Genesis 19. 8 Why should he protect strangers above protect his daughters?

Remember that in that context Lot would have considered his daughters (and they would have regarded themselves) as his possessions. The Romans later had an idea - a law really - that the ownership of parents, particularly fathers, extended to the right at any time, even after adulthood, of the father to kill his children. It was perfectly legal and understood to be his right as a father to mete out that punishment if he saw fit to do so. One can imagine however, much more responsibility was typically imputed to fathers because of this, so a father could easily be held responsible for even the errors of an adult child.

Given this, we must consider that Lot was so extreme in his practice of hospitality that he would rather sacrifice his most valuable possessions (his daughters) than have his guests - 'the stranger and the alien' the scripture will later say - be treated wrongly. Since in our context we do not consider our children possessions, his expression could not be parsed properly in our context. Thus his actions are entirely consistent with the tradition regarding the way one treats the poor, the stranger and the alien, the weak, the sick, abd so forth.

If Lot had not considered his daughters possessions, there would be a completely different meaning to his statement. It was not until fairly recently, IIRC, that children were no longer regarded as possessions.

Then again, just to throw a wrench in the works, seeing the stunt his daughters pull later on, maybe his action was somewhat prescient.


What did God mean when He said 'lest they live forever'?

One possible interpretation is that the tree of life would have given them eternal physical life.  After the Fall, this would have been in a state of separation from God.  So, God prevented them from living forever in this state of separation.

God's purpose was that they live forever in communion with Him.


Is there a record of an association of prayer with pain?

In Dark Night of the Soul, which is a Western work, John of the Cross talks about the extreme pain that the soul undergoes during prayer if/when God is removing its impurities.

Also, from the East, tears are considered to be an important part of prayer, and they represent the pain of the soul for its sins being poured out in tears of repentance.

As for experiencing physical pain, that appears to be a Western phenomena, the Eastern Church does not have record of anyone experiencing stigmata.

Here is the text for the common hymn for an asectic in the Eastern Church:

  With the streams of your tears, you cultivated the barrenness of the
  desert; and by your sighing from the depths, you beared fruit a
  hundredfold in labours; and you became a luminary, shining with
  miracles upon the world, O (name of saint) our righteous
  Father/Mother. Intercede with Christ God that our souls be saved.


If Anger is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, how could Jesus have been angry yet still be sinless? (Catholicism)

The short answer is, “anger” in this context refers to two distinct, but related things.

What Jesus showed (literally) in the cleansing of the Temple, and God (metaphorically)* when the Israelites forged the Golden Calf is the passion that we experience when we are face-to-face with an difficult evil. (See Summa theologiae [S.Th] Ia-IIae, q. 23, a. 3, corpus.)

A passion, however, is not sinful, in and of itself; and (as Jesus shows) the passion of anger is very much appropriate when we are faced with an injustice.

On the other hand, when we are talking about the sin of anger, we mean either acts of disproportionate anger (as in the desire for revenge referred to in the O.P.) or else the so-called “capital sin” or “deadly sin” of anger, which is, strictly speaking not a sin exactly, but a habit of sin, or vice. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] no. 1866.)

So there is nothing wrong with the passion of anger, provided it is directed to a proportional evil or injustice. “Anger” is a sin when the passion is fostered out of all proportion to the evil, especially when it leads one to desire revenge.

*God, in His Divine Nature, is pure spirit, so, strictly speaking, He does not experience the passion of anger. “Anger” is how Israelites experienced the punishment imposed by God.


If the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” how can a Christian fight in a war?

This misinterpretation is due to a language shift since the days of King James, when that version of the Ten Commandments was set forth.  The term "kill" back then meant what "murder" means today, and I think that everyone would agree that that's a good thing to prohibit in strong, absolute terms.

If you look through the King James Version of the Bible, you don't see the word "kill" used very often, and when it's used it invariably refers to murder.  For a non-murderous cause of death, the word is "slay".  This is what soldiers do to each other, and if I recall correctly it's also what the priests did to the sacrificial animals.


In light of the list found in Isaiah 11:1-3, why are there seven gifts of Holy Spirit and not six?

According to Roman Catholicism, believers receive these gifts at baptism, which are then made more perfect by the rite of Confirmation. Consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1285,

"The reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace." For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, the baptized are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.

In order to determine the number of gifts observed by the patristic authors, consider the Vulgate Latin text of the verses you mentioned:

et egredietur virga de radice Iesse et flos de radice eius ascendet
et requiescet super eum spiritus Domini spiritus [1]sapientiae et [2]intellectus spiritus [3]consilii et [4]fortitudinis spiritus [5]scientiae et [6]pietatis
et replebit eum spiritus [7]timoris Domini non secundum visionem oculorum iudicabit neque secundum auditum aurium arguet

In the Latin, you'll see seven gifts, the sixth of which is pietatis or piety, and the seventh of which is timoris Domini, or fear of the Lord. In most English language Bibles (NIV, NET, ESV, NASB, KJV, et al), the original words for piety and fear of the Lord are both translated as "fear of the Lord", and so the seven distinct gifts are not preserved.


Is there any biblical support for the Church to allow Governments to close churches and prevent public worship?

From your comments you are asking about the case where governments have made regulations in response to a pandemic (Covid19) preventing in-person meetings, or limited their size, and not given churches specific exemptions from those regulations.
Many church leaders have explained their response to Covid19 regulations, and most are very similar so I will explain them in general terms.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities. It is the Biblical duty of all Christians to obey secular authorities where they do not conflict with God's laws. In most traditions and teachings there has to be a serious reason for any disobedience. The Biblical examples almost invariably relate to a total ban on teaching about God or worshiping him. More recent examples include laws aimed at persecuting some section of society, or significant injustices. These are not the situation with Covid regulations.
Covid regulations are not preventing Christian meetings or Christian activity. There is no prohibition on Christian meetings, as long as they are appropriately distanced, or online, or in some other way safe. There is no prohibition on broadcast of Christian material, Christian teaching. Christian schools continue to function under the same rules as non-Christian, and Christian meetings are not treated differently from non-Christians. Most churches have transitioned adequately to distanced or online meetings, with no more than a certain amount of inconvenience.
Continuing to meet in person in defiance of medical precautions is an offence against Jesus teaching to "love your neighbour". Meeting restrictions are intended to prevent people from becoming sick or dying. Defying them increases the likelihood of infecting others, causing them serious harm or death. Those harmed are not just the Christian community but anyone they interact with as well. Christians should not be taking action that actively harms their neighbours.


I'll answer your questions from his book, A Memoir of Grace, by Chuck Smith (2009).

  Which Christian denomination(s) recognize his organization, and which ones do not? Why?

I don't know the answer to this question. Not sure what you mean by "recognize," for I would recognize any organization if it had regular meetings and members. Do you mean anything different from this?

  What was his leadership style like, and what made it distinctive?

The book did not address this, other than to say that he believed in not placing any programs or techniques above the sovereign work of God. He kept everything simple; just teach the whole Bible, book by book, chapter by chapter.

  Which Christian denomination(s) is/are in conflict with his theology, and which one(s) is/are most in harmony?

Any denomination that sets rigid plans and programs would be in conflict with his theology of the moving of the Spirit. He specifically talked about an earlier version of a Foursquare church that set church competing against church to do membership drives, and those who drove in the most members "won." Chuck rejected this program approach after a time of prayer where the Lord spoke to him that He Himself will "add to the church daily." He went on preaching as usual and got more members by simply preaching the word chapter by chapter. His superintendents invited him to come to the next convention and tell the others what techniques he used to such great success!

  How were his congregants' lives any different than other Protestants' lives?

Chuck found that by teaching through the whole Bible in depth, Genesis to Revelation, the people got more out of it. Expositional preaching, as opposed to topical preaching or gospel preaching. They were more grounded in their faith and were excited to tell others about Jesus and the Bible. Calvary Chapels sprung up all over the world without Chuck making 5-year church-planting plans or anything like that.

  Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity?

Chuck Smith will always be known as the person who started Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and the person who helped the hippies' brand of Maranatha! rock/contemporary music spread everywhere.


Is there a biblical basis for God calling one to place one's career above their other duties?

There is no specific Biblical precedent for such a claim - at least not in your example. But there is also no Biblical reason to refute such a claim, either.  (Unless the claim is a direct contradiction of clear Biblical teaching.)

The Scriptures give examples of people called to be Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Preachers (Ephesians 4:11) and other ministries that directly serve God, or God's purpose. He has also ordained Kings. (Saul and David, for example).

Nowhere in Scripture is anyone specifically called to be a baker, a server, or other secular job.

There is validity and Biblical precendent in a claim to a career serving God as a Missionary, for example, or a Pastor, Priest, or other Church official.  We are all called to serve God in one way or another, and most traditions believe that God specifically calls people into positions of authority, such as those mentioned previously.  Exactly how they are called, and how they can be sure is likely the subject for a different question, as it varies based on factors such as denomination, interpretation of Scripture, and tradition.

However...

The Bible does tell us that no matter what our career is, we should do it "as unto the Lord", meaning that we should do our best as if we were working for God Himself.  Several examples of those serving honorably doing ordinary (secular) tasks and jobs do abound.  The woman at the Well giving water, for example, or the people called to feed the hungry, fight in the battles, serve their masters.  Being a good servant is a basic Christian principle, and is both commanded and honored in Scripture.

To answer your comment, it is entirely possible that God does call us to serve in secular jobs.  God is, after all, sovereign.  God alone knows where the line is between His sovereignty, and the free will He allows us.


Do churches host distinctive, special services on Christmas, Christmas eve, and Easter?

Typically, yes, most denominations how special services on Christmas eve, and some, possibly, on Christmas day.  (More details coming.)

In Catholic Churches, there is the Midnight Mass.  There's also Christmas Vespers for several denominations including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican Churches.

The LDS Church has some unique Christmas traditions, including visting Templa Square at Christmas, and watching the Church's annual "First Presidency Christmas Devotional" which is broadcast from the Conference Center (at Temple Square) to church buildings worldwide.

Other denominations have special services as well.  Typical Baptist Christmas services, for example, involve plays and singing by the kids in the Church.  It tends to draw family members that do not attend.

Christmas is the celebration of the Lord and Savior - the entire reason for the existence of the Church in the first place, so it kind of makes sense that there would be some special pomp and circumstance surrounding the celebration.  The same can be said for Easter.

As for why people visit church on Christmas, that's far more personal and individual.  As such it's probably not on-topic to speculate, but reasons I've heard and my own reasons when I wasn't' a Christian included:

It helps you get into the Christmas spirit.
Tradition
From an atheist perspective: It's a nice thing to do to show support for that Christian relative of yours that's always bugging you to get saved and turn your life over to Jesus.  it's only an hour or so and it tends to seem to make them happy to have you there, so why not?
Maybe people already are in the Christmas spirit, and therefore are more willing to go.

I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons.  Again, that's all unique and individual, and hard to answer.


What was the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East?

Genghis Khan was the founder and emperor of the Mongol Empire around the year 1200. John of Montecorvino (1247–1328) an Italian Franciscan missionary was said to be possibly the first person to translate the New Testament and Psalms into Mongolian.

Therefore we can basically assume the New Testament was the Catholic New Testament (which is the same as the Protestant one):

-The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
-The Acts of the Apostles
-The Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon
-The Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude
-Revelation

Since poor Genghis died around 1227, he probably never got a chance to read it himself.

Yet the Catholic history does not reach the full answer because although Catholic missionaries may have been the first to translate a full New Testament into Mongolian, there were not the first Christian missionaries into the region.

This article says:

  Nestorianism was the first form of Christianity to be proselytized among the Mongols, in the 7th century, and several Mongol tribes became primarily Christian. During the rise of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century, the Great Khans, though mostly Shamanists and Buddhist, were religiously tolerant towards the Nestorian Christians, Muslims, and Manichaeans. Many of the khans had Nestorian Christian wives from the Kerait clan, who were extremely influential in the Mongol court. During the rule of Mongke Khan, Christianity was the primary religious influence. After the breakup of the Mongol Empire in the 14th century, Nestorian Christianity nearly disappeared from the region.

Nestorianism was an Eastern sect considered by the West as Heresy for its unique view of the nature of Christ as being two distinct persons.

According to this article, the Nestorian Canon "excludes the New Testament books of Revelation, Jude, Second John, Third John and Second Peter, because the use of those books was not attested in the churches of Persia early enough to have been woven into the canonical tradition. "


What are the origins of La Madonna Del Gatto?

To put it in a nutshell, we may never know.

  Q: Any information on "gatta della Madonna" – a legend that at the time of the birth of Christ, a cat in the manger gave birth to a litter of kittens and was the inspiration for Giulio Romano's painting, Madonna della Gatta – will be greatly appreciated.

  A: We found in our holdings a Holy Family by Giulio Romano which depicts Mary, Saint Elizabeth or Ann, St. John and Jesus, with Joseph in the background. The painting also features a cat in the lower right corner. It may not be the one you are referring to, or is it? There is another representation of the Holy Family by Baroccio called The Madonna del Gatto. The cat is being pointed to by the mother who shows the little animal to her son, Jesus. Saint John is part of the holy company. In both cases we are not dealing with an explicit reference to the nativity scene. Jesus is now a toddler and the whole scene reflects the family life in Nazareth.

  The classical creche traditions do not know of the presence of cats, but there may be exceptions. We also have studies by Leonardo da Vinci for a Virgin and Child with a kitten in the British Museum. However, there exits a legend – somewhat nebulous and farfetched – about the presence not only of a cat and her kittens beneath the manger but also of a whole menagerie. The so-called Gospel of the Holy Twelve by G. J. Ouseley (1923) which claims to be "a translation of an early Christian document preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Thibet" (see: M. Oldfield Howey, The Cat in the Mysteries of Religion and Magic, NY 1956) says the following:

  "And there were in the same cave an ox and a horse and an ass, and a sheep, and beneath the manger was a cat with her little ones, and there were doves also, overhead, and each had its mate after its kind, the male with the female. Thus it came to pass that he was born in the midst of the animals which, through the redemption of man from ignorance and selfishness, he came to redeem from their sufferings, by the manifestation of the sons and the daughters of God."

  It remains a puzzling fact that the traditional sources of iconographical motifs remain silent. This applies to the apocryphal gospels, the classical Marian legends of the West, even the Physiologus, one of the most popular and widely read books of the Middle Ages which inspired most of the bestiaries, meaning books dealing with anecdotes, legends and illustrations of known and mythic animals. There is a hunch that should be further pursued. The cat has an important place in Chaldean and Egyptian magism. The cat is seen in close symbolic relationship with the Goddess Isis. It is suggested that the English word "Puss" is derived from "Pasht," a form of the Egyptian Isis. Thus, it would be interesting to have a closer look at the Coptic Marian legends influenced by Egyptian culture and milieu. – Answered by Father Johann Roten, S.M. (Gatta della Madonna)


Is Matthew 17:24 a reference to the Fiscus Judaicus?

The tradition of giving half-a shekel to the Temple of God dates back to the times of the book of Exodus, as we see at Exodus 30:11-13 (RSVCE):

  The Lord said to Moses, “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the Lord.”

There were different taxes meant for the Temple and for the Roman Empire, as we read in Matthew 22:17-21 (RSVCE):

  “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

In fact, the Jews were required to pay the Temple-tax using the drachmas bearing Hebrew inscription and symbols, whereas the tax to Romans would be paid using the coins having the imprints of Caesar. The role of money-changers in the Temple was to facilitate exchange of the coins, so that the faithful would be able to pay their Temple-tax and  offerings in Jewish coins.


Verse that says we should spend much or most of our money on food?

Isaiah 55 says:

  “Come, all you who are thirsty,
      come to the waters;
  and you who have no money,
      come, buy and eat!
  Come, buy wine and milk
      without money and without cost.
  2 Why do spend money on what is not bread,
      and your labor on what does not satisfy?
  Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
      and you will delight in the richest of fare.
  3 Give ear and come to me;
      listen, that you may live.
  I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
      my faithful love promised to David.

It isn't a command, it is an observation. The Messiah that is coming will satisfy the poor and you more than you ever could.

The closest thing to an injunction would be 1 Timothy 6:

  6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.

Again, the focus is on the contentment, not the actual spending though.


What biblical basis is there for written records being kept around Jesus's time

In Luke 4, Jesus read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.  Jesus had not received the training of a priest or Pharisee.  He was the son of a carpenter.  So, it seems that this would indicate that literacy was not restricted to the ruling class of the priestly class.

Jesus challenged the Pharisees at one point, saying, "Have you never read...?"

Jesus may also have been writing actual words in the dirt in John 8 and the woman caught in adultery, though this is admittedly speculation.

Paul also indicates that he wrote letters with his own hand.  Of course he had been a Pharisee.

In older times, Moses commanded the people in Deuteronomy 6 to observe the law and to write it on the door frames of your houses.  This seems to assume the ability to write.

The king of Israel was commanded to write for himself a copy of the law and read it all the days of his life.

I could go on, but it seems there is significant evidence to support the idea that literacy was not uncommon among the Jewish people at the time of Christ.


Sin comes from the Greek Hamartia, which carries with it the idea of an archer missing his mark. The opposite of that would be to hit the mark- to succeed.

I would argue thus that obedience would be the opposite of sin, as it "hits the mark" to which we aim.

Alternatively, telos - the purpose or aim for which we are destined would be pretty good too.

Augustine in particular was well known for describing evil as not a thing in and of itself, but rather as a lack of good. It is the lack of substance to the thing that is its nature, not an essence of its own. The same could be said of sin - that it is a lack of the nature of God's desire for us that characterisizes Sin. As such, the opposite of Sin would be the nature of God evident in the life of the person in question.

And, btw, it totally is fair to say that the opposite of Sin is love- for as Jesus himself said, "if you love me, keep my commandments."


According to Reformed Covenant theology, how were the people of Israel "purchased" per Exodus 15:16?

Covenant Theology is the framework of understanding Scripture through the lens of covenants.  The Redemption Covenant being the primary oldest one and fulfilled in Christ Jesus.  The other two are works and grace.

So, with that in mind, we know the reality that Christ purchased His people with His blood.

  In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
  Eph 1:7

  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
  Acts 20:28

In turn, we find one shadow of this in the Abraham and Isaac and ram substitute sacrifice.

But to the OP, we find the primary purchase to which Moses mentions in the form of the Passover lamb.  The blood of the lamb purchased the redemption of the people who believed.

In this sense, the nine other plagues of Egypt would also serve as lessons to some to believe God when He spoke about the 10th plague (the death of the firstborn, except for the blood of the Passover lamb).  That is the purchase price.

  And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
  Exo 12:13

In the Song of Moses, Moses is speaking about the crossing through the sea, but as a confirmation of the aforementioned purchase to actually arrive there.  First there's the purchase and then the deliverance.

  Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.
  Exo 15:16

Those purchased via the lamb's blood passed through the sea, while the chasers, the unredeemed, the unpurchased were swallowed by the earth.

Powerful imagery as a foreshadowing of Christ our Passover Lamb.

  Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
  1 Pet 1:18-19


Why are people traditionally buried facing east?

It's not a purely Christian tradition.  Other religions practice this as well.  There's an article here on ehow.com that gives an overview of the origins of the practice.  Some highlights:

According to "Ethnicity and the American Cemetery," the feet of the deceased face east as well. This tradition is based on the belief that when Jesus returns, the departed will rise from the grave already facing his direction.
According to Northumberland County Council, the tradition began when Pagans buried the dead so they would face the rising sun.

Also note that it's not universal.  We have a cemetery tied to a Church a few miles from here where the graves all point to the North, and several others I've visited have some facing one way, and others at right angles - those graves are laid out to maximize use of the land.


What is the status of St Malachy's prophecy within Catholicism?

There is no consensus, because there is hardly any discussion about this in official Catholic circles. For eg. a google search on the vatican website for "prophecy of the popes" (in quotes) or "prophecy of malachi" (in quotes) or "prophecy of saint malachi" (in quotes) yields no relevant results. On the other hand you will find huge discussion on things like the prophecies of Fatima, the revelation to Sr Faustina and so on.

It seems the official Catholic Church doesn't give so much weight to this prophecy.  catholic.com, which is the largest Catholic apologetics site in the world says that "The consensus among modern scholars is that it is a 16th-century forgery created for partisan political reasons".


Can a devil use one prayer to prevent us from praying different one? (Catholic perspective)

There is a set number of hours in a day and one cannot pray all the prayers.  I'd imagine it would be pretty hard for a Catholic layperson with a 40 hour work week to go to Mass, pray all the hours of the Divine Office, pray the rosary and do whatever seasonal novena or devotion comes up.
So, one has to choose which prayers to pray in order to get through life.  But, as St. John Vianney says "No prayer is ever wasted" *.
But, St. John Vianney also said

'Never forget that it is at the beginning of each day that God has the necessary grace for the day ready for us. He knows exactly what opportunities we shall have to sin, and will give us everything we need if we ask him then. That is why the devil does all he can to prevent us from saying our morning prayers or to make us say them badly.'

So he thinks that the Devil can use badly said prayers to distract us from saying our prayers with devotion and St. Theresa of Avila observes that

'Much more is accomplished by a single word of the Our Father said, now and then, from our heart, than by the whole prayer repeated many times in haste and without attention.'
St. Theresa of Avila

which is to say that an undistracted heart makes prayer better and we can only assume that the Devil wants prayer to be worse.  So, given the difficulties in praying certain prayers requiring hard work  + devotion, you have to balance it.   Prayer is a lot like lifting weights, it takes time to build up an appetite for it.   The rosary is like 53 reps on freeweights.  The Liturgy of the Hours is like a complicated squat machine, you might hurt yourself without a spotter.   I don't know about the Twelve Year Prayer of St. Bridget, but if it's complicated and you haven't prepared yourself to receive it, it might be a distraction unto itself.  Then again, it might be exactly what you need (this is where you go ask a priest and stop asking the Internet for this kind of advice :) )
*Couldn't find a citation for this on the Internet, it was in one of my kid's spelling books


According to personalism, is political libertarianism compatible with the Golden Rule?

When I hear Libertarians talking about how each person's only responsibility is to themselves, I tend to think of Cain. When God asked him where his murdered brother was, he flippantly responded, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (It's not my responsibilty to look after him! He ought to take care of himself!) I don't think most Christians would consider him good company to be in.

Jesus's famous "new commandment" was to "love one another as I have loved you," and the way he loved us was to give of himself at every opportunity, even unto laying down his life for us.  And James condemned those who saw others in need and did nothing to help them, saying that their faith was "dead" and could not save them.

Contrast this with the doctrine of Ayn Rand, probably the single most influential philosopher in Libertarian thought. She taught that the highest moral duty is rational egoism, and that altruism and social responsibility are not only not required, but actually evil and inherently harmful to society!

Like any philosophy, libertarianism has some good points, but on the whole it's principles are strongly opposed to the teachings of the Gospel, and it ought to be avoided if not actively opposed by disciples of Christ.


Jesus' Resurrection occurred before angel rolled back the tombstone?

That the Angel sat upon the stone on rolling it back (Mtt 28:2) is sufficient to prove that the Resurrection of Christ had already taken place; if it had not, the Angel would have stood in reverence.
As for the seal, it was not intended to strengthen the closed entrance, as much as  to serve as a check on the guards themselves, lest they be bribed by the disciples . See the propaganda the guards make after the Resurrection : "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep "(Mtt 28:13) .


Jesus got angry in the temple - should we do that too?

There's an interesting bit of detail about the event in Mark 11:11:

  Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.

He did not allow his anger to control him. This was not an act of rage.

There is another issue at play here, as well. Since Jesus is Himself part of God, the offense committed by the changers in the temple was towards him directly. An analogy is that if you see someone habitually blaspheme God, it's as if that person physically assaulted your mother. But from Jesus perspective, it was as if they were assaulting you directly, or perhaps even assaulting you and your mother at the same time.

While we are to use Jesus as the great example, we must be careful to remember that, as the creator, he sometimes sees things differently than we do, both through his power to understand people's hearts, and from the fact that he relates to people differently than we do.


What is the Biblical basis for continuationism?

This is from Why I Am a Continuationist by Sam Storms:

  New Testament evidence of miraculous gifts among Christians who are
  not apostles. In other words, numerous non-apostolic men and women,
  young and old, across the breadth of the Roman Empire consistently
  exercised these gifts of the Spirit (and Stephen and Philip ministered
  in the power of signs and wonders). Others aside from the apostles who
  exercised miraculous gifts include (1) the 70 who were commissioned in
  Luke 10:9, 19-20; (2) at least 108 people among the 120 who were
  gathered in the upper room on the day of Pentecost; (3) Stephen (Acts
  6-7); (4) Philip (Acts 8); (5) Ananias (Acts 9); (6) church members in
  Antioch (Acts 13); (7) anonymous converts in Ephesus (Acts 19:6); (8)
  women at Caesarea (Acts 21:8-9); (9) the unnamed brethren of Galatians
  3:5; (10) believers in Rome (Rom. 12:6-8); (11) believers in Corinth
  (1 Cor. 12-14); and (12) Christians in Thessalonica (1 Thess.
  5:19-20).

  We must also take note of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. Here Paul asserts
  that spiritual gifts will not "pass away" (vv. 8-10) until the coming
  of the "perfect." If the "perfect" is indeed the consummation of God's
  redemptive purposes as expressed in the new heaven and new earth
  following Christ's return, we can confidently expect him to continue
  blessing and empowering his church with the gifts until that time.

  ...

  A similar point is made in Ephesians 4:11-13. There Paul speaks of
  spiritual gifts (together with the office of apostle)—and in
  particular the gifts of prophecy, evangelism, pastor, and teacher—as
  building up of the church "until we all attain to the unity of the
  faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to
  the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (v. 13; italics
  mine). Since the latter most assuredly has not yet been attained by
  the church, we can confidently anticipate the presence and power of
  such gifts until that day arrives.


Why do some translations render Genesis 3:8 with "the voice of the Lord" while others don't? Is it a reference to Jesus?

There is one commentary that I am familiar which does in fact purport that is a reference to the preincarnate Jesus; that is the commentary on the whole Bible by David Guzik. I will inset it here that you do not have to look it up.

  And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"

  a. They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: Adam and Eve knew that when they heard the Lord coming, He would want to be with them. This was how the Lord had fellowship with Adam and Eve, in a very natural, close, intimate way.

  i. Leupold on walking in the garden in the cool of the day: "The almost casual way in which this is remarked indicates that this did not occur for the first time just then . . . There is extreme likelihood that the Almighty assumed some form analogous to the human form which was made in His image."

  ii. We can assume this is God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, appearing to Adam and Eve before His incarnation and birth at Bethlehem, because of God the Father it is said, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him" (Joh. 1:18), and no man has ever seen God in the Person of the Father. (1Ti. 6:16)

One of the niceties of Guzik is that he backs up his assertions with Scripture. That of course does not mean that those assertions are true unless you ascribe to the concept that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. Which would necessitate that all Scripture even remotely associated with this assertion be studied in depth, and even then many would not draw the same conclusion.

Hope this helps.


What evidence is there to suggest that Daniel never existed?

In order to prove a negative, you need to demonstrate that the biblical figure is mentioned nowhere outside the one ancient book that contains information about him, and then show that the book is not historically true.

In most cases, the absence of any information about a famous person from the past can be explained away by the paucity of extant records from the relevant period, or simply that the person was not of sufficient repute to have been mentioned by most of his contemporaries. However, plentiful records do exist from both Babylon and Persia. And if Daniel rose up to become the second most powerful person in the Babylonian Empire, then soon after became the second most powerful person in the Persian Empire, there ought to be many manuscripts and tablets that mention him. Yet there is no mention of him in any other Hebrew writings, nor in the extensive Babylonian and Persian records available to scholars.

Leonard J. Greenspoon, in 'Between Alexandria and Antioch: Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic Period', published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (edited by Michael D. Coogan), page 322, describes the Book of Daniel as a Jewish novel. This view, also held by most biblical scholars, is partly based on the book's historical errors and fragmented authorship.  A very clear historical error is to be found the account of the Persian conquest of Babylon, in Daniel 5:31: "And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old." It was Cyrus the Great who conquered Babylon. Darius I was a successor who followed Cyrus somewhat later, but Daniel 6:28 places Cyrus after Darius. An error in respect to Belshazzar is explained by the Jewish Encyclopedia:

  The following important differences between Belsharusur and the Belshazzar of Daniel are patent. The former was the son of the last king of Babylon [Nabonidus], but never reigned, except possibly as coregent with his father; while the latter is distinctly called the last king and the son of Nebuchadnezzar, both of which statements are undoubtedly made in perfectly good faith by the author of Daniel.

The chief character in a work of fiction is often not a person who ever existed. Parallels to another Daniel briefly mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel point to Daniel as a literary creation.


What type of church or Christian would a Rob Bell follower be or attend?

According to terminology promolgated by Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer, Rob Bell has been identified as part of the Revisionist stream of the Emerging Church movement:

Revisionists are theologically liberal, and openly question whether evangelical doctrine is appropriate for the postmodern world. They look to leaders such as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt. - wikipedia

According to Marcia Ford, in her article The Emerging Church: Ancient Faith for a Postmodern World:

So where can you find examples of the emerging church? Some postmodern-friendly churches have sprung from an intentional and interdenominational effort, such as Brian McLaren’s Cedar Ridge Community Church near Washington, D.C. Pretty much everyone in the emerging church recognizes McLaren as the movement’s elder statesman; his books, with titles like A New Kind of Christian and Adventures in Missing the Point (the latter with Tony Campolo), have helped define the emerging church.
Sometimes, the name of a particular church is a dead giveaway that it’s part of the movement, such as Scum of the Earth in Denver. Little question that it’s not, say, a Southern Baptist congregation. Many, like Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, which meets in a living room setting in an industrial building, see themselves as an experimental community. Still others aren’t really churches but ministries affiliated with traditional congregations, like The Crucible, a postmodern outreach of the huge Belmont Church in Nashville. Vintage Faith in Santa Cruz, California, Apex in Las Vegas, and Holy Joe’s in London are but a few others.
...
Web sites to visit include www.emergentvillage.com [sic1] and www.theooze.com, both of which provide links to partner ministries.

1 the emergent village website appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the emerging church movement!


What are the main differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and Biblical Unitarians?

Introductory Notes:
CSE = Christianity Stack Exchange   BU = Biblical Unitarianism  JW = Jehovah’s Witnesses
CSE Tag Unitarianism = a liberal Christian theological movement (from 1565) known for its rejection of the doctrines of the TRINITY, Original Sin, Predestination and Biblical Inerrancy.
CSE Tag Universalism = In Christianity, Universal Salvation is the belief that all humans will be reconciled to God.
CSE Tag Canon = books considered to be authoritative as scripture.
Main link for all articles on Biblical Unitarianism:  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles
Please note: Biblical Unitarianism is not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism.
Both groups consider the Bible to be authoritative scripture. Any biblical references are to be found in the links provided.
I neither support nor endorse the beliefs of either Biblical Unitarians or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Christology – Study of the person of Christ, his humanity and divinity, his nature and work:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
BU – Jesus is NOT God.  They reject the Trinity. There is only one True God, the Father, and Jesus Christ is the “man accredited by God” who has now been made “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:22 and 36). Christ is fully man and is “one of us,” and God is God and has never changed or been a man.  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/philippians-2-6-8   Jesus is the Son of God.  He did not have a pre-human existence.  He came into existence when God created Jesus’ life in Mary.  He was born without sin.  He was resurrected with an incorruptible body and exalted in heaven to God’s right hand and given all authority under the Father.  Jesus was the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for all men’s sin and is the mediator between God and men.  Jesus remains a finite, separate being with a beginning.  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/who-is-jesus-christ  See also: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-is-the-son-of-god-not-god-the-son
JW – Jesus is NOT God.  They reject the Trinity.  Before he became human, Jesus was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature known in heaven as Michael the Archangel.  https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/archangel-michael/   Jehovah created everything else through Jesus.  God’s “only-begotten son,” the Word, was a spirit person like his Father but later “became flesh,” residing among mankind as the man Jesus.  Completing his earthly course, he was “put to death in the flesh, but [was] made alive in the spirit.” His Father resurrected him, granted his Son’s request to be glorified alongside the Father with the glory he had had in his pre-human state and God made him “a life-giving spirit.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004211  See also: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101998883#h=8  and ‘His Origin was from Early Times’ here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681
Pneumatology – Study of the Holy Spirit, the person and works of the Holy Spirit:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatology
BU – God is Spirit and is referred to in Scripture as the Holy Spirit.  Since God is “holy” and also a “spirit,” “Holy Spirit” is simply another name for God the Father.  God gives the gift of the new birth – his holy spirit – his divine nature.  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/what-is-the-holy-spirit  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/gods-gift-of-holy-spirit-a-he-or-an-it
JW – God is Spirit and the holy spirit is his active life force/power/energy.  The invisible energizing force that God puts into action to accomplish his will. It is holy because it comes from Jehovah, who is clean and righteous to the highest degree, and because it is God’s means to accomplish what is holy.  It is not a person and does not have personality.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/tl/r1/lp-e?q=holy%20spirit
Nature of God – Study of God’s attributes and being, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity
BU – God alone is the creator.  Jesus does not have the divine attributes of omnipotence or omniscience (John5:30; Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32) which suggests that God the Father does.  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/search/%22Nature%20of%20God%22    https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
JW – Jehovah created the spirit who came to earth to be born as Jesus.  Everything else was created through the pre-mortal Jesus.  Jehovah is omnipotent and omniscient (all-knowing), and has the divine ability to see and to know everything, but chooses to be selective with foreknowledge.  However, omnipresence is not applicable to Jehovah God: “God being an individual, a Person with a spirit body, has a place where he resides, and so he could not be at any other place at the same time.”   https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981122#h=7:0-9:545  See this article for Jehovah’s exercise of selective foreknowledge: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970567 and this article on omnipotence: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001549?q=omnipotence&p=par
Soteriology – Study of Jesus’ role in Salvation, Sin, Redemption, Atonement, Justification, Universal Reconciliation:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology#Christianity
BU – Jesus, born without sin, is the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for all men’s sin.  He has been made heir, exalted to God’s right hand and given all authority under the Father.  To the faithful he offers the like distinction and honor that he has with the Father, to sit with him in his throne (Revelation 3:21).  Christ is the first begotten of the dead (Revelation 1) and is ordained of God to be the judge of the quick and the dead (Acts 10:42).  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/if-jesus-isnt-god-how-did-he-forgive-sins  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/how-can-a-man-atone-for-the-sins-of-mankind  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/why-did-jesus-have-to-suffer-and-die
JW – Although perfect, Jesus could have sinned, but did not.  Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant which applies specifically to the 144,000 who have a heavenly hope. See ‘Those for Whom Christ is Mediator’:  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002957?q=Jesus+mediator&p=doc    He sits in heaven, at the right hand side of Jehovah.  Since 1914 he has been ruling, from heaven, as King.  At Armageddon he will return to judge wicked humanity, accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, and then will reign over the earth for 1,000 years.  After all things have been subjected to him, he will hand the kingdom over to Jehovah. See the last section ‘Where is Jesus Today’: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681  https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/gods-kingdom/promises/kingdom-enemies-removed/
Life after Death – Includes Christian eschatology, Heaven in Christianity, Christian views on hell, and Intermediate state.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Christianity
BU – I could not find anything on life after death, heaven, hell, the intermediate state or the human soul continuing to exist after the death of the body.  Only this: “To the faithful he [Jesus] offers the like distinction and honor that he has with the Father, to sit with him in his throne” (Revelation 3:21).  Regarding eschatology, this quote from 1 Timothy 6:14-16: “To keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light.” https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
JW – There is no such thing as an immortal soul. The immortal soul doctrine is pagan.  All who die await the resurrection when they will be brought back to life in physical bodies and have 1,000 years in which to earn the right to live forever on a paradise earth.  Any who fail the final test will be annihilated.  There is no such thing as eternal punishment in a literal hell.  Only 144,000 persons since the time of Jesus can go to heaven, there to rule with Christ Jesus over the inhabitants of a paradise earth.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004192?q=immortal+soul&p=par  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003841?q=paradise+earth&p=par
You ask if there are any other important doctrinal aspects in which Biblical Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses part ways.  Theologically, the most important issue is the person of Jesus Christ, and who he REALLY is.  Both Biblical Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses have a different take on Jesus, the former claiming he did not exist till God created his life in Mary, and the latter claiming he was created as a mighty spirit creature, known in heaven as Michael the Archangel, through whom everything else came into existence.  It is easy to find out what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about life after death, the resurrection and where they expect to spend eternity.  Not so with Biblical Unitarians. I was unable to find information from the official BU web site on human nature, life after death, heaven, hell, or a resurrection. https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/category/articles
Perhaps the biggest difference is that Biblical Unitarians are liberal and they are not dogmatic. Neither do they insist on people adhering to any view they support.  They are not a religious denomination and do not appear to have a hierarchical structure.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, claim to be Jehovah’s earthly organisation and their Governing Body is part of “the faithful and discreet slave” who dispenses spiritual food.  The rest of religion is part of ‘Babylon the Great’.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#:~:text=The%20Governing%20Body%20of%20Jehovah's,administers%20the%20group's%20worldwide%20operations  Also, a baptised Witness can either be disfellowshipped (for unrepentant rule-breaking) or be deemed as disassociated.  https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=disfellowship
Further Reading:
Background information on Biblical Unitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_unitarianism#:~:text=Biblical%20Unitarianism%20encompasses%20the%20key,but%20may%20not%20be%20divine
This JW link answers questions on their beliefs: https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=our+beliefs
The Unitarian Universalist Church: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/does-the-unitarian-universalist-church-hold-to-the-bible-as-the-word-of-god


Was Jesus referring to 1 Kings 19 while delivering His teaching on pursuit of the Kingdom of God? (Roman Catholic perspective)

Calmet recognized this. As it says in the Catholic Haydock Commentary for Luke 9:62:

  Christ seems here to allude to the call of Eliseus by Elias. The former was at the plough, and the latter called him. Immediately Eliseus quits his plough, runs with Elias's permission to bid adieu to his father and mother, sacrifices two of his oxen, roasts them with the wood of the plough, and joins the company of the prophets. Jesus Christ wishes that all who follow him, should in like manner think of nothing else. (Calmet)


Who can give the sacrament of confirmation in the Catholic Church?

A bishop has the power to confirm, but this power can be delegated to a priest.

See the Catechism of the Council of Trent's section on Confirmation:

  Minister of Confirmation

  Pastors should also teach to whom especially has been committed the
  administration of this Sacrament; for as, according to the Prophet,
  there are many who run without being sent, it is necessary to teach
  who are its true and legitimate ministers, in order that the faithful
  may be enabled to receive the Sacrament and grace of Confirmation.

  Now the Holy Scriptures show that the Bishop alone is the ordinary
  minister of this Sacrament, because we read in the Acts of the
  Apostles that when Samaria had received the Word of God, Peter and
  John were sent to them, who prayed for them that they might receive
  the Holy Ghost: for he was not as yet come upon any of them, but they
  were only baptised. Here we may see that he who had baptised, having
  been only a deacon, had no power to confirm; but that its
  administration was reserved to a more perfect order of ministers, that
  is, to the Apostles. The same may be observed whenever the Sacred
  Scriptures make mention of this Sacrament.

  Nor are there wanting in proof of this matter the clearest testimonies
  of the holy Fathers and of Popes Urban, Eusebius, Damasus, Innocent
  and Leo, as is evident from their decrees. St. Augustine, also,
  seriously complains of the corrupt practice of the Egyptians and
  Alexandrians, whose priests dared to administer the Sacrament of
  Confirmation.

  The thorough propriety of reserving this function to Bishops the
  pastor may illustrate by the following comparison. As in the
  construction of buildings the artisans, who are inferior agents,
  prepare and dispose cement, lime, timbers and the other material,
  while to the architect belongs the completion of the work; so in like
  manner this Sacrament, which is, at it were, the completion of the
  spiritual edifice, should be performed by no other than the chief
  priest.


What are common ways for contemporary Christians to fast?

In Orthodox Christianity, fasting is vegan (no meat, no dairy, no egg, basically nothing of animal origin). And no alcohol (that means avoiding vinegar, as well).

Monks and nuns (and some of the more fervent Christians) do it the proper, old way - vegan and without using oil (like olive or sunflower oil, for example).

Another aspect to take in consideration is avoiding a lot of food - one can fall in gluttony with vegan food as well, and that's not fasting anymore.

But more important than the food fasting is the fasting for the soul:

don't eat human flesh (don't argue with people, don't think bad of people, don't judge people, forgive everyone, be merciful towards everyone)
fasting with our eyes (turn your head the other way when you see an attractive person)
fasting with our legs (avoid going to sinful places, where we know we can fall)
fast with your mind (keep your mind in continuous prayer; in Orthodoxy, this is done with the Jesus Prayer - "Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner", said without interruption in the mind)
more prayer than usual, more meditation on the sufferings of our Lord
meditate on the Final Judgement questions (Matthew 25:31-46) - how do we help the ones in need? There are a few billions of people out there without food, water, shelter etc


What is the basis for saying that the Antichrist, man of lawlessness, and the beast of Revelation 13 are all the same?

Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, gave these reasons in the second century when the apostolic teaching was fresh in the church.

  And for this reason the apostle says: “Because they received not the love of God, that they might be saved, therefore God shall also send them the operation of error, that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but consented to unrighteousness.”   [2 Thess. ii. 10–12.]  For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly “be cast into the lake of fire:” [Rev. xix. 20.]  [this will happen according to divine appointment], God by His prescience foreseeing all this, and at the proper time sending such a man, “that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but consented to unrighteousness;” whose coming John has thus described in the Apocalypse: “And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard, and his feet as of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon conferred his own power upon him, and his throne, and great might. And one of his heads was as it were slain unto death; and his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon because he gave power to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto this beast, and who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemy and power was given to him during forty and two months. And he opened his mouth for blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all who dwell upon the earth worshipped him, [every one] whose name was not written in the book of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any one have ears, let him hear. If any one shall lead into captivity, he shall go into captivity. If any shall slay with the sword, he must be slain with the sword. Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2], etc.  After this he likewise describes his armour-bearer, whom he also terms a false prophet: “He spake as a dragon, and exercised all the power of the first beast in his sight, and caused the earth, and those that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he shall perform great wonders, so that he can even cause fire to descend from heaven upon the earth in the sight of men, and he shall lead the inhabitants of the earth astray.”  [Rev. xiii. 11, etc.]  Let no one imagine that he performs these wonders by divine power, but by the working of magic. And we must not be surprised if, since the demons and apostate spirits are at his service, he through their means performs wonders, by which he leads the inhabitants of the earth astray. John says further: “And he shall order an image of the beast to be made, and he shall give breath to the image, so that the image shall speak; and he shall cause those to be slain who will not adore it.” He says also: “And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the right hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six,” [Rev. xiii. 14, etc.]  that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years.
  Book V. Chapter XXVIII.—The distinction to be made between the righteous and the wicked. The future apostasy in the time of Antichrist, and the end of the world.


What Scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

It is interesting that most English translations use the word "scriptures" which may seem somewhat ambiguous.  However, Young's uses specifically "Writings".

" for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,
4 and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings,"  (YLT)

The Hebrews referred to the three sections of the OT as the Tor'ah, or the Teaching (also called the Pentateuch - the five books of Moses); the Nevi'im (Prophets); and the Ketuvim (Writings). In shorthand the TNK, or Tanakh.

"The last of the three divisions, the Ketuvim, contains poetry (devotional and erotic), theology, and drama in Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs (attributed to King Solomon), Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles."  Source: here

Did Paul only mean the Ketuvim (Writings) or was it all OT Messianic prophesy?  Most conclude that all OT scripture prophesy of the death and resurrection of Christ is included.
Excerpt from Benson Commentary:

"According to the Scriptures — The Scriptures which foretold the resurrection of Christ on the third day, and to which St. Paul refers, are Psalm 16:10, (which Peter, Acts 2:31, expressly affirmed to be a prediction of that event,) and Jonah 1:17, which our Lord himself affirmed to be a typical prophecy of his continuing three days in the heart of the earth, and of his subsequent resurrection. "  Source: here

Excerpt from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that is, of the Old Testament, the writings of Moses, and the prophets, according to Scripture promises, Scripture types, and Scripture prophecies; particularly Genesis 3:15 Daniel 9:24 which declare that his heel was to be bruised, that he should be brought to the dust of death, should pour out his soul unto death, and be stricken and cut off in a judicial way, and that for sins; not his own, but for the sins of his people, in order to atone for them, procure the pardon of them, take them away, make an end of them, and abolish them; all which he has done, as the Gospel declares, and the apostle affirms; and thereby was accomplished what Moses and the prophets did say should come to pass. Every promise, type, and prophecy recorded in the law, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning his sufferings and death, had their fulfilment in him; nothing was more clearly prefigured and foretold, and nothing more punctually and fully answered. "  Source: Ibid.

1 Corinthians is held to have been written approx. 55 AD before the Passover.  As this predates even the gospels, it would appear that the NT scriptures cannot be in view here, as they would not have been circulated before this letter to the Corinthians.  Therefore the "Scriptures" must refer to the OT prophesies.
See Dating the New Testament here


Is there an equivalent to cantillation or tajweed in Christianity?

There are indeed methods for singing / chanting the scriptures. Here is some explanation & teaching of the (Catholic) mechanics.

Some lovely Catholic examples:

Latin

Greek

Arabic

English

Some lovely Orthodox examples:

English

English

Russian (Gospel at about 51:00)

Ge'ez


What is the connection of Alta Vendita in the present Church Crisis regarding homosexual scandal & cover-up?

These recent homosexual/pederast scandals are an end-result of at least 1½ centuries of infiltration and moral and doctrinal corruption of the Church by Freemasonry and Communism.

Freemasonry is the most-condemned heresy of all times. 17 papal documents from Clement XII (1783) until Leo XIII (1890) have explicitly condemned it. Several popes have also condemned Communism and Socialism. Catholics are forbidden to be Freemasons; see: Declaration on Masonic Associations Nov 26, 1983.

Timeline of the Freemason's infiltration/corruption

1859-1884

The "Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita [Masonic High Lodge]" is a leaked document that Pius IX (who guaranteed this document's authenticity in his brief of 25 Feb. 1861) and Leo XIII asked to be published. Pope Leo XIII subsequently wrote the encyclical Humanum Genus condemning Freemasonry in 1884, urging everyone "to tear away the mask from Freemasonry, and to let it be seen as it really is" (§31).

The Permanent Instruction is printed in chapter 14 of Msgr. Dillon's Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked (originally titled: The War of Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization (audiobook)); chapter 15 is the letter by Piccolo Tigre.*

*Giuseppe Mazzini, a member of the Italian Freemasons called the Carbonari and key figure, along with Garibaldi et al., in the Freemasonry-driven unification movement of Italy

The following is an excerpt from the Permanent Instruction, quoted in John Vennari's The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church:

  The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step toward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them.

  The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century; but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on.

  We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream; and if events turn out in some way, if Cardinals or prelates, for example, of their own free will or by surprise, should enter into a part of our secrets, this is not at all an incentive for desiring their elevation to the See of Peter. That elevation would ruin us. Ambition alone would have led them to apostasy, the requirements of power would force them to sacrifice us. What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs ...

  With that we shall march more securely towards the assault on the Church than with the pamphlets of our brethren in France and even the gold of England. Do you want to know the reason for this? It is that with this, in order to shatter the high rock on which God has built His Church, we no longer need Hannibalian vinegar, or need gunpowder, or even need our arms. We have the little finger of the successor of Peter engaged in the ploy, and this little finger is as good, for this crusade, as all the Urban II’s and all the Saint Bernards in Christendom.

  We have no doubt that we will arrive at this supreme end of our efforts. But when? But how? The unknown is not yet revealed. Nevertheless, as nothing should turn us aside from the plan drawn up, and on the contrary everything should tend to this, as if as early as tomorrow success were going to crown the work that is barely sketched, we wish, in this instruction, which will remain secret for the mere initiates, to give the officials in the charge of the supreme Vente [Freemasonic lodge] some advice that they should instill in all the brethren, in the form of instruction or of a memorandum ...

  Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping him ... for this Pope, a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children ... You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots.

  This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation. It is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the ground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the highest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this small seed will produce.

  In the path that we are laying out for our brethren, there are found great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind to master. They will triumph over them by experience and by clearsightedness; but the goal is so splendid that it is important to put all the sails to the wind in order to reach it. You want to revolutionize Italy, look for the Pope whose portrait we have just drawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon, let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic keys. You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries, and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world.

Piccolo Tigre's letter is also important because he realizes that the Catholic Church cannot be destroyed, as had been the Freemasons' plan previously; their goal now is to corrupt the Church for their own purposes, primarily by a recruiting strategy that divides husbands from their wives and families and forces them to take secret oaths even their wives cannot know.

Here is one example of where the "Little Tiger" describes their plan to corrupt the Church (Dillon p. 82):

  It is corruption en masse that we have undertaken: the corruption of the people by the clergy, and the corruption of the clergy by ourselves; the corruption which ought, one day to enable us to put the Church in her tomb. I have recently heard one of our friends, laughing in a philosophic manner at our projects, say to us: "in order to destroy Catholicism it is necessary to commence by suppressing woman." The words are true in a sense; but since we cannot suppress woman, let us corrupt her with the Church, corruptio optimi pessima [the corruption of the best is the worst]. The object we have in view is sufficiently good to tempt men such as we are; let us not separate ourselves from it for some miserable personal satisfaction of vengeance. The best poniard with which to strike the Church is corruption. To work, then, even to the very end.

1907

This corruption has even reached the levels of high-ranking clergy in the Church, perverting doctrine with the errors of Modernism, "the synthesis of all heresies", as Pope St. Pius X called it in his 1907 encyclical condemning Modernism, Pascendi Dominici gregis (cf. also his 1907 list of condemned errors Lamentabili sane).

The philosophical/doctrinal corruption began even with Kant, who, like Luther and the Freemasons, also despised the great Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.

1950

Modernism resurfaced on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, under the name of New Theology (Nouvelle Théologie), provoking Pope Pius XII to condemn its philosophical and theological errors in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.

Communist infiltration into seminaries

Another aspect is the Communist infiltration into seminaries. Bella Dodd was a spy who revealed this strategy of corruption.

Chapter 18 "Twentieth Century Harbingers" (pp. 1089-1128) of The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church (vol. 5) by Randy Engel,* the leading historian on homosexuality/pederasty in the modern United States Catholic Church, does a good job reviewing the Communist infiltration and corruption of morals.

*Her recent articles on the Cdl. Viganò affair, etc., can be found on AKA Catholic.

February 2019 update:It has been revealed that disgraced homosexual Cdl. McCarrick associated with the Communist training center in St. Gallen, Switzerland, which would become the seat of the "St. Gallen Mafia," a group of liberals who opposed Benedict XVI in the 2005 conclave and campaigned for Francis's election in 2013 (cf. ch. 1 of The Dictator Pope).


What were the original languages of the Nicene Creed?

The lingua franca of the world during the early years of Christianity was Greek. Latin was the official language of Rome and used throughout the Empire for some official business, but even Rome used Greek in the Eastern parts of the empire by way of expediency. This was much more the case at the time of Christ and the early church (almost the entire New Testament being penned in Greek as a result) but it was also the case hundreds of years later. Even in the heyday of Roman cities in Asia minor, Greek was still heavily used. If you wander through ancient ruins in Turkey (where I live and the council of Nicaea was held), even the Roman era ruins are mostly covered with Greek inscriptions. A few official correspondence things with Rome appear in Latin, and not a few multi-lingual records appear, but local affairs were mostly in Greek.

Even after the Council of Nicaea would have been held and Constantinople gained prominence as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and Latin was the official language of government and military, most of the people in the region still used Greek and it was more common for church affairs (whether local preaching, theological writing, or church councils) to be conducted in Greek than Latin. In fact even during the rise of Constantinople, usage of Greek in education and common usage grew and Latin decreased.  It wasn't really until the East/West split much later and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church that things moved west and Latin became heavily used as a liturgical language and you start finding late Patristic era church fathers writing in Latin.

Following the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire took it's place and returned to using Greek for politics and government as well as local affairs.

The Council of Nicaea would have been conducted entirely in Greek, and the resulting creed drafted in Greek as well. In fact much of the theological debate of the era centered around nuances of Greek words and their former usage in Greek philosophy vs. intended Christian meanings. Our terminology for things like hypostatic union, perousia, etc. all come from Greek terms predominant in theological circles of this era. There would have been almost no need to translate the Nicaean Creed into any other languages initially, it wasn't until a lot of time passed or it was carried very far afield that other translations (including Latin) start cropping up.

Several clauses of what are popularly included in the Nicene Creed are in fact not part of the original Greek, they first appear in Latin translations some years later. There has been much debate about whether these bits added by the Roman church represent sound doctrine. See for example the Filioque controversy. Whether they do or don't accurately represent Christianity is out of the scope of this question, but there is little debate that some phrases only appear in the Latin versions that don't show up in the Greek ones circulated earlier in the east.


Do Fetuses have souls? Is the aquisition of a soul instantenous or continuous?

At the risk of making enemies from both sides of the war over abortion, I will merely provide my opinion.

There is no way of knowing when God breathes a soul into a fetus. At conception? Somewhere in the Middle?  Biblically we know it happens in the womb at some point because babies in the womb respond to God.

For example:

  When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (NIV Luke 1:41)

It takes no forced exegesis to naturally assume John the Baptists, 'before he was born' was responding to God, in some way. this implies a living soul.

The prophecy concerning him also predicted it:

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

Here I could not refer to the NIV as to be clear the word for womb is koy-lee'-ah in Greek and must mean womb. Some translations for ease of street-language just say 'from birth' but without any doubt  whatsoever it means 'before birth'.

Therefore it happens sometime in the womb and one can figure out how old the Baptist was and say definitely before then.  However I do not see the at conception argument made in scripture.  It might be? It might not be?

Therefore since we know the soul is in the womb, but do not know one way or another at exactly when, when a woman is thinking about having an abortion, if she believes the Bible, she must assume at a minimum it might be a living soul. But IMPORTANT if a woman has had an abortion and believes it was a sin, by believing in the Bible, her sin is no greater than the sins we have all committed and she can find perfect full forgiveness and cleansing from guilt, by simple faith in Christ apart from any good work she may want to do to atone for it on her own.

Regarding instantaneous or continuous, I would go with instantaneous as God gave Adam a soul instantaneously by breathing into his human body.


Scriptural basis for replacement theology?

You kind of tipped your hand by using the word ideology in your question! An unscriptural ideology is at the heart of a deficient theology regarding Israel and the Christian Church. (By Church, with a capital C, I'm referring to the universal or "holy catholic" church, which is composed of all true believers in Jesus Christ.)
There Is No Legitimate Argument For It!
The key biblical passage in this regard would have to be Romans, chapters 9-11, where Paul attempts to counteract an incorrect ideology with a correct theology. By the way, if you entertain any thoughts about Paul having slipped into ideology instead of theology, read 9:3-5.

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (Italicized words are original to the NASB Updated version).

What Paul is saying, in part, is there would be no Christianity without Judaism. According to Paul, Judaism is the very foundation of Christianity. Most significant, of course, is that Jesus was born a Jew!
Most Evangelical Christians I know do not subscribe to the notion that Israel is washed up, or that God has given up on Israel and subsequently turned to the church as his only light of truth in a dark world. They focus, rather, on the very expressions Paul uses to indicate the temporary nature of Israel being put on hold, so to speak. Paul uses such expressions as

". . . it is not as though the word of God has failed" (9:6)

In other words, the word of God may not have had the effect God desired, but that is not to say it will never achieve God's desired outcome.

". . . the children of promise are regarded as descendants" (9:8; notice the tense of the verb I've italicized: present--not past--tense).

Put differently, descent from Abraham, the father of faith and a nation, will on day--once more--be an advantage to those descendants who believe God.
Let's stop here. In Paul's line of reasoning, what God was doing among Israel is simply being continued today through the church until the promises God made to Abraham and Isaac, "the child of promise," are fulfilled completely.
The Christian Church as Parenthetical
Think of the "church age" as parenthetical. Not in the sense that what is inside the parentheses is unimportant or an afterthought. No, but in the sense that what came before the parentheses is going to be continued after the parentheses. Other expressions Paul uses are also of relevance:

". . . but Israel , pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law . . .. Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone" (and then Paul quotes Isaiah 8:14). Note: the italicized words are in the the NASB Updated version.

Put differently, Israel stumbled at the simplicity of simply believing in the promise of God; namely, that he was going to bless the entire earth through Abraham's seed (and Isaac's seed, and King David's seed, and so on). Israel got caught up in the rigid observance of the Law as their way of earning God's favor with works of righteousness and stumbled at the sufficiency of faith to win God's favor, which is at the heart of the biblical notion of grace (viz., God's undeserved, unmerited favor to sinners, whether Jew or Gentile).

". . . there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for 'WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED'" (10:12-13).

Another key verse is the following:

". . . God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I . . . [Paul] am an Israelite . . ." (11:1 NASB Updated).
"In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice" (ibid., v.5, original italics)
"But by their [Israel's] transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make . . . [Israel] jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!" (ibid., v.12, original italics).

In other words, a time of fulfillment is coming for Israel. Again, that fulfillment comes after the parentheses of the church age.
Israel Is the Cultivated Stock; the Gentiles, A Wild Branch Grafted In
Paul also resorts to metaphor in chapter 11, talking of bread dough, trees, and branches. The Jews are the original tree root of the cultivated olive, whereas the Gentiles are the "wild" branches which were grafted into the tree when the original branches were "broken off" (vv.16-17). He then warns the Gentiles not to become arrogant. After all, the Jews came first. Just because some of their branches were broken off doesn't mean the original root can't or won't come back to life and produce more branches from the original root!
Moreover, God can just as easily break off the grafted-in branches (i.e., the Gentiles) for unbelief when they fail to lay hold of God's kindness while it is still offered to them (see vv.18-24).
A Partial and Temporary Hardening
Finally, Paul wraps up his argument by saying,

". . . a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel shall be saved, just as it is written [in Isaiah 59:20]."

Furthermore,

". . . the gifts and the calling of God [to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so on] are irrevocable. . . .For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all" [both Gentile and Jew] (v.32).

In conclusion, God has not replaced Israel with the Christian church; rather, the Christian church was grafted in as a way of continuing what God had been doing all along with Israel (viz., seeking a people for himself who would latch on to his promises and thereby be declared righteous by God through simple faith, just as Abraham's faith was accounted unto him as righteousness (Romans 4:3 and 9), since "the just shall live by faith."


What is the biblical basis for switching between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as recipients during prayer?

No, but perhaps we need to define prayer in this context. In the OT all prayer was to God - they knew of one God, Yahweh, who is also referred to as Father. In the NT, Jesus came to reveal the Father, his Father, God.
We pray to the Father as Jesus modelled in his prayers. There is every great reason to give praise to Jesus and thanks for his wonderful life and sacrifice. Is this not prayer?
Prayer is no more than appealing to a heavenly power in praise and recognition. In that recognition, we ask for our needs and for God's provision - as Jesus said to do, in Jesus' name.
Praying to the Holy Spirit is really praying to the Father. Clearly shown to be the Spirit of the Father in the gospels.

for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." Luke 12:12

For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Matthew 10:20

Is there a basis for praying to 3 separate identities? No, not according to Jesus, the son of God - through whom are all things. 1 Cor 11:12, Rom 11:36. We also read that Jesus' very life comes from the Father (John 6:57) and the Father is above all - Jesus included, as the 'way' to the Father. So when we pray to God, it is through Jesus we may come before the Father and not by any other way.


What does the Catholic Church mean when it says In-vitro Fertilization separates the procreative act from procreation?

Humans are indisputably biological beings, and therefore (like so many biological beings) indisputably sexual beings. God, having created us as sexual beings, "saw that [everything] was  very good" (cf. Genesis 1:31). The Church has always held the official belief (whatever individual bishops, priests, and theologians have said) that sex as an act is not sinful in itself, and that sex between spouses is in fact a good thing. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, discusses the question "Whether no venereal act can be without sin?" (i.e. "Is sex always sinful?") He concludes,

  Just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): "What food is to a man's well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race." Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation.

(Second Part of the Second Part, Question 153 Article 2)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds:

  Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.

(paragraph 2360)

And it continues:

  Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

(paragraph 2366—the quotes are taken from the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI)

The Church thus believes that it is wrong, because it is a rejection of the gift God has given us since the Creation, to do anything that is primarily intended to separate the sexual act itself from the concept of procreation. This includes both activities which are primarily intended to allow sexual activity without the possibility of procreation, and activities which are primarily intended to allow procreation without sexual activity. It is for this reason that the Church states:

  Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

(paragraph 2376—the quotation is from Donum Vitae, a letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

This does, of course, bring up the question of why these techniques are wrong, but adoption (which could be considered a form of "surrogate uterus") is acceptable. Neither the Catechism nor the Summa directly address this question. However, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a "teaching statement" in November 2009 titled "Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology". This document directly addresses the issue of surrogate parenting; it states that one of the moral problems with it is that

  in an important sense, the spouses have decided not to be fully the mother and father of their child, because they have delegated part of their role to others.

In adoption, a specific delegation of that sort does not occur. The couple indeed becomes the parent of a child who (in the words of the document) "is not the fruit of the spouses’ commitment to procreate only with and through one another"; however, the conception of the child was not (as surrogate motherhood is) an evasion or deliberate delegation of the natural relationship between husband and wife, between parent and child.


What is the spiritual significance of swearing on a Bible among the various churches and denominations?

A very straight reading of Matthew and James would lead you to believe what Jeff wrote.  But that may not be the end of it, or have anything to do at all with judicial oaths.

Christ meant, as the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers explain, to be so truthful that men could believe them without need of oath to confirm what they say. He did not forbid the use of oaths under proper conditions, when necessary to satisfy others of our truthfulness.
Oaths - Catholic Encylopedia

All the sacraments are oaths. Saying Amen is an oath. Every covenant God made is an oath.  There's no reason you shouldn't "swear to God" when you're seriously "swearing to God".  Just like you can say "God help us" or "Mother of the Saints!" without using God's name or other holy names in vain.
You shouldn't go down a path that is going to lead to perjury.

However, swearing on a Bible, or swearing on "The Precious" or your mother's ashes, etc doesn't seem necessary does it?  Almost seems idolatrous.  But, then again, you're not swearing on a Bible, you're just touching a Bible and swearing on the Holy Word of God and as long as you're not perjuring yourself and you're fulfilling your obligations, you're doing the right thing.


What does the Bible say Christians should or should not do on the Sabbath?

Mark 2:27 NIV
   Then he [Jesus] said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The new Testament does not specify that there is anything we , as Christians, should do/not do on the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was made for us to rest. In Genesis it says that God rested on the seventh day,   we should likewise also take a day to rest.


Adam and Eve (in Genesis)
Cain (in genesis)
Noah (in Genesis)
Abraham (in Genesis)
Satan (in Job)
Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, and possibly Elihu (in Job, from a whirlwind)
Moses (in Exodus, Numbers, possibly Deuteronomy)
Aaron and Miriam (in Numbers 12)
Samuel (in 1 Samuel)
Elijah (the still small voice of 1 Kings 19)
King Belshazzar and his banquet guests (Daniel 5, if you consider writing to be speech: the finger writing on the wall)
the crowd surrounding John the Baptist at Jesus' baptism
Paul on the road to Damascus (in Acts)
the Apostle John (in Revelation, technically a vision)

Some Theophanies are uncertain. Joshua met an angel with a sword which many believe to be the angel of the Lord, making it more than an angelic visitiation or a vision.

Many prophets begin their accounts saying that the Word of the Lord came to them. It is not spelled out in each case whether that was direct appearance, dream, vision, or strong inner voice, so we cannot say.

Fun fact: Of all the recorded instances where God spoke directly to people, his longest address was to Job.


Where did viruses come from, according to Young Earth Creationists?

The notion that all viruses are bad is worth challenging. In 2008 paediatrician Dr Lawrence D. Rosen, MD published a blog post entitled Viruses and Health: Not all bad? which looked at two interesting cases and concluded:

  In both of these cases, it appears that viral infections may indeed
  confer some sort of protection or health benefit to the host.  Is this
  true in all circumstances?  Of course not.  But the converse - that
  these viruses are always a health threat in all people, is equally
  unlikely.  It behooves us to be very, very careful when considering
  eradicating viruses from our bodies, particularly when the cure is
  potentially worse than the infection.

In addition, cancer research scientists are now looking at using (modified) viruses in order to combat this disease.ScienceDirect | Montana State University

Viruses are not mentioned in the Bible and whether they are technically living things is subject to continued discussion. In terms of their origin, the regressive and cellular hypotheses therefore don't entirely conflict with the Christian view; however the predominant view among creationists is that viruses are part of the original creation. Along with the rest of Creation, viruses were subject to The Fall, corrupting their original intended nature. The examples above show that viruses may be (or may have been) beneficial to health. In addition there is a theory called the Horizontal Gene Transfer (or horizontal gene flow) which may explain to some degree a purpose for viruses:

  that genes picked up from somewhere in the environment rather than
  inherited from parents may help to explain rapid adaptation and the
  interesting pattern of DNA in animals.Answers in Genesis: Why Did God Make Viruses?


What are the Biblical reasons for getting married?

I'd say there are several biblical reasons, and one could come up with other good reasons that are non-biblical (but not anti-biblical).

First, there's the matter of close companionship and mutual support (Gen 2:18: where God himself says, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."). Marriage, like work, was given pre-fall, so it is not an institution given because of sin. In other words, it is good, God-ordained institution for how we should live together. Post-fall, God sanctifies through this relationship like no other.

Second, God has gifted most to desire sexual intimacy and children, for he desires godly offspring (Mal 2:15). God wants to expand his kingdom this way, pre-fall and post-fall. If one is so gifted, one should probably marry, "for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor 7:8f).

Third, God presents a picture of his relationship to the church in marriage (Eph 5:22-33; Is 54:5; Jer 31:32; Hos 2:16).

That said, there are also good reasons not to marry. The locus classicus for this is 1 Cor 7 (cited above in favor of marrying). Under persecution (how most take Paul's phrase "present distress"), marriage can make it harder to stand up and be faithful (e.g., if you're about to be executed unless you recant, you have to consider what will happen to your family). Additionally, Paul notes here that there are earthly concerns related to family that necessarily impede on one's ability to do other things for the kingdom. Family is a godly, kingdom-building activity too (see above), but there are other forms of service that are easier for unmarried persons to undertake. (I knew a fellow who had a strong ministry among the poor who said if he had known the sacrifice required and the many more opportunities he would have to use his time and emotional energy, he would probably not have gotten married. He would have poured himself fully into the community around him.)

Whether one should personally seek marriage is thus based on gifting, opportunities for service to the kingdom, and of course, God's provision of a godly spouse.