Was "eye for an eye" law in the O.T. imperative or only permissive?

The Lex Talionis was actually restrictive in it's nature. The remarkable thing about the law was that it set a maximum punishment, equal to the damage inflicted. In contrast, prior laws had said the equivalent of "a life for an eye." It was quite remarkable that limitations were being placed on revenge. This was not an imperative, but a restriction on the one demanding vengeance.
To answer you question, no it did not demand that an equal punishment be meted out if the victim did not desire the punishment be inflicted. Instead, it was saying, the victim may not demand any more than this.
The case law cited draws it out:

 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

That women were property, for instance, would have been taken for granted. That a man might be put to death for killing someone's property is rather progressive for it's day.
Note also, it is the court here that is in charge- not the aggrieved party. If the victim did not wish the court to act, the court was obliged to do so. If the husband makes no demand, there is no case.
Indeed, the concept of judicial mercy itself was rather unique, and was developed over the course of the OT.  The prophets over time called out for mercy. To hear the God of the Bible saying things like, "Vengenance is mine (I.e not yours!) says the Lord" is remarkable progression.
Additionally, unlike, say, even the Code of Hammurabi, Leviticus is clear that the principle is to apply regardless of social class. In contrast, the Hammurabi Code, while having the same principle, was clear that this didn't apply, for example, if a master plucked out his slave's eye. (The slave might be freed, but there was no such thing as equal compensation)


My understanding is that it depends on what kind of actual relationship exists between the "partners", that they're trying to seal with a domestic partnership.

If these are two people in a romantic relationship, and if they're planning to have sex, then the teaching is pretty squarely that they should get married first. Really married, as in the Sacrament, with all its special graces and built-in pastoral guidance; a secular judge signing a paper can't administer that.

If they're not planning to have sex - if they're not interested in each other that way - but are contemplating a civil domestic partnership for other reasons (tax purposes maybe?) then I think the main problem would be scandal-related. In other words, if a third party someone looks at these "partners", and hears that they're in a domestic partnership, will the third party assume that they're having sex out of wedlock? Do you end up setting an example that "normalizes" sex out of wedlock, even if you're not doing it?

(This is, from what I understand, the same issue a lot of Catholics have with romantic partners "moving in together"; even if you're both staying chaste, what will everyone else assume?)


What is the scriptural basis that the Devil or Satan understood God's salvation plan?

Satan had a good idea of God's plan of salvation for men.

The first clue was the prophecy pronounced directly against him after the fall of men.

  I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Genesis 3:15)

Then there was the sacrificial system, where lambs without blemish were offered to God as a propitiation for sin. Clearly there was a substitute offered in place of the sinful repentant men. He would have been experienced enough to know that the blood of lambs and bulls do not actually have power to take away sin.

Satan would have also seen that not all men died. Enoch and Elijah were translated to heaven, though they were born in sin. Also when he contented for the body of Moses after his death, God has power and righteous justification to take him to heaven (Jude 9).

Satan had centuries and millenniums to study the prophecies, he knew of the Son of God and knows the references made of a Divine redeemer must have been about Him.

When Jesus came to the world, Satan made amble provisions to kill Him and tempt Him, because Jesus was "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

When Jesus told the disciples that he would "be killed, and raised again on the third day",  Peter said "be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee". Jesus immediately recognized that this was Satan working in Peter to to counter the plan of salvation. Jesus rebuked Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me" (Matthew 16:21-23).


What is the significance of the Eucharist's sacramental species?

Your questions are addressed in the excellent chapter on the Eucharist of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. For example, it says that as the faithful

  deem it necessary to afford daily nutriment to the body, they should also feel solicitous to feed and nourish the soul every day with this heavenly food. It is clear that the soul stands not less in need of spiritual, than the body of corporal food. Here it will be found most useful to recall the inestimable and divine advantages which, as we have already shown, flow from sacramental Communion. It will be well also to refer to the manna, which was a figure (of this Sacrament), and which refreshed the bodily powers every day.

Humans are comprised of body and soul. Jesus knew this when he quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4:

  …not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

He does not say we live solely off the "word that proceedeth from the mouth of God" (like the angels), nor in "in bread alone" (like the brute animals), but in both.

St. Thomas Aquinas, addressing the question of "Whether the sacramental species [i.e., what appears as bread and wine in a consecrated Host] can nourish?" (Summa Theologica III q. 77 a. 6), writes:

  …food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated (a. 5) that the sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.

  But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity.

  In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as stated above (q. 75 a. 6): and because to nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away…

The sacramental species nourish the communicant's body not as bread or wine, because there is no bread or wine in a consecrated Host and consecrated Precious Blood. After consecration, the substances of the bread and wine are replaced with that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Himself (transubstantiation).

"Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul." (ibid. ad 1).

He said: "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed." (John 6:56).

Also, several saints and blesseds have been known to subsist solely off the Eucharist (cf. ch. 36, "Eucharistic Fasts," of Eucharistic Miracles: And Eucharistic Phenomena in the Lives of the Saints).


What are the differences between hamartiology from a Nazarene to a Calvinist perspective?

No difference.

On the doctrines or original sin and justification by faith Wesleyan and Calvinism seem to run a course along the same stream. Wesley's view of original sin is made clear with few words in a sermon entitled 'SERMON 44 ORIGINAL SIN'.

This sermon on its own clearly shows that Wesley taught the same doctrine as the Protestant reformers, including Luther and Calvin.

Wesley uses the time of the flood as a way to trace 'the nature of man' and then concludes this is a description of humanity at all times, not just then.

  The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5, NIV)

Fixing on the phrase 'God saw all the of the thoughts of his heart', Wesley explains that this means total depravity:

  He “saw all the imaginations:” It is not possible to find a word of a more extensive signification. It includes whatever is formed, made, fabricated within; all that is or passes in the soul; every inclination,affection, passion, appetite; every temper, design, thought....Now God saw that all this, the whole thereof, was evil; — contrary to moral rectitude;contrary to the nature of God, which necessarily includes all good

Then he asked a question many using their own instincts might ask. 'But was there not good mingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with the darkness?'

He answers plainly:

  No; none at all: “God saw that the whole imagination of the heart of man was only evil.”

Then using a similar reasonable protest he asks, “Was there no intermission of this evil? Were there no lucid intervals, wherein something good might be found in the heart of man?'

Wesley again says no, insisting human nature is totally depraved always:

  For God, who “saw the whole imagination of the thoughts of his heart to be only evil,” saw likewise, that it was always the same, that it “was only evil continually;” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good.

Finally he goes on to show that this is the description of man in every generation.  Wesley followed the early Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin in asserting human nature in all generations is only fully evil continually, i.,e 'the total depravity of man.'


Looking for a passage about God forbidding that a census be taken

I think this answers you question as far as why you're not finding a passage:

[2 Samuel 24:1] 1. A.M. 2987. B.C. 1017. An. Ex. Is. 474. And. ƒ107, Ge +10:5. again. 2 S 21:1, etc. he. That is, Satan, 1 Ch[ronicles] 21:1. ƒ63A1, Ge +14:20. This verse, when read without reference to any other part of the word of God is very difficult to understand, and has been used by those who desire to undermine the justice of God to show that he sought occasion to punish—that he incited David to sin; and when he had so incited him, gave the dreadful alternative of choosing one of three scourges by which his people were to be cut off. On the face of the passage these thoughts naturally arise, because “the Lord” is the antecedent to the pronoun “he,”—he moved David. But to those who “search the Scriptures,” this exceedingly difficult passage receives a wonderful elucidation. By referring to 1 Ch 21:1, the reader will there find that Satan was the mover, and that the Lord most righteously punished David for the display of pride he had manifested. Oh, that Christians, who sometimes have their minds harassed with doubts, would remember the promise, that what they know not now they shall know hereafter (Jn 13:7); and if no other instance of elucidation than this passage occurred to them to remove their doubts, let this be a means of stirring them up to dig deeper than ever into the inexhaustible mines of the Inspired Word. --
Smith, J. H. (1992). The new treasury of scripture knowledge: The most complete listing of cross references available anywhere- every verse, every theme, every important word (p. 360). Nashville TN: Thomas Nelson.

The Law of Moses gave the stipulations for conducting a census.  Maybe David wasn't following this.

11 The LORD said to Moses, 12 “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. 13 Each one 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. 14 Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the LORD’s offering. 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD’s offering to make atonement for your lives. 16 You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for your lives.”
(Ex. 30:11–16, ESV)


Religious Blessing at a Non-religious Wedding

Let the Lord help you say the loving words: use Scripture

1 Corinthians 13, RSV has only ever moved me -- when I wasn't a baptized Christian and now that I am.  I've been hearing this at weddings since I was about 10.  My younger brother, a non believer, finds these passages poignant and beautiful in tone and intention.  You can't lose.

  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
  2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
  3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
  4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
  5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not
  irritable or resentful;
  6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.
  7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
  8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
  9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;
  10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
  11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
  12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
  13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I have found that if you omit 11 and 12, most people don't notice, since it wanders from the nuptial theme in a different spiritual direction.

Granted, if this is one of the readings at the wedding during the ceremony, then you've got to reach for another bit of inspiration.  I'd recommend looking through the Song of Songs for a passage that moves you.

(And it happened again; as I reviewed this before posting, my eyes got wet with the power of this scripture).


How do Jehovah Witnesses support scripturely the idea that humans will live on earth after death?

The idea comes from Revelation 21
Revelation 21:1 (NIV)

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

The problem with interpreting Revelation is that there's a lot of debate on what it actually means.
Will we live on a new earth?  Yes in the sense that God will give us a place to live.
Will it be identical to the old earth (with tornadoes, volcanoes, etc)?  Who knows!
The New World Translation of this doesn't really vary.  You can read that if you'd like.


An apostle is one sent from God, a disciple is one who studied under God.

Decent (albeit imperfect) analogues in the terminology would be Apostle is to Missionary as Disciple is to Student.

The 12 disciples included all of the men who studied under Jesus - including Judas.

Once Jesus died and rose again, he sent the remaining 11 of them out (obviously not Judas, since he was dead!) to preach the Good News to the ends of the earth (Matt 28:19-20), and later called Paul to do the same.

Paul, however, did not know Jesus until his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), well after Jesus' teaching ministry was done. Thus, Paul was sent out (apostolos), but was never discipled directly by Jesus.


How common is it to fast for 40+ days among Christians?

To his disciples, regarding fasting, Jesus says :

But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. [Matthew 6:17,18 KJV]

So, regarding those who follow the words of Jesus, it would be impossible to say what they do or when they do it, for they do it secretly, unto the Father.


What are the origins of the theory, present in the "Didascalia Apostolorum", about the existence of a "First Law" and a "Second Law"?

I think the theory is based on a faulty understanding of the Scriptures.

Jesus, when asked about the greatest commandment in the law, answered:

"...'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'  This is the first and great commandment."  [Matthew 22:37, 38, MEV].
And Jesus went further:

"And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." [Matthew 22:39, 40]

It should be noted that neither of these commandments is included in the Ten Commandments, and that both were given after the golden calf idolatry of the Israelites:  therefore, both of these would fall under the theory's classification of "Second Law."

Two commandments of the "'heavy burden' of rules" were judged by Jesus to be the two greatest commandments of the entire Law.


How far do most Christians accept Plato's 'the Forms'?

Yours is a deep question, to be sure, and I certainly cannot answer it for Christians generally, but only for me personally.  If what you are asking, in essence, is

  Does everything which is beautiful, perfect, awe-inspiring, sui generis, masterful, the zenith, the epitome, the quintessence find its fulfillment, either directly or indirectly, in the triune God?,

then my answer is yes, and I have a feeling a few hundred million Christians worldwide feel the same way. And how could it be otherwise?

Jesus, as the eternal Word of the eternally living God, spoke everything, literally everything, into existence (John 1:3). He fashioned the universe, including our solar system and planet Earth, in such a way that everything on earth, including all living creatures, both animal and human, could live and prosper under His beneficent care.

Some have even suggested that the universe is anthropocentric by God's design. Not that human beings are necessarily the "center" of the universe in the sense that "man is the measure of all things (Protagoras, 485-410 BC), but that the universe is home to (perhaps) the only planet on which the physical beings created in God's image could flourish in mind and body, spirit and soul.

Since all things were created by and for Jesus Christ in accordance with the eternal counsels of the Godhead before anything or anyone (including the angels) came into being, all things point to Him in some way. In other words, everything in our material world which can be named (and some which are not named) are metaphors, analogies, similes, allegories, parables, similitudes, parallels to or for some aspect of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

God alone had and forever will have the ability to create. We His creatures, on the other hand, have only the ability to invent, and to do so only with tools which have been given us by an all-knowing God, who is all wise, all powerful, and who created us and sustains us by the word of His power. The human species does not possess anything that was not first given to it by God.

I include this last paragraph because Plato believed, if memory serves, that a chair on earth, for example, has a form called "chairness" in heaven. The chair on earth may be well made, sturdy, attractive even, but the chair sui generis is a heavenly form. I for one do not agree with this, though I may be oversimplifying Plato's thought. (Feel free to correct me.)

In other words, as touching anything manmade or man-invented, there is not necessarily an eternal and perfect form in the heavens. Even the inanimate objects and the animate life-forms God created do not have corresponding forms in heaven, though they do, as I suggested earlier, correspond metaphorically to some aspect of God's eternal being.

For example, the very notion of reproduction, whether of microorganisms, vegetation, animals, fish, or human beings speaks of God's inexhaustible supply of good things as reflected in the ability of all living things to be fruitful and multiply, according to their kind. The universe, we are told, is constantly expanding, and why not? God has no limits, and while the universe is neither infinite nor eternal (at least from the perspective of eternity "past," when all there was, was God), it certainly speaks of God's limitlessness or infinitude. All metaphors, of course, "break down" eventually, because they are, in a sense, only substitutes, as it were, for some aspect or attribute of God's eternal being.

God is love. God is a God of relationships. Within the Godhead are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom love one another, share in the very same nature, and are in accord regarding their Plan for the Ages. Each may have a different role, as it were, but even then, when Jesus trod this earth there was nothing He did in which the Spirit and the Father did not also participate, each according to His role. For example, the Father directed the Son to do X; Jesus obediently did X; and He did so in the power of the Holy Spirit.

At Jesus' baptism, we have a wonderful illustration of this cooperation within the Godhead. The Son enters into the waters of baptism (a metaphor, I suggest, for the baptism He would one day experience at the cross) so as to fulfill all righteousness (a theme I will not develop here). As He emerged from the water, praying, heaven opened; the Spirit in the form of a dove descended bodily and remained on Him; and a voice from heaven said,

  "You are my well beloved Son; in You I am well pleased!" (conflation of Mt 3:16,17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk3:21,22; Jn 1:32-34).

The very notion of love, as it is seen in the human species, may be a pale imitation at times of the Love of God, but it nevertheless reflects, albeit faintly at times, His love.

  "Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lays down his life for his friend,"

Jesus said. He in fact did that very thing, but with a twist: He gave His life for the godless, the sinners, the unrighteous, His enemies (Rom 5:6 ff.).

In conclusion, I guess I would be most comfortable in saying that the best metaphors (and I use the word as a hypernym, of sorts, for all the words denoting similitude in one way or another) as emanating from the created order of things, via language and ideation, are related to the higher values and attributes of the human species, such as love, self-sacrifice, loyalty, beauty, wisdom ("Go to the ant, thou sluggard"--Proverbs), knowledge ("and Adam knew Eve . . ."), the use of giftedness for the greater good, inventiveness, awe, joy, peace, and many other such things, including, perhaps, irreducible complexity and the interrelatedness of all things under the sovereignty of Almighty God.

  "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen" (Romans 11:36 NIV).


Did anyone understand the Holy Spirit to be a person prior to the Council of Constantinople in AD 381?

Tertullian
One early, clear indication of the doctrine of the personhood of the Holy Spirit appears in Tertullian's work, Against Praxeas, dated around AD 215,1 saying:

[W]hile the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Tertullian mentions the personhood of the Holy Spirit several times in this work, but one example is particularly clear, in reference to the use of the plural "we" in the Creation account:

[I]t was because He [that is, the Father] had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make"; and, "in our image"; and, "become as one of us."

Origen
Origen, writing around the same time as Tertullian, also mentions of the will and personhood of the Holy Spirit numerous times.  Several examples from Book 1 of De Principiis (~AD 215) will suffice:2

the Holy Spirit is an intellectual existence [Ch. 1]
From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all [Ch. 3]
the place where we treated, to the best of our ability, of the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [Ch. 7]

Others
Looking at the Holy Spirit more broadly, it's clear that Christians have recognized the existence of the Holy Spirit since New Testament times, and there's evidence that they considered him equal with/on the same level with God the Father and God the Son, as in early renditions of the Apostles' Creed (AD 200)3 and other writings.
The concept of the Spirit's will and independence may be found in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho4 (~AD 160), and even the word "person," though his formulation is not as clear as Tertullian's:

And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, 'The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.'

References and notes:

Dating the work is difficult, but this chronology suggests the ~AD 215 timeframe.
Also available in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Volume 2, p55.
Dialogue with Trypho in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, pg 213


How do we know Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception?

Matthew 1:25 (NIV)

  But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

This shows that she didn't have sex with Joseph until she had given birth.

Furthermore, it fulfilled prophecy:

Matthew 1:22-23 (NIV)

  22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

From the prophecy of Isaiah:

Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)

  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

From a different gospel, we have this account:

Luke 1:30-35 (NIV)

  30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

  34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

  35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

If you want, we can get into the Greek and Hebrew here, but it's pretty clear all over that she had not had sex with anyone and yet she became pregnant.


How have US Christian churches handled discrimination and segregation in the past?

The doctrinal controversies inherent have been discussed in Does the Bible support slavery and (white) superiority in the context of American slavery?, so I will limit myself to actual movements.  This question: When did the African-American population become Christian? also talks about the rise of the black church.
Perhaps the most famous examples of how the church both engaged in and overcame racism are:

The emergence of the AME Church
The AME Church was founded by Richard Allen, a black minister in Philadelphia in the late 1700s.  Although licensed, his ministry was restricted to blacks, and was relegated to early morning services.  When one prayer meeting went long, the story goes, the whites came in and told him he had to move, even while in the midst of prayer. When he demanded that the prayer should continue, the white men beat him savagely.  This was the genesis for the denomination to begin.

The abolitionist movement, and William Wilberforce
Slavery was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1807, and William Wilberforce is most commonly credited with the legislative victory.  A committed Christian, he understood that God was no respecter of persons, and that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free.  The Abolitionist Movement in the United States took largely the same queue.

The emergence of the Civil Rights Movement amongst churches in Alabama
That the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was started by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is not a coincidence.  Much of the early organizing against segregation was coordinated in churches in Montgomery, Birmingham, Atlanta, and later across the south.

The Apology By The Southern Baptist Convention for Slavery in 1995.
The largest denomination in the United States outside of the Roman Catholic Church is the Southern Baptist Convention.  It was formed in 1845, as the result of a split between the Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists, over the question of whether or not missionaries should be allowed to keep slaves.  In 1995, the SBC acknowledged this history, and asked forgiveness for it.

The answer to your questions are thus:

The church was on both sides of the issue, perpetuating evil and good in this regard. (I think I can get away with calling discrimination and slavery as evil).
In general, the White church tended to justify itself, but later came around on the issue
The Black church in the US is neglected way too much.


Why is complete consent listed as a requirement for an act to be a mortal sin?

The objection is irrelevant.

A decision on a matter that serious does not happen in isolation.

  CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met:
  "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

Put in the vernacular: so ya knew it was wrong and ya did it anyway.

As to complete consent.

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.  It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

This answer assumes that the person in question is a practicing Catholic in full communion with the Church at the time of this choice.   Any other case is irrelevant to the technical question you have on the matter of consent of the will.

A brief summary from the Catechism.

  1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin.  This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

The choice for an abortion that you provide in your example was not the only choice available.  Any assertion of coercion or fear as being sufficient grounds to mitigate the act of the will is unfounded (at least in part if not in full) since the doctrine of free will presumes agency on the part of the sinner.  Beyond that, as a member of the faith community, there is available the counsel of the pastor and assistance from the rest of the faith community.  Choosing not to seek pastoral counselling is hardly a mortal sin, but it's certainly an error in judgment.  (Errors in judgment provide fertile ground for sin.  Don't I know it.)

As to imputability

(Ref: Catholic Encyclopedia)

  When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified:
  first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
  second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
  third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.

He's on the hook, as is she.

Beyond that, Jesus taught us: Be not afraid.

About the role of the will in Mortal Sin

From St Augustine:  (Reply to Faustus XXII.27)

  ... something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law.  This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act.  (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Lastly: the condition of being in mortal sin is not permanent.

The sacrament of confession and reconciliation is in place to return the pennitant into communion with the Church.  The help's there, take advantage of it.

The edge case ~ suicide

In recent years, the Church seems to have adjusted its hard line on the suicide as a mortal sin.

  2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example,
  especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
  Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Grave
  psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship,
  suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one
  committing suicide.

It's not a get out of jail free card, but it opens the possibility of mitigation, or a conclusion that the consent of the will was significantly impaired.  With that said, the Church then leaves the fate of the suicide in God's hands:

  2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who
  have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can
  provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for
  persons who have taken their own lives.

The Church will not condone suicide, but it need not condemn the suicide as a reflex.  This leaves open the provision that, in the case of suicide, a defect of the will may overwrite "complete consent" or even sufficient consent.  (per CC 1859)


Are there other sources for the belief in Catholicism that the Apostles composed the articles present in the Apostles' Creed between them?

St. Thomas Aquinas appears to believe this. He wrote in Summa Theologica II-II q. 1 a. 9 ("Whether it is suitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol?") ad 6:

  …the symbol of the Fathers…was drawn up after the faith was already spread abroad, and when the Church was already at peace…. … the symbol of the Apostles… was drawn up at the time of persecution, before the faith was made public..


Why was the significance of Jesus' upcoming betrayal hidden from His disciples?

Matthew Henry writes:

  This prediction of Christ's sufferings was plain enough, but the disciples would not understand it, because it agreed not with their notions. A little child is the emblem by which Christ teaches us simplicity and humility. What greater honour can any man attain to in this world, than to be received by men as a messenger of God and Christ; and to have God and Christ own themselves received and welcomed in him! If ever any society of Christians in this world, had reason to silence those not of their own communion, the twelve disciples at this time had; yet Christ warned them not to do the like again. Those may be found faithful followers of Christ, and may be accepted of him, who do not follow with us.

So Henry says they did not understand because it was not what they wanted to understand.

Cyril of Alexandria writes (SERMON LIII):

  In order, therefore, that they might know what certainly would happen, He bade them, so to speak, store up the mystery in their mind. "For lay ye it," He says, "to your hearts." In which words, the "ye" distinguishes them from all others. For He wished indeed that they should themselves know what would happen, but not that they should communicate it to others. For it was not right for the unlearned to be taught simply His future passion, but far better, to convince them at the same time of His having risen divinely from the grave, and abolished death, and so avoid the danger of their being offended.

He says that Jesus knew that the disciples would worry and question their faith when Jesus was crucified, but so that they would not fall away, he told them exactly what would happen, that they might store it in their minds until the day when they needed to understand it, and it would be revealed to them at that point.

I think the answer is a combination of these two - that the disciples did not want to try to understand the evil that was ahead, but also that Jesus cared for them and showed it so they might not fear, but continue to trust in him while he was in the grave.

Additionally, I found this sermon that makes an interesting argument that the disciples were not yet saved. It makes some  interesting points, but I am not sure I agree with the conclusions there, especially with some of the declarations the disciples made before this point and the faith they did have, as evidenced by the works they performed. The main points were:

They did not understand the gospel.
They did not understand the gospel even though they heard it preached many times. (see Mark 9:30-32, Matthew 17:22-23, Matthew 16:21-22)
They did not understand the gospel because their eyes had not been opened - they had not yet received the converting work of the Holy Spirit of God. (see John 20:24-29, Luke 24:31, John 14:17)

Again, there is some useful commentary there, but I would be careful because some claims are made that do not seem to be supported by Scripture.


The lake of fire and the New Jerusalem as two different perspectives of God

There is a controversial speech/essay "The river of fire" by Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros along these lines, available online at Glory to God for All Things.

A representative sample:

``Paradise and hell are one and the same River of God, a loving fire which embraces and covers all with the same beneficial will, without any difference or discrimination. The same vivifying water is life eternal for the faithful and death eternal for the infidels; for the first it is their element of life, for the second it is the instrument of their eternal suffocation; paradise for the one is hell for the other. Do not consider this strange. The son who loves his father will feel happy in his father's arms, but if he does not love him, his father's loving embrace will be a torment to him.''

This essay is far from being doctrine, judging from the multitude of online discussions about its orthodoxy. I've heard somewhat similar, less stark comments from Fr. Robert Arida and from Fr. Andrew Damick (and, presumably, one can find hints of it in the ancient fathers, e.g. in the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian). For what it's worth, it made sense to me when I read it, but the commentary/rebuttal by Vladimir Moss (available at Orthodox Christian Books) rings true for me as well.


In premillennial theology, is the last judgement before the millennium?

Millennialism (from millennium, Latin for "a thousand years"), or chiliasm (from the Greek equivalent), is a belief advanced by some religious denominations that a Golden Age or Paradise will occur on Earth prior to the final judgment and future eternal state of the "World to Come".  Premillennialism sees Christ's second advent as preceding the millennium, thereby separating the second coming from the final judgment. In this view, "Christ's reign" will be physically on the earth.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism

Premillennialism is the view that Christ’s second coming will occur prior to His millennial kingdom, and that the millennial kingdom is a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth.  During this time Christ will judge the nations on earth but the last judgment will not happen till the end of the millennium.  Matthew 25:31-46 describes the judgment of the nations after the tribulation period and during the millennium:

  When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.  Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

The sequence of events that take place at the end of the millennium are described in Revelation20:7-15.  First is the defeat of Satan:

  And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.  And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Then comes the final judgment before the Great White Throne:

  Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.  And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.  And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.  Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.  And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

This final judgment of unbelievers occurs at the end of the Millennium, before the creation of the new heaven and earth.  At this judgment, unbelievers from all the ages are judged for their sins and consigned to the lake of fire.


Is there a way to help choose a Catholic Church?

One of the oldest sites I've always relied on to find area Masses is masstimes.org.  From there you can find your parishes in your neck of the woods that you might be interested in attending.

I believe every diocese in the USA has a website and from there you can usually find parish websites.  Most parishes (who have a website) post their bulletins to their parish website, so you can get a feel for the parish without attending Mass (if there's fish fries, bingo, euchre tournaments or adoration and confession, etc...)

Furthermore, lots of parishes can be found on https://www.parishesonline.com/ (I think this used to be called "seek and find") much of the information Masstimes.org, as well as the bulletins, can be found there too.

It should be noted that one of the 'rules for Catholics' and I'm not sure how well it is enforced because I violate it almost every week and nobody has told me not to, is that you should attend Mass in your home parish (regardless of how much you dislike the priests's homilies) I believe this is tied to the 5th precept of the Church, which is to provide for the needs of the Church.

In my experience "Church Shopping" isn't something that is a loved practice by Catholic priests. But in general, they want what is best for you spiritually, so if you need to go to a parish with a great community life, that's great and if you prefer a more austere parish with lots of concrete and no padded kneelers, that's probably OK too.


What constitutes consent to marriage?
So there is no doubt about this issue concerning your example: The Marriage would not be considered valid. I am including the whole revenant material from the Code of Canon Law on this subject:

6III. Matrimonial Consent*
1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

not being under constraint;

not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."125 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.
1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."126 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."127
1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.128 No human power can substitute for this consent.129 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.
1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.130 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.131
1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. the presence of the Church's minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.
1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:132

Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children; - Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);

the public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

1632 So that the "I do" of the spouses may be a free and responsible act and so that the marriage covenant may have solid and lasting human and Christian foundations, preparation for marriage is of prime importance.
The example and teaching given by parents and families remain the special form of this preparation.
The role of pastors and of the Christian community as the "family of God" is indispensable for the transmission of the human and Christian values of marriage and family,133 and much more so in our era when many young people experience broken homes which no longer sufficiently assure this initiation:
It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love, its role and its exercise, so that, having learned the value of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon a marriage of their own.134
Mixed marriages and disparity of cult
1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a nonbaptized person) requires even greater circumspection.
1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. the spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. the temptation to religious indifference can then arise.
1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.135 In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.136 This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.137
1636 Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.
1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."138 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.139 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

To be crystal clear, the above case would be considered invalid because a marriage tribunal would question the validity of the consent. The Church must be absolutely sure that consent was giving. One can not prove without a shadow of a doubt that your above example was done according to Canon Law.
Some unconscious persons may retain their faculties of reason, while others do not. This poses a hug obstacle in establishing whether or not real consent was actually been established.
Was the consent truly giving? Was the squeezing of the hand really done by way of consent or merely a physical reaction. Thus Rome would not recognize this as a means of valid consent. The dubia is to great.
Another problem is that the unconscious person could not sign his writ of consent, as is mandated by many civil courts. It would not be recognized by the law of the country where they reside.
The above scenario lacks a serious norm of ecclesiastical form from it’s very concept.


Modern Christians may have come to accept the practice of charging interest to unbelievers who can afford it, because the Bible doesn't forbid it.

  1 Corinthians 10 says Old Testament examples were also written for the
  benefit of Christians. Leviticus 24 tells God's people they are not to take advantage
  of "poor", fellow Israelites, by charging them interest or selling at a profit. It did not forbid charging interest to, or making a profit from sales to non-Israelites.

  Acts 4:32 ff., sets an even higher standard. Christians were voluntarily selling
  their possessions, to meet the needs of poor Christians, so there would be equality. No mention is made of Christians doing this for non-Christians.

  The NT calls on Christians to "remember the poor" (Gal. 2:10).

The practice of lending with interest to unbelievers who can afford it, was not prohibited in the Bible.

As far as borrowing with interest,

  Romans 13 says "Owe no man anything...". However, "owe" is in the present tense, not the perfect tense. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily mean never owe any man anything at any time, but may be interpreted as "don't keep on owing any man anything" (i.e. don't let your debts remain outstanding).

  With that understanding, a person who pays their monthly rent on time, is not allowing their debt to remain outstanding, but is paying it when it is due.

  We were actually paying as much in rent as we later paid in monthly mortgage, when purchasing a home. While Proverbs warns against becoming a slave to the lender, it was actually a better stewardship for us to take out a loan to buy a house (with interest), than it was to pay the same amount in rent, but without ownership or equity.

Christians may have come to accept the practice of borrowing with interest, because it can sometimes be better stewardship than paying rent.


I used to listen to the Vatican Radio podcast which included a recording of the Pope's Urbi et Orbi blessing and they would put a disclaimer in the recording that the blessing didn't apply to recordings, only to those present or watching/listening live.  The key distinction is live versus a recording; even if you're watching the EWTN web stream -- which might be broadcast delayed up to a minute or more due to the nature of "live web broadcasts" it still counts as live.

As for how much it counts toward time off of Purgatory, there is the rule in moral theology that you only receive the graces you're disposed to receive.


In the sermon of the mount, Jesus teaches about the sixth through tenth commandments, deepening their meaning.  For example, "Don't kill" he expands to "Don't have unresolved anger or conflict".  "Don't commit adultery" becomes "Don't lust".

For "Don't bear false witness", Jesus says (not quoting one of the ten commandments directly, but a related passage about making vows):

  Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord."  But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.  But let your statement be, "Yes, yes" or "No, no"; anything beyond these is of evil.

  Matthew 5:33-37 (NASB)

The idea is that you should always follow through with what you say.  In other words, be trustworthy.  The same applies to the commandment: people should be able to trust you, whether that is in a courtroom, or in daily life.

White lies are not compatible with being trustworthy, because it tells others that you will lie for the sake of convenience.

Whether white lies are ok in the context of helping another, I don't know.  That leads to: "can the ends justify the means?"


Was the cave of Abraham in Shechem or Hebron?

The account in Genesis seems pretty clear that the cave of Abraham is in Hebron. Modern commentators seem to agree that Stephen was "telescoping" multiple Genesis accounts of patriarchal burials into one shorter narrative. I. Howard Marshall's commentary says, for example:

  The relation of the story of the burial to the Old Testament
  traditions is complicated. According to Acts they were all buried at
  Shechem in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor. (1) According to Genesis 49: 29-32; 50:13 Jacob was buried in the cave
  of Machpelah near Hebron which Abraham had bought from Ephron the
  Hittite (Gn. 23). (2) Joseph was buried at Shechem (Jos. 24:32) in
  land which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor (Gn. 33:18-20). (3)
  Josephus states that Jacob's other sons (and, by implication, Jacob
  himself) were buried at Hebron (Jos., Ant. 2:199), and this
  tradition is also found in Jubilees and the Testaments of the
  Twelve Patriarchs. (4) There was a local tradition at Shechem that
  the twelve sons of Jacob were buried there. It thus appears that
  Stephen differs from the Old Testament accound in that he locates the
  tomb which Abraham bought at Shechem, not Hebron, and in that he adds
  the detail about the brothers of Joseph being buried there also.
  [F.F.] Bruce (Book, p. 149 n.39) suggests that, just as Stephen has
  telescoped the two calls of Abraham at Ur and Haran in verse 2 and the
  two divine messages in verse 7, so here he has telescoped the two
  accounts of purchases of land in Canaan. It seems probable that
  Stephen has followed a tradition, according to which not only Joseph
  (he, rather than Jacob, is perhaps meant be he died, himself in
  verse 15b) but also his brothers were buried at Shechem, and that he
  has attributed the purchase of the grave there to Abraham by including
  an allusion to the story in Genesis 23. The interest in Shechem and
  the emphasis upon it is remarkable in a speech addressed to Jews in
  Jerusalem, but they certainly could not contest the fact of Joseph's
  burial in the hated Samaritan territory. There is nothing sacrosanct
  about Judea as a place of burial; is there perhaps also a subtle
  preparation of Luke's readers for the story of the evangelism of
  Samaria (8:5-25)?

Does that make Luke a bad historian? If he was accurately reflecting Stephen's words, it makes him a good historian. Does it make Stephen a sloppy speaker? Not necessarily. This article by an apologist (Timothy W. Dunkin) defends Stephen from that charge. He claims that such telescoping was a perfectly acceptable practice for the time:

  What we see in this passage is simply that either Stephen in his
  sermon, or Luke in his recounting of the sermon, is telescoping the
  events of Abraham and Jacob together, as they are essentially similar
  subject matter, and are related chronologically and historically.
  Again, let us remember who Stephen's audience were - Hellenistic Jews
  who would to a certain degree have been Hellenised. As such, they
  would have been more receptive (and perhaps would subconsciously
  expect) a presentation in a Hellenistic style of rhetoric. It is
  doubtful that Stephen's audience would have even thought twice about
  Stephen's supposed error - they would have recognised the oratory
  device, and filled in the unspoken details themselves from their tacit
  knowledge of the stories and texts in question. This is made all the
  more likely because of the fact that most ancient cultures utilised
  high-context communication. Whereas we, in our low context society,
  feel the need to explicitly spell out exactly what we mean and leave
  little to the tacit knowledge of our audience, the ancients left much
  of the context of their words unspoken. The hearers or readers were
  expected to fill in the details from what they already knew, as
  Stephen would likely have expected his audience to do in this
  situation.

  Of course, this telescoping device was not solely limited to
  Hellenistic venues. Hints of it also seem to appear in the Hebrew
  scriptures. We see it somewhat in Joshua's sermon in Joshua 24, such
  as where Joshua appears to get his chronology backwards in vv. 11-13.
  The creation account in Genesis 1, where the events of the sixth day,
  especially the creation of Adam and Eve, are telescoped together and
  the much greater detail appearing in Genesis 2 is left out. Despite
  (though not necessarily contradictory to) all the emphasis that has
  been laid out about the Hellenism of Stephen's audience, we can see
  that Stephen's sermon delivery is firmly in the Hebrew tradition.
  Sermonry through the recounting of historical details and progression,
  especially as they apply to God's dealings with the nation of Israel,
  are a programmatic Hebrew method of exhortation. This methodology is
  used extensively by Moses (e.g. Deut. chs. 4, 29, 32), is the basis of
  Joshua's sermon in Joshua 24, forms the basis of Psalm 78, and is
  found elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures. This same sort of Hebraism
  appears elsewhere in the New Testament, such as in Corinthians 10 and
  Hebrews 11.

  Thus, Stephen's sermon was fully in line with both the Hebraic and
  Hellenistic traditions of his audience, and his meaning would have
  been easily recognised by the members of his audience. While this
  telescoping appears to modern, low-context observers as wrong, it is
  incorrect to say that this is a "contradiction" or "error" given what
  has been said above. This only appears to be a contradiction because
  our modern minds are not conditioned to recognise and expect
  Hellenistic modes of speech.


Why is the word ‘concupiscence’ so important in understanding the difference between a Catholic view and a Protestant view of ‘Original Sin’?

If you want to understand Catholic teaching you really ought to consult the Catechism. After all, authentic teachings are always going to be more accurate than what you have 'heard'.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that Adam and Eve were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice" (CCC 375, 376 398), free from concupiscence (CCC 377). The preternatural state enjoyed by Adam and Eve afforded endowments with many prerogatives which, while pertaining to the natural order, were not due to human nature as such. Principal among these were a high degree of infused knowledge, bodily immortality and freedom from pain, and immunity from evil impulses or inclinations. In other words, the lower or animal nature in man was perfectly subject to the control of reason, the will (subject to GOD,) and most importantly, GOD. Besides this, the Catholic Church teaches that our first parents were also endowed with sanctifying grace by which they were elevated to the supernatural order.[1] By sinning, however, Adam lost this original "state," not only for himself but for all human beings (CCC 416).
According to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right: the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, and the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth.[2]
As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teaching of Luther and Calvin); rather, human nature has only been weakened and wounded, subject to ignorance, suffering, the domination of death, and the inclination to sin and evil (CCC 405, 418). This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418). Baptism, Catholics believe, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. The inclination toward sin and evil persists, however, and he must continue to struggle against concupiscence (CCC 2520).
Source: Wikipedia entry on Concupiscence - Catholic teaching section.
Footnotes:
¹ Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Terrestrial Paradise
² Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Original Sin


Is it correct to say "any effort using scientific way to prove or disprove God is in vain"?

You may look into Dr. William Lane Craig, who is a preeminent Christian philosopher/apologist, especially his book On Guard covers a lot of material related to your question. You might also look into Alvin Plantinga's book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.

The answer is that you can make philosophical statements for the existence or non-existence of God, and you can use scientific evidence to support any premises made in that argument. For instance the cosmological argument goes like this:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;

Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.

You can use science to back up points 1 and 2 (for instance the scientific evidence for the existence of the big bang in the second point) or you could use science to disprove those points as well (some people have claimed quantum physics can disprove the 1st point), but the conclusion is philosophical one.

The problem with science is that it has an epistemological boundary of only being able to make statements of truth about empirically observable phenomena. When you are talking about God you are talking about something that transcends the universe, and is by definition then is not something that is empirically observable (and if he was then he wouldn't be transcendent).

Now science can proof or disprove specific claims, like I could claim that God made my severed arm grow back and science could present evidence for or against that having actually occurred. Likewise archaeology could potentially prove or disprove events in the Bible. But if you start going down the path that nothing does exists aside from what is empirically observable by science then you have fallen into the pitfall of scienstism.


What is the earliest historical instance of state-paid Clergy?

Perhaps not exactly paid clergy, but the State began indirectly to help the clergy in the time of Constantine. It is not quite the same thing.

In Constantine’s day the clergy were aided in a number of ways with substances for living, but did not receive outright wages from the State! They did receive some monetary help, but not wages properly speaking.

In fact, even up to the sixth century, the clergy worked to support themselves.

Direct support of the clergy by the State is of comparatively modern origin, having developed since the Reformation.

It is all in the following article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  A stipend is a fixed pay, salary; retribution for work done; the income of an ecclesiastical living. In canon law stipend is a general designation of means of support (sustentatio congrua or congrua) provided for the clergy. In the early ages of the Church no special provision was made for the maintenance of the clergy. St. Paul, the tent-maker, set the example (1 Corinthians 4:12) of earning his own livelihood. In imitation of him many clerics worked at some craft or followed some profession, living by the labour of their own hands. Even in the fifth and sixth centuries there were bishops, priests, and deacons, who in keeping with the advice of the Fourth Council of Carthage (a. 398, cann. 52, 53) supported themselves by their own labour. Early legislation (Canon. Apost., can. 6), which forbade the clergy to take up certain occupations and professions, is an indication that clerics sought to maintain themselves. Many of the laity, however, even from the beginning, were quick to follow the instructions of Christ and his Apostles (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Timothy 5:17-18), founded on the practice in vogue among the Jews (Leviticus 27:30 sq.; Numbers 18:23 sq.; etc.), who gave tithes of all their goods and produce for the sustenance of priests and levites. Thus did the laity provide for the bodily welfare of the clergy in return for the spiritual gifts received through their ministry. Later the payment of tithes was frequently insisted on by St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others (Thomassin, "Vet. et nov. eccl. disc., " III, II, xii, xiv). The Synods of Tours (560) and Mâcon (586) strenuously exhorted the faithful to pay the tithes ordained by God. Charlemagne made their payment obligatory on his subjects by a royal ordinance of 779, the requirements of which he himself faithfully observed. The obligation of giving tithes has long since ceased almost universally, but the faithful, of course, must contribute to the proper support of sacred ministers.

  In regard to so-called state aid of the clergy, the State began indirectly to help the clergy in the time of Constantine, who gave a legal existence to churches as corporate bodies, permitting them to receive donations and legacies and to hold the same in perpetuity (Cod. Theod., XVI, 2, 4). He ordered contributions of grain to be given annually to the clergy out of the public granaries. He contributed large sums from his own resources for the support of the clergy in Africa, and exempted the Church from imposts in an edict imposing a general tax (Cod. Theod., XI, i, 1). Direct support of the clergy by the State is of comparatively modern origin, having developed since the Reformation. It obtains particularly in Catholic countries that have entered into a concordat, or treaty, with the Holy See for the support of the clergy. This support is in recompense, far inadequate indeed, for the sequestration of ecclesiastical funds and property. Austria, Spain, Italy, and certain countries of Central and South America thus directly support the clergy, paying salaries to bishops, vicars-general, pastors, and assistants. France and Portugal, as well as Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, when under Spanish rule, did the same.

  Since the time of Constantine the right of the Church to possess temporal goods has been universally acknowledged and protected by civil governments with some exceptions. These exceptions refer chiefly to bequests and legacies. The possession by the Church of temporal goods and the surrendering of the same to the clergy for their sustenance gave rise to benefices, the fruits or income of which constitute the chief provision for the maintenance of the clergy possessing them. The fruits of a benefice will maintain the incumbent, even though he have private means of support. He should have not only what is necessary for sustenance, but sufficient for fitting recreation and hospitality, and a modest portion for future contingencies: he may also assist near relatives to some extent. If anything remain, it is to be used in charitable works. Ecclesiastical goods are not to be bequeathed in any considerable quantity to profane purposes. There are other methods in vogue for the support of the clergy akin to, or divisions of, those mentioned: voluntary offerings, tithes, quasi-contracts, state aid, and benefices. Stipends for the application of Masses were originally intended for the daily maintenance of the celebrant. - Stipend (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

Wikipedia states that as far as Constantine was concerned the Jewish clergy were given the same exemptions as Christian clergy.

We also see that in the late fifth and early sixth centuries that Queen Shirin supported the Church in Iran, but the political situation demanded that she do so discreetly. Once again, source do not indicate a state wide wage for the clergy. Queen Shirin seems to support in the second paragraph Clergy that were to some degree attached to the royal court.

  Shirin (? – 628 AD) (Persian: شیرین) was a wife of Khosrow Parviz. In the revolution after the death of Khosrow's father Hormizd IV, the General Bahram Chobin took power over the Persian empire. Shirin fled with Khosrow to Syria, where they lived under the protection of Byzantine emperor Maurice. In 591, Khosrow returned to Persia to take control of the empire and Shirin was made queen. She used her new influence to support the Christian minority in Iran, but the political situation demanded that she do so discreetly. Initially she belonged to the Church of the East, the so-called Nestorians, but later she joined the miaphysite church of Antioch, now known as the Syriac Orthodox Church. After conquering Jerusalem in 614, amidst the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628, the Persians captured the True Cross of Jesus and brought it to their capital Ctesiphon, where Shirin took the cross in her palace.

  The Roman (Byzantine) ancestry of Shirin is contradicted by Sebeos: "[Xosrov], in accordance with their Magian religion, had numerous wives. He also took Christian wives, and had an extremely beautiful Christian wife from the land of Xuzhastan named Shirin, the Bambish, queen of queens. She constructed a monastery and a church close to the royal abode, and settled priests and deacons there allotting from the court stipends and money for clothing. She lavished gold and silver [on the monastery].

The very first concordat with the Holy See was with Ecuador in 1862. As seen here, it made provisions to support it’s Catholic clergy.

  Article 11

  As the proceeds of the tithes are destined for the upkeep of Divine worship and of its ministers, the Government of Ecuador binds itself to preserve this Catholic institution in the Republic and His Holiness consents that the Government should continue to receive a third part of the proceeds of tithes.  The two authorities (civil and ecclesiastical) shall come to an agreement about the collection and administration of tithes.

  Article 16

  The Holy See, in exercise of its particular prerogative, shall create new dioceses and shall make new delimitations in those at present existing; and taking into account the present extent of the dioceses among which the Republic is at present divided, the Holy See will, immediately on ratification of the present Concordat, confer on its own special delegate the necessary powers to proceed in consultation with the Government and the respective bishops to the territorial demarcation of the dioceses which can be conveniently created and to fix the endowments and salaries of churches, bishops, chapters and seminaries.


If the word "Brother" is ambiguous as far as The Bible is concerned, can we be named Brothers of Jesus Christ?

"Brother" is not vague, but it does have multiple subsenses. These are usually distinguished quite clearly, and Protestants who reject the perpetual virginity of Mary would say that those who argue for it have to go to great lengths to get misinterpret the verses which indicate otherwise. But that's a whole nother topic, and we don't need to get into it to answer this question.
Adoption is a major Biblical theme, and the Bible clearly says many times that we are Jesus's brothers and sisters.

Mark 3:33-35: He replied to them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” Looking at those sitting in a circle around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”
Romans 8:15-17: For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear. Instead, you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father!” The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and coheirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.
Romans 8:29: For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Galatians 4:4-7: When the time came to completion, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then God has made you an heir.
Ephesians 1:5: He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Hebrews 2:11-12: For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, saying:
I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters;
I will sing hymns to you in the congregation.


Is wearing makeup sinful according to Catholic teaching?

If a woman wears makeup for vane or scandalous purposes (e.g., impressing others, making others envious, inciting men to lust, etc.), it's sinful. If she wears makeup to please her husband (e.g., so he doesn't commit adultery or despise her), it's not sinful.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes, in Summa Theologica II-II q. 169 a. 2 ("Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?") co.:

As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind the general statements made above (Article 1) concerning outward apparel, and also something special, namely that a woman's apparel may incite men to lust, according to Prov. 7:10, "Behold a woman meeteth him in harlot's attire, prepared to deceive souls."
Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband, lest through despising her he fall into adultery. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 7:34) that the woman "that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Wherefore if a married woman adorn herself in order to please her husband she can do this without sin.
But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in this respect.  Hence Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.):I do not wish you to be hasty in forbidding the wearing of gold or costly attire except in the case of those who being neither married nor wishful to marry, should think how they may please God: whereas the others think on the things of the world, either husbands how they may please their wives, or wives how they may please their husbands, except that it is unbecoming for women though married to uncover their hair, since the Apostle commands them to cover the head.Yet in this case some might be excused from sin, when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended.


Was tithing 10% required or encouraged by the early church?

The word tithe itself comes from the Old English teogoþa, meaning "tenth" - so technically, tithing is the giving of a tenth by definition. But of course that's not what you're asking!

The idea of giving a tenth comes from the Old Testament:

Leviticus 27:30-33 (MSG):

  "A tenth of the land's produce, whether grain from the ground or fruit
  from the trees, is God's. It is holy to God. If a man buys back any of
  the tenth he has given, he must add twenty percent to it. A tenth of
  the entire herd and flock, every tenth animal that passes under the
  shepherd's rod, is holy to God. He is not permitted to pick out the
  good from the bad or make a substitution. If he dishonestly makes a
  substitution, both animals, the original and the substitute, become
  the possession of the Sanctuary and cannot be redeemed."

Deuteronomy 14:22-29:

  Make an offering of ten percent, a tithe, of all the produce
  which grows in your fields year after year. Bring this into the
  Presence of God, your God, at the place he designates for worship and
  there eat the tithe from your grain, wine, and oil and the firstborn
  from your herds and flocks. In this way you will learn to live in deep
  reverence before God, your God, as long as you live. But if the place
  God, your God, designates for worship is too far away and you can't
  carry your tithe that far, God, your God, will still bless you:
  exchange your tithe for money and take the money to the place God,
  your God, has chosen to be worshiped. Use the money to buy anything
  you want: cattle, sheep, wine, or beer—anything that looks good to
  you. You and your family can then feast in the Presence of God, your
  God, and have a good time.

  Meanwhile, don't forget to take good care of the Levites who live
  in your towns; they won't get any property or inheritance of their own
  as you will.

  At the end of every third year, gather the tithe from all your
  produce of that year and put it aside in storage. Keep it in reserve
  for the Levite who won't get any property or inheritance as you will,
  and for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow who live in your
  neighborhood. That way they'll have plenty to eat and God, your God,
  will bless you in all your work.

But, as you rightly say, in the New Testament we are instructed to give what we can, or to give whatever we feel is the right amount. Working out what that right amount is, is of course different for each person and therefore many have sought guidance on what the correct amount should be.

The passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy don't just give an instruction but give some reasoning too; by giving ten per cent of everything in worship to God, we still have enough left over to live comfortably on.

When we look at Jesus' teaching on giving, he calls us to give much more than 10 per cent:

Matthew 19:21 (MSG)

  "If you want to give it all you've got," Jesus replied, "go sell your
  possessions; give everything to the poor. All your wealth will then be
  in heaven. Then come follow me."

Mark 12:40-42 (MSG)

  Sitting across from the offering box, he was observing how the crowd
  tossed money in for the collection. Many of the rich were making large
  contributions. One poor widow came up and put in two small coins—a
  measly two cents. Jesus called his disciples over and said, "The truth
  is that this poor widow gave more to the collection than all the
  others put together. All the others gave what they'll never miss; she
  gave extravagantly what she couldn't afford—she gave her all."

On that basis, we might view ten per cent as the minimum we should be giving. The church I attend (a "New Church") teaches that we should give what we feel is the right amount, 2 Corinthians 9:7 indicates - but as a guideline 10% should be a starting point. (My church also practices what it preaches - 30% of income is given away to other projects and charities).


Does "Where ever there is more than one of you gathered in My name" apply to the Internet?

Physicality is not specified at all. Although you could make a case that online, we are in some manner physically present to each other. :)

However, if you are together, praying, but gathered over great distances, I don't think there's any technicality in play, here. God doesn't work in technicalities, but in what's in our heart. So, I figure that yes, virtual gatherings also do count.

There are plenty of examples of people throughout the world using telecommunications to pray together. And I have never seen anyone question the idea that Jesus wasn't actually present. To the contrary, it always is understood that He is. So I would treat this as a common understanding.


Use of single and double quotation marks in Isaiah 7

This question on the English Language Stack Exchange site talks about the Multiple Quotation Rule.

When a speech goes over more than one paragraph then the opening quotation marks are repeated at the beginning of each paragraph, with closing marks placed only at the end of the speech.

This is not a rule universally followed but is followed here in the NIV.

The NIV are also following another convention of indenting longer sayings.

  3Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field.

  4Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah.

  5Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying,

  6“Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.”

  7Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

    “ ‘It will not take place,
    it will not happen,

    8for the head of Aram is Damascus,
    and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
    Within sixty-five years
    Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.

    9The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
    and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
    If you do not stand firm in your faith,
    you will not stand at all.’ ”

The opening double quote in verse 3 is repeated at the start of the indentation in verse 7, and closed at the end of verse 9.

The single quote in verse 4 is also repeated at the start of the indentation in verse 7, and closed at the end of verse 9.

The double quote at the start of verse 6 is closed at the end of verse 6.

The indentation in the middle of verse 7 counts as an opening quote and this closes with the end of the indentation at the end of verse 9.

Significance

Verse 3 begins The Lord said to Isaiah - the rest of verse 3 and all of verses 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are what the Lord said to Isaiah.

The Lord's message to Isaiah was to go and find Ahaz and give him a message. From after "say to him" in verse 4 until the end of verse 9 is what the Lord wants Isaiah to say to Ahaz.

The message Isaiah is asked to give to Ahaz is to tell him what Aram and co. have been saying (verse 6) but not to worry because the Lord says something else (the indented bit from middle of verse 7 to end of verse 9.

The Lord told Isaiah to go and tell Ahaz something. Isaiah was to tell Ahax what Aram said and also what the Lord had to say on the matter. So the indented portion is what the Lord is telling Isaiah to tell Ahaz what He, the Lord has to say about the matter.  (The doctrine of verbal inspiration would even further complicate things.)

Clarification

  The Lord said to Isaiah,

    Go to Ahaz and say to him

      Be careful, Aram and his pals have been saying

        Let us invade Judah

      Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

        It's not going to happen.


According to Unitarians, to whom does the word הָאָדוֹן refer in Mal. 3:1?

You ask "How do Unitarians refute the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to Yahveh (God) in Mal. 3:1?"
The question seems to hold the hidden assumption that Unitarians need to refute the Trinitarian position in order to be a valid belief.
It also seems to hold the hidden assumption that Unitarians generally don't think that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to God in Mal. 3:1.
I think both these assumptions are wrong. And so the short answer could be: "They don't generally refute that assertion". As @Cannabijoy a Unitarian who provided the previous answer made clear.
A slightly longer answer would be that they don't need to be able to refute the Trinitarian position in order for their position to be a valid alternative position. They can just prefer it over the Trinitarian position which they might find un-intuitive and lead to unique interpretations where a person using a word that normally indicates a relationship to another is actually referring to their self. They might question how they could justify to God why they thought God would have expected them to make such novel interpretations.
Regarding the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to God in Mal. 3:1 :
They accept that it does, but reject that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) is the messenger of the covenant. On the basis that a messenger is one that carries a message for another. They can view Jesus as the messenger of the covenant for example.
It seems to me that they could also reject that it does, but I don't understand the Hebrew grammar issues so could be mistaken here. But it seems to me they could think that those questioning where the God of Judgement in Malachi 2:17 meant it more in the sense of asking why hasn't God made himself apparent. And therefore weren't thinking it was a matter of seeking him. The Lord that the people seek הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) in 3:1 was the Messiah, and the reason it states his temple is because the verse relates to 2:17 and the God of Judgement that hadn't seemed to make himself apparent. So that it could be read as something like "And the Lord, whom ye seek, Will suddenly come to the God of Judgement's temple".
Those not being the only interpretations of that verse that would be available to them.


What is the "Catholic Church" acording to Anglicanism?

Modern versions of the Nicene Creed use catholic, not Catholic
The original 1662 Book of Common Prayer did use a capitalized "Catholic" in the Nicene Creed.

And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church

However, this is more a stylistic choice used at the time in which many important words were capitalized (as the German language still does today). Other words such as "Begotten", "Baptism", and "Sins" are all capitalized. Thus we shouldn't assume that just because it is capitalized that it refers to the Catholic Church.
Common Worship, the 21st century successor to Book of Common Prayer, uses a lower case "catholic" to reflect how the English language and its grammar rules have changed over the last several hundred years.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The word "catholic" means "according to the whole"
To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, distributed by the Anglican Church of North America, has this to say about the word in its extended catechism:

95. Why is the Church called “catholic?”
The term “catholic” means “according to the whole.” The Church is called “catholic” because it holds the whole faith once for all delivered to the saints, and maintains continuity with the apostolic Church throughout time and space.

Wikipedia reiterates this belief in the following way:

The term ["catholic"] is used also to mean those Christian churches that maintain that their episcopate can be traced unbrokenly back to the apostles and consider themselves part of a catholic (universal) body of believers. Among those who regard themselves as Catholic but not Roman Catholic are Anglicans and Lutherans, who stress that they are both Reformed and Catholic.

In other words, Anglicans have the same quality as both the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in that they have continuity with the early Church, but they are also Reformed in that they follow the teachings espoused during the Reformation.