Why was Jesus afraid/agonizing in the Garden of Gethsemane if the Spirit of God isn't one of fear but of power?

We can identify several views regarding the suffering of Jesus.  (1) That he did feel fear and grief, but did not sin.  (2) That he did not feel fear, per se, but did feel grief.  Within (2), there are differing understandings of why Jesus felt grief and agony.  Those who (a) accept penal substitution will argue that he was suffering on behalf of his people, while others (b) say that his suffering was due to people's sin and their rejection of him.
He did feel fear
Some argue that Christ felt fear, but that he did not thereby sin.  For example, John Calvin:

[W]hen Christ was distressed by grief and fear, he did not rise against God, but continued to be regulated by the true rule of moderation. [...] Let us, therefore, attend to this distinction, that Christ, amidst fear and sadness, was weak without any taint of sin; but that all our affections are sinful, because they rise to an extravagant height.

Calvin saw two reasons for Christ's fear: the wrath of God against sin, and the physical suffering and death of the cross. Quoting Cyril,

[Jesus] allows the flesh to feel what belongs to it, and, therefore, being truly a man, he trembles at death, when it is now at the door.

Regarding 2 Timothy 1:7, Calvin argues that the command there is against cowardice, not against the feeling of fear:

[H]ere he speaks particularly about ministers, and exhorts them, in the person of Timothy, to arouse themselves actively to deeds of valor; because God does not wish them to perform their office in a cold and lifeless manner, but to press forward powerfully, relying on the efficacy of the Spirit.

He felt only grief, not fear
In this camp we begin with (a) those who hold to penal substitution, like Adam Clarke, a Methodist (Arminian).  He is more uncomfortable than Calvin with the idea of Jesus being "afraid" of death:

To say that all this was occasioned by the fear he had of the ignominious death which he was about to die confutes itself – for this would not only rob him of his divinity, for which purpose it is brought, but it deprives him of all excellency, and even of manhood itself.

Instead, he suffered agony and distress because it was necessary to bring mankind to God:

His agony and distress can receive no consistent explication but on this ground – He Suffered, the Just for the Unjust, that he might Bring us to God. O glorious truth! O infinitely meritorious suffering!

Like Calvin, Clarke understands this suffering in Gethsemane in the context of the doctrine of penal substitution, which holds that Christ suffered God's wrath on behalf of his people, as summarized in the Heidelberg Catechism (Answer 37):

[D]uring his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.

Those who (b) reject penal substitution include Roman Catholics like Haydock.  He holds that Jesus's grief here was not due to fear, but to the sin and rejection of men.  He quotes Jerome's explanation:

The cause of our Lord's grief was not the fear of suffering; since he took upon himself human nature, to suffer and to die for us; but the cause of his grief was the unhappy state of Judas, the scandal his disciples would take at his passion, the reprobation of the Jewish nation, and the destruction of the miserable Jerusalem. Our Lord also suffered himself to be thus dejected, to convince the world of the truth and reality of his human nature.

Here, the grief is seen as a human response to sin, and as something necessary to show his human nature, but not an example of him bearing God's wrath against sin.

Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels
Calvin, Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Clarke, Commentary
Haydock, Commentary
Heidelberg Catechism


How do Evangelicals celebrate Pentecost?

Pentecost, for Christians, marks the birth of "the Church." For evangelicals, however, church history generally means when their local congregation was founded. As a body of believers with no history, by design, historical holidays (I.e. Anything not explicitly about Jesus) fall to the wayside.

From an historic viewpoint, the Church Universal is an amazing institution. Like all institutions, however, tradition tends to shape it, once it gets going, for better or for worse.

Evangelicals tend to be highly distrustful of "tradition," as their origin stems from a reaction to the "religious maturation," aka liberal theology, of the late 1800s. In contrast, a group of scholars wrote a book called The Fundamentals, in which tradition was eschewed for a sola fide / sola scriptura basis. While fundamentalists sought to escape the culture, evangelicals intended to engage it- but in both cases, this reaction was grounded in an anti-establishment fervor. We basically threw the baby out with the bathwater. Anything "traditional," including liturgies, lectionaries, and church "holidays" were all suspect. Christmas and Easter survive, as much out of their popularity as anything else - but pretty much everything else was jettisoned.

(By the way, in my seminary, I remember a preaching class in which the professor had to remind us that Easter really was a special day and needed to be treated as such. That such an admonition needed to be said speaks volumes about what we think. )

As a result, Pentecost tends to be forgotten the "lower" church one goes. It's sad, because Pentecost is probably the most significant holiday after Easter and Christmas, and it's 100% scriptural. (indeed, it even prefers Christmas and Easter in the Bible!) Still, there's just too much tradition against it now for things to change.

As a side note, my Episcopalian church celebrates Pentecost as "Worship and Work Sunday."  We are all invited to wear red (the liturgical color) and spruce up the church grounds.


I've heard it said that Pope St. John Paul II wrote in front of the blessed sacrament. Is this true?

Yes, it is true.
Chapter 9 ("The Blessed Sacrament") from Jason Evert's 2014 book Saint John Paul the Great: His Five Loves reproduced here has this quote:

The Holy Father often spent hours at a time writing before the Blessed Sacrament.  He explained:

I have always been convinced that the chapel is a place of special inspiration.  What a privilege to be able to live and work in the shadow of His Presence. . . . It is not always necessary to enter physically into the chapel in order to enter spiritually into the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.  I have always sensed that Christ was the real owner of my episcopal residence, and that we bishops were just short-term tenants.  That's how it was in Franciszkanska Street for almost twenty years, and that's how it is here in the Vatican.  In his chapel in Kraków, the kneeler was more of a prayer desk, with a desktop large enough so that he could write while kneeling or sitting before the Eucharist.  A lamp was installed nearby so he could work at any time of night as well.  As pope, he spent time in adoration before every Wednesday audience, and always made a short visit before and after every meal.  He also spent long amounts of time before the Blessed Sacrament before and after his pilgrimages.  Marathons of prayer were not unusual for him.  One papal photographer recalled, "I remember that in Vilnius he prayed for six hours in a row . . ."


If salvation is possible from all religions, then is proselytizing required?

Short answer
Because Jesus is that important to you, and you want him known to all the world.

Swedenborgianism
From the linked question, I am assuming you are asking on the perspective of Swedenborgianism, which is forms the doctrinal foundation of the New Church
Evangelism
According to Dream Prophecy

New Church tends not to evangelize, and respects people's free will in thinking on their own. Nor does it condemn other religions to hell.

That said, according to NewChurch.org historically they did evangelize, in the form of spreading awareness.

In the latter part of the century, the ministry almost doubled in size and an expansion of evangelization work was initiated to spread awareness of the new teachings and further grow the church.

Salvation
According to Swedenborg.org

Salvation is an inner experience rather than acceptance of a particular doctrine.
The Second Coming is an active process that is happening within us and the world. As we increase compassion, integrity, understanding, and healing in our lives, we are helping God create a "new Heaven and a new Earth."

From Arcana Coelestia 6488

A discussion about predestination once took place and many of the
spirits, owing to the chief ideas they had adopted in the world, were of
the opinion that some people have been predestined to heaven and others
to hell. But I heard a response to this from heaven, which was that no one
has ever been predestined to hell, but that all have been predestined to
eternal life

Why Evangelize?
From the above, it seems that in a Swedenborgianism perspective it is not necessary to evangelize concerning salvation.
From Swedenborg Study

The Lord Jesus Christ is our God. There is no other. To Him we owe all that is good and all that is true. All power in heaven and on earth is His. To Him alone should we pray. To Him alone should be our worship, our love, and the service of our lives.

From Heavenly Doctrines.org

To make known that the Lord is here

The agencies for this Proclamation are many,-organization, the priesthood, preaching and public worship, printing and publishing the books of the new Revelation, and other modes of evangelization, that men may know that the Lord is here.

Even if you believe that Salvation is for all, but you believe that Jesus is the only one true God, you will still want others to know Him as well.


What is the biblical basis for ascribing theological worth to "human dignity"?

Ok, this is going to be more of a logical argument that's a bit jumpy and I don't have all of the scripture in mind, but there is scripture underpinning the ideas here:

Postulates

We are created in the image of God. As such human dignity is established as a part of our pre-fall state
Poverty exists because of the broken relationship between God, the self, the creation, and other men.
Our job as Christians is to be the restoration. Healing broken relationships is part of that job.

Connections

Because Poverty is part of the fall, and our dignity is established based on a pre-fall standard, much link sin, poverty is a concept driven by the fall and is an affront to our dignity.

Because our job as Christians is to work to restore the relationships that the fall broke, confronting poverty and restoring the folks who are in poverty (restoring their relationships with the creation, their fellow man, and most importantly God), is a prime concern of Christians.

Loose Scriptural Basis

Caring for the poor, and providing them with dignity is an emphasis both of the law given to Israel and also a primary focus of the ministry of Jesus and the New Testament church. Jesus repeatedly gives wealthy people the instruction "sell all you have and give your money to the poor." The Old Testament law goes on for pages about widows and orphans, provides clear instructions for not harvesting part of your crops so that the poor may go an glean from the leavings. One of the very first things that the apostles do following the ascension of Christ is to appoint deacons to care for the widows, orphans and other poor folks.

Summary

Because God cares so deeply about the creation that is made in his image, and sees poverty as an affront to our dignity, he is very concerned about making sure that the poor among his people (before, during and after the ministry of Christ) are well cared for.


Which prophecies have definitely been fulfilled?

Several are listed at this site: http://100prophecies.org/

The site does include several prophecies that are supported primarily by the Biblical record, but several include events that meet the criteria you asked for.

Excerpts:

  Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed Bible prophecy:
  Matthew 24:1-2 Prophecy written: During the first century Prophecy
  fulfilled: 70 AD

  In Matthew 24:1-2, Jesus prophesied that the Temple of Jerusalem would
  be destroyed and that its destruction would be so complete that not
  one stone would be left standing on top of another. His prophecy was
  fulfilled about 40 years later when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and
  tore down the Temple. The destruction was so complete that even the
  foundations of the Temple were dug up, according to Josephus, an
  historian who wrote about the destruction

  Jesus prophesied that the Jews would be exiled Bible prophecy: Luke
  21:24 Prophecy written: During the first century Prophecy fulfilled:
  70 AD

  In Luke 21:24, Jesus said that Jerusalem would be trampled upon by
  foreigners and that the people of Israel would be forced into exile.

  About 40 years after Jesus delivered that prophecy, it began to find
  fulfillment. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70, and again
  in the year 135.

  During the first destruction, Josephus, an historian who lived during
  the first century, claimed that 1.1 million Jews died and that
  hundreds of thousands were forced out of the country and into exile
  and slavery.

  During the second destruction, Cassius Dio, an historian who lived
  during the second century, claimed that 580,000 Jews were killed, and
  that 50 fortified towns and 985 villages were destroyed.

  The exiled Jews were taken to countries throughout the Roman Empire
  and eventually scattered and re-scattered throughout the world.

  Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple Bible
  prophecy: Daniel 9:24-26 Prophecy written: About 530 BC Prophecy
  fulfilled: 70 AD

  During the time of Daniel, who lived about 2600 years ago, the
  Babylonians invaded Judah (the southern part of the land of Israel)
  and took many Jews, including Daniel, as captives to Babylon.

  The Babylonians also destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the Temple,
  in 586 B.C.

  In Daniel 9:24-26, Daniel delivers a prophecy that Jerusalem and the
  Temple would be destroyed, again. Within these verses, Daniel provides
  a chronology by which certain events would occur. First, the Jews
  would return from captivity and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple.
  Afterwards, an "anointed one," or Messiah, would appear, but he would
  be rejected. Then, Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, again.

  These events later played out during the century in which Jesus had
  announced that he was the Messiah.

  Edom would be toppled and humbled Bible prophecy: Jeremiah 49:16
  Prophecy written: Sometime between 626-586 BC Prophecy fulfilled:
  About 100 BC

  In Jeremiah 49:16, the prophet said that Edom, a long-time enemy of
  Israel, would be destroyed. Edom's capital city, Petra, was carved out
  of a mountain side and had great natural defenses. Nonetheless, it was
  destroyed and the kingdom of Edom no longer exists. Today, Petra is
  part of Jordan. The city was conquered by the Romans in the year 106
  AD but flourished again shortly after that. A rival city, Palmyra,
  eventually took most of the trade away from Petra and Petra began to
  decline. Petra gradually fell into ruin.

There's also this site: http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

Which lists some more, such as...

  The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy
  seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the
  rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to
  let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of
  ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150
  years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of
  these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years
  before the Jews were taken into exile.

  The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine
  suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to
  the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the
  time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of
  Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948,
  and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in
  the locations and in the sequence predicted.


What is the modern origin of the phrase "hell is the absence of God"?

What is the modern origin of the phrase “hell is the absence of God”?

I do not believe that this phrase is a modern one. It has echoes that have come down to us throughout the centuries. But that said, I believe the modern phrase "hell is the absence of God" possibly became in a sense more common in popular culture due to the 2001 fantasy novelette by American writer Ted Chiang: "Hell Is the Absence of God" Ted Chiang certainly made this phrase popular.

  The novelette is set in a world where the existence of God, souls, heaven, and hell are obvious and indisputable, and where miracles and angelic visitations are commonplace—albeit not necessarily benevolent. The wife of Neil, the main protagonist, is killed by the collateral damage of an angel's visitation. Knowing that his wife has ascended to heaven, the previously non-devout protagonist struggles to achieve the required love of God to join her.

  The story also follows Janice, a woman born without legs who is made able-bodied in an angelic visitation, and Ethan, who cannot discern the meaning of an angelic encounter he experiences. - Hell Is the Absence of God

Prior to Ted Cheang's, Hell is the Absence of God, there appeared in February 1942 C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters

This could possibly be another source of the popularity of the phrase in question in the 1950's - 1980's. Back in the 1980's this book was quite popular reading in Catholic high schools. I remember reading it in high school myself. The idea that God is not in hell comes across quite well in The Screwtape Letters.

The separation from God is pivotal to C. S. Lewis' vision of hell:

  Separation seems for Lewis to describe the essential idea of hell, capturing what is conveyed by the biblical imagery of torture, destruction, and privation. To be forever cut off from God’s presence, eternally unable to know God’s love and mercy, would be a torture best described by being burned ceaselessly by fire. To be totally separated from other creatures, to be wholly and increasingly self-absorbed, makes that self smaller and smaller, and ultimately will result in the person ceasing to be a self. To someone who has been wholly centered on self, having that self cease to exist would be the ultimate possible loss, a horror describable for us, Lewis says, only through images of physical destruction. The torture of separation and the terror of ceasing to exist are better seen not as punishments imposed by God, but as the natural and inevitable outcome of choices humans themselves make and attitudes they themselves develop. - Heaven and Hell Idea and Image in C. S. Lewis

Nevertheless, I still feel the need to show that concept of "hell being the absence of God" in a more historical sense. There are echoes of it throughout the ages.

When I was a lad, I was taught how to make a perfect Act of Contrition, so I could pray it when I went to confession to a priest. Here is the one that I learned as a child:

  O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. Amen. Perfect Contrition

One can see that I put the words the pains of hell in bold. This is done because one of the greatest pains one could possibly endure would be the fact that the damned are deprived of the presence of God.

  ”The pain of the damned,” says St. Thomas, ”is infinite, because it is the loss of an infinite good.” (1. 2, qu. 87, a. 4.) Such, too, is the doctrine of St. Bernard, who says, that the value of the loss of the damned is measured from the infinitude of God the supreme good.

  Hence, hell does not consist in its devouring fire, nor in its intolerable stench, nor in the unceasing shrieks and bowlings of the damned, nor in the terrific sight of the devils, nor in the narrowness of that pit of torments, in which the damned are thrown one over the other: the pain which constitutes hell is the loss of God. In comparison of this pain, all the other torments of hell are trifling.

  The reward of God’s faithful servants in heaven is, as he said to Abraham, God himself. ”I am thy reward, exceeding great.” (Gen. xv. 1.) Hence, as God is the reward of the blessed in heaven, so the loss of God is the punishment of the damned in hell.

  Hence, St. Bruno has truly said, that how great soever the torments which may be inflicted on the damned, they never can equal the great pain of being deprived of God. Add torments to torments, but do not deprive them of God. ”Addantur tormenta tormentis, et Deo non priventur.” (Serm. de Jud. Fin.) According to St. Chrysostom, a thousand hells are not equal to this pain. Speaking of the loss of God, he said: ”Si mille dixeris gehennas, nihil par dices illius doloris.” (Hom, xlix., ad Pop.) God is so lovely that he deserves infinite love.

  The sinner, drowned in sensual pleasures, scarcely knows God: he sees him only in the dark, and therefore he disregards the loss of God. But in hell he shall know God, and shall be tormented for ever by the thought of having voluntarily lost his infinite good. A certain Parisian doctor appeared after death to his bishop, and said that he was damned. His bishop asked him if he remembered the sciences in which he was so well versed in this life. He answered, that in hell the damned think only of the pain of having lost God.

  ”Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. ” (Matt. xxv. 41.) “Depart from me.” This command constitutes the hell of the damned. Begone from me; you shall be no longer mine, and I shall be no longer yours. ”You are not my people, and I will not be yours.” (Osee i. 9.)

  St. Augustine says, that if the damned saw the beauty of God, “they should feel no pain, and hell itself would be converted into a Paradise.” (Lib. de Trip. Hab.) But the damned shall never see God. When David forbade his son Absalom to appear in his presence, the sorrow of Absalom was so great, that he entreated Joab to tell his father that he would rather be put to death than never more be permitted to see his face. ”I beseech thee, therefore, that I may see the face of the king; and if he be mindful of my iniquity, let him kill me.” (2 Kings xiv. <32.) - ON THE PAIN OF LOSS WHICH THE DAMNED SUFFER IN HELL – St. Alphonsus

In hell there is no love. God is love. The damned hate and curse all the angels and saints. They curse particularly their guardian angels their special advocates and above all, the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus. They hate the wounds of Jesus Christ, the blood of Jesus Christ, and the death of Jesus Christ. They hate the living of this world, especially those in the state of grace. Moreover they hate one another and themselves. How can God be present amongst such emptiness. The reprobates are thus left to themselves without God!

For those who are more into private revelation, here is something to ponder:

  Our greatest torment consists in knowing with certainty that we will never see God. How greatly we are tortured by that which we were indifferent to while on earth! - Letter from a Soul in Hell

St. Augustine said, “The separation from God is a torment as great as God." Cf. Houdry,  Bibliotheca concionatorum (Venice, 1786), vol 2, “Infernus,” No. 4, p. 427.


Is the Catholic Magesterium in favor of hard liquor prohibition?

[...] All their efforts must aim at preserving the true faith and a
  high moral tone among the people; they attain this end by good
  example, by preaching, by daily solicitude for the good administration
  of the diocese, and by prayer. [...] - Obligations of the bishop |
  Bishop | New Advent.

Therefore it is within the rights and obligations of Archbishop Cardinal Baselios mar Cleemis, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India and head of the Catholic Church in Kerala, to publicly caution the government of “grave consequences if it yielded to the liquor lobby and reopened the closed bars.” - Read more: Indian State Okays Prohibition.


Within Protestantism there are many views regarding the proper way to keep the Sabbath, even among those who generally agree that Sunday is the most appropriate day to observe it.  I'll provide a brief overview of three of the main views: Spiritual Sabbath, Continental Sabbath, and Puritan Sabbath.
Spiritual Sabbath
This view is held by many Protestants across denominational lines, particularly among those influenced by dispensational theology.  Proponents of this view, such as Michael G. Moriarty, argue that the Sabbath is not a creation ordinance; that is, God resting on the seventh day of creation was not meant to be a binding law on all humanity.  Instead, it first appears as a command in the Ten Commandments.  Defenders of the Spiritual Sabbath contend that passages like Hebrews 4, which refer to an eternal Sabbath rest, and Christ's claim to be "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8) indicate that Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath decree:

Jesus Christ is the eternal Sabbath rest. [...] When we trust in Christ alone we close the doors to works-righteousness and enter God's rest.  By our spiritual union with Christ, "we are already living in the seventh day, the eternal Sabbath of God."

Proponents of this view, holding that "every day is a Sabbath," suggest that "finding sufficient rest every day" can be seen as an implication of the New Testament Sabbath.  They also argue that weekly corporate worship is essential, citing Hebrews 10:24–25, but may not tie this requirement specifically to Sabbath-keeping.  Furthermore, recreation and other activities are permissible on the Lord's Day, as long as corporate worship is not neglected.
Continental Sabbath
The Continental Sabbath view, expressed by John Calvin and the Three Forms of Unity, sees two primary purposes of the command: ceremonial and moral.  The ceremonial purpose, proponents say, has been fulfilled in Christ, and thus the Sunday Sabbath, in and of itself, is not a divine institution.  However, the moral purpose remains, and requires us to set aside a day for corporate worship and rest from ordinary labor.  The choice of a seven-day cycle, with Sunday the designated day, is a practical matter, not a divine decree.  Recreation, so long as it does not hinder worship, is permissible.  The view is summarized well in the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. What is God’s will for you in the fourth commandment?
A. First, that the gospel ministry and education for it be maintained, and that, especially on the festive day of rest,
I diligently attend the assembly of God’s people to learn what God’s Word teaches, to participate in the sacraments, to pray to God publicly, and to bring Christian offerings for the poor.
Second, that every day of my life I rest from my evil ways, let the Lord work in me through his Spirit, and so begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.

A number of denominations maintain a variant of this as their official view, such as the United Methodists and Southern Baptists.  Some denominations specifically hold to the Three Forms of Unity, such as the Christian Reformed Church.
Puritan Sabbath
The Puritan Sabbath view is most comprehensively expressed in the Westminster Standards and is primarily held in conservative Presbyterian denominations like the PCA and RPCNA. It holds that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance (Genesis 2:2–3, cf. Exodus 20:11), and continues through both Old and New Testament periods, with the only change being that the day of its observance changes from the seventh day to the first day.  It is a "positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages" (WCF, 21.7).
On that day, people are to turn from "their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations" (WCF, 21.8) and instead devote the day to holy rest:

The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, [...] making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercise of God's worship. (WLC, A. 117)

References

Frame, John, The Doctrine of Christian Life (2008), 516–27
Moriarty, The Perfect 10 (1999), 94–104


If we say "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" can we say "God, God, and God"?

Language uses words with particular senses to talk about the world. It's a system of symbols which point to things in the world. One thing in the world, one referent, might have many different words (with many different senses) which can be used to refer to it. For example, one person could be referred to with the words "Mrs Smith", "Ruth", "mother", "grandma", "boss" etc. Though all of those words refer to the same person, they do not have the same senses and are not interchangeable.

Here's another example: at a meeting of world leaders the President of the United States, the President of Russia, and the President of Mongolia all had lunch together. In the context of each country's own media, it is common and appropriate to call each by simple title of "the President". But it would be very confusing to transform that statement into "at a meeting of world leaders the President, the President, and the President all had lunch together." And that's not just because they're all the same word; it would be wrong for US media to write "the President and the Chancellor of Germany had lunch together" if they were referring to the Russian president.

More is going on here than just confusing language however. The unqualified word "God" in Western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestanism) usually refers primarily to the Godhead, the singular essence of God, the one divine being in existence. My understanding is that this is one of the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity: instead of using "God" to refer to the godhead, Eastern Christianity usually uses it to refer to God the Father specifically.

When we say "Jesus the Son of God" we are referring to the second person of the trinity in particular. When we say "Jesus is God" we mean something different, that he is divine. But this does not mean that Jesus is the Godhead or the divine essence.

So if someone said "God, god, and god" Western Christians will only hear the first sense, that they are referring to the godhead three times, which means three divine beings, three divine essences, which is tritheism. Eastern Christians might instead understand it as referring to God the Father three times. But in neither case will it be understood as referring to the three persons of the Trinity.


Is there a reason why female Mormon missionaries wear such varied dresses but male Mormon missionaries wear uniforms?

The missionary dress code has changed a lot over the years to stay compatible with current trends and styles (without compromising modesty, of course).
Until about 2010, sister missionaries were required to wear nylons and dark dresses/skirts that went down to at least mid-calf, as well as dark suit/jacket tops. In 2010, the dress code was updated, permitting:

Knee-length skirts instead of always down to mid-calf
Nylons not required
Bright, vivid colors

From this news report, an MTC employee said:

"Having recently served a mission, I knew how people reacted to the floor-length skirts and generic collared shirts," Porter said. "Sure, we looked professional, but not all that current and approachable. Being a part of the standards update ignited my excitement for missionary work. Now sisters could feel cute, comfortable and still modest. And that was the goal.
"Everyone working on the project had the same collective vision," she continued. "We wanted the sister missionaries to be more approachable, more up to date with fashion and as always, modest."

Basically, the change now allows sisters to look more natural, approachable and personable. It allows their personalities to shine through a little more, and that's something the LDS Church considers valuable when sharing the gospel.
Similarly, elders are now allowed to wear light-colored suits and slacks. Before 2011 or 2012, all their clothing (except the white shirts) were dark. To answer your last question about ties and suits, the lack of variation might just be because few men straight out of high school have good fashion sense. (I jest, but only a little.) Dark suits are still most common among elders, though, it seems.


Help with Verse Identification -- 'Jesus has not yet returned because...'

I believe these are the two main candidates for what you are after:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. - Matthew 24:14 NIV
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9 NIV


In Catholicism, what is the proper order of the sacraments of initiation and what are the summary arguments in support of this order?

Until about 30-40 years ago, here in Italy the order of the sacraments of initiation was Baptism, Confirmation, First Communion - and it's the canonical order, following the Cathechism. That order is still used when an adult recieve the Sacraments: notice that usually adult pepole recieve all three sacraments in the same day, so the order is not really imprtant.
But when in 1910 Pope Pio X established that the First Communion should be received from children at 7-8 years old, the Church encountered a problem: it's very difficult to explain to such young children what and who is the Holy Spirit, and all the meanings of the sacrament of Confirmation.
So, today, each italian bishop is free to choose the order, but most of them follow this:

Baptism
First Communion (usually at 8 years old)
Confirmation (usually at 13 years old, but some bishops prefer to wait until 16)

As said, they follow that order, having in mind what Pope Benedict XVI said in Sacramentum Caritatis

"It must never be forgotten that our reception of Baptism and Confirmation is ordered to the Eucharist"

About First Confession, it's usually celebrated few days before first Communion


Is it really true that Orthodox Prosphora (unconsecrated, of course) can not be sold or bought?

No, prosphora is not intended to be bought or sold! Prosphora is an offering, prayerfully baked by a parishoner, never for pay. Part of the bread becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, and part of the bread is set aside for antidoron and distributed after Divine Liturgy. Sometimes some of this bread is taken home and eaten by those who offered it.

How should prosphora be eaten?
Prosphora  is  blessed  bread  and  should  be  handled  and  eaten  with  due reverence.  Those eating it should take care not to drop crumbs on the floor, and the paper in which it was wrapped should be burned rather than thrown in the rubbish.  Any crumbs that fall should be collected and either eaten or burned  with  the  paper.    Children  eating  prosphora  should  be  carefully supervised.  From ancient times it has been the custom to eat prosphora on an  empty  stomach,  often  with  Holy  Water  or,  if  appropriate,  a  little  sweet red wine.
Who may take the wrapped prosphora at the end of the service?
The  wrapped  prosphora  may  be  taken  by  those  who  offered  them.    When this has been done, any prosphora left over may be taken by those who wish to have them.

(Link to source, Saint Panteleimon Russian Orthodox Church, West Gosford, and Saint Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church, Wallsend, Australia)


Are there any denominations that teach Adam and Eve did not have the opportunity to be saved?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe there is any biblical basis to think that Adam and Eve could benefit from the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, which means they believe they will not be resurrected.  This is what they say on page 49 of their ‘Bible Teach’ book:

“Clearly, then, when Adam disobeyed God and was condemned to death, he paid a very high price. His sin cost him his perfect human life with all its blessings” (Genesis 3:17-19)...  There was no hope for Adam or Eve because they wilfully chose to disobey God.”

Here are some other direct quotes from their literature:

Watchtower 1 May 2005 article Who Will Be Resurrected?  “15 The first humans, Adam and Eve, were created perfect. Their fall into sin was deliberate. Before them was either everlasting life or death. They disobeyed God and sided with Satan. When they died, they had no prospect of benefiting from Christ’s ransom sacrifice. Rather, they went to Gehenna.  16 Adam’s firstborn son, Cain, murdered his brother Abel and thereafter lived as a fugitive. The apostle John described Cain as one “who originated with the wicked one.” (1 John 3:12) It is reasonable to conclude that like his parents, he went to Gehenna when he died.”
Watchtower 15 July 2005: Questions from Readers – Who will be Resurrected?  “The Scriptures speak of only two possibilities for the dead—the temporary state of nonexistence and the state of eternal death. Those who are judged unworthy of a resurrection are pitched into “Gehenna,” or “the lake of fire.” (Matthew 5:22; Mark 9:47, 48; Revelation 20:14) Among these would be the first human pair, Adam and Eve, the betrayer Judas Iscariot, and certain ones who died when God executed judgment upon them, such as the people in Noah’s day and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

They believe that all who are in what they call a “temporary state of nonexistence” will be resurrected.  This means everyone else who has ever died (prior to the battle of Armageddon) will be resurrected in a physical body to life on Earth and will have 1,000 years during the reign of Christ Jesus (from heaven) to come to saving faith.  If they fail to pass the final test they will die (again), only this time they will suffer eternal death.  They believe that all who die during the battle of Armageddon will (like Adam and Eve) forfeit the right to a resurrection.
Disclaimer: As a Christian of the Protestant persuasion I declare that I disagree with their views.


Is “God damn it” blasphemy?
The short answer is yes.
The fourth commandment prohibits taking God's name in vain, that is to say using his name in a light or frivolous manner rather than giving proper respect to Whom He is.
It is definitely below the dignity of a Christian to wish someone damned for eternity. God desires the conversion of sinners and not their condemnation to Hell forever.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. His name, according to the commandment, is both “Lord” and “God”. Those who address him in prayer (see the Psalms as reference) call him “Lord” and “God”!

In general, the Second Commandment governs this area: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Ex 20:7; Dt 5:11). Specifically, a person must have respect for God's name. Throughout Sacred Scripture, God's name is held sacred. He reveals His name to those who believe, and through this revelation, invites them to an intimate and personal relationship.
For example, in the story of the call of Moses, he asked God, "...If they ask me, 'What is His name?' what am I to tell them? God replied, 'I am who am.' Then He added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites, 'I AM sent me to you.' God spoke further to Moses, 'Thus shall you say to the Israelites: 'The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations'" (Cf Ex 3).
Therefore, we rightfully use God's name in prayer or in other ways to bless, praise, and glorify Him. The respect for God's name reflects the respect a person owes to God Himself (See Catechism, No. 4142ff.).
Given this foundation, certain forms of abusive language are sinful. First, to abuse God's name, whether the word God, Jesus, or in some other form, is objectively mortally sinful. The same rule applies to abusing the name of the Blessed Mother or the saints. One has to ask oneself, "Why would someone use the name Jesus as an expletive when angry or impatient? Would not such an action show an arrogant and disrespectful attitude toward God, whom we should love above all things?" I often wonder what a Moslem must think when he hears a Christian use God's name in such an irreverent and improper way.
Second, blasphemy is also a sin. Blasphemy is contempt for God, expressed in thought, word or action. To use words either vocally or mentally against God which show hatred, reproach, disrespect or defiance is sinful. This prohibition also applies to the Blessed Mother and the saints as well as sacred things or Church related practices. Moreover, blasphemy includes invoking God's name to legitimize crimes or harmful actions against others. The Catechism notes that blasphemy is a grave sin.
Third, cursing is to call down evil from God, and usually involves specifically invoking God's name, not just His power. For instance, all of us have heard someone say, "God damn it," or even "God damn you". Here a person is commanding God, who is all powerful, all good, and all just, to damn someone (or something) in Hell for all eternity. Who are we to ask God to damn anyone or to bestow some evil upon them? Objectively, this act is a mortal sin.
Finally, profanity itself is wrong, even though such words may not specifically involve the name of God. God gave mankind the gift of language which should be used positively. Language should build good relationships with other individuals, and enable people to share their lives intimately with each other. Sadly, more and more, we hear in normal conversation profanity especially those four letter words, like s*** and f***. We also hear people speak profanely about good and holy topics; for example, they profane human sexuality or the act of marital love. Such language is not only negative, vulgar, impolite and offensive, but also debases the dignity of each human being. Moreover, this language reveals not only a person's bad attitude and lack of respect for others, but also his own immaturity and insecurity in dealing with others. In using these words, the person builds barriers rather than bridges with another person.
Each of us needs to be careful in our use of language. Objectively, using God's name in vain, cursing and blasphemy are mortally sinful, although lack of due reflection or habit can diminish culpability. Profanity too can be mortally sinful when done with great anger or viciousness against another person. Each of us needs to control our tongues, and prevent a bad language habit from becoming part of our person. St. James wisely admonished, "Every form of life, four-footed or winged, crawling or swimming, can be tamed, and has been tamed, by mankind; the tongue no man can tame. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. We use it to say, 'Praised be the Lord and Father'; then we use it to curse men, though they are made in the likeness of God. Blessing and curse come out of the same mouth. This ought not to be, my brothers!" (Jas 3:7-10). - Why is bad language a sin?

Be careful what you say, it may come true!


Why does Christianity claim to be the only true religion?

At one level, this question is easily answerable.

Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is who He claimed to be.  And He said, in John 14:6

  I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
  except through me.

And if Jesus is who He claimed to be, then Christianity must be the only true religion, because He said specifically "No one comes to the Father except through me".

At another level, there are other answers, but too large to fit in a single answer here.

If you're looking for external evidence, there's an entire field of study, known as Apologetics that seeks to provide a defense for the veracity of Christianity, its teachings, the identity of God, and the Truth of the Bible.

There are volumes of information available (as well as counter-points arguing against the Truth of Christianity).  Put simply, there's much too much information to make your question answerable in this forum. A Google search for "Apologetics," however, is a good place to start.


What is a Catechism and when and how did they originate

Have a read of the Wikipedia article on Catechesis: churches have long been using the terms "catechist" to refer to teachers and "catechumens" to refer to students, both based on the Greek word κατήχησις meaning "instruction". Then in the late middle ages "catechism" arose as a term for a specific tool for teaching. Apparently it was Luther who popularised the question and answer format of catechisms.

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about specific teaching methodologies, just that it's important to teach and instruct the next generation of Christians to know and trust God.


What is the evidence that the New Testament authors believed, or did not believe, that they were writing an inspired record?

The question is:

Did the NT writers themselves know that they were writing an inspired record?

Though there is at least one major exception, which is mentioned below, for the most part the New Testament authors simply wrote their accounts without commenting on whether they were inspired. We can therefore glean only a few clues here and there about their state of mind, and in particular, about their sense of whether they were writing on their own or under inspiration from God.
Here are a few such clues contained within several of the books in the New Testament.
Luke and Acts
This is the often overlooked introduction to the Gospel of Luke:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

And the parallel introduction to the book of Acts:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3)

Here we find the unidentified (in the text itself) author of these two books speaking confidently of "having followed all things closely for some time past," (KJV: "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first"), and citing this as his basis for writing "an orderly account" of these events.
Clearly the author of the Gospel of Luke felt that he was writing an account based on his own knowledge and investigation into the subjects and events he wrote about. This strongly suggests that the author of Luke and Acts did not think of himself as being divinely inspired in the writing process.
Paul
Much material could be pulled out of Paul's letters to attest to his state of mind in writing. However, here is one particularly clear passage about the author's sense of the source of his writing:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband. . . . To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, italics added)

Here Paul, the author identified in 1 Corinthians 1:1, distinguishes between:

"charges" or commands, given not by himself, but by the Lord, and
instructions given not by the Lord, but by himself.

This is a clear indication that the author believed that at least some of what he wrote was on his own initiative and from his own belief and understanding rather than being inspired by the Lord.
Revelation
By contrast, the book of Revelation starts out with this prologue:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. (Revelation 1:1-3)

The book then speaks in the voice of its human author:

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: (Revelation 1:4)

Here we find the human author clearly proclaiming this book as a "revelation of Jesus Christ," which was made known "by sending his angel to his servant John."
Clearly the author saw himself as writing under divine inspiration through the mediation of an angel. And indeed, a number of times he indicates that he was in an inspired, or spiritual state, had heaven opened to him, and heard voices from heaven. For example:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.  saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." (Revelation 1:10-11)
After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. (Revelation 4:1-2)
And when the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down." (Revelation 10:4)
Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, "Go, take the scroll that is open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land." (Revelation 10:8)
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19)

These and other expressions in the book of Revelation indicate that its author felt a high level of spiritual and divine inspiration for the visions he recorded in the book.
Conclusion
This is by no means an exhaustive list of passages in the New Testament indicating something about the state of mind of the authors with regard to their sense of whether or not they were writing an inspired record.
However, even these few passages show that there was a wide variety of experiences on the part of the various New Testament authors, ranging from a sense of writing their books or letters based on their own ideas and efforts in some instances, all the way to a sense, in other instances, of receiving and recording words and visions given to them by God through the angels in heaven.


Does the text of the 13th Century Vita of St. Dymphna still exist today?

The Acta Sanctorum is an official collection of saints' lives by various authors used for their processes of beatification or canonization.

St. Dympna's vita is pp. 475-495 of Acta Sanctorum vol. 16; p. 476 says the author is the canon regular Peter of St. Aubert of Cambrai (Cameracensis):

  Vitam S. Dympnæ scripsit Petrus Canonicus Regularis S. Autberti Cameracensis

Also, according to Fr. Butler's biography of her, this is another vita of her:

  Molanus, Miræus, the Roman Martyrology, Henschenius, t. 3, Maij. p. 477


How best for a Christian to explore the ethics of a Covid-19 vaccine that might use farmed cell-lines from aborted foetuses?

This is a matter of conscience, quite clearly.
I well know how these matters may be viewed by the ungodly as I was disciplined in a certain company many years ago (final written warning on the first instance of its occurrence) because of this very issue arising, suddenly, without my being prepared to meet it and I reacted in a way which was unacceptable to the management.
However in this case I wonder if the words of Paul are not relevant :

... asking no question for conscience sake: [1 Corinthians 10:25 KJV]

In the situation the apostle speaks of, one wishes food and wishes to buy it in a market but its origin is unknown. It could have been previously offered to an idol and one would not want to partake of that, but that is only one of a variety of possibilities.
Paul advises not to delve into origins for the sake of conscience. He advises to accept what is being traded at face value and not to make the enquiry.
In our current situation, what is being offered to us is not - principally, in a way of being an absolute necessity of its development and function - fundamentally dependent on the issue that has been here raised.
Certain cell lines have been incorporated into general medical research. A prime example is that of Henrietta Lacks' (1920-1951) cancer cells which became the HeLa line of cells and have been enormously productive, medically speaking, and her memory is now being properly recognised.
It may be that other cells, which in the past have been taken from a source that I would prefer they had not been, have been incorporated into the various research lines which are part of an established data base of genetics.
But as far as I know, the origin of those cell lines is not a fundamental necessity to the development of the product. The cells could have been from anywhere.
The efficacy of the product is not dependent on that issue for its success, is what I am emphasising.
To me, in this particular case, I feel it not necessary for me to make elaborate enquiries in order to free my conscience from any burden. I am content with the words of the apostle, in this instance.
When I was offered treatment by a dentist to strengthen the bone in my jaw, it was he who mentioned that 'donor' tissue (from a cadaver) could be used and I declined and he said he could use proprietary collagen instead.
Once I was injected and no longer aware of my surroundings, he could, for the sake of his own convenience, have used cadaver tissue in my jaw. But I do not feel the necessity to further interrogate him and to demand that he prove to me what he did or did not do. I stated my conscience and I have left it at that.
Looking back with hindsight, I could probably have avoided a final written warning over the matter of a supposed 'abortion' being the source of a sample I was testing, and looking back, it now becomes clear that someone knew my sensitivity and was merely trying to provoke me over it. But I later took voluntary redundancy and got a very generous termination package (thank you to all concerned) and I now reap the reward of a useful pension from the company.
I hope that this helps in the present situation.

I am a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry (1978) and was given further private training in Molecular Biochemistry when I worked in the Pharmaceutical Industry making products which incorporated radioactive isotopes (for medical research purposes and for cancer treatment).


Is a Roman Catholic obligated to believe in the Trinity?

Trinity is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. Hence as with all dogmas a Catholic is bound to believe it in order to maintain the bond of faith.

You have asked: if someone is not 100% comfortable..... Who is this someone? If they are non-baptised person, Catholic church has no official stand regarding them, only God will know.

If they are baptized Catholic then:

Once a Catholic always a Catholic. Even a excommunicated person is a Christian who is not in union with the body of Christ. Baptism leaves a indelible mark on your soul.CCC 1272
No-one can be sure about any specific individual will or will not go to hell. That is, only God can tell whether they will be saved or not. But if they are willfully refusing to believe a dogma, a divinely revealed truth, proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church, then it can be implied that they are refusing to remain in the church. And those who refuse to remain in the Church will not be saved.CCC 846

One being not comfortable is different from one says he believes Jesus is not God. Your question title and its content differ in its meaning.

If one is not comfortable:

Please remember you don't have to understand a dogma to believe it. So, you can believe in a dogma even if you have doubt. All that is required is your full will, For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinionsCE : Heresy.

If one says he does not believe in a dogma, and they fully understand the way they are in disagreement with the Catholic Church:

This will make him a Heretic. A person who obstinately persists in heresy will not be in union with the church and hence cannot be saved.


What is the difference between an Apostolic Exhortation and an Encyclical Letter?

Apostolic Exhortation is a type of communication from the Pope that is written to encourage people to undertake an implementation of particular set of recommendations listed in the document.

Encyclical Letter which is usually more important than Apostolic Exhortation is a letter that usually deals with a specific doctrine, where the doctrine is clarified, or explained in greater detail.


Yes, a Requiem Mass (Missa pro defunctis) can be said for the soul of a deceased person, and Requiem Masses needn't be accompanied by a funeral/burial.

Sometimes, Requiem Masses are said with a catafalque, which is something that looks like a coffin, but isn't; catafalques are to remind the faithful of the deceased person:


How do Mormons understand Revelation 22:3?

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

This verse shows that the throne belongs to Jesus Christ along with his father. We interpret it through this verse. Kind of a short answer but it gets the point accross.


Does one sin if he refuses food that is put before him?

Assuming no sickness* or Church fasting and abstinence law impedes him from being able to eat the food, he commits a sin of ingratitude and gluttony by refusing it.

There are five species of gluttony, which, following St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas explains Summa Theologica II-II q. 148 a. 4 co., where one seeks

"sumptuous" or "costly food" (pretiosos)
"food prepared too nicely—i.e. 'daintily'" (studiose)
"eating 'too much'" (nimis)(This is what most people understand by gluttony.)
"eat[ing] 'hastily'" (præpropere), not at "the proper time for eating"(snacking, eating between meals)
"eating 'greedily'" (ardenter), where "one fails to observe the due manner of eating"(eating too fast or voraciously)

St. Gregory sums this up in: "praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose" ("hastily, sumptuously, too much, greedily, daintily").

Gluttony becomes a mortal sin when (ibid.)

  the inordinate concupiscence in gluttony be found to turn man away from the last end […]. This is the case when he adheres to the pleasure of gluttony as his end, for the sake of which he contemns God, being ready to disobey God's commandments, in order to obtain those pleasures.

and it's venial

  when a man has too great a desire for the pleasures of the palate, yet would not for their sake do anything contrary to God's law

*As was the case with St. Catherine of Siena, for example, an her confessor recounts (Legenda maior pt. 2 ch. 5): "If she forced herself to eat, her body suffered extremely, her digestion would not function, and the food had to come out with an effort by the way it had gone in. It is difficult to estimate the amount of suffering that this holy virgin experienced through swallowing food."She was not ungrateful or glutinous: "God for my sins has afflicted me with a special kind of illness that makes it impossible for me to eat; I should like to be able to eat, but I can’t. Pray for me, that God will forgive me my sins, which make me have to suffer all these evils."


Why does 1 John say Christians are unable to sin?

  1 John 3:6  Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth
  hath not seen him, neither known him.

  1 John 3:9  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed
  remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

One of the problems in translating something between languages is that if a word in one language carries more information in it than the other language can handle in one word, information can be lost.

For example in 1 John 3:9 the word "commit" is "poieō" in Greek which can mean commit, cause, perform, continue. However the word also carries with it additional information in that the verb is present, active, indicative.

Other translators would say something like "Whoever is born of God does not habitually commit sin."

The word "sinneth" in verse six is "hamartanō" and has the same "present, active, indicative" verb construction and can also be rendered, "Whosoever abideth in him does not habitually sin".

While there are many good English translations, it is sometimes necessary to go to the original language to find information that may not have been brought fully into the English.


What is meant by hot drinks in section 89 of the doctrine and covenant?

"Hot drinks" refers to tea and coffee.

The LDS Student Manual for the Doctrine and Covenants references a quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith providing this clarification:

  “I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using
  tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the
  revelation of the Word of Wisdom. …

  “Tea and coffee … are what the Lord meant when He said ‘hot drinks.’”
  (In Joel H. Johnson, Voice from the Mountains [Salt Lake City:
  Juvenile Instructor Office, 1881], p. 12.)

The church has reaffirmed the meaning of "hot drinks" in recent times. For example, see Word of Wisdom on LDS.org:

  latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written
  in [D&C 89:9], refers to tea and coffee

While it may seem peculiar now days to single out tea and coffee as "hot drinks," during the temperance movement of the 1830s they were both seen as substitutes for alcohol.


When the Bible talks about wine does it mean alcoholic wine?

It is simply impossible to keep the juice from crushed grapes from fermenting without modern refrigeration and pasteurization techniques. So yes, the wine was alcoholic.

There is plenty of textual evidence as well, but this should do:

  The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say,
  ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and
  sinners! Luke 7:34, Darby

Hard to be accused of being a drunkard if the wine isn't alcoholic!


Why did Cardinal Ratzinger stop supporting a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis?

Ratzinger writes at such length as to obscure the point, in my opinion.  If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283 (2nd ed.), the reasoning is spelled out in a brief and clear form:

  The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the
  object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our
  knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of
  life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to
  even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us
  to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and
  wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can
  say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know
  the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for
  wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

That is, they recognize and appreciate the value of scientific studies for the information they yield about matters including the history of the universe and life on earth.  This is entirely consistent with their stance that faith and reason can never truly be in conflict (CCC 159):

  Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be
  any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who
  reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason
  on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever
  contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all
  branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly
  scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict
  with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of
  faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering
  investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the
  hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all
  things, who made them what they are."

In this case, the scientific evidence against a literal reading of Genesis is so overwhelming that if truth cannot contradict truth, it suggests that the error is to read Genesis literally.  I do not know why it took so long for the Catholic Church to recognize this, but the current position is internally consistent and reasonable.

If they were to continue to insist on a highly literal interpretation, they would have had to drop their position on discrepancies and simply state that faith wins.  That would have been a much larger doctrinal change than maintaining (as they do, to my understanding) that Genesis 1 and 2 is spiritually accurate without being a literal account of all events.

More on this topic can be found in a large number of places, including here.


Catholic remembrance services for a death elsewhere?
First of all, Catholic funeral services are traditionally held on the day of death and/or on the day of the funeral of an individual. In addition to this, some Catholics have a Requiem Mass celebrated on the 30th day after their death or even then the 1st anniversary of their death, in order to facilitate the need for others to attend the original date of the funeral services, which were unattainable by some for whatever reason.
In the Tridentine Rite this was more predominant than in the  New Rite, but nevertheless remain quite valid. It could be held anywhere and not only in the local of the person who died.
Just a reminder that eulogies not allowed at Catholic funerals. If any anniversaries are held in the Church some rules must be upheld.

The Vatican made that clear in 1989. In its Revised Order of Christian Funerals, it stated that "a brief homily based on the readings should always be given at the funeral liturgy, but never any kind of eulogy."
In 2000, Pope John Paul II restated the prohibition when he wrote “at the funeral mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind.”
The rationale is that eulogies are often considered the centrepiece of the service, and therefore detract from the mass and its central message, which is the Christian meaning of death. - [The rationale is that eulogies are often considered the centrepiece of the service, and therefore detract from the mass and its central message, which is the Christian meaning of death.-Eulogies not allowed at Catholic funerals

As for Requiem Masses via live feed or some other form of social media, you will have to talk to the pastor involved in these arrangements.


Was Christ's suffering unusually harsh for the standard of the Roman times?

Crucifixion was somewhat common in that time, as your question points out. The issue I think you are hinting at is maybe Christ's beatings by the Sanhedrin and Romans before His crucifixion. The first is that the Sanhedrin heard Him blaspheme right in front of them and would have stoned him on the spot according to their laws, but it is apparent they were not allowed to execute. The other beatings occurred after he was handed over to the Romans. Pilate had Him beaten and lashed before handing Him over to the mob for execution. There is an old and common argument that Pilate did not want to execute Christ because he was under the impression that His followers may revolt, so instead he had Him beaten, hoping the punishment would be enough to appease the mob. Obviously it was not. So it might be possible that severe beating before being crucified was uncommon, so perhaps Christ did suffer more in this respect. However, according to Matthew, Jesus was flogged after Pilate agreed to hand Him over to the mob knowing full well what they were going to do to Him. Perhaps then a flogging before execution was common. Other beatings occurred when He was under the care of the cruel guards. They mocked him and put thorns on his head. I would think this kind of treatment was common, but I have no source.

After the mob took over Christ was apparently made to carry the very cross He was to be hung from all though the city. I have read in certain places that this may have been anywhere from one half to three miles. Considering if was under the jurisdiction of the Pharisees (mob) at this time I tend to think that this part of his suffering was uncommon. Even until recent times, typically the executed were disgraced after their execution by desecrating the body. Crucifixion in itself yields this result; the bodies were often left there long after death. What has also been common throughout the ages is dragging the body behind a horse or staking all or parts of it, like the head, in the middle of the town.

While on the cross it seems that Christ actually suffered less, relatively. The first point is that he died much more quickly than was typical. Crucifixion was designed to prolong suffering for days, and Christ passed within a half day. To hurry death they would break the legs so that asphyxiation would come quickly (there is kind of a long explanation here of the mechanics and the biology that is not in the scope of the question). But they did not break his legs.

Summary

Before sentenced to execution Christ suffered severe beatings, which is not really uncommon for the time, but he was beaten by several parties all wanting to exact their own justice on Him. One party wanted to stone Him but were not allowed, another was maybe hoping to save His life to appease the mob, and the other by cruel guards. He was sentenced to crucifixion anyway by the mob that also disgraced Him by making Him carry His own cross through the town. Considering He was already weak from the beatings this was probably a very difficult task. However, while on the cross it seems Christ's suffering was relatively less because he died in less than a day when it was typically days to die.

With that I would say He suffered more before the actual hanging because multiple parties 'wanted a piece of Him'. He suffered more still, being disgraced before He was even put on the cross. However, He suffered less on the cross because He lived less than a day and they did not break His legs.

Sources

Wikipedia on crucifixion covers much that supports what I have said above including prolonging death and desecration of the body after death.

Matthew 26 begins the story of Jesus' arrest (26:47), beatings (26:67), handing over to the mob and further beatings (27:26, 27:30) and crucifixion (27:35).


Catholic teachings on the new life in resurrected body

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say concerning the reserection of the dead.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a11.htm

Here is a breif excerpt from that page:
IN BRIEF

1015 "The flesh is the hinge of salvation" (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2:PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.

1016 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.

1017 "We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess" (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a "spiritual body" (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer "bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" (GS § 18).

1019 Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.

There is is more on the link.  There is no official understanding of what we will become when we are resurrected, the church does not say because it does not know the details of that transformation.  The only thing that can be known is that we will be much more than what we are or what we once were before the fall.

1 Cor 2:9 Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him

The details of what we will become if we endure to the end, has not been revealed to us.  It is a Mystery, what is not a mystery is what the alternative might be if we fail to accept his Grace.

What is understood however is that there is Happyness, Joy, Love contentment.  These are things that we find glimpses of in this world but they are so strong and so powerful that we can't hold onto them.  I for example, remember the great Joy and love of seeing my Children born, or when I realized that God was real and true how I felt.  When we are content we do not seek for things that take us away from that contentment we embrace it, we hold on to it and in the resurrection, unlike in our present forms, we will be able to hold on to it.

It may be that wanting more than what is perfect was that which caused the fall.  "lust of the eyes, Lust of the flesh, Pride of life"

Heaven and our bodily reserection will be contentment, rather than it's counter which is the wishing of more than that.

I welcome any additions to this answer.


Nowhere in the Bible is something sinful not sinful because of how someone feels. There may be things that are not innately sinful, that may be sinful in certain situations (Ecclesiastes 3).
In your questions, specifically when someone:
does something sinful, but he is not aware of the sinfulness

For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the
truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful
prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the
adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without
mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse
punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned
the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was
sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who has
said, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' And again, 'The Lord will
judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the
living God. (Hebrews 10:26-31)

Note the verse that says "there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins". This verse points out that those who sin when they know they are sinning, will receive a "fearful prospect of judgement". This implies that sinning when you are not aware of your sin carries a lesser penalty (although still, all sins are enough to send a man to hell). See this article.
does something sinful, someone told him it is sinful, but he still doesn't feel it as sin
You seem to be presenting two different possibilities here:

He does something sinful, but he doesn't feel it is sin - If he is doing "something sinful", that is, something specifically called out in Scripture as sin, it doesn't matter how he feels on the issue. Indeed, the rejection of that action being sin is another sin, a rebellion against God.

He does something that someone else has told him is sinful, but he doesn't feel it is sin - "Be a Berean" and search the Bible for backing to that action being sin. If none exists, or can be reasonably inferred, and you are not convicted that that action is sin, they you're probably fine. If there is backing in Scripture, then this falls back under (1) and is of itself sin.

does something not sinful, but he feels it as sin

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)

See this article, but it seems to be yes. If you truly believe something is sin, even if it is not specifically presented as such in Scripture, and you sot what you believe is wrong, then you are sinning.
Overall, the relationship between sinful behavior and sin is this: sin is the doing of anything that God prohibits, the failing to do something he commands, or the disobeying of your own convictions about sin, while sinful behavior is the engaging of the act of sin, but may be the engaging in an act that is not inherently sinful, but is for that particular situation.


Does the word 'testament' in the titles OT and NT imply the death of the testator in both covenants?

It has more to do with the translators and languages than the bible itself. The word Testament is derived from Latin testamentum-a will. I understand you confuse it with the modern meaning of the word, but Blue Letter Bible tries to explain it as follows:

  The word "testament" is an old English word that means, "covenant." The Latin term testamentum was used to translate the Greek and Hebrews words for covenant. The English word was derived from the Latin. Hence the Old and New Covenants became the Old and New Testaments.src

Old and New Testaments just means old and new covenant. That is the covenants before and after Jesus Christ. That is here both Testament and covenant have the same meaning. The sourced cited above goes on to even say:

  It is unfortunate that the English word "testament" is used to describe the Old and New Covenants that God has made with His people.

I also don't understand how the 'Old Testament' implies the death of testator? God did not die in the Old Testament.

Note: The word covenant came into usage only in Middle English (12th - 15th century) borrowed from Old French, from present participle of convenir, meaning to agree; src So, we can't blame the translators for not using the proper word.


Christianity is not a single group, it is a diverse set of beliefs.  Even though it originated with the teachings of Jesus back 2000 years ago, difference sects/denominations have their own sets of rules and "official" teachings and many individuals determine the rules for themselves.  There is no global trademark owner of "Christian" so you can call whatever it is you believe Christian and though other Christians may disagree and not form a church group with you, in the end God is the only arbiter of that, and he tends to not send rulings via email.

Some churches, like the Catholic church, have a large body of teachings they consider "official" and will hassle you more or less officially if you deviate from them/teach deviations from them.  Other churches stress personal interpretation of the Bible and therefore don't have official teachings (though often have unofficial ones, that you may be ostracized from deviating from).

There are certain sets of belief that large swaths of these groups consider to be normative.  For example, many mainline churches consider the Apostle's Creed to be the minimal acceptable set of Christian beliefs. Outside that, they'd say that you're using the brand name, but probably inappropriately. But even the creeds like this leave a whole lot out; it's a couple of paragraphs compared to a whole belief system.

This is augmented by a lot of folks not really having any rigorous thought process behind their own personal theology - when asked a question they just come up with an analogy that sounds good to them at the time, whether their church would say, upon sober review, that it was accurate or not.  So if you ask a variety of folks self-identifying as Christians about stuff, you are likely to get a variety of answers - there will be more consensus closer to core matters of the faith, and from people who belong to a church that has a stronger stance on having a corpus of official teaching, but in the end it's a big batch of folks with a big set of beliefs, guided by a lot of group and personal history.

As a result this SE says "hey, if you self identify as a Christian, you're in scope here," even though some of those groups don't fit into some of the traditional creed sorts of definitions, because in the end no one knows for sure who was right till we get to heaven...


According to Catholicism, how can a relic help a sick person?

How can a relic help a sick person?

From the tone of body of your question, I am presuming that you would like a Catholic response. That is the perspective I am  going to give for you.

Holy Cards touched to the relics of the saint are third class relics.

  The Catholic church divides relics into three classes:

  First-Class Relics: items directly associated with the events of Christ's life (manger, cross, etc.) or the physical remains of a saint (a bone, a hair, skull, a limb, etc.). Traditionally, a martyr's relics are often more prized than the relics of other saints. Parts of the saint that were significant to that saint's life are more prized relics. For instance, King St. Stephen of Hungary's right forearm is especially important because of his status as a ruler. A famous theologian's head may be his most important relic. (The head of St. Thomas Aquinas was removed by the monks at the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova where he died.) If a saint did a lot of traveling, then the bones of his feet may be prized. Catholic teaching prohibits relics to be divided up into small, unrecognizable parts if they are to be used in liturgy (i.e., as in an altar; see the rubrics listed in Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar).

  Second-Class Relics: items that the saint owned or frequently used, for example, a crucifix, rosary, book, etc. Again, an item more important in the saint's life is thus a more important relic. Sometimes a second-class relic is a part of an item that the saint wore (a shirt, a glove, etc.) and is known as ex indumentis ("from the clothing").

  Third-Class Relics: any object that is touched to a first- or second-class relic.[38] Most third-class relics are small pieces of cloth, though in the first millennium oil was popular; the Monza ampullae contained oil collected from lamps burning before the major sites of Christ's life, and some reliquaries had holes for oil to be poured in and out again. Many people call the cloth touched to the bones of saints "ex brandea". But ex brandea strictly refers to pieces of clothing that were touched to the body or tombs of the apostles. It is a term that is used only for such; it is not a synonym for a third-class relic.

Many holy cards have a prayer on the back of them invoking the particular saint who's image appears on the front of the holy card. You are quite free to pray this prayer for the intentions for yourself or for the healing (or some other grace) of another person. You are also free to give to someone. If the person you are giving the holy card to is not really into praying, yet freely accepts the holy card from you, it is quite fine that you can do the praying for them. Prayer is never in vain. You could also place the holy card, while praying for a healing on the place of one's suffering. I would suggest that you perhaps try praying a novena to the saint in question at the same time.

I cannot find the story on the internet, but several years ago I was reading life in French of the Little Flower, St. Therese of Lisieux and how she had offered her last Holy Communion, on August 19, 1897, for Fr. Hyacinthe Loyson who had left the priesthood and eventually got married. Some years later an exorcist placed the holy card with the image of St. Therese of the Little Flower on the head of the possessed and and demon admitted to the particular priest, Fr. Hyacinthe had converted and repented of his sins on his death bed and was saved though the intercession of St. Therese of Lisieux. (If anyone knows of a link about this story please place it in here). As you see holy cards and holy images are to be treasured.


What were the findings of the Acts Seminar?

The Acts Seminar was one of several seminars set up by The Westar Institute as "large-scale, collaborative research projects" on various topics in early Christian history. Fellows attending and voting at the Seminars are academics in theology, Bible studies and cognate fields.  The voting system was based on traditional scholarly practice, whereby each member of the Seminar assigned a colour to his or her response to a question after full discussion, as described by the institute's Wikipedia page:

  RED: This information is virtually certain; it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is accepted as historical.
  PINK: This information is not certain but is probably reliable; it fits well with evidence that is verifiable and so is regarded as
  borderline historical.
  GRAY: This information is possible but unreliable; it is not a clear fabrication but lacks supporting evidence and so is regarded as
  dubious.
  BLACK: This information is improbable; it does not fit verifiable evidence or seems to be a fabrication and is regarded as
  nonhistorical.

As described by the Seminar summary report, the goal was to go through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluate it for historical accuracy.  The Seminar announced that its principal findings were:

  The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical
  reassessment.
  Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
  The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
  Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable
  source can be identified for Acts.
  Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life
  and mission of Paul.
  Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of
  Christianity.
  Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related
  literature.
  The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling
  devices.
  Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
  Acts is a primary historical source for second century
   Christianity.

"The Seminar has not found a core historical story of Christian beginnings in Acts", which is "not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."

The full report of the Seminar is published as  Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report (Polebridge Press, 2013), edited by Dennis E. Smith, Joseph B. Tyson.


Did all disciples of Christ's apostles consider priesthood a sacrament?

Simple answer, No. No there is no proof of the assertion by that priest.

The idea of Apostolic succession from which the orthodox imposition of hands as a sacrament finds its purpose is not something that can be historically traced. The laying on of hands is in the bible but not for this serious purpose of defining legitimate authority to administer the sacraments through a chain of succession.

As there are little writings after the Apostles before Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD. The best I can argue is by finding the best evidence for the 'imposition of hands' as a holy sacriment to trasmit succession and show it to be no proof at all.

I will not turn to the scripture as there is no evidence there to support this sacrament. The place where you would most expect to find it is in 1 Timothy Chapter 3, as the qualifications for bishops are listed, but nothing is there. This at once proves the requirement not set out as a  scripturally required rite, but looks look at the argument from history alone.

 Here is a quote by Tertullian making the best case for a kind of succesion from a [wiki] write up:

Tertullian,  In his Prescription Against Heretics, he explicitly challenges heretics to produce evidence of the apostolic succession of their communities.

  Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed."

But notice four things.

 - First, the emphasis is not about laying on of hands. That is a biblical principle, and every church sort of follows that, in prayer and ordination, but its not portrayed as a the-big-thing. The importance is in the fact that the previous Bishop vouchsafed the new one. Its about credibility.
 - Second, every church had a different bishop, passing the torch. There was no super bishop holding all the cards. Even the Apostles did not 'take charge' over churches planted by another Apostle.
 - Third, To trace such succession today would be impractical, for it would be 100,000 times more complex than Christ's genealogies, for any given city.
 - Fourth, although this would have been a wise practice in the early church to prevent heresy from totally destroying it,  there is actually nothing in the Bible that says it needed to be that way.

Therefore even if one could prove the impossible to prove (due to lack of historical writings), there is nothing in scripture to enforce its continuance, which would be impractical to do anyway.

I do not think God would allow utter silence in his word and in post apostolic history for something as important as this, if there was any truth to it.

Personally I would find it harder to disprove that God prefers blue over purple, because I see more blue in nature. That does not infer that we can't reasonable conclude God does not prefer blue.


How do Christians who think animals have only existed for <7,000 years on Earth reconcile their views with Pleistocene saber-toothed tigers?

I think your premise may be flawed.
You ask about "Christians who reject animals existing >7,000 years ago", but that implies Young Earth Creationists, who reject anything (other than God, of course) existing more than 7,000 years ago.
This means that they also reject any dating of any worldly substance (at least on Earth, but that's a whole other can of worms) which claims an age of more than 7,000 years. So there is no "reconciling" to be done; the Christians you are asking about reject your implied premise.
If you are genuinely curious to learn more, here are a couple places you can go that will start to give you some information on the basis of YEC rejection of Uniformitarian dating:
https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/

If you want something with a little more meat, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you read the R.A.T.E. report. You can read a summary here, or download the full report here (fair warning: this is a book; 686 pages long). The second report may also be available. (Personally, I own both in physical form.)


The commands God gave to Ancient Israel are normally divided into three kinds: moral, civil and ceremonial. This question and this question have more information. This one, and any of the others invoking the death penalty, certainly fall into the 'civil' category. The state of Israel (loosely speaking) would have the authority to impose the death penalty for a variety of offences, as many states do now.

Christians are no longer expected to obey "the law", which includes this kind of law, though most would say that they are expected to follow the 'moral laws', of which this is not one. That's not to say that 'witchcraft' is now OK,and God approves of it, but the authority to punish with a specific penalty doesn't apply to Christians in these times.

Because 'the state' is given power to punish an offence that does not give a random mob of people the right to harass someone.


Where did the Young Earth Creationist doctrine originate?

If we go back to the earliest Christian teachers we will find a substantial focus on metaphorical and spiritual meanings of the Bible, more than maybe a modern Christian might expect. Roger Forster and Paul Marston write in "Reason and Faith" (Monarch, 1989):

In [the Church Fathers] there was, compared with today, a much greater emphasis on allegorical meaning of scripture. Thus, for example, Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 led many of them to take an allegorical interpretation of the 'days' in Genesis 1 to mean millenia. This view is expressed, for example, by Barnabas, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Methodius,  Lactantius, Theophilus and John of Damascus.

That was not the universal view:

Basil specifically refers to 24 hour periods, yet later writes: "Whether you call it a 'day' or whether you call it 'eternity', you express the same idea.
Chrysostom, who appears to take the 'days' literally in his homilies, repeatedly emphasises that ideas are being given 'concreteness of expression' in Genesis 1-3, to help our 'limited human understanding'. Thus on the 'rib' used to form Eve, he writes: "Don't take the words in human fashion; rather interpret the concreteness of the expressions from the viewpoint of human limitations. You see, if he had not used these words, how would we have been able to gain knowledge of these mysteries, which defy description".

Origen writes (around 231 AD):

What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider it a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? And who could be found so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted trees in a paradise East of Eden'? ... And ... when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the evening, ... I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through semblance of history.

Augustine of Hippo writes:

Of what fashion these days were, it is either very hard or almost impossible to think, much more to speak. As for ordinary days, we see that they have no morning or evening but as the sun sets and rises. But the first three days had no sun, for that was made on the fourth day.

Augustine thought that the Genesis language reflected the Angelic perspective, which could know something either directly in God or in its later actual being.
The issue was not thought of as a crucial one to Christian belief.
The scientific evidence that pointed to an extremely old earth did not arise until the 18th century. This redating was not at the time generally taken as a 'disproof' of either Genesis or Christianity, and many of the scholars supporting it were Christian.
Significant Christian opposition to the geological dating did not arise until the early 20th century, with the Fundamentalism revival. Leading early exponents were George McReady price and Henry Morris. The Wikipedia article gives an excellent overview of the history.


Crucified for false accusation, how did Jesus' death turned into a redemptive sacrifice for our sins?

How did Jesus' death on the cross turned out to become a sacrifice to redeem sins?

While the Roman execution was taking place, there were other elements not as noticeable.

Jesus allowed himself to be put to death.

  John 10:17-18  Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my
  life, that I might take it again.   No man taketh it from me, but I
  lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power
  to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

The Father place the sins of the world on him.

  2 Corinthians 5:21  For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no
  sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

  1 John 2:2  And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours
  only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

If you look at the crucifixion and sees only a Roman execution, you miss the most important thing in the history of the world.