Because Jesus' message was forgiveness of sins. Not condemnation for them.

Leviticus 20 (ESV)

  10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of[a] his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

I immediately notice 2 things here. The first is that both parties of adultery are to be condemned. And second that this looks a lot like a civil law, to be enforced not by a mob, but by the authorities.

This gets into the tripartite division of the law. Depending on how you slice it, there are three forms of law given in the Old Testament

Moral
Ceremonial
Civil

Christians generally acknowledge that the Ceremonial law was fulfilled by Jesus, that the moral law is still in effect and that the civil law is tricky, but was largely given for the state of Israel to run smoothly. The general advice I've heard on the civil law is that if it can be boiled down to a principal then that is what we should draw from it (in the case of this Leviticus passage we can probably take a few things, I'll leave that to the reader though as it's not exactly relevant to this answer).

But ultimately, the answer to your question comes from why Jesus came to the earth, lived the life that he lived, died the death that he did and resurrected as he did and ascended into heaven like he did.

IF Jesus had come to establish an earthly kingdom, the kick off Roman rule and re-establish the kingdom of Israel as an earthly kingdom, he would not have stopped the mob. He might have allowed the punishment that was proscribed in the scriptures to continue. He likely would have ordered her partner in adultery to be brought forth as well and stoned.

But that wasn't his mission, and that was not what he did.

Let's not lose the context here either. This was a trap. Matthew Henry in his commentary lays it out like this:

  If he should confirm the sentence of the law, and let it take its course, they would censure him as inconsistent with himself (he having received publicans and harlots) and with the character of the Messiah, who should be meek, and have salvation, and proclaim a year of release; and perhaps they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for countenancing the Jews in the exercise of a judicial power. But, [2.] If he should acquit her, and give his opinion that the sentence should not be executed (as they expected he would), they would represent him, First, As an enemy to the law of Moses, and as one that usurped an authority to correct and control it, and would confirm that prejudice against him which his enemies were so industrious to propagate, that he came to destroy the law and the prophets. Secondly, As a friend to sinners, and, consequently, a favourer of sin; if he should seem to connive at such wickedness, and let it go unpunished, they would represent him as countenancing it, and being a patron of offences, if he was a protector of offenders, than which no reflection could be more invidious upon one that professed the strictness, purity, and business of a prophet.

Why hello Admiral, yes, yes it was.

Either way Jesus was stuck. However, by turning the accusation on the woman's captors, by highlighting their own sin/imperfection, he was showing the following things:

He was showing that we are all condemned by our sins.
He was highlighting his own mission of forgiveness and the call to repentance
He confirms the law of Moses, the just punishment of the woman and the fact that the men before him were unrepentant violators of the law who were not fit to carry out the sentence.

Henry again:

  He builds upon an uncontested maxim in morality, that it is very absurd for men to be zealous in punishing the offences of others, while they are every whit as guilty themselves, and they are not better than self-condemned who judge others, and yet themselves do the same thing: "If there be any of you who is without sin, without sin of this nature, that has not some time or other been guilty of fornication or adultery, let him cast the first stone at her.’’ Not that magistrates, who are conscious of guilt themselves, should therefore connive at others’ guilt. But therefore, (a. ) Whenever we find fault with others, we ought to reflect upon ourselves, and to be more severe against sin in ourselves than in others. (b. ) We ought to be favourable, though not to the sins, yet to the persons, of those that offend, and to restore them with a spirit of meekness, considering ourselves and our own corrupt nature.

This reminds me of another of Jesus' parables. Matthew 18 (ESV)

  23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.[h] 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.[i] 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant[j] fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii,[k] and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,[l] until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

Calvin's commentary has an even more interesting point. It was not for Jesus to stone the woman even if he had wanted to. It was up to the accuser to mete out the punishment:

  He who is without sin among you. He said this according to the custom of the Law; for God commanded that the witnesses should, with their own hands, put malefactors to death, according to the sentence which had been pronounced on them; that greater caution might be used in bearing testimony, (Deuteronomy 17:7.) There are many who proceed rashly to overwhelm their brother by perjury, because they do not think that they inflict a deadly wound by their tongue. And this very argument, had weight with those slanderers, desperate as they were; for no sooner do they obtain a sight of it, than they lay aside those fierce passions with which they were swelled when they came. Yet there is this difference between the injunction of the Law and the words of Christ, that in the Law God merely enjoined that they should not condemn a man with the tongue, unless they were permitted to put him to death with their own hands; but here Christ demands from the witnesses perfect innocence, so that no man ought to accuse another of crime, unless he be pure, and free from every fault. Now what he said, at that time, to a few persons, we ought to view as spoken to all, that whoever accuses another, ought to impose on himself a law of innocence; otherwise, we do not pursue wicked actions, but rather are hostile to the persons of men.


From a historical perspective, the texts which became canonical were those which proto-orthodox Christians accepted and based their practices and traditions upon. Therefore the practices and traditions are in keeping with books which became part of the Bible.

If you think about it some Christian traditions must predate the writing of certain texts. In 1 Corithinians 11:17-34, the Lord's supper does not seem to be introduced as a new idea so this tradition must predate the text which was later accepted as canonical. So it is the proto-orthodox ideas which are found in the Bible because they picked the texts that became canonical.

All this being said, I'm not sure that Sola Scriptura really demands that all traditions are founded on the Bible - more than they can in no way run contrary to it and that anything not in the Bible is peripheral and not necessary for salvation or holiness.

It should also be noted that what is canonical does vary e.g. the Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts more books than the Roman Catholic Church which accepts more books than most mainline Protestant denominations.


What things led to the canonization of Thomas More?

Besides his martyrdom? What were some specific things that led to his canonization?

The Homily at the Canonization of St. Thomas More in 1935 by His Holiness Pope Pius XI1 provides some of the reasons:

St. Thomas More, together with St. John Fisher were bright champions and the glory of their nation ... “as a fortified city, and a pillar of iron, and a wall of brass.” Therefore they could not be shaken by the fallacies of heretics, nor frightened by the threats of the powerful. They were, so to speak, the leaders and chieftains of that illustrious band of men who, from all classes of the people and from every part of Great Britain, resisted the new errors with unflinching spirit, and in shedding their blood, testified their loyal devotedness to the Holy See.
St. Thomas More was endowed with the keenest of minds and supreme versatility in every kind of knowledge, he enjoyed such esteem and favour among his fellow-citizens that he was soon able to reach the highest grades of public office. But he was no less distinguished for his desire of Christian perfection and his zeal for the salvation of souls.
The testimony in the ardour of his prayer, in the fervour with which he recited, whenever he could, even the Canonical Hours, in the practice of those penances by which he kept his body in subjection, and finally in the numerous and renowned accomplishments of both the spoken and the written word which he achieved for the defence of the Catholic faith and for the safeguarding of Christian morality.
St. Thomas More [was a man of] a strong and courageous spirit, [and] like [Saint] John Fisher, when he saw that the doctrines of the Church were gravely endangered, he knew how to despise resolutely the flattery of human respect, how to resist, in accordance with his duty, the supreme head of the State when there was question of things commanded by God and the Church, and how to renounce with dignity the high office with which he was invested. It was for these motives that he too was imprisoned, nor could the tears of his wife and children make him swerve from the path of truth and virtue.
In [his] terrible hour of trial he raised his eyes to heaven, and proved himself a bright example of Christian fortitude. Thus it was that he who not many years before had written a work emphasizing the duty of Catholics to defend their faith even at the cost of their lives, was seen to walk cheerful and confident from his prison to death, and thence to take his flight to the joys of eternal beatitude.

1. cf. Pius XI | Vatican.

Endnote:

St. Thomas More was a remarkable man, loving husband and good father and father-in-law.

Several Heads of State and of Government, numerous political figures, and some Episcopal Conferences and individual Bishops asked Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] to proclaim Saint Thomas More the Patron of Statesmen and Politicians. Those supporting the petition included people from different political, cultural and religious allegiances, and the Pope took this as a sign of the deep and widespread interest in the thought and activity of this outstanding Statesman. - Source: Supremacy and Survival: The English Reformation: Pope John Paul II and St. Thomas More, Tuesday, April 19, 2011.

Further reading:

St. Thomas More | New Advent.
Motu Proprio Proclaiming Saint Thomas More Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, 31 October 2000 | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].


Well, let's have a look at the actual text.

  Genesis 2: 16-17

  16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the
  garden thou mayest freely eat:

  17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
  eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
  die.

Verse 17 is particularly interesting.  "In the day that thou eatest thereof" is not an "if" statement but a "when" statement.  This makes me think that yes, it was part of the plan, and that Satan's temptation did not consist of getting them to eat the fruit per se, but of getting them to do it before they were ready (whatever else that would have consisted of.)  Unfortunately, the Scriptures are silent on any further details.


How do Lutherans who accept apostolic succession trace theirs?

At the time of the reformation, many of the bishops of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cramner, were already recognized as consecrated bishops by the Roman church since they had been consecrated prior to the reformation. Apostolic succession in the Anglican communion is traced through these bishops.

The the Churches of Sweden and Finland probably do not claim an unbroken line of laying on of hands, as Gustav I Vasa who converted to Lutheranism, requested the replacement of the Archbishop of Sweden by the Pope, in accordance with the wishes of the Riksdag, which had deposed Gustav Trolle in favor of Johannes Magnus. When the Pope refused, Laurentius Petri was consecrated archbishop of Sweden by the bishop of Vasteras, Petri Magnus. Petri Magnus is said to have been consecrated by the Pope in Rome, which would make for unbroken apostolic succession, however, this is a matter of some dispute.


According to Catholicism, what is the difference between forgiveness and release from punishment?

According to Catholic theologians I have listened to, there is a difference between sins that are forgiven and the release of punishment due to sin.

1) Admitting a sin and asking for and receiving forgiveness.

2) Then, reparation for the damage caused by the sin.  The term "punishment" for sin is not usually used because it makes God sound kind of vengeful.

The example usually given by these theologians on EWTN radio, etc. is: Johnny breaks a window and is sorry for his mistake and asks for forgiveness from his father who then forgives him. However, he still needs to fix the broken window which is the reparation.

I personally find this type of official explanation of part 2) rather weak because many, many sins cannot be repaired in a normal sense.  For one thing, the person that was hurt may have died. Or, Johnny may not have any glass and glazing skills and dad will have to fix the window. Actually, this is the rationale of the Catholic church for purgatory.  Purgatory allows a period (non-time specific) of reparation for your sins if they were not adequately repaired while alive.  I am of the Catholic Church, but I question several dogmas/doctrines/beliefs.

I hope this information contributes—this is my first answer given.


Are there any saints and/or mystics who had vision of hell and based on that made a judgment about have many people are in hell?

The majority of mystics and saints who have had visions of Hell, believe that the majority of souls go to Hell. But this is neither absolute or known and is often based on their personal interpretation of their visions. The truth is we do not know.

  And so it is that we are presented with quite a disconcerting appraisal as foretold by some of the Saints and Mystics of the Church! Yet, it should be noted that other Saints and Mystics have been considerably more lenient in their assessment of the proportion of those saved.

  However, for the "other side of the coin", lets take Sr. Josefa Menedez, for example. Jesus reportedly said to her:

    "Oh, all you who are steeped in sin, and who for a time more or less long have lived as wanderers and fugitives because of your crimes ... if the offences of which you have been guilty have hardened and blinded your hearts . . . if to grant satisfaction to one or other of your passions you have sunk into evil ways ... Ah! when the motives or accomplices of your sin have forsaken you, and you realize the state of your soul, oh then, do not yield to despair! For as long as a breath of life remains a man may have recourse to mercy and ask for pardon.

    "If you are still young, if already the scandals of your life have lowered you in the eyes of the world, do not be afraid. . . . Even if there is reason to treat you as a criminal, to insult and cast you off . . . your God has no wish to see you fall into the flames of hell. ... On the contrary He ardently desires you to come to Him so that He may forgive you. If you dare not speak to Him, at least look at Him and let the sighs of your heart reach Him, and at once you will find His kind and fatherly hand stretched out to lead you to the springs of pardon and life.

    "Should it happen that you have spent the greater part of your life in impiety and indifference, and that the sudden approach of the hour of death fills you with blinding despair . . . Oh! do not let yourself be deceived, for there is still time for pardon. If only one second of life remains to you, in that one second you can buy back eternal life!"  (Words of Jesus to Sr. Josefa Menendez)

  And this author would certainly be remiss if in this discussion I did not mention the extraordinary private revelations concerning Divine Mercy given to the Polish nun, St. Faustina Kowalska. One could quote literally HUNDREDS of statements of Jesus given to her concerning His infinite mercy and forgiveness towards sinners, but this one is a good representation:

    "Today I am sending you [Sr. Faustina] with My mercy to the people of the whole world. I do not want to punish aching mankind, but I desire to heal it, pressing it to My merciful Heart. I use punishment when they themselves force me to do so; My hand is very reluctant to take hold of the sword of justice." (Jesus to St Faustina Kowalska)

  Nevertheless, all the quotes and mystical private revelations above are subject to fallibility, meaning that no mortal man knows for sure the proportion of those who go to heaven vs. hell. The Saints and Mystics in the quotes above are simply giving their perspectives and opinions based on their studies, or in some cases simply relating their mystical experiences. And concerning mystical experiences of hell, some mystics like St Faustina, St Veronica Giuliani and Sr. Josefa Menendez was were notorious for being taken in spirit on numerous trips to hell, while the children visionaries of Fatima were given a very chilling vision of hell, as were many other Mystics and Saints. And concerning her visits to hell, St Faustina wrote in her Diary:

    "I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the abyss of Hell so that I might tell souls about it, and testify to its existence...the devils were full of hatred... It is a place of great torture."

  And speaking of Fatima and hell, it is worth remembering that at Fatima we were taught by Heaven itself (by an Angel) to pray, 'Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need of Thy mercy.' - Percentage of souls who go to heaven vs. hell. How many are saved?

The percentage of souls that are saved are based on personal interpretation of their own visions.

St. Padre Pio often battled the Devil in his life.

  The devil, as you know, is a great architect of iniquity. He knows this all too well. Seeing that in you such a desire is much alive, he could try to trick you with some illusion and diabolical apparition, as an angel of light. This wretched apostate even knows how to disguise himself as a Capuchin monk and can play his role very well. Believe it, I beg of you, from someone who was subjected to a similar experience. It is enough for now that which I have said about this point. To me, it seems that I have said more than that which prudence would have requested... You wage war also with Satan, both directly – with his evil suggestions, and indirectly – by means of the world and our corrupt nature. Make this wretched apostate clamour – threatening at times even to swallow you. It does not matter. He can do nothing against your soul, which Jesus has already embraced close to Himself.” - Saint Pio of Pietrelcina

Most visionaries will say that there are many souls in Hell, but few will venture to say that most souls (or few for that matter) are damned to eternal punishment based on their own private revelations. Furthermore, St. Padre Pio actually believed that the majority of souls were saved.

  "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" - Close encounters of a special kind with Padre Pio: The Souls in Purgatory, The Guardian Angel, the devil.

More information may be gleaned from the following articles:

5 Saints Who Had Terrifying Visions of Hell
On July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima Showed a Vision of Hell and Taught Us How to Avoid It

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.” (John Martin, “Fallen Angels in Hell”, ca. 1841)


What proportion of global Christians belong to denominations that accept evolution?

Answering my own question just in case anybody cares about this topic. This is totally unscientific, just cobbled together from wikipedia and googling. I am still interested in hearing an actual figure from experts. I spent about 20 minutes going through wikipedia articles "Acceptance of evolution by religious groups" and "List of Christian denominations by number of members", plus googling for position statements for the major denominational groups.

Results: out of 2.42 billion Christians globally (I excluded LDS), at least 1.7 billion belong to denominations with official statements that allow for some kinds of "theistic" evolution as the mechanism for God's creation of humanity. The true figure is probably higher, almost certainly not lower (I only checked the groups with big membership- anyone I didn't check is by default being left out of the 1.7 billion figure.) As a percentage, at least 73% of global Christians belong to denominations which allow for some kind of evolution as the mechanism for the creation of humanity.


What is the origin of holding hands when praying around a circle before a meal?

Protestantism and Tradition

I'm coming at this answer from a Protestant perspective.  Since I've seen a variety of folk in my branch of Christianity hold hands during prayer, I'll assume you've been observing my people.  We've inherited from Paul a suspicion of traditional rites and practices.  When we do observe some custom, we are very likely to either:

create a post hoc justification, or
protest that the custom is not binding (and we can stop at any time).

I doubt either of these will be satisfactory to you, but maybe the sociological aspects will be of interest.

No Biblical justification

Laying hands on a person (especially when they are sent off to perform some ministry) has strong support in the practice of the early church.  Probably the earliest example is:

  These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.—Acts 6:6 (ESV)

That practice has roots in the life of Jesus and in Hebrew culture.  Of course, praying while putting one's hands on another isn't the same thing as joining hands.  We get a hint of the idea of holding hands from this mention in one of Paul's letters:

  and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.—Galatians 2:9 (ESV)

Again, this sounds more like a handshake than a prayer circle.  So the goto source for Protestants seems to be silent on this issue except that the posture of the hands can be important somehow.

Practicalities

There's a lot of stuff that Christians (and Protestants in particular) do for strictly practical reasons.  For instance, as far as I know the only reason we have lots of guitar in our worship services is that it's an easy instrument to learn well enough to make some semblance of music to accompany singing.  Churches are removing organs (the musical instrument, I mean) because it's getting harder to find decent organists.  So while you will still find Christians who think God only hears music accompanied by some sort of keyboard and that guitars are from the devil, most of us are more relaxed about the whole thing.  (Culture and the rejection thereof have a lot more to do with these attitudes than any sort of solid theology.)

When it comes to holding hands in prayer, I think there are several practical purposes:

It symbolizes that we are all equal before God and creates a sense of unity.  (See the Galatians passage above.)
It shows who is participating in the prayer.  (This can be helpful when praying at a restaurant to avoid the awkward situation of a server interrupting a prayer.)
When praying with small children, it ensures small hands are not making mischief while eyes are (theoretically) closed.
It allows for silent communication (a squeeze of the hand) during the prayer.

No doubt there are other considerations.  There's no hard and fast rules about posture in prayer, so it's not uncommon to have some participants holding hands while others place their arms over their neighbor's shoulders.  (I'm often the link between the two for some reason.)

The mind-body problem

Finally, I must find a way to quote C. S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters.  It's a work of fiction from the point of view of a demon writing to an underling about how to divert a man ("the patient") from God ("the Enemy").  This is Screwtape's advice about prayer:

  The best thing, where it is possible, is to keep the patient from the serious intention of praying altogether. When the patient is an adult recently re-converted to the Enemy's party, like your man, this is best done by encouraging him to remember, or to think he remembers, the parrot-like nature of his prayers in childhood. In reaction against that, he may be persuaded to aim at something entirely spontaneous, inward, informal, and unregularised; and what this will actually mean to a beginner will be an effort to produce in himself a vaguely devotional mood in which real concentration of will and intelligence have no part. One of their poets, Coleridge, has recorded that he did not pray "with moving lips and bended knees" but merely "composed his spirit to love" and indulged "a sense of supplication". That is exactly the sort of prayer we want; and since it bears a superficial resemblance to the prayer of silence as practised by those who are very far advanced in the Enemy's service, clever and lazy patients can be taken in by it for quite a long time. At the very least, they can be persuaded that the bodily position makes no difference to their prayers; for they constantly forget, what you must always remember, that they are animals and that whatever their bodies do affects their souls. It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.—The Screwtape Letters, Chapter 4.

In other words, we must orient our bodies toward God if we are to orient our minds and souls toward Him.  Christians don't have a precise requirement for how to do this, but we have traditions that we follow because they have that practical effect.


Did God create man to be gods themselves?

The answer to this depends very much on the concept of who God is in the first place.  If God is, as evangelical Christians believe, pre-existent, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal, then it would be impossible for there to ever be multiple gods that share all those attributes.

A created being cannot become uncreated.  A mortal being, or even an immortal being (that had a beginning but will live forever), cannot become eternal (without a beginning).

So, to whatever level of authority and power God would ever endow to mankind, we could never attain equality with God Himself.

In theology, we understand that there are communicable attributes and incommnicable attributes.  The likeness of God within us contains His communicable atrributes.  We are moral beings, intellectual beings, spiritual beings, etc.  Yet, we are not uncreated, eternal, self-existent beings.


What is the religious significance of Christmas lights?

Well, there certainly isn't anything in the Bible about it, for the simple reason that there isn't anything in the Bible about celebrating Christmas in the first place.  (Not to mention electricity!)  However, hanging or holding up lanterns to provide festive illumination after dark for festivals or celebrations is an ancient custom in many cultures, dating back to Old Testament days.  See the the Parable of the Ten Virgins for just one example.


A Christian that believe in one God and gives him no image. What kind of Christian is that?

Virtually all Christians consider Jesus to be the image of God because of this passage in Colossians 1:15-16

  The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

If you are concerned with the question of whether Jesus is actually God, rather than whether he is merely the image of God, then the word you are looking for is probably 'Unitarian'. Unitarians believe that Jesus is the best and ultimate prophet and messenger of God, but not actually God. There are other kinds of groups too, including 'Christadelphians'. If you want more specific information you would have to tell us more about what you believe. Unitarians and Christadelphians consider Jesus to be the image of God, for the reasons I said above.

If your Catholic priest never said at any time that Jesus Christ is God, then he either presumed you already knew that or, if you were of a different faith, didn't want to offend you by contradicting your faith. He almost certainly believed it himself.


If the premise for Marcion's Two Principles (Dualism) is correct; which words in the Bible belong to the Demiurge?

Short answer

Both Marcion of Sinope and the Cathars discerned scriptures by examining the words of Jesus and Paul's epistles (the Cathars also used the larger canon that became the New Testament) and searched for apparent contradictions with the Old Testament, especially in terms of the nature of God. It appears that given the number of contradictions, and the fact that the Old Testament was seen as a unified work from one God, they came to the conclusion that the entire Old Testament was the creation of a Creator God that was different than the God that Jesus talked about.

In Marcion of Sinope's case, he also revised the Gospel of Luke to remove Old Testament links to Jesus to further support his view that Jesus was of a different God.

Long Answer

First off, it's worth noting that Marcion of Sinope, despite his heresies, is recognized as one of the first to propose a definitive list of New Testament scriptures. His original testamentum (Latin for "Testament") included ten of Paul's epistles and the Gospel of the Lord, which scholars recognize as the Gospel of Luke, but with edits Marcion made to remove references linking Jesus to the Old Testament God. For instance, he removed the chapters on the Nativity, likely due to the affirmations that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. Marcion also seems to have been the first to make a clear separation between the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian writings, asserting that they were separate entities and not a continuation.

Marcion created a commentary delineating the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament along with commentary in a work titled Antithesis. That work has been lost to history, but scholar Daniel Mahar has created a rough reconstruction of it based on quotes from Marcion's critics (Mahar emphasizes several times that his version is loose and may not accurately reflect the actual contents of the original).

It appears that the general strategy Marcion used is to consider a New Testament passage, especially the words of Jesus, and find passages of the Old Testament that appear inconsistent with it. For instance, the New Testament passages:

  God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5b) God is love (1 John 4:16); [Love] thinketh no evil (1 Corinthians 13:5d).

Contrasting with the Old Testament passages:

  I form light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord Yahweh do all these things (Isaiah 45:7). Do they not err that devise evil? (Proverbs 14:22a)

(Note that not all Bible translations translate passages in this way. For instance, a number of translations of Isaiah 45:7 instead of "evil" have translations like "calamity", "woe", "disaster").

There were three major categories of contradictions that Marcion came to see between the Old Testament and New Testament:

The Creator God and the Supreme God

Of note, Marcion argues that creation is definitely the work of a God, and says that Jesus Christ revealed an "Old God", unknown to this creator God, who is more powerful, thus justifying why this Supreme God is apparently absent in the Old Testament.

The Inconsistencies of the Creator God

The Old Testament mentions God changing his mind (e.g. not destroying Ninevah after telling Jonah he would), and several passages could be interpreted as him having limited knowledge. In the Golden Calf incident, Marcion presents Moses as being better than the Old Testament God in convincing him not to have wrath on the people.

The Two Christs

The Old Testament prophecies suggested a more warlike Christ than what came. Thus the Creator God was promising one type of Christ while the Supreme God sent a different one in the form of Jesus.
Note that in Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, he changed passages to remove the idea that the Old Testament prophets talked about him, or were otherwise in line with his teachings. For instance, Marcion changed Luke 24:25 "O foolish and hard of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken" was changed to "O foolish and hard of heart to believe in all that I have told you".

As far as I can tell, Marcion considered that, since the Creator God seemed to be present in so much of the Old Testament, he was present in all of it, especially given that the Jewish authorities asserted that the entirety of the Old Testament was about the Creator God.

Regarding the similar Catharism movement that came later, surviving works such as The Book of Two Principles indicated that they followed a similar hermeneutic of trying to find differences between the portrayal of God in the Old and New Testament and attributing them to two Gods, a good one of the spiritual realm and an evil one of the material realm, i.e. creation.


Is there a Christian counterpart to practical kabbalah?

Esoteric Christianity historically taught "theurgy" or divine magic.  Modern practitioners incorporate "Eastern" or "New Age" beliefs such as like reincarnation, inner energy, magic, astrology, etc.  I would say it shares a lot in common with Kabbalah.


What are the responses to the "Radical's Critics" argument concerning Genesis 1 and 2?

Since you didn't specify which perspective you're looking for (other than the view of skeptics, which is off-topic considering this site is meant to cover what Christian groups teach), I'm going to provide an answer from a Fundamentalist view - one that holds Scripture to be inspired, inerrant, and infallible.

Before doing so, I need to point out, however, that this site is not here to discuss which view is correct.  We're here to provide answers about what is taught, and believed, not whether the teaching or belief is valid.  I'm going to stick strictly to that guideline here.

Also, There are plenty of Christians that regard the Genesis account as allegory, rather than as actual recorded history. The view is that the Genesis account is along the lines of one of Aesop's fables (or maybe as one of Jesus' parables) - a fictional story with a teaching purpose.  For those that hold such a view, the idea that there is an apparent discrepancy doesn't at all pose a problem.  It wouldn't affect  the doctrine of inspiration at all.  A discrepancy here would only affect those who hold to a literal interpretation of the genesis account (A.K.A. Young-Earth Creationists).  For Young-Earth Creationists, this would pose a problem.

But again, I remind you that this site is not here to debate "who's right".  The answer I'm about to give is not intended to convince anyone that there is no discrepancy, that the Y.E.C. view is correct, etc.  It is merely to provide the answer that would come from someone with that particular perspective.

(That's a lot of disclaimers.  Sorry about that, it's often necessary on this site with this topic.)

Part 1: Is there a discrepancy?

The typical answer to this apparent discrepancy uses common Apologetic rules for resolving apparent discrepancies.  Those rules are summarized on another question on this site:  Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.  These rules are designed to avoid logical fallacies, and keep both sides honest.

Summarizing the ones relevant to this question:

In all logical arguments, the burden of proof must be on the person that is claiming that something exists.

It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something, because you'd have to know everything.  It is possible to claim that something exists because you need only find one example as proof.
If we were discussing "Does God exist" the burden of proof would be on the Christian to prove His existence.
In this case, the question is "does a discrepancy exist?" so the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is a discrepancy.

If a single plausible explanation for the discrepancy exists, then you have not proved a discrepancy.  the explanation may not be personally convincing to you, but that is irrelevant.  (And again, on this site, we're not here to convince you.)
Many Biblical discrepancies are resolved by simply understanding the context of the passages.  Failure to understand context of certain passages is by far the most common cause of misunderstandings.

With that, let's take a look at how CARM - an organization that meets all of the criteria for being Young-Earth creationists that hold to a literal interpretation of the genesis account, including Books one and two.  On their article on this question, they list all of the apparent discrepancies, and then provide the following answer:

  There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a
  detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis
  two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the
  day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4,
  "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were
  created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then,
  Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in
  verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is
  found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the
  creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated
  by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was
  created.

Creation.com puts it like this (One quote out of a rather large article):

  Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory
  accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is
  a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of
  creation.

Thus showing that the apparent contradiction could plausibly be simply a misunderstanding of the context, ignoring that the two accounts are given for a different purpose.

With a plausible explanation, we cannot, while remaining intellectually honest, say that a contradiction exists.  No contradiction has been proven.  You can find the explanation personally unsatisfying, and unconvincing, and still believe that a contradiction exists, but that is a different thing than proving a contradiction.

So at best, you can have an unsubstantiated belief that there is a contradiction here.  Last time I checked, skeptics were pretty smug about not adhering to unsubstantiated beliefs.

Part 2: What is the Radical's Critics case?

The Radical Critics case is, therefore, a flawed argument based on logical fallacy and a misinterpretation of the context.

The statement

  “When it is realized that there are two distinct creation stories in
  Genesis belonging to two different periods and derived from two
  different sources, inconsistency becomes intelligible. That it exists
  at all, however, is sufficient to discredit a theory of divine
  inspiration that is obviously out of accord with the facts.”

is rendered moot by the application of consistent rules of interpretation as demonstrated above, as applied to the extreme literal view of Genesis.

It's even more ignorant when you factor in the fact that many Christians believe the creation account to be allegorical with no impact on the doctrine of inerrancy.  Even for fundamentals, the existence of allegory, hyperbole, and other literary devices has no impact on the doctrine of inerrancy.  The arguments put forth claiming that a difference in the two accounts invalidates the inerrancy doctrine is a clear example of the straw-man logical faccacy.

All in all, the arguments hold no water and are easily shown to be ignorant, at best, or intentionally using straw-man arguments while ignoring basic logic at worst.  Either way, they hold no validity when examined without the use of logical fallacy.


According to Catholicism, why did the Blessed Mother stay a virgin during her pregnancy with Jesus?

An answer from catholic church teaching to satisfy your curiosity regarding

  Why was Jesus born of a Virgin instead of just being conceived of a Virgin?

Short answer: she was conforming her will to God's.  This short answer is supported by the following points that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does a decent job of explaining.

It is worth noting that she was fulfilling the prophesy in Isaiah Chapter 7, but that may not directly bear on your question:

  13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for
  you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?  14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive,
  and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

I. CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

  CCC 484 The Annunciation to Mary inaugurates "the fullness of time", the time of the fulfilment of God's promises and preparations.  Mary was invited to conceive him in whom the "whole fullness of deity" would dwell "bodily". The divine response to her question, "How can this be, since I know not man?", was given by the power of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you."  { ~ As told in Luke, Chapter 1 ~ }

No carnal act was necessary for conception.  Since she had not had (per scripture) carnal acts before conception, there's little reason to believe that she'd change her habits and begin to have carnal acts afterwards, particularly when she understands that she's about to become filled with the Holy Spirit1.  From Luke 1:38

  38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.”

I've seen some translations render that as "according to thy will."

What is God's will in this case?

Remembering that Catholic belief is Trinitarian, the Holy Spirit's acts align with God's will by default.

  485 The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the Son. The Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of Life", is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

So far, after conception and before birth, no sin touches the vessel that bears Christ up to the point of birth.  Since Mary is aware that something very special is going on, and she has assented to God's will in this, it is unreasonable to conclude that she would start having sex once all of the above took place and she had conceived by the Holy Spirit.   (That answers why the Blessed Mother refrained from sex even after the incarnation).

  CCC 507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother.  By preaching and Baptism she {the Church} brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life.

The above is supported by theological teaching and scripture as follows:
Lumen Gentium 63; 1 Corinthians 7:34-35; St. Augustine, De Virginante. 3: PL 40, 398; Lumen Gentium 64; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III q. 28 a. 2; Luke Chapter 1.

Given her commitment to God's will in this, remaining virgin is both a matter of consistency, and a way that Mary fulfills her role as the model of faith and adherence to will of God that the Church is to follow.

1 Matthew 1: 24-25 shows Mary still being a virgin at the time of birth, and with the marriage not being consummated until afterwards.


See my answer to the question about the firmament.  Calling it a "vault" is a bad translation of the Hebrew word, which connotes something thin and stretched out to cover a wide area.  God placed an expanse between the waters that were on the Earth (rivers, oceans, lakes, etc) and the waters that were above the earth (clouds).

When the Flood came, all we know is that all the water that was necessary to do the job was employed to flood the Earth.  we aren't told where it came from. I've heard speculation that, as this was a miraculous and unique event, God could have brought in extra water that doesn't ordinarily belong to Earth and then sent it away again. But that's just speculation, and we don't really have any way of knowing for sure.


What scripture is used to support a "Pre-Tribulation Rapture"?

It's a combination of a couple of things.

First, there's a passage in Matthew 24:38-41:

  For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking,
  marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
  and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and
  took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of
  Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other
  left.  Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken
  and the other left.

Dispensationalists take this to mean that the Christian will be taken, and the non-Christian will be left.  This passage from Matthew is taken to refer to the same incident that will happen according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

  For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command,
  with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of
  God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.  Then we who are alive,
  who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to
  meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

According to this viewpoint, this is the same incident referred to in the "rescuing" in Jeremiah 30:7:

  Alas, what a terrible time of trouble it is! There has never been any
  like it. It is a time of trouble for the descendants of Jacob, but
  some of them will be rescued out of it.

That is, they'll be saved from the tribulation.  Revelation 3:10 echoes this:

  Because you have kept my admonition to endure steadfastly, I will also
  keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come on the whole
  world to test those who live on the earth.

Thessalonians 1:10 is also taken to refer to this time:

  and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead,
  Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

So these verses are all taken to mean the same time period, namely, the saving of the elect from having to go through the tribulation. All of these verses feed into the idea that we will be saved from the tribulation before it happens.

Incidentally, this interpretation was first systematized by John Nelson Darby in the 1800's.  The reason it's such a popular viewpoint in America today, is because of Darby's work on the Scofield Study Bible, which was the first study Bible to be published in the United States.  Since it's Darby's interpretation of Revelation that is present within the study Bible, many people viewed this interpretation as the "de-facto" interpretation of Revelation and eschatology in general.

Personally, I tend not to agree with these points (I'm an amillenialist), but having had grown up with this viewpoint, I figured I'm somewhat qualified to answer.


The Catholic Church does not forbid her faithful to follow any kind of dietary restrictions; the only restrictions she places on faithful are the fasting requirements during Lent — which, recently, are only obligatory in Ash Wednesday and Good Friday — and the abstinence of meat on Wednesdays and Fridays, or as directed by the country's Conference of Bishops. The details are in the Code of Canon Law, Canons 1250–1253.

The Orthodox Church also prescribes fasting on Great Lent, which is a period similar to Catholic Lent but starting from Clean Monday, which is the Monday before Ash Wednesday when Easter happens to coincide between East and West, and is similarly displaced relative to Ash Wednesday as much as Julian and Gregorian Easter Sundays are displaced when they don't coincide. In this period, Orthodox follow an essentially vegan diet, and are forbidden from wine and olive oil in a few of those days, in addition. Finally, Eastern Orthodox monks and nuns are on this Great Lenten diet permanently, as soon as they join the monastery.

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo follow Jewish custom for ethnic reasons: they maintain they have Jewish ancestry from the time of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.

Finally, Reformed generally don't fast even in Lent, or if they do, they do so individually according to each person's conscience. The Heidelberg Catechism, for instance, makes no mention at all of fasting, diet or food (except for a section on the Lord's Supper).


In what way does the author of Hebrews argue that every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution?

The note in NAB explains this:

  The author now makes a transition into exhortation, using an a fortiori argument (as at Heb 7:21–22; 9:13–14; 10:28–29; 12:25). The word announced through angels (Heb 2:2), the Mosaic law, is contrasted with the more powerful word that Christians have received (Heb 2:3–4). Christ’s supremacy strengthens Christians against being carried away from their faith.

There is also a reference to Acts 7:38, 53; Gal 3:19.

  Acts 7:38 It was he who, in the assembly in the desert, was with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai and with our ancestors, and he received living utterances to hand on to us.
  39 “Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside and in their hearts turned back to Egypt,
  40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will be our leaders. As for that Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’
  41 So they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifice to the idol, and reveled in the works of their hands. ...

The letter to the Hebrews is directed to an audience familiar with the Old Testament. The author is calling to mind all the past retributions for transgressions against the Mosaic law. "If then it was so, when God announced it through angels, will it not be all the more so now, since it has been announced through Christ Himself?"


The comforter is the Holy Spirit according to John 14:26

  But the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
  in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
  your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Q: "Jesus say that if I go then the comforter will come but the Holy Spirit was already there with Jesus, so how come the comforter is Holy Spirit?"

We know that Jesus was baptised in the Holy Spirit from John 3:16.  But, where Jesus goes, the Holy Spirit goes with him.

Jesus said in John 16:7

  "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
  away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
  if I depart, I will send him unto you."

The key words here are "come unto".

Come - erchomai (meaning from one place to another, to go, to follow
one)
Unto - pros (meaning to the advantage of, at, near, by, towards)

So essentially it means, this.  That the Holy Spirit is with Jesus, but when he assends to the father (after his death and resurrection) he will send the Holy Spirit to be with all believers.  Or to follow all believers.

  1 Cor 6:19 - 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the
  Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your
  own?

Still not convinced that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit?

  John 14:17 - "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
  because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he
  dwells with you, and shall be in you."

The only one we're told that would dwell IN us is The Holy Spirit.  The context of the entire passage is talking about the Holy Spirit.  The Comforter IS the Holy Spirit.  There is none other.  The comforter and Jesus are very much the same character.  Jesus said many times if you know me, you know my father also.  The Holy Spirit exhibits the same character.  If you know Jesus you know the Holy Spirit also.  Do you know him?


1 Corinthians 11:18, what kind of divisions actually?

In Corinth, it's thought that the rich and the poor in the church were quite divided.  When they came together, it was in the same place, but, the rich who didn't work long hours would come early, and bring much food, and feast.  The poor, only after working, would come, but they would have only meagre food.  Paul is saying that this lack of sharing, this unconcern for the other members of "Christ's body"—i.e. the other members of the church, means the church is not celebrating "the Lord's Supper" but something else.  Unity among believers and care for one another, across all divides, including socioeconomic—and by extension, ethnic and gender etc., is expected if the church is the "Lord's body" and how we relate to one another in the church is very important to the Lord.  When Paul mentions a person who does "neglects the Lord's body" he's not talking about the communion elements but the relationships between church members.


Why did Jesus say the Son of Man was Lord over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man?

I think you are getting hung up on Son of Man being a divine title. We take it as that, but it doesn't mean that fundamentally. It means something along the lines of the Ideal Man, the Best Man, the Representitive Man. It doesn't imply divinity.

Jesus' point then is that the Sabbath was created for the good of people. That's how the CEV translates it. JB Phillips translates it "for the sake of man". In other words the purpose of Man is not to keep the Sabbath - the purpose of the Sabbath is to keep Man operating as (s)he should.

Because of this, Jesus is saying, if the rules of the Sabbath are actually getting in the way of people doing the right thing, then they should be changed and Man has the power to do that. It should of course be noted that the precise details of what was permitted on the Sabbath were not direct commands of God; the violation was only of the current interpretation of what constituted Sabbath-breaking.


How is the resurrected Jesus related to the Trinity?

According to Nicene Christianity, the answer is simple: Jesus is the same being and person from the moment of his incarnate conception through to his life on earth, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven. That is, the second person of the Godhead, the Son of God, took on a complete human nature, which was united to the divine nature in his person, or hypostasis, hence the hypostatic union. The humanity of Christ did not exist prior to the incarnation, so it is confusing at best if not misleading to say that the Son of God "incorporated the humanity of Jesus", as a normal English reading of that phrase would infer that the humanity of Jesus existed prior to being united to the divine nature.  The person of the Son of God died in his human nature, and then was raised back to life in his human nature, which he continues to possess after the ascension.


Where can one buy a new physical copy of a full (OT & NT) Protestant RSV where its NT is of '71?

The New Oxford Annotated Bible contains the 1971 RSV New Testament text (not the RSVCE).  As far as I know it is still in print - and available on Amazon.

It does contain the Deuterocanonical books set off in an appendix and labeled as "Apocrypha".


Does Catholicism Have Anything to Say About 'Physical Evil'?

You're asking for a quick answer for a complex and hard question, as I'm sure you are well aware.

I find that natural selection can be used as an theodicy, if one if willing to reject design arguements (arguments which Thomists reject anyway).

For example, on can cite Dr. Richard Dawkins on the benefits of natural selection in order to justify animal suffering (without that suffering, the goods of natural selection wouldn't arise). And who doesnt enjoy citing Dr. Dawkins as a defence for Theism? ;-)

Overall, although suffering is in itself ontologically evil, it can be, in the context of our fallen world, justified, as in this fallen world, suffering is necessary for great good (suffering is good per accidens). For example, the good of martyrdom cannot exist without suffering, and more importantly, the massive good of God becoming Man would not have happened without the Fall. This all works under St. Augustine's argument that if suffering can point to a greater good, it can be justified. In other words, as long as we realize that perfect goodness cannot arise without suffering ("your salvation was bought with a price"), the AFE doesn't work against Christian theology, unless the proponent of the AFE finds a meaningless evil in which no good can come, which it seems only a omniscient person can ultimately know.

You may wish to meditate on these articles by a Latin Catholic philosopher:

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/on-a-repugnant-presentation-of-the-argument-from-evil/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/the-afe-utopia-and-the-cross/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/tinkering-around-with-a-new-theodicy-argument/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-argument-from-evil-in-the-gospel/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/job-and-the-argument-from-evil/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/assumptions-in-arguments-from-evil/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/gratuitous-evil-would-be-good-for-atheism/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/?s=Argument+from+evil&submit=Search

Christi pax.


Is there a Biblical basis for the concept of being allowed to "be angry with God" or "tell him just how we feel"

Job.

Job, who is afflicted by The Accuser, spends most of the book shuttling between anger and faith. He remains steadfast, though he does not shy away from expressing his displeasure at the injustices heaped upon him.

His friends, who express all the typically pious nonsense you still hear today from Christians trying to be helpful, are of no help:

You must have done something bad, or else this wouldn't have happened
to you.
God has a plan for your life.
You need to repent.

All of their babbling misses the point, which is that suffering is inevitable, anger toward God is perfectly reasonable (He can take it), and that - FINALLY - the purposes of God are ultimately mysterious and behind our comprehension.

God reveals Himself to Job toward the end of the book, and delivers the longest divine monologue in the Scriptures - the most God has to say about His own nature anywhere in the Bible. And it's quite the speech: "Gird up your loins like a man, and face me." (Or, as I would have rendered it: Put on your BIG BOY panties, Job - things are getting real up in here.)

One way of looking at God's EPIC rebuke of Job might be that his reaction was blasphemous and he needed to be punished or corrected. But I find this a very immature and incomplete reading of the text, especially considering Job's ultimate vindication.

In my view, the better way of understanding this account is to realize that it is through the midst of Job's own dealing with his anger - honestly - with God, that he finally has a Theophanic (God Revealing) experience.

Job reveals his innermost self to God, and God responds by revealing Himself to Job.

You, too, can come before The Lord in your anger, or fear, or despair. You cannot hide from the almighty, whether you fly up to heaven or make your bed in hell. Only by offering your anger, yourself, to God will you ever be able to let go of it.

Your question has evolved to include "and let him know it."

Do not forget that God ALREADY KNOWS. Expressing your anger at God is not about informing the All-knowing Master of the Universe of something. It is, rather, about you coming to grips with your own anger in the presence of the Lord.


Jewish Festival of Lights and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception?

Not a Church Father, possibly not a Church writer, but good enough for Mel Gibson, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich had a vision that was recorded in "The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary". Wherein it is written:

All that has so far been recorded of the blessing given to Joachim and Anna is compiled from visions and reminiscences of Catherine Emmerich during the feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. She explained, however, on that day in the year 1821 that the meeting of Joachim and Anna under the Golden Gate did not occur in December but in the autumn, at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles (which lasted from the 15th to 23rd of the month Tisri, i.e. in September or October).   Thus she saw Joachim building tabernacles with his shepherds before going to the Temple, and Anna receiving the promise of fruitfulness while she was praying under a tree which formed a tabernacle. In the previous year, 1820, she had, however, stated that she remembered Joachim having gone up to Jerusalem with his offerings on the occasion of a dedication festival. This cannot be the usual Jewish dedication feast in the winter (the 25th day of the month, Kislev), but must doubtless be a memorial festival of Solomon’s dedication of the Temple
Life of Mary

So yes, there was some mention of Mary's Immaculate Conception being close to the the Haunakah
And she does address the rebuilding of the temple, which did take a long time:

I never remember seeing that Herod entirely rebuilt the Temple: I only saw various alterations being made in it during his reign. Now, when Mary came to the Temple, eleven years before Christ’s birth, nothing was being built in the Temple itself, but (as always) in the outer portions of it: here the work never stopped.
At the Incarnation of Christ the Blessed Virgin was a little over fourteen years old

She also had visions of Joachim and Anne meeting at the temple well before 20 B.C. which isn't by any means wrong since they were just beefing up the temple that the Maccabees rededicated.
I was reading Bl. Anne Catherine's visions trying to find something that didn't quite jibe with the historical accounts of the rebuilding of the temple specifically, but I'm not sure there's anything that doesn't match up.  She didn't however connect the Immaculate Conception to anything Herod was doing.
Except, for one thing, which might be a stretch, that the Ark of the Covenant, being missing from the temple when it was rebuilt was there all along in Mary!
Also, Jimmy Akin has some interesting research into the various years that Jesus may have been born in.  Placing His birth at 2 or 3 B.C. as a more likely guess.  Doing a dangerous thing and mixing the visions with the archaeology places The Immaculate Conception at 17 or 18 B.C. which is consistent.
I was thinking "Hard Hat Area", but apparently the temple wasn't entirely cut off from regular folks at the time:

The laity could not enter certain parts of the building, therefore 1000 Levites were specially trained as builders and masons, and carried out their work so efficiently and carefully that at no time was there any interruption in the sacrifices and other services.
https://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/JEWISH_TEMPLEHerods_Temple00000006.htm


Martin Luther did not condemn pilgrimages as much as several other practices but his loathing of pilgrimages is quite clear in his writings. As with many things in the reformation, Luther's earlier writings moderately condemn the practice and then his comments tend to become more severe as the reformation matured.

Early in the reformation, Luther attributed pilgrimages to primarily an indicator of 'boredom' and 'lack of responsibility' to one's own church and family:

  Those who make pilgrimages do so for many reasons, very seldom for legitimate ones. The first reason for making pilgrimages is the most common of all, namely, the curiosity to see and hear strange and unknown things. This levity proceeds from a loathing for and boredom with the worship services, which have been neglected in the pilgrims’ own church. Otherwise one would find incomparably better indulgences at home than in all the other places put together. Furthermore, he would be closer to Christ and the saints if he were not so foolish as to prefer sticks and stones to the poor and his neighbors whom he should serve out of love. And he would be closer to Christ also if he were to provide for his own family. (Luther's Works Volume 31.198)

Later, Luther thought the desire to go on pilgrimages might indicate which kingdom you belonged to, God's or the Devil's. Luther thought those who had real faith would give themselves up to God, However there were some great errors in evaluating yourself to determine if you have given your life to God and the first error implicates the idea of a 'pilgrimage':

  The first is committed by those who run hither and yon for the purpose of becoming righteous, of entering God’s kingdom, and of being saved. The one runs to Rome, the other to St. James; one builds a chapel, another donates this, still another one that. However, they refuse to face the true issue, that is, they will not give their inmost self to God and thus become his kingdom. They perform many outward works which glitter very nicely, but inwardly they remain full of malice, anger, hatred, pride, impatience, unchastity, etc.
  It is against them that Christ spoke when he was asked when the kingdom of God was coming, “The kingdom of God does not come with outward signs or appearances; for behold, the kingdom of God is within you” [Luke 17:20–21]. Christ also says in Matthew 24 [:23–24], “If anyone says to you, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ do not believe it.

  Those whom God has commanded a man to keep in body and soul he leaves behind, and wants to serve God in some place or another, something that was never commanded. No bishop forbids and no preacher rebukes such a perverse practice. In fact, in the interests of their own covetousness the clergy endorse such practices. Every day they think up more and more pilgrimages, canonizations of saints, and indulgence fairs. May God have mercy on such blindness!  (Luther's Works Volume 44.86, 1520)

As is usual with Luther, as the reformation progressed we find his blasts against the practice more severe.  He personally ties in pilgrimages together with the practice of those travelers visiting prostitutes, meeting up for 'sex'. It is not clear if the 'getting together' for 'sex' in reference to the Pope is also bound together Luther's claim of practiced sodomy among clergy, or not: (See this post for Sodomy references).

  “Every false religion is contaminated by libidinous desires. Just keep an eye on sex. What were pilgrimages [under the papacy] but opportunities to get together? What does the pope do now but besmirch himself unceasingly with lust? In order that they might satisfy lust the more, well-situated places, beautiful fountains, trees, hills, and rivers were sought out for pilgrimages.
  “The heathen held marriage in more honor than the pope and the Turk. The pope hates it; the Turk despises it. It is the devil’s custom to hate the works of the Lord. He’s hostile to whatever God holds dear—the church, marriage, government. He’d like to have whoredom and uncleanness, for if he does, he knows very well that people will no longer trouble themselves about God.”  (Luther's Works Volume 54.422, 1542)


The common interpretation for all Trinitarian Christian denominations are as follows:

John 16:8-11 : Jesus is referring to His still being in a human (bodily) form, but He will later send His Spirit (who is essentially the same as God the Father's Spirit) to "stand in" as Comforter for His disciples just in the way He was while in bodily form on earth before His Resurrection and Ascension.  But the dialog was set before crucifixion, so the 3 facts (sin, righteousness, judgment) were not yet clear.  At Resurrection Jesus 1) received glory because the Father raised him from the dead and 2) defeated death and Satan.  At Ascension Jesus 3) sat at the right hand of the Father.  And at Pentecost His Spirit came.

The Holy Spirit is the one who shows the world those 3 facts, testifying to what Jesus did to 1) convict the world of sin, 2) making righteousness available (because now Jesus is our High Priest in the heavenly temple interceding for us), and 3) pronouncing judgment to those allying themselves with Satan (Satan was defeated at Resurrection).   We are now in the era between Pentecost and Second coming where Satan is still allowed to rule the world, although his power is diminished, and the "underground resistance force" through the church is growing.

About judgment: In the "first coming" Jesus didn't come as a judge, but there is language in John about "pre-judgment" for those who didn't accept Jesus as the Son of God.  The "definitive" and "public" judgment will happen at the Second Coming when Jesus will come again, this time in glory, and all the world (saved and not saved alike) will see who are really the children of God and who are not.  See a more comprehensive explanation with Bible references here.
John 16:13: This Spirit is a person and therefore the language in John Gospel reflects this, as what the doctrine of the Trinity says.
John 14:16-17: You are correct in that the Spirit in this passage refers to the Holy Spirit who is eternal.  John's focus is to show how the world rejected the incarnate Word of God (Jesus) who came to the world created through Him but who didn't recognize Him (John 1:10-12).  The world didn't believe that Jesus was sent by the Father, and consequently the world didn't accept the Father either (despite the Pharisee's claims to know the Father better than Jesus, and who in fact executed Jesus thinking that they were doing the will of the Father).  That's what John meant by "neither sees him nor knows him", because the world did see Jesus physically, but not spiritually.  Only those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God will have the Holy Spirit living in their heart.


Are there examples of royal Orthodox saints (not martyrs) who have executed people?

I think most Byzantine emperors oversaw at least some executions as a part of their civil duty. It appears that both Justinian and Constantine ordered executions that are controversial to some and both are saints in the Eastern Orthodox church (however Constantine would have ordered these executions before his baptism). Look at the Wiki pages for each and you will see the executions mentioned.

They were also both commanders of armies that carried out large military campaigns.

The important thing to note here is that the Church didn't command, or participate in the executions and that they were carried out as the business of government. Also, neither were clergy in the Church nor are these executions mentioned in their hagiographies. However, some military accomplishments are.


In what sense do Mormons believe salvation is only through Christ?

A Prophet in the Book of Mormon Proclaims:

  And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

-Mosiah 3:17

Mormons believe that salvation is only attainable through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, however they believe that a full understanding of the Gospel as revealed through Joseph Smith is necessary in order to attain full salvation. This view was expressed by the late Apostle David B. Haight:

  Our understanding, belief, and faith in [Joseph Smith's first vision] of God the Father and His Only Begotten Son appearing to Joseph, thereby ushering in this final dispensation with its great and precious truths, is essential to our eternal salvation. Salvation comes only through Christ. Joseph Smith is the instrument or revealer of that knowledge, divinely called to teach of the terms and conditions of the Father's plan and given the keys of salvation for all mankind.

-Speech given at Brigham Young University, March 2, 1986 (Emphasis Added)

The Book of Doctrine and Covenants also affirms:

  For we saw him [Jesus Christ], even on the right hand of God; and we heard [a] voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father — that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

-Section 76: Vs 23-24

The plurality of worlds here has led some church leaders to suggest that Christ is not only the means of salvation for this earth, but also for many other worlds. There has been no official doctrine as to Christ's significance in other realms beyond our own, however statements seem to support a strong opinion that he does indeed play a significant role.

As far as why Mormons believe Christ is the only one who can provide salvation for us stems from the fact that the teachings of Joseph Smith are not solely based on works he produced, but also on the Bible. Mormons do not reject the Bible outright, and believe firmly in all the declarations pertaining to Christ and his providence of salvation. One particular unambigous passage Mormons have no reason to reject is the following:

  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

-John 14:16

Implications that some Mormon doctrines may hold are speculated upon wildly in both Mormon and Non-Mormon literature, yet there has never been official doctrine regarding them. There have never been statements by any leader implying that anyone except our own God and Savior Jesus Christ can provide salvation, and such would contradict not only Mormon literature but also that of the Bible. We can conclude, therefore, that despite the Mormon belief in a plurality of Gods as taught by Joseph Smith, they continually affirm a strong belief in the necessity of Christ's Atonement to attain salvation for all of God's children. God here referring to the Heavenly Father of all mankind. Mormon references to a supreme creator always refers to him and none else. The affairs of other Gods have never been revealed nor have they ever been spoken of by any of the leadership. The reality and necessity of Christ and his atonement has been repeatedly emphasized by them, however.


According to the Bible, how should Christians meditate?

Please excuse me for a large answer, in my opinion this question is really hard to answer in several words.

Althought there are many references to "meditation" in Bible, however, word "meditation" should be used very carefully here, to be not confused with meditation practice in eastern religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism.

We Christians should listen to the Church, the only authority of faith on the Earth. And both Catholic and Orthodox Church warns about mixing prayer with any New Age practicies.

Catholic Church about meditation

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian meditation

  "This document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
  stresses the differences between Christian and eastern meditative
  approaches. It warns of the dangers of attempting to mix Christian
  meditation with eastern approaches since that could be both confusing
  and misleading, and may result in the loss of the essential
  Christocentric nature of Christian meditation.

  The letter warns that "euphoric states" obtained through Eastern
  meditation should not be confused with prayer or assumed to be signs
  of the presence of God, a state that should always result in loving
  service to others. Without these truths, the letter said, meditation,
  which should be a flight from the self, can degenerate into a form of
  self-absorption. The letter warns against concentration on the self,
  rather than on Christ, and states that:

  Christian prayer, ..., the communion of redeemed creatures with the
  intimate life of the Persons of the Trinity, based on Baptism and the
  Eucharist, source and summit of the life of the Church, implies an
  attitude of conversion, a flight from "self" to the "You" of God. Thus
  Christian prayer is at the same time always authentically personal and
  communitarian. It flees from impersonal techniques or from
  concentrating on oneself, which can create a kind of rut.

  The letter also warns that concentration on the physical aspects of
  meditation "can degenerate into a cult of the body" and that equating
  bodily states with mysticism "could also lead to psychic disturbance
  and, at times, to moral deviations."

A Christian reflection on the New Age, a six year study by the Roman Catholic Church on the New Age movement

  The document states that for Christians, the spiritual life is a
  relationship with God. It criticizes Eastern meditation and states
  that all meditation techniques need to be purged of presumption and
  pretentiousness. It states that Christian prayer is not an exercise in
  self-contemplation, stillness and self-emptying, but a dialogue of
  love, one which "implies an attitude of conversion, a flight from
  'self' to the 'you' of God".

Orthodox Church about meditation

Easter meditation from the point of Orthodoxy and Science

  The pursuit of imaginary grace of peace leads to irreparable spiritual
  losses: "painlessness of a heart dazzles the mind" (St. John of the
  Ladder, The ladder of divine ascent 7:13). We can find a confirmation
  of this idea in the words of St. Peter of Damascus: "Lowliness of mind
  is a product of intellect, and intellect is a product of temptations".
  Optina elder Hieroschemamonk Makarios said that if we want to be
  glorified with the Lord, then we must suffer with Him, we must suffer
  with everything that He wills send to us.

Orthodoxy and the Faith of Future, monk-priest Seraphim Exposes that Transcendental meditation, introduced in USA by Maharishi, contains secret initiation as a pagan Guru worshipping cult

Christian meditation

A great article on that point in Wikipedia lists several practical approaches:

Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola

  Within the Exercises, daily instructions include various meditations
  and contemplations on the nature of the world, of human psychology as
  Ignatius understood it, and of man's relationship to God through Jesus
  Christ. The Exercises is divided into "four weeks" of varying lengths
  with four major themes: sin, the life of Jesus, the Passion of Jesus
  and the Resurrection of Jesus. During each day of the Exercises, a
  typical retreatant prays with a particular exercise, as assigned by
  the director, reviews each prayer, and, following four or five periods
  of prayer, reports back to the spiritual director of the retreat who
  helps them to understand what these experiences of prayer might mean
  to the retreatant. The goal of the Exercises is to reflect upon their
  experiences and to understand how these same experiences might apply
  to the retreatant's life.

Camino de Perfección (The Way of Perfection) of St. Teresa of Avila

  Her starting point was the practice of "recollection", i.e. keeping
  the senses and the intellect in check and not allowing them to stray.
  In her meditations, one generally restricts attention to a single
  subject, principally the love of God. In The Way of Perfection she
  wrote: "It is called recollection because the soul collects together
  all the faculties and enters within itself to be with God". She would
  use devices such as short readings, a scene of natural beauty or a
  religious statue or picture to remind her to keep her focus. She wrote
  that in due course, the mind naturally learns to maintain focus on God
  almost effortlessly. St. Theresa viewed Christian meditation as the
  first of four steps in achieving "union with God", and used the
  analogy of watering the garden. She compared basic meditation to
  watering a garden with a bucket, Recollection to the water wheel,
  Quiet (contemplation) to a spring of water and Union to drenching
  rain.

St. Francis de Sales

  In the preparation part, one places oneself in the presence of God
  and asks the Holy Spirit to direct the prayer, as in the Epistle to
  the Romans[8:26]: "The Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not
  know what to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with
  sighs too deep for words."  In the consideration part, one focuses
  on a specific topic, e.g. a passage from the Bible.  In the
  affections and resolutions part, one focuses on feelings and makes a
  resolution or decision. For instance, when meditating on the Parable
  of the Good Samaritan one may decide to visit someone sick and be kind
  to them.  In the conclusion part, one gives thanks and praise to God
  for the considerations and asks for the grace to stand by the
  resolution.

20th century

  The 20th century has also witnessed a new focus on Biblical
  meditation. These may be defined as: "the devotional practice of
  pondering the words of a verse or verses of Scripture with a receptive
  heart."
  Modern Biblical meditations may be designed to relate and connect the
  Biblical message to the modern world.
  Such Biblical meditations may correspond to specific seasons such as
  Lent with the meditation topic selected to interact with two or three
  readings of the Bible during weekdays or Sundays of Lent.
  The meditation sequence may begin by a summary of the Bible reading,
  then suggest specific ideas for meditation, then conclude with an
  appropriat prayer.
  Such meditations may also be designed not just for "strong seasons"
  such as Lent or Easter, but also for Ordinary Time.
  In the 20th century methods of Christian meditations have been taught
  using relatively new devotions such as the Divine Mercy devotion.


Is there a biblical ban on running a casino?

Christianity is freedom, freedom from the Law (10 commandements, which created the notion of sin, without that law, there is no sin), freedom from the judgement. But a christians are a different species, they are not human, they are christian, not born through Adam but born through Christ (by the baptism), as an apple tree only produce apples what we produce cannot be called sin (for we don't belong that category), Adam 's sin is not in us, at least for those who really believe (faith is not mesurable).

I'm saying you are free to run a casino. But you will be naturally incline to stop yourself those of your consumers that are addicted and ruining their lifes and their families with gambling. Nobody can tell you what are you doing is wrong, but same as an apple tree that only can produce apples, your nature (you) will feel bad from continuing to take money from those who are addicted gamblers (and are having problems because of that, if your consumer is a billionaire and gambling is something he like to do and have no problems from that, it's not a bad addiction). So if you can run a casino, with our chistian nature's sense of justice it will be a healthy casino, where people have a good time and feel good, so if you can do so, just go for it, christian style ! you have no law, no ban, we just are christians. Be bless.


Jesus celebrated Jewish Passover; why Christians celebrate Easter, a different feast?

Christians celebrate Easter because it marks the anniversary of Jesus' Resurrection, the sole reason Christianity even exists and the source of the joy of salvation for the Christian. It is the most important event in Christianity and, according to Christians, all of human history.

Passover is the oldest Jewish celebration. It celebrates the Exodus in general and specifically how the Lord's Angel of Death passed over the households with the blood of a lamb on its door posts, but proceeded into the households of the Egyptian and took the first born. Passover is also a sacrificial event. A lamb is slaughtered for every Jewish family, as God commanded.

Christian theology is rich with analogy about how the Passover represents Christ's death, which covers our sins and saves us from death. Easter is the completion of that theology, where even Christ, the perfect sacrifice, conquers death and rises to Glory.

Many Christians are not Jews. Every Christian I've heard of does not believe that sacrifice is necessary anymore. Christ was the final sacrifice. It seems odd that Christians would celebrate an event that has been superseded by another: Good Friday. Good Friday is the celebration of Christ's Passion (march to the Cross, in perfect submission to the Father). Tradition holds that this took place on Passover.

I suspect the wikipedia articles on Passover and Easter would be helpful.


According to Catholicism is feeling nostalgic a sin?

In a word, no.
First of all, merely feeling anything cannot possibly be a sin, because sin necessarily entails an act of the will.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (referencing two great doctors, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) defines sin as

an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law” [St. Augustine, Contra Faustum 22:PL 42,418; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,71,6.] (No. 1849, my emphasis).

For an action to be truly an offense, it must entail an act of the will. (Note that “desire” in this definition refers to willful desire, not the feeling of desire.)
Even supposing that the feeling of nostalgia is fostered by an act of the will, there is nothing necessarily wrong with it. It does not offend God or neighbor in any way.
According to dictionary.reference.com, nostalgia can be defined as

a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time.

There is nothing disordered as such about having a certain sadness for the absense of past happiness—it is (as far as it goes) a normal part of the human condition.
When the Church talks about “detachment from the world,” she means detachment from disordered desires—things that could, if fostered, lead to sinful behavior.
Here is what the Catechism states about detachment:

Jesus enjoins his disciples to prefer him to everything and everyone, and bids them “renounce all that [they have]” for his sake and that of the Gospel. Shortly before his passion he gave them the example of the poor widow of Jerusalem who, out of her poverty, gave all that she had to live on. The precept of detachment from riches is obligatory for entrance into the Kingdom of heaven (No. 2544).
All Christ’s faithful are to “direct their affections rightly, lest they be hindered in their pursuit of perfect charity by the use of worldly things and by an adherence to riches which is contrary to the spirit of evangelical poverty” [Lumen Gentium 42 § 3.] (No. 2545, my emphasis).

Hence, the problem does not lie with having affections (which are good, in and of themselves), but rather in directing them in a disordered way.
In any case, merely having an attachment (which is a kind of feeling), in and of itself, is not a sin; a sin consists in acting in a way that offends God.


How is excommunication handled during the interregnum?

In cases where excommunication is "reserved to the Apostolic See" (this includes most but not all cases of Latae Sententiae excommunication), a specific Cardinal, the Major Penitentiary, is able to lift excommunication even when there is no Pope.
From an EWTN article:

What happens to those in Office in the Roman Curia when the Pope dies?
Since supreme teaching, legislating and judicial authority rests with the Pope, all but the most ordinary business of the Holy See comes to a stop. The highest office holders, such as the Cardinals who are Prefects of Congregations and Presidents of Pontifical Councils and Commissions, all lose their offices with the death of the Pope.
There are two exceptions 1) the Cardinal who is Camerlengo or Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church, an office which deals primarily with the period of the Papal Interregnum or Vacancy, and 2) the Cardinal who is the Major Penitentiary, and responsible for matters concerning the internal forum of conscience (e.g. absolution from excommunications reserved to the Holy See).


Does the Catholic Church believe prostitution should be legalized?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a paragraph on each of pornography and prostitution. I've emphasised a couple of passages which indicate an opinion that neither should be legalised:

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. the one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

This is part of the theology of the body which was particularly beloved of Pope St John Paul II, who wrote in Evangelium vitae (my emphases again):

The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".

It is not difficult to add pornography to the list as insulting human dignity. The quote contained in this excerpt is from the Council's Apostolic Constitution Gaudium et Spes 27.

However, in saying that prostitution is a social scourge and an act of violence, the Church also recognises that it has causes which are not simply and easily dealt with in making it illegal. Because it should be illegal (and is, in many countries), compassion needs to be shown to those who are forced into it by circumstance; equally, those circumstances need be fixed.
If it were not illegal, then it would be easy [or easier, perhaps] to argue that none of its causation is unjust.

Prostitution is a form of modern day slavery

It is important to recognize that sexual exploitation, prostitution and trafficking of human beings are all acts of violence against women and as such constitute an offence to the dignity of women and are a grave violation of basic human rights. The number of women of the street has increased dramatically throughout the world for a variety of complex economic, social and cultural reasons. In some cases the women involved have experienced pathological violence or sexual abuse since childhood. Others have been driven into prostitution in order to have sufficient means of living for themselves or their families. Some search for a father figure or a loving relationship with a man. Others are trying to pay off unreasonable debts. Some leave situations of poverty in their country of origin, believing that the job being offered overseas will change their lives. It is clear that the sexual exploitation of women that pervades the world’s social fabric is a consequence of many unjust systems.
Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People: 1st International Meeting of Pastoral Care for the Liberation of Women of the Street


Significance of different colored vestments worn by Catholic clergy

One can do no better than quote the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

  As regards the color of sacred vestments, traditional usage should be observed, namely:

  a) The color white is used in the Offices and Masses during Easter Time and Christmas Time; on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity; and furthermore on celebrations of the Lord other than of his Passion, celebrations of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Holy Angels, and of Saints who were not Martyrs; on the Solemnities of All Saints (November 1) and of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June24 ); and on the Feasts of St. John the Evangelist (December 27), of the Chair of St. Peter (February 22), and of the Conversion of St. Paul (January 25).

  b) The color red is used on Palm Sunday of the Lord’s Passion and on Friday of Holy Week (Good Friday), on Pentecost Sunday, on celebrations of the Lord’s Passion, on the “birthday” feast days of Apostles and Evangelists, and on celebrations of Martyr Saints.

  c) The color green is used in the Offices and Masses of Ordinary Time.

  d) The color violet or purple is used in Advent and Lent. It may also be worn in Offices and Masses for the Dead.

  e) Besides the color violet, the colors white or black may be used at funeral services and at other Offices and Masses for the Dead in the Dioceses of the United States of America.

  f) The color rose may be used, where it is the practice, on Gaudete Sunday (Third Sunday of Advent) and on Laetare Sunday (Fourth Sunday of Lent).

  g) On more solemn days, festive, that is, more precious, sacred vestments may be used even if not of the color of the day.

  h) The colors gold or silver may be worn on more solemn occasions in the Dioceses of the United States of America.

As regards significance,

White is the colour of holiness, of the Church, of the Sacraments [except Penance], and the saints [except martyrs]. It's the colour of rejoicing and is used throughout the Christmas and Easter seasons.
Red is the colour of blood, so it's used for celebrations of Our Lord's Passion and of martyrs; it's also the colour of fire and used on Pentecost and the feasts of the apostles who were touched by the fire of the Holy Spirit on that occasion.
Green is the colour of nature, and is used when no other colour is prescribed.
Purple is used for penitence. Advent and Lent are penitential seasons. It's used for funerals because the requiem mass is one of penitence for the sins of the departed; and it's used for the sacrament of confession [that's obviously penitential!].
Rose is a sort-of watered-down purple. It's used on the Sundays indicated above, which are named after the first words of the introits on the respective days, both normally translated as "Rejoice!" — the penitential nature of these Sundays is relaxed a little.
Cloth-of-gold may be used at any major feast, including for example, the patron saint of the church: the patronal festival is a feast of the first order.
There may be local customs like wearing blue for celebrations of Mary, Mother of the Lord. There are a few anomalies like St John the Apostle & Evangelist, who was an apostle but not a martyr and whose feast falls in Christmastide: he gets white. St John the Baptist has two feasts, and it's white for his birth and red for his death.