we can drink "to the point of merriment (also translated as 'hilarity')."


Do miracles violate the laws of physics?

The laws of physics are certainly quite different from moral laws.  In fact, the Bible never refers to the laws of physics as "laws".  We see them as laws, because we are bound by them and are unable to break them.  We don't obey them based on our own volition.

Moral laws define what we ought to do, but we are under no compulsion to obey them.  We have a choice.

We obey the laws of physics because they bind us to them.  We obey moral laws because we bind ourselves to them.

So, the idea of God "obeying" what we describe as the laws of physics is really an absurdity.  These laws govern the physical universe--not the Maker of the physical universe.

This is a very significant distinction, because I have heard someone make the claim that if God breaks His own laws (of physics), then He is guilty of sin for breaking the law.  This is a completely false statement, though, because the laws of physics are distinct from moral law. Breaking a moral law is, by definition, immoral, but this is not true of the breaking of physical or natural laws.  Breaking a natural law would simply be "unnatural", or, more appropriately, "supernatural".

The Maker of the physical universe certainly has the power to create new matter according to His own will, as in the case of the Feeding of the 5,000.  He can change matter according to His will as well, as in the case of the Turning of the Water into Wine, the healing of the blind, the raising of the dead, etc.

Yet, His authority is not merely over the physical world, but over the spiritual realm as well, as demonstrated in Jesus casting out demons.

So, God is not confined by what we happen to refer to as the laws of physics.  They are laws the govern the physical universe.  They do not govern God Himself.


Looking for a passage on the effect of good/bad actions on your family through time

Exodus 20:5-6: You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 34:7: keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.

Implied in the warning of Exodus 20:5 and Exodus 34:7 is the likelihood that children will choose to repeat the sins of their fathers.  A Jewish Targum (1) specifies that this passage refers to “ungodly fathers” and “rebellious children.”  Those generations that commit the same sins their ancestors will receive the same punishment.
Under Old Testament law a generational curse was a consequence for a specific nation (Israel) for a specific sin (idolatry). The history books of the Old Testament (especially Judges) contain the record of this divine punishment meted out.  However, when Israel turned from idols to serve the living God, the “curse” was broken and God saved them (Judges 3:9, 15; 1 Samuel 12:10-11).  The cure for a “generational curse” is repentance of the sin in question, faith in Christ, and a life consecrated to the Lord (Romans 12:1-2).
Jeremiah 32:18 says that the consequences of sin from one generation are visited on the next generations.  Sin’s destructive consequences hurt the person committing the sin as well as those around him. Each generation has the choice to let their natural inclination repeat the cycle or to find a better way. People often want to break negative cycles but do not know how because the way of thinking they were raised with has confused them.  The cure for a “generational curse” is repentance of the sin in question, faith in Christ, and a life consecrated to the Lord (Romans 12:1-2).
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum


How does reformed theology view hypnosis?

The answer ranges from a bad idea to truly demonic, depending on what form of altered state of consciousness is implied. This question is interesting and one might not make the connection between hypnosis and faith healing movements but it does have some overlap into certain fringe movements within Christianity, such as the faith healers like Oral Roberts, T.L. Osborn and William Branham. My Uncle actually leads the Branham-ites and the research (even though secular) that I dug up, actually helped me to understand better the occult and quackery side of it.
Dr. James Braid, the Scottish surgeon coined the word "hypnotism," after witnessed demonstrations by a French mesmerist in 1841. Therefore, the modern term is too recent to gather good references from reformed heavy hitters.  Yet this need not discourage us, the reformed position can easily be extracted by simply breaking up hypnotism into its historical components and comparing its methods to reformed doctrines.
The history of hypnosis finds its roots in earlier theories developed by Mesmer.  He in turn finds his roots in ancient medical philosophy like traditional Chinese medicine and even shamanism. The idea had to do with a belief in animal magnetism and ways of manipulating it to heal people. One had to be brought into a 'state' to experience the 'strange' effects of the magnetism of the planets linked to our bodies, like the ying and yang.
The subject approaches the circumference of reformed theology in terms of Christian 'religious experience'. For example being slain in the Spirit could be basically considered the same state. ( I say may, because I do not discount the possibility of feinting when overcome by a conviction of sin, r wonderful view of God's grace, if a person is feeling a little weak or in a room without a lot of oxygen. )
In some sectors of Christianity there is an overlap between states of consciousness and religious experience, especially among the cults and extreme faith healers that used similar techniques of mesmerists and hypnotizers to bring about a 'frenzied experience' in the hopes of curing psychosomatic illnesses. Worse, when brining in a layer of anti Christian doctrine, in addition to the sleep induced manipulations, or spiritsm, it veers into the occult which aggressively crosses the boundary line of Christian ethics.
To work from a reformed position of the 'ecstatic' or the state of being in a prophetic 'trance' which historical mesmerists would have discounted but explained as religious phenomena that verified their theories, reformed views establish a position that is 'directly opposed' the techniques used in mesmerism that eventually led to hypnosis. We can see this in how John Owen explains the experience of the Holy spirit to be an 'orderly, voluntary creative work' that does not play 'tricks with our minds', or otherwise 'manipulate us' towards a uncontrolled 'ecstasies' or state of consciousness:

“The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration does not consist in enthusiastical raptures, ecstasies, voices, or any thing of the like kind.  Such things may have been pretended to by some weak and deluded persons: but the countenancing of such imaginations, or teaching men to expect them, or esteeming them as conversion to God, while holiness was neglected, is a calumny and false accusation, as our writings and preachings fully testify.”
“Therefore as to this negative principle we observe that the Holy Spirit usually exerts his power in the use of means, and that he works on men agreeably to their natures.  He does not come upon them with involuntary raptures, using their mental powers as the evil spirit wrests the bodies of possessed persons.  His whole work is rationally to be accounted for, by those who believe the Scriptures and have received the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive.”
“Indeed, the efficiency of the Spirit in quickening our souls (which the ancients always termed his ‘inspiration of grace’) is no otherwise to be comprehended than any other act of creating power, for as we hear the wind, but know not from where it came or where it goes, so is everyone that is born of the Spirit (John 3:8).  But this is certain, that he works nothing but what is determined and declared in the written word, and that he puts no force on the faculties of our souls, but works in them and by them suitably to their nature.”   (A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, By John Owen)

This opposes most of the history of hypnotism including mesmerism and most of the popular forms of hypnotism used in entertainment.  To elaborate a little, interesting and concise details of the history of Mesmerism and early science of hypnosis can be found here at this thesis paper on Mesmerism. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)
For example regarding rituals common to Mesmerism and early hypnosis:

Hypnotism and mesmerism share a certain dependence on ritual as a means of concentrating the attention of the subject and impressing upon him that something important and effective is taking place. Hypnotic induction procedures may make use of candles, pendulums, crystal balls, and other objects of focus; hand passes in front of the subject's eyes are often employed; and the verbal portion of the method usually involves leading the subject on a series of steps into deeper relaxation and concentration through directed imagination. For example, the subject may be asked to picture a carpeted stairway that he will descend into a warm, comfortable room, or to imagine himself/herself walking off into a flowery meadow. The subject is led to believe that she/he is, in effect, going somewhere else, into a special state where the rules of everyday life may not apply, so that extraordinary things may happen--even something as extraordinary as giving up smoking. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)

First hand subjects of Mesmer indicate how powerful unstable people are when getting together with high expectation and who open themselves to an ‘experience’:

Some patients remain calm and experience nothing; others cough, spit, feel slight pain, a local or general heat, and fall into sweats; others are agitated and tormented by convulsions. These convulsions are remarkable for their number, duration, and force, and have been known to persist for more than three hours. They are characterized by involuntary jerking movements in all the limbs, and the whole body, by contraction of the throat, by twitchings of the hypochondriac and epigastria regions, by dimness of vision and rolling of the eyes, by piercing cries, tears, hiccough, and immoderate laughter. They are preceded or followed by a state of languor or dreaminess, by a species of depression, and even by stupor. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)

This covers the subject from a charlatan and quackery standpoint, and in deed this is the origin of the science, however their also is the demonic element. Extreme religious groups do more or less the same thing as a ‘road show’ entertainment kind of false healing program and when this is accompanied by teachings that run in direct opposition to the gospel, reformed theology can’t be view this as a demonically enhanced version of simple quackery, although both may be primary interested in making money under the abuse of their clients.  For example Mesmersim has lead to Swedenborgianism which is a Christian sect that denies almost every traditional Christian belief as well as supports abelief of out of body experiences with spirits, etc.  Also in the article I have linked to we see the background of ‘Christian Science’:

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, vehemently denounced mesmerism and hypnotism, in the apparent belief that they are totally grounded in the physical realm and unrelated to Spirit or God. But since she studied under the mesmerist Quimby, she must have been aware that her doctrine of the mind's influence on health could almost have come directly from Mesmer's writings. It seems that she was, then, simply maligning a rival in the field of healing. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)

The occultist history of the science is also conveniently found in the article:

The roots of hypnosis are lost in the abyss of the ages. But the human race has always known and explored altered states of consciousness. The peoples of the ancient world knew many of the keys that open the gates to a different reality, such as fasting, meditation, sleep deprivation--and even dance, as we see in the ecstatic states achieved by the whirling dervishes of Turkey; Haitian and African voodoo dancers; and American Indians in their dance ceremonies. Yogis, fakirs, Persian magi, and Christian mystics such as St. Anthony of Padua and St. Theresa of Avila have all made use of trance states.
These mental transformations could also be chemically induced. The legendary Pythia, priestess of the Delphic Oracle in Greece, inhaled sulfurous fumes from a cleft in the rock within the temple, then spoke her strange prophecies. African witch doctors and other sbamen also prepare themselves by taking a substance appropriate for the ceremony they are to perform. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)

However, there is an element of hypnotism that would be more medical and a kind of simple self-induced sleep with simple attempts at the ‘power of suggestion’.  This does not have the same abusive, or occultist implications.  In this sense a man could even whisper to his wife in her sleep, ‘You do not want to buy purses and shoes’ and see if it has any effect without necessarily sinning. The only thing I would say is that considering the dark history of the subject, often overlapping with occult practices and being pioneered by people strongly opposed to reformed views, a reformed position would remain suspicious to say the least. More than that since, the heart of man is perceived as being 'desperately wicked' and 'deceitful above all things' the idea of subjecting your own thoughts, conscious or sleep induced, to another sinner, where principles and guard of aware discipline against all temptation is willingly surrendered, seems to oppose the concepts of sanctification through the study of God's word.  In other words, prayer and discipline are reformed methods for quitting smoking and hypnosis is just various shades of gray, or even black, which can't be as effective or as reasonably reliable. However, as Medical hypnosis does not have these darker undertones, so it would be slotted more along the lines of a bad idea, rather than the demonic.


The bones of Elisha raised a dead man
The earliest reference to a divine miracle happening through the remains of a holy person is in the Old Testament when a dead man came into contact with the bones of Elisha the prophet and the man was resurrected.

Elisha died and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.
—2 Kings 13:20-21 (NIV)

The cloak of Jesus healed a woman with twelve years of hemmoraging
In the New Testament, a woman touched Jesus' cloak and was healed of bleeding of twelve years.

And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
—Mark 5:25-29 (NIV)

The story is also described in in Luke 8:43-48. Although in that account, Jesus says to her that "your faith has healed you", this is consistent with the belief that it is not the relics themselves that contain the power, but rather that God chooses to work through them in response to the faithful.
Handkerchiefs and aprons touched by Paul healed sick people

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
—Acts 19:11-12 (NIV)

The three examples are also the basis for the three classifications of relics that Catholicism uses. The bones of Elisha would be a first-class relic, the cloak of Jesus a second-class relic, and handkerchiefs that Paul touched would be a third-class relic.


Protestant explanation of an immortal spirit

To understand this perspective, it is better to think of "death" as "a separation", rather than "a ceasing to exist".  So, when you "die", your spirit is separated from your flesh, and from this world.

1) The second death is the ultimate separation of (the spirits of) sinners from the presence of God.

2) Indeed, (the spirits of) those who are "resurrected" will receive new bodies (see below), although we don't yet know what that will look like, exactly.  But we do know we won't be raised into the same body we had here on earth.

  But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?”...  All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts... There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies... So also is the resurrection of the dead...  it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body... Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly -1 Corinthians 15:35-49

Q&A

Why would a person believe that the spirit lives on when the body is dead?  Answer: There are many passages (such as this one) that indicate that prior to the "first resurrection" and "second death", the spirits of those who have died are still "alive".
Aren't the spirits of sinners already separated from God?  Answer: No; not in the ultimate sense.  There is a lot more grace in the lives of sinners right now than people realize.  The separation that comes at the final judgment is too terrible to describe in words.  Clearly sinners are not experiencing the torment of that ultimate separation here on earth.


Do Latter-day Saints believe Muhammad is a prophet?

While Latter-day Saints respect the beliefs of others, they don't revere or recognize Muhammad as a prophet.

In LDS history, the first prophet in our dispensation (a consecutive period of time where the gospel is on the earth and revealed, or "dispensed," through prophets) was Joseph Smith. Before that, the last prophet we have record of is Moroni, son of Mormon, who compiled The Book of Mormon. That was about 421 A.D, well before Muhammad's time.


Where does the belief that the Earth is relatively young (6000 years) come from?

No, this is not a universal belief. Some do not take the days in Genesis as literal, and some treat Paradise (as described in Genesis) as being a spiritual world rather than being the same 'world' which we measure with carbon dating and other physical measures.

The 6000 years is roughly discerned using clues from stories in the Bible, but there are other measures placing its age closer to 7500 years.

What is generally used is the following:

Length of 'day' in Genesis 1
Length of time figures in Genesis lived
Ages are added by using 'and in so-and-so's xth year, so-and-so was born' (and variations thereof)
History / chronicle books have king-dynasty lengths.

It's a lot of work to do, really.

Variations in measures can be explained by differing interpretations of 'day' in Genesis, whether 'in the xth year of y' means that x years preceeded it or x-1 years, and estimates of times not explicitly mentioned.


How often do Christian missionaries report occurrences of miracles while on the mission field?

I have been in touch with individual missionaries, and missionary couples, over many decades. They send reports to prayer supporters and probably even more fulsome reports to any missionary society or church that sends them and helps provide for them.  Some missionaries are self-supporting and do not report back to any organisation or church, only sending news-letters to Christians who pray for them. They are full of miracles “in the field”. I have also read many books about missionary exploits, some in previous centuries. I could not collate any statistics on the frequency of such missionary reports of miraculous events, for there are far too many even with the limited information I have. Nor do I have access to missionary reports outside of Protestant ones although I support Christian Solidarity Worldwide which has a largely Catholic base. When I heard Baroness Cox speak locally, she was asked if she believed in miracles.

“We don’t believe in miracles,” she replied, “We DEPEND on miracles!”

And therein lies the problem with answering your question.
The extent of God-ordained miracles in outreach work of missionaries and those helping the persecuted Church is so vast as to be incalculable. Even if you were to find an organisation logging missionary experiences of miracles from every Christian denomination there is, they would miss out a huge number. There’s a specific reason for that.
It has to do with the safety and protection of Christian missionaries. These days, few countries allow religious missionaries of any religion to enter in for such activity. They can enter in order to fill teaching posts, or do engineering work, or medical work etc, but if they are suspected of also doing Christian missionary work, they will be expelled and never allowed to return. In some countries in the world where, I suspect, the greatest number of miracles are happening, Christians involved (whether missionaries or nationals living there) could end up in prison or even lose their lives. I personally know one man born in such a country who now lives with his family abroad, but visits it (and other countries that are immensely dangerous to operate in), and all his news-letters have miracles in them. Not that he tells us of all such miracles. He would need a book to record them all, and I do not exaggerate. Another couple I personally know go in and out of India, at their own expense, and their news-letters are just the same. They relate some miracles, but many others are only mentioned in verbal exchanges. They, too, would be in some danger if their identities became public.  A family I personally know who spent decades living in Turkey warned every reader of their news-letters not to make the information public.  Another couple I know who were missionaries in Africa happily shared wonderful events with friends in the church but their ‘sending’ organisation who would also know of these events, would only record accounts from missionaries ‘signed up’ to their group.
I doubt if there is any official body collating all records of all missionary ‘miracle’ experiences. And there is no way I would share with you or anybody else the many miracles I have heard of over the decades. I would not even suggest bare statistics because providing those would entail a huge number of hours of searching through those news-letters I kept (from the early 1980s till now), but most were shredded.  This means that your main question is unanswerable (by anybody). Your second question would surely get the answer, “It is not uncommon” from every Christian involved with missionaries. Your third question would require an answer from people in touch with every missionary in the world, and I doubt if even one such person exists. Your fourth question gets a “No such organisation does all of that” from me, but I could be wrong.
This is a less than helpful response to your four questions, but because you ask about a really interesting and important matter, I have risked incurring the wrath of the moderators by posting what amounts to a non-answer, apart, that is, from my answer to your second question - How common is it that Christian missionaries come back from their mission trips reporting extraordinary anecdotes?  -to which I have replied, “It is not uncommon”.


According to evangelicals, who are the Great Multitude at Rev 7:9, who come out of the great tribulation (on earth) where they are given life?

Since there is no ruling body for evangelical Christians, each church, preacher, and member could take a different interpretation. In this answer I'll present various articles from generally well-known evangelical sources which provide contradictory answers, to give an idea of some of thing things that are believed amongst evangelicals.
In some cases, they believe both the 144000 and the multitude are the same set of people, and in other cases they don't. Where they believe them to be different, I've tried to explain what they believe both groups are.
All emphasis is quotes are my own.
Pre-millenial Example
This article from GotQuestions (whose Statement of Faith appears consistent with Evangelicalism) appear to hold the pre-millenial view

It is true that there will be people ruling in the millennium with Christ...Furthermore, the millennium is different from the eternal state, which will be established at the completion of the millennial period

They understand the 144000 to be a specific set of Jews at a particular time:

When taken at face value, Revelation 7:4 seems to speak of 144,000 actual people living during the end-times tribulation. Nothing in the passage leads to interpreting the 144,000 as anything but a literal number of Jews

And they (quite strongly!) disagree that it is a literal interpretation of the full number of saved Christians:

Much of the confusion regarding the 144,000 is a result of the false doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses [who] claim that 144,000 is a limit to the number of people who will reign with Christ in heaven and spend eternity with God

But the 144000 are not the multitude described in the rest of the chapter. Instead, this group of Jews goes on to convert large numbers of Christians, and it's these that the multitude is talking about.

As a result of their ministry, millions—“a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9)—will come to faith in Christ.

Contradicting pre-millennial example
John Piper, a well-known US evangelical preacher, describes himself as pre-millenial. This article referencing Revelation 7, directly contradicts this view, suggesting they are not converts from the tribulation.

Unless you restrict this multitude to the converts of the great tribulation and say that God's missionary purpose then is different than it is now, the implication of God's worldwide purpose is clear

Instead, he appears to suggest they represent all Chritians. This is backed up by his use of the words "saints" in this article, where he appears to equate both the 144000 and the multitude to all Christians.

in dying [Jesus] ransomed a great multitude of saints from all the nations

suggests Piper is using the word "saints" to mean "all Christians", which he then equates to both the 144000 and the multitude.

Then before the opening of the final seal John is given a vision of the destiny of the saints in all this upheaval. In 7:1–8 he sees that they will be sealed by God on the earth so they are preserved for his own. Then in 7:9–17 he sees them in the final triumphant state in heaven as an uncountable multitude from every nation serving God in security and joy forever and ever.

A-millennial example
This article is from the Gospel Coallition, which describes itself as "a fellowship of evangelical churches". It is written by Kevin DeYoung, who in another article for TGC describes himself as a-millennial. He also appears to interpret the 144000 as a representation of all Christians.

The 144,000 are not an ethnic Jewish remnant, and certainly not an Anointed Class of saints who became Jehovah’s Witnesses before 1935. The 144,000 represent the entire community of the redeemed.

I take it that, if the 144,000 represent all of God's people, DeYoung is interpreting the whole of Revelation 7 as referring to the same group of people.
Post-millennial Example
I haven't been able to find a great example for this. This article is from someone describing themselves as post-millenial, although doesn't seem to refer to themselves as "evangelical". It's not clear who they think the multitude are, but they draw a strong distinction between them and the 144000, which suggests they don't believe it is a particular set of Jews, at the very least.

The 144,000 saints represent Jewish converts to Christianity who dwell in Israel...John distinguishes them from “the great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” (Rev 7:9). John is careful to make this strong distinction between the two groups.

Summary
Evangelical Christians generally disagree over the interpretation of who the multitude are, who the 144000 are, and whether they are the same set of people. Even Christians who appear to hold to the same interpretation of Revelation in general disagree over this passage in particular. However, there is a vague notion that suggests the most common interpretation is that it represents all of God's people.
Edit:
I'm tempted to say that the question of whether this multitude has not yet received life is a separate question, but I'll attempt to answer it anyway. If others feel it should be split out, then I can copy this section of the answer across.
Revelation 7:17 mentioned two things happening: God wiping every tear from their eye, and them being led to the water of life. It seems you've interpretted this to mean that they don't yet have life, and will only receive it when they reach said water of life.
However, if we look later in Revelation, we find that both phrases are used to describe the New Creation. I would therefore interpret these verses as simply telling us in advance, before the trouble we're about the see through Revelation, that this multitude will reach the New Jerusalem.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” Revelation 21:1-5 (NIV®)

And

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. Revelation 22:1-2 (NIV®)


What is the biblical argument for eating meat, or that vegetarianism is possible but not commanded?

God's Endorsement of Eating Meat

Actually, God specifically ordained that man could eat meat, starting after the flood.  The only prohibition in this was to drain the blood:

  Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.  But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.  Genesis 9:3-4 ESV

During the Exodus, God sent quail into the camp to provide the Israelites with meat to eat:

  In the evening quail came up and covered the camp, and in the morning dew lay around the camp. Exodus 16:13 ESV

In fact, the Passover was a feast that every Jewish person was under obligation to observe once a year in which they ate the meat of a lamb, so God, once again, ordained and commanded the eating of meat.

  Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household.  Exodus 12:3 ESV

Vegetarianism

Before the Fall and perhaps up until the flood as well, it is true that mankind was enjoined to eat only vegetables, but that was a temporary command.

  And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.   Genesis 1:29 ESV

It is true that Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego did not eat meat during their captivity in Babylon, but that was more likely due to either what kind of meat it was or how it was prepared--perhaps unclean animals that were not kosher for Jews. (See Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat?.)

  But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.  Daniel 1:8 ESV

What Jesus Ate

Furthermore, Jesus Himself ate meat, as He observed the Passover meal with His disciples:

  And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.  Luke 22:15 ESV

On other occasions, He ate fish as well:

  They gave him [Jesus] a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.  Luke 24:42-43 ESV

Paul's Instructions

The most applicable passage, though, is perhaps found in Romans 14.  In this passage, Paul address the issue of eating meat that had been sacrificed to false gods.  Paul affirms that there is nothing wrong with eating meat, and it is the weaker brother who eats only vegetables in fear that eating meat would be wrong.

  As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.  Romans 14:1-4 ESV

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bible does not prescribe vegetarianism at all, but records that God actually gave meat to mankind for consumption.


Is "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" preaching heresy?

You're reading way too much into this :)

In order to appreciate this song, I think you need to allow for variation of meaning in the English language. Understanding some songs even require that we grant them some poetic license, although I think we should treat those with caution because consciously or otherwise those do tend to cloud our theology. However in this case I don't think poetic license is even necessary to appreciate the meaning.

Debtor could have several meanings. One of them is quite simply the sense of 'thankful', but I think the meaning here could actually be understood in a much stronger sense than thankfulness. The word can carry a sense of being 'dependent' or 'bound to'. And yes, theologically speaking, I think it is fair to say we are dependent on God's grace every day. While we don't owe him anything in return for it the very fact that his grace is freely given does "daily constrain us" to walk in His ways.


Did Emanuel Swedenborg posit a hard distinction between the head and heart?

Head and heart, or love and wisdom, are fundamental to God and the universe

According to the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), the universe and everything in it is quite literally created from and built around the interplay between what is colloquially known as "head and heart," or between love and wisdom, in the more abstract language that Swedenborg commonly uses.

This is the subject of Swedenborg's great philosophical and cosmological work Divine Love and Wisdom, originally published in Latin, Amsterdam, 1763.

In this book, Swedenborg traces the creation of the universe to a divine "marriage" of love and wisdom in God. In God, Swedenborg says, love and wisdom are perfectly balanced. And though they can be distinguished conceptually in our minds, they are in fact inseparable from one another, and always operate together as one.

From this "divine marriage" flows all the power, or action, of God—and of course, all the words, or teachings, of God, which are part of God's power flowing out. This power and truth of God flowing out is known biblically as "the Holy Spirit."

So according to Swedenborg, God consists of:

Love
Wisdom
Action

In Swedenborg's theology, these three are the "Trinity" in the one Divine Person of God, when the Trinity is viewed in abstract terms.

So in their origin in God, "head" and "heart" are, in Swedenborg's words, "distinguishably one" (see Divine Love and Wisdom #14, in which Swedenborg uses the name "the Divine-Human One" for God).

Love is the reality, the substance, and the soul of God.
Wisdom is the manifestation, the form, and the body of God.

So in God, there is no "hard distinction" between head and heart in the sense that they are somehow radically separate. In fact, they can occur only together with one another, even if we are able to distinguish them conceptually for purposes of analysis. God's "head knowledge" is precisely the same as God's "heart knowledge."

Because the entire created universe comes from God and is an expression of God, this "distinguishable oneness" of love and wisdom, or substance and form, exists throughout the created universe as well, including in human beings, where it is especially manifested in our will and understanding, once again colloquially known as "heart" and "head."

In humans, head and heart can and do become distinguished and separated

Unlike anywhere else in the universe, however, in humans head and heart can seem to be disjointed and separate from one another. In Divine Love and Wisdom #39, Swedenborg writes:

  Even though love and wisdom seem to be two separate things in us [humans], essentially they are distinguishably one. This is because the quality of our love determines the quality of our wisdom and the quality of our wisdom the quality of our love. Any wisdom that is not united to our love seems like wisdom, but it is not; and any love that is not united to our wisdom seems like wisdom's love even though it is not. Each gets its essence and its life from the other in mutual fashion.

  The reason the wisdom and love within us seem to be two separate things is that our ability to understand can be raised into heaven's light, while our ability to love cannot, except to the extent that we act according to our understanding. So any trace of apparent wisdom that is not united to our love for wisdom relapses into the love with which it is united. This may not be a love for wisdom, and may even be a love for insanity. We are perfectly capable of knowing, from our wisdom, that we ought to do one thing or another, and then of not doing it because we have no love for it.

In short, unlike other animals, we humans are capable of dividing our head from our heart by understanding things that we do not love. In Swedenborg's words, our understanding can be raised into heaven's light even when we do not love what the light of heavenly truth is telling our minds. This is why, as Swedenborg says in the quotation just above, "we are perfectly capable of knowing, from our wisdom, that we ought to do one thing or another, and then of not doing it because we have no love for it."

Eventually, Swedenborg says, our mind will relapse back to the level of our heart. If we persistently do not love and do what our higher understanding instructs us to do, we will revert back to our lower desires—and this will determine our character, whatever mask of outward civility and morality we may put on in public.

However, our ability to see and understand things that are higher, better, and more spiritual than what our sin-prone heart desires, and what our lower self therefore thinks, gives us the ability to be reborn, or regenerated, and thus saved from our fallen and sinful state.

Without this capability to separate head from heart, there would be no check on our sinful desires. We would rush into every kind of evil action with nothing to stop us, since our head would give full assent and assistance to whatever our heart desired.

Before the Flood, humans had no ability to separate head from heart

This, Swedenborg says, was the state of humankind before the Great Flood narrated in Genesis 6-9. By that time, all of humanity except for Noah and his immediate family are described in this way:

  The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. . . . Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. (Genesis 6:5, 11-12)

Swedenborg interprets this as speaking symbolically about a thoroughly corrupt culture of ancient humans, whose beliefs were completely falsified by the evil in their hearts. He says in Secrets of Heaven #560:

  In specific regard to the people of the church before the Flood, they conceived appalling delusions as time passed. The goodness and truth that belong to faith they merged so thoroughly with their foul desires that almost no trace of either was left to them. When they reached this point, they virtually suffocated themselves.

As he explains in more detail in subsequent sections, the people of the various human cultures that existed before the Flood were unable to separate their mind from their heart, or their faith from their desires. Their evil desires caused their beliefs to become utterly false and corrupt as they used their falsified "faith" to justify the wicked and depraved actions that flowed from their evil and sinful hearts. Because of this, they snuffed out all of their spiritual life—a process that is symbolized by the Flood that killed all living beings on earth except those in the ark.

At the time of the Flood, God made a separation between the human head and heart for the sake of our salvation

In order to make it possible for fallen, sin-prone humans to be spiritually reborn, and thus saved, God then brought about a radical change in the human mind and spirit. This change is symbolized by the ark, and in particular by one highly significant detail of the ark's construction:

  So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. (Genesis 6:14, italics added)

In explaining the meaning of the rooms in the ark, Swedenborg says:

  The people of this church had to reform. The side of a person called the intellect had to reform first, before it was possible for the other side, referred to as the will, to do the same. So the present passage tells how the contents of the will were separated from those of the intellect and how they were concealed and stored away, so to speak, in order to block off any stimulus to the will. Had the appetites of the will been stirred up, it would have destroyed people. . . .

  These two sides, the intellect and will, are as clearly distinguished in us as they could possibly be. (Secrets of Heaven #641, italics added)

In short, at the time of the Flood, God made a distinction and even a separation between the human will and understanding, or head and heart, in order to make it possible for us to be spiritually reformed and reborn. From that point onward our intellect would be able to take the lead, learn what is right and wrong, and impose it upon our will, thus reforming our will, which is our true heart, reality, and character as human beings.

We seem to do this reformation on our own, but in fact it is the Lord God working from within, giving us a new heart, or will, that pairs with the enlightened part of our intellect (which also comes from God) in order to correct our old will, or heart. This process is symbolized in these words from the Prophets:

  I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

In Swedenborg's interpretation of this passage (see, for example, Apocalypse Explained #587:14; True Christianity #143, #601), the "clean water" is divine truth revealed by God to our thinking mind, and the "new heart" is the new will that God puts in us—a heart filled with love for God and for our fellow human beings—in place of our old, corrupt and greedy "heart of stone."

This process takes place throughout our lifetime on earth for those of us who are being spiritually reborn, or regenerated.

While this process is taking place, we humans have the ability to think one thing and desire another, so that there is a separation between our head and our heart. We can "think" one thing with our heart, and "think" another with our head.

However, when this process is complete, our head and our heart, or our will and our understanding, will once again become united, so that our thoughts and beliefs are fully one with our motives and desires. If this reuniting of head and heart does not take place for us on earth, it will take place in the spiritual world after death, before we find our permanent home in either heaven or hell.

Summary of "head knowledge" vs. "heart knowledge" in various states of human sinfulness and spiritual rebirth, according to Swedenborg's theology

In our unregenerate, sinful state while living here on earth:

"The thoughts of our head" are what we have been taught by parents, teachers, ministers, and so on based on the Bible and on principles of civil morality.
"The thoughts of our heart" are the fallacious and false ideas that we grasp onto in order to justify and support our selfish and greedy desires.

As long as we are in an unregenerate (sinful) state, these two are often at odds with one another.
In our regenerating state while living here on earth:

Our "head knowledge" is what we've been taught by various teachers, both religious and secular, some of which may actually be faulty and false.
Our "heart knowledge" is what we sense to be true in our heart, and actually live by, whatever faulty ideas we may have in our head (such as doctrinal errors or atheism).

In our regenerated, or reborn, state, especially after death when we are living in our permanent home in heaven, there is no distinction between our "head knowledge" and our "heart knowledge." Our head and our heart are in perfect agreement.
In the eternally damned state of those who, while on earth, chose selfishness and greed over love and kindness, head and heart will also perfectly agree—only the heart will be filled with evil desires, and the head will be filled with falsity and illusion that supports and justifies the heart's evil desires.

Sample passages in which Swedenborg distinguishes between what today we would call "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge"

In this passage, Swedenborg speaks of the "perception," or heart-based knowledge, of the earliest people on earth, represented by Adam and Eve before the Fall:

  People today have no idea what perception is. It is an inner feeling for whether a thing is true and good—a feeling that can come only from the Lord—which was very familiar to the people of the earliest church. The sensation is so clear for angels that it gives them awareness and recognition of truth and goodness, of what comes from the Lord and what from themselves. In addition, it enables them to detect the character of anyone they meet simply from that person's manner of approach or from a single one of his or her ideas.

  Spiritual people [defined elsewhere as intellect-oriented people] have no perception, although they have conscience. People who are lifeless [meaning in a sinful, unregenerate state] do not even have conscience, and many do not know what conscience is, much less perception. (Arcana Coelestia #104, italics added)

Following up on the above description of the earliest people on earth, in this passage Swedenborg talks about how the early human culture represented by "Cain" in Genesis 4 began to separate the head from the heart—a situation that still exists in humans today:

  This shows the nature of the earliest church and of its religious thought. Modern times, in which faith comes first, are completely different; but through faith the Lord endows us with charity, and then charity takes highest importance. It follows that religious teachings were falsified in earliest times when people declared their faith and in the process separated faith from love. Those who falsified the religion in this way, dividing faith from love (that is, championing faith alone), were at that time called Cain. To do as they did was scandalous to the earliest people. (Arcana Coelestia #337, italics added)

In other words, the people represented by Cain abandoned the "perception," or "inner feeling for whether a thing is true and good," that their ancestors had enjoyed (which we today would call "heart knowledge"), and instead used their intellect to develop beliefs in their heads, separated from the love in their hearts. However, these intellectually developed beliefs ("head knowledge," in today's language) were actually based on an already corrupted heart, represented by Cain's evil desires and resulting actions against his brother Abel.

In this passage (from an older translation), Swedenborg speaks of a person understanding "truths of faith" (meaning religious beliefs), and then accepting them in the heart:

  Conscience in a member of the Church is formed by the truths of faith received from the Word, or from religious teachings drawn from the Word, according to his acceptance of them in his heart. For when a person has a knowledge of the truths of faith and understands them in his own particular way, and then wills and does them, conscience takes shape in him. Acceptance in the heart is acceptance in the will, for a person's will is what is called the heart. (Arcana Coelestia #9113, italics added)

Many more passages could be quoted, but these should be enough to show that Swedenborg did, indeed, identify and distinguish between what we today would call "heart knowledge" and "head knowledge."

For further explanation of these points:

For more on the separation of head and heart symbolically pictured by the ark and its rooms, see my article, "Noah's Ark: A Sea Change in the Human Mind."

For more on the reuniting of head and heart after death, see my article, "What Happens To Us When We Die?" especially the section titled, "Our Second Stage After Death: The Stage of Inward Life."

For more on the application of all of this to "the thoughts of our head" vs. "the thoughts of our heart," and on how we actually go about applying the spiritual knowledge in our head to reforming our fallen and sin-prone heart, see:

Do Atheists Go to Heaven? (linked in the question above)
Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?
What does Jesus Mean when He Says we Must be Born Again?


What is the difference between the Edomites and the Amalekites?

I think you've mostly answered your own question. Esau is the father of the Edomites and Amalek (grandson of Esau) is the father of the Amalekites.

Genesis 36:9 ESV These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir.
Genesis 36:12 ESV Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, Esau's son; she bore Amalek to Eliphaz.

Furthermore, they are each described as doing different things to Israel following Israel's time at Meribah. This adds proof to the argument that they're distinct tribes.

Exodus 17:7,8,13 And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim. ... And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword.
Numbers 20:13,14,21 ESV These are the waters of Meribah, where the people of Israel quarreled with the Lord, and through them he showed himself holy. Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: " ... Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from a well. We will go along the King's Highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.” ... Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him.


Why did the Bishop of Rome accept (and retains until today) the title "Pontifex Maximus" and how were the rights and duties transferred/transformed?

It is worth to describe in some detail that the title "Pontifex" pre-dates Christianity. According to Livius, the title was originally for (elected) high priests of the Roman religion, as mentioned in the Lex Ogulnia (300/299 BCE). The pontifex maximus was 'the greatest' or chairman of the college of the pontifices, 'priests'. They were responsible for the Roman state cult as a whole and for several cults in particular, namely the cults that had no priestly college of their own (such as the augures, the decemviri sacris faciundis and the fetiales).
In the period relevant to early Christianity, Julius Caesar was elected pontifex maximus in 63 BCE and kept the office until his death. After his death, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus became pontifex maximus (44-12 BCE); when he died, the emperor Augustus became responsible for the state cult. He also put an end to the election of the pontifices. From then on, a position in the college of pontifices was a sign of special imperial favor, comparable to a decoration in our age.
The word pontifex is sometimes explained as 'bridge builder', but is in fact related to the Etruscan word pont, 'road', and means something like 'preparer of the road'.
It should also be noted that Roman Emperors continued to bear the title Pontifex Maximus well beyond the time of establishment of the papal hierarchy (as in: the ultimate religious power of Rome was still with the emperor, not the pope). In fact, it was carried by all subsequent emperors until emperor Gratianus declined the title in 381. So the pope bearing the title pontifex maximus was not part of early Christianity. Only after Gratianus' refusal of the  title was it attributed to the pope (note that this is half a century after Christinanity became a state religion of Rome under Constantine in 313). Constantine himself actually held the title. It is frequently stated that Constantine made Christianity the only permitted religion in the empire: this is not the case, and it is also very likely the reason why Constantine did not relinquish the title to then pope Sylvester.
As to why the popes attributed themselves this title in stead of "vicar of Christ", the most obvious worldly explanation is that the title had been attributed with the highest worldly + religious title in the empire for more than 600 years.
As to what significance & privileges the title holds in today's world, I would say very little. But in the days of the empire, the Pontifex Maximus enjoyed many privileges, such as addressing the Roman Senate at will, the supervision of religious funds (of Rome, not the Vatican), authority over all public and private religious institutions, instruction of the populace in the celestial and funerary rites including appeasing the dead, and expiation of prodigies. He who held the title had political as well as religious power in Rome.
As for when did the title become "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church", the word Catholic is derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal".


What is the Biblical basis for asserting that infants can have faith in Christ under a Calvinistic framework?

Calvin puts his own view on the subject most directly in a section of his institutes of religion called “Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign.” In this section he is arguing for the case of infant baptism and one of the arguments from the Anabaptists was that why should you baptize an infant who can’t have faith? Now as Calvin did not think baptism was necessary for salvation, only that he thought it was good to continue the practice, the more serious and important subject of ‘infant election’ is addressed.

Calvin states his belief that elect infants can be justified and in some sense have faith. He denies the supposition that infants can’t have faith. First is asserts a form of the First option, i.e. that infants can be justified within a mystery where we do not really understand how it is that they have faith:

  But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter any thing that defileth, (Rev. 21:27.) If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. (Institutes, Vol.4: Part 17)

Calvin does not stop here. He also moves to the Second, i.e., that infants can have faith by the ‘work of the Spirit’ even in the womb, although admittedly this might be very rare:

  But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother’s womb, (Luke 1:15,) a proof of what he might do in others. They gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resort, viz., that this was only once done, and, therefore, it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God within limits, within which it cannot be confined. (Institutes, Vol.4: Part 17)

What I find about Calvin’s argument is not any illogical part but that they are simply thin. I guess as he was only arguing about another point he failed to more thoroughly address the subject.  There are two things that make me feel more is required to provide a biblical basis. Two answers still need to be provided. Why is the Bible more or less silent about the subject of the faith of infants and why should we consider that John the Baptist’s sanctification from the womb could have been evidence of faith in Christ?

To answer the first question, ‘Why is the Bible more or less silent about the subject of the faith of infants?’ It is safe to say that where the scripture does not provide light, we are to be content trusting God by faith without clarity.  The whole problem over these sorts of subjects is that we seek a systematic theology that answers every question, and then we think we have finally ‘arrived’ at the answer. However there are several subjects that God has not made fully know to us and even when our knowledge is very small we have arrived at the answer only because God has taken us in his hand and we have taking his in trust. The greatness of his mind leaves all our sailing thoughts left behind, but we can trust he loves us and loves all children, whether elect for salvation or damnation. Faith trusts God, like Abraham who was willing to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice knowing that God could raise him from the dead.

Too answer the second question, ‘Why should we consider that John the Baptist’s sanctification from the womb could have been evidence of faith in Christ?’ We must acknowledge that the scripture is mostly silent on this issue and the few places where the womb is talked about are few and could be seen as merely marking out God’s calling on the individual.

Here are some few examples of something happening in the womb that seems to be an interaction with the Spirit:

  The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD. (Genesis 25:22)

This could be understood as simply a unlikely movement of infants which Rebekah superstitiously considered as a bad omen, but there are many coincidental things about Jacob and Esau which the scriptures lift up almost centrally to view the subject of predestination with, therefore it could also be a mark that the Spirit of God was moving on Jacob.  We can’t help but notice that this struggling seems to have also resulted in the outcome of Jacob holding Esau’s heel as he was already seeking the birthright from which Messiah would come. Yes these are all seeming coincidences but even later Hosea the prophet matches Jacob’s wrestling in the womb to his later wrestling with Christ for the blessing (Hos 12:3)

Sometimes when the Bible mentions God’s calling from the womb there is no mention of anything actually occurring in the womb so it can be inferred that this is simply a way of describing and eternal calling on one’s life. For example Paul used this idea in Galatians 1:15. Samson was ‘dedicated to God’ from his Mother’s womb (Judges 16:17).  Jeremiah was ‘set apart’ in eth womb (Jeremiah 1:5), etc. However in the case of John the Baptists we again, like Jacob have mention about something literally happening in the womb.

First John is said to be ‘filled with the Spirit’, even in the womb:

  for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15, ESV)

But not only so, John literally responds to Jesus in the womb:

  And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. (Luke 1:41, ESV)

Yes, it could be that again just a coincidental movement of the baby occurred under God’s miraculous guidance to create the ‘impression’ that John was reacting to the nearness of the Christ, or he was actually being filled with the Spirit in the womb and could not help but react literally to Christ. It is the second possibility that Calvin argues as a sample case, to ‘partially pierce the veil of the mystery’ of election, where infants are concerned.