Are there any groups of Christians who believe that all loans made with their money should be made without the expectation of repayment?

Strict Eastern Orthodox Christian teaching requires this.

Although written in the 18th century, Counsels on the Particular Duties of Every Christian by Tikhon of Zadonsk is still considered by Orthodox Christians to be one of the most practical guides available for Christian living.  (It is available in an English translation of the Greek version entitled Journey to Heaven).  Tikhon writes:

  When a debtor comes to such destitution and poverty that he genuinely
  has nothing with which to pay back his creditor, Christian love
  demands that the creditor either be patient, or, what is better, even
  to forgive the debtor his debt.  Christian!  He who took a loan from
  you is truly your debtor, but you are God's debtor.  He is indebted to
  you for material things, but you are indebted to God for sins.  His
  debt is very small against your debt of sin, it is as though it were
  nothing.  Thus when you beg God to forgive you your ten thousand
  talents, forgive your neighbor his hundred pence.  Spare the poor that
  God may spare you.  Be a man merciful to men, that you may pray to God
  without pangs of conscience, God, be merciful to me a sinner! (Luke
  18:13).

Tikhon also taught that the taking of interest in loans was expressly forbidden by Luke 6:35.

  The holy word of God forbids the taking of interest.  Lend, hoping
  for nothing again, says the Lord.

  Interest or usury is considered to be among the greater sins as we see
  in the 14th Psalm, He hath not lent his money on usury.  Read this
  Psalm for yourself diligently, and you will see the truth.

  It is safer before the all-seeing God and before His just judgement
  not to take from those that do not have, than to take interest.  Then
  choose the safer course.

I think I should add that Tikhon also cautions those who decide to take a loan to be careful to pay back everything "lest you appear before Christ's Judgement in debt".


Biblical teaching and accounts

Isaiah 58:3-11 taught the Isrealites of their false motives to fast, clarified some of the best reasons for fasting and listed both physical and spiritual benefits that would result.

Jesus himself teaches fasting in private in Matthew 6:16-18 and that you'll be rewarded by God.

Jesus was questioned in Mark 2:18-21.

Other instances of fasting in the Bible are Moses, David, and others


Which church traditions regard Constantine the Great as a Saint?

It appears that Emperor Constantine the Great is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church, according to catholic.org:

  Constantine was the most dominating figure of his lifetime, towering over his contemporaries, including Pope Sylvester I. He presided over the Council of Nicaea, gave extensive grants of land and property to the Church, founded the Christian city of Constantinople to serve as his new capital, and undertook a long-sighted program of Christianization for the whole of the Roman Empire. While he was baptized a Christian only on his deathbed, Constantine nevertheless was a genuinely important figure in Christian history and was revered as a saint, especially in the Eastern Church.

Catholic.org gives his feast day as May 21.

A page on the official website of The Antiochian Orthodox Church describes Constantine as a saint:

  The Orthodox Church sees Constantine as the emperor who assisted the early Church in evangelizing the Roman Empire. For this reason it honors him as Saint Constantine Equal-to-the-Apostles [Constantinos Isapostolos].

Although I was unable to find an official statement by the Oriental Orthodox Church to the effect that they revere Constantine as a saint, the website of the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, one of the churches in the Oriental Orthodox Communion, lists June 16 as the feast day of "Sts. King Constantine and his mother Helena". Thus, at least one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches considers him a saint.

The Wikipedia article on Constantine states that he is venerated as a saint by "Eastern Orthodox Christians, Byzantine Catholics, and Anglicans" (and in a footnote that he is recognized by the Oriental Orthodox Church), but I can find no specific backing for the "Anglican" claim from any reliable Anglican source. It also puts Constantine on a list of people celebrated in the Lutheran calendar, but notes that the Lutheran church "does not officially recognize saints".

My best supported answer, then, is that Constantine is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, by the Catholic Church (particularly the Oriental sui iuris churches), by at least one of the (several) Oriental Orthodox churches, and perhaps by the Anglican Communion churches.


I don't recall this story, but that doesn't mean anything.

The full text of the alphabetical collection of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers appears to be available here.  As far as I can tell, it is a verbatim version of the Cistercian Publications 1975 edition (at least the Indices seem to match).

The Evergetinos is an arrangement of teachings on various subjects from various sources, including the Desert Fathers, arranged by subjects ("hypotheses").  The first "hypothesis" seems to relate to your question:  "No one should despair ever, even if he has committed many sins, but should have hope that, through repentance, he shall be saved".  There are 6 stories from the Desert Fathers in this section:  one from Abba Mios, three from Abba Poimen, one from Abba Sisoes, and one anonymous.  But none of these are your story.  Will be interested to see if someone finds a better answer.


Apart from Milan is there any other Roman Catholic place where Lent does not start on Ash Wednesday?

For those who may follow the Mozarabic Rite (at least in the old form) which starts Lent on the Monday following the First Sunday of Lent. There are some priests that still use the Mozarabic Rite which is also called the Visigothic Rite or the Hispanic Rite.

  Ash Wednesday (Feria quarta in capite jejunii) is an evident late Roman borrowing, rather clumsily inserted, for the Sunday that follows, though called "Dominica prima Quadragesimæ", has a Mass and an Office in which Alleluia is used, and at Vespers there is the well- known "Endless Alleluia" (Alleluia Perenne) hymn. In the Hymnal this hymn is entitled "Ymnus in carnes tollendas". The true liturgical Lent does not begin till the Monday after Ash Wednesday. - Catholic Encyclopedia

There is one small interesting note about this Rite in regards to ashes:

  The Mozarabic Rite was the first to use ashes within the liturgical celebrations of the Church. Ashes were used prior to the Mozarabic Rite, but this was done outside of liturgical events, e.g., marking people for penance.

It could be noted that both the Abrosian and Mozarabic Rites had Advents that consisted of six week durations, unlike the four weeks in the rest of the Roman Rite world.

  There are six Sundays of Advent, as there were in the Gallican and are now in the Ambrosian. The key day for Advent Sunday is therefore St. Martin (11 Nov.), as it is in the Ambrosian Rite, and, as according to the Council of Mâcon (581), it was in the Gallican, but Advent Sunday is that next after, not, as in the Roman, that nearest to the key day. Thus Advent Sunday may be on any day from 12 to 18 Nov. - Mozarabic Rite


When and why did the modern literal 6-Day creation theory become popular?

First of all, the dispute has definitely been around for a long time. Here is a link defending an allegorical day interpretation. It references Origen (not a saint) and St. Augustine:

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis

St. Augustine specifically makes the point that there was no sun or earth on the first day, so how could days be counted?

And here is a link using the writings of St. Basil to defend a literal day period for creation.

http://creation.com/genesis-means-what-it-says-basil-ad-329379

The debate clearly existed in the church pretty early on, but it was never accepted as grounds to accuse someone of being a heretic, no councils of the church mention the dispute is what I mean (that I know of).

As for our current state, I think Ross Douthat's book Bad Religion does a good job of addressing this. So I'll sort of paraphrase him and hopefully not oversimplify too much.

In chapter 1 Mr. Douthat points to 2 major movements within Protestant Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century: modernists/accomodationists who want to change the church's doctrines to be more palatable to skeptics and fundamentalists who want to preserve the church's beliefs. Modernists were willing to challenge the inspiration of the scriptures, virgin birth, reality of the miracles of Christ, and even the resurrection and incarnation. Fundamentalists insisted on preserving all these doctrines and that you had to believe these these things to be Christian. The picture given is that some, or most, fundamentalists became overzealous in their defense and strayed into an error of their own by insisting on literal interpretations simply to oppose whatever modern theory they felt threatened them and condemn Christians who entertained them.

He specifically points to the 1920's as when the terms "Evangelical" and "Fundamental" became associated with strict biblical literalism. This decade is when the biblical literalists in Tennessee took the issue to court and attempted to ban evolution from school textbooks and lost.

However, even orthodox Protestants weren't anywhere near uniformly "fundamentalist" in this sense. Some more specific information comes in chapter 4 of the book. In the 40's Fuller Theological Seminary required its students and faculty to affirm that the Bible was as "exact a guide to geology and biology as it was to the history of salvation". However in the 60's the position of most of the faculty and students shifted to limited inerrancy, meaning that the Bible was only inerrant in the realm of theology. 2 professors even published a book with the thesis that the rigid understanding of inerrancy was invented in the 17th century. This triggered a dispute which resulted in the "International Council on Biblical Inerrancy" which defended a strict position, but with allowances. J.I. Packer (supporter of strict inerrancy) is quoted at the council as saying:

  I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture ... but exegetically I cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or another ... Scripture was given to reveal God, not to address scientific issues in scientific terms

So Mr. Douthat concludes that even though inerrancy was upheld in the 70's its implications were reinterpreted to allow for non-literal understandings and truths.

I suppose that his view can be summarized as fundamentalism rising to answer (badly) the challenges of modern scientific skepticism and liberalism. He even labels fundamentalists as anti-intellectual in some cases.

I wouldn't really point to the 20th century as when fundamentalism kicked off though; remember Galileo was condemned because his views didn't fit with certain literal interpretations that the church had at the time. I would view this literal fundamentalism as more of something that comes in waves, just as liberalism does. The lifetimes of Galileo and Darwin are two big waves that often get talked about in history. The sexual revolution of the 70's was another one.

I would say the currently the literal trend seems to be subsiding. Just the other day my Evangelical friend (who listens to way too many podcasts) noted how allegorical interpretations are becoming more popular. You could even point to Rob Bell as an example of an Evangelical pastor who has some very allegorical (and probably heretical) interpretations.

A real answer to this question probably involves a whole big study of 2000 years of Christianity. I don't necessarily think taking creation as a literal 6 days is bad, but I think that Genesis has some much deeper spiritual meaning that will be missed if it is simply used as a beating stick for more liberal Christians.


What is the practical application of the story of the woman caught in adultery?

In the story, everyone there recognised that they were sinners, including the top religious leaders. We should recognise that in ourselves also, no matter how 'good' we try to be. Jesus' compassion is not just for the woman but also for all of us.

This comes to the heart of Christianity and is the whole point of John's Gospel: everyone has sinned/rebelled against God and faces his just judgement. But God sent his Son Jesus to come and save such sinners, and we're invited to trust in him so that we're no longer condemned by God.


What is the meaning of the question Luther's companions shouted on his deathbed?

Hard to be certain, but if I were to guess, I'd explain the reasoning like this:

Luther had done something unprecedented.  There was one Catholic (universal) Church, who claimed that they alone held the keys to salvation.  But Luther had dared to claim that salvation could be found outside the authority of the Catholic Church.

Obviously this gained him a great deal of notoriety, and some amount of power as well, as he ended up with followers and disciples.  And he could easily have imagined that this would end up happening when he started out.  This leaves the lingering question, did he do it all for the glory?  Or did he genuinely do it because he believed it was the right thing to do?

If he was a fraud, his disciples are in big trouble and they'd better get back on the path as quickly as they can, and go back to the Catholic Church and seek forgiveness.  Otherwise, they end up damned for eternity!  So they ask him on his deathbed, when he knows his time is over and he has no more reason to lie, (if it was a lie) whether the whole thing was genuine.  And he affirmed, with no reason to lie, that yes, it was.


What biblical evidence is there that our spirit only began in this life?

I don't know if there are any particular verses in the Bible that specify souls do not pre-exist.  As Dick said, you are trying to prove a negative, which is difficult.
However, I did find a verse in the Orthodox Deutero-canonical text (referred to by others as the Apocrypha) that says there is no reincarnation:

A man indeed killeth through his malice: and the spirit, when it is gone forth, returneth not; neither the soul received up cometh again.
Wisdom of Solomon 16:14

It would stand to reason that if reincarnation is not true because a soul being in the place it goes to after life on earth does not come back to earth, then it follows that a soul simply does not come from there to here - it is a one way trip from here to there.


Is there a Patron Saint against the coronavirus?

Does the Catholic Church have a “Patron Saint against the pandemic caused by the coronavirus”?
This is just so much of a coincidence that it must be stated in the affirmative: Yes, there is a patron saint against pandemics and her name is St. Corona.
We have a new reason to hope!
Patron saints can be established at any moment, when there is a great need or the devotion is found to be in growing veneration. Even if historically, St. Corona has not been invoked against pandemics, many of the Catholic faithful are now so doing now in the present Covid-19 situation, making her the new patron saint against the coronavirus.
Some argue saints often acquire their patronage by accident or due to public consensus, making Saint Corona’s newly-minted title just as valid as any other. In any case, Aachen Cathedral hopes the shrine and relics will now garner increased attention once they can be exhibited for public veneration.
St. Corona Novena to end the Coronavirus Pandemic
Although many Catholic are invoking St. Corona as the patron saint against the coronavirus, St. Roch also remains a patron saint against pestilence and the plague. St. Sebastián and St. Thomas of Antioch are equally patron saints against the plagues and pestilence.
Saint Rosalia is the patron saint of Palermo she is believed to have saved the Sicilian city from the plague in 1624.
And finally, Saint Rita is the patron saint of lost and impossible causes, sickness, wounds, marital problems, abuse and mothers.
St. Corona is also invoked by those connected to gambling and treasure hunting.

Were you — out of quarantine boredom perhaps — to Google "patron saint of pandemics," you might be surprised by the results.
"It's incredible but it's seemingly true – there is a Saint Corona and she is one of the patrons of pandemics," according to the website of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing, Michigan.
Even more incredible, the diocese claims, the remains of the second-century saint are in northern Italy, the epicenter of the recent outbreak of the coronavirus in Europe.
The diocese cites Gloria.tv, a website for Catholic news and memes, as its source for the claims about St. Corona.
St. Corona's purported patronage against pandemic and plague also has been pointed out on social media and on popular Catholic website Aleteia. - Is St. Corona the patron saint of pandemics?

In Anzù, Northern Italy, the hotbed of the coronavirus in Europe, is a basilica where the relics of Saint Victor and Saint Corona are being preserved since the 9th century.
Saint Corona was only fifteen when she professed her Christian Faith during the persecution of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius around 165.
Corona was arrested and tied by her feet to the tops of two palm trees which were bent to the ground. When the palms were let loose she was torn apart. According to the Roman Martyrology, this happened in Syria.
Saint Corona is especially venerated in Austria* and Bavaria as the Patron Saint against epidemics.
Her feast day is May 14.*
There is a Saint Corona, And she is the Patron Saint against plague and epidemics.

Martyrdom of St. Corona.

Sebastian ordered St. Corona, who had proclaimed her allegiance to Christ, to be tied to the tops of two palm trees, which had been bent to the ground. At his signal, the ropes holding the trees were cut, forcing them to spring back to an upright position — ripping apart St. Corona's body. - St. Corona Rediscovered

Sancta Corona, Ora pro nobis.
St. Corona, patroness of epidemic victims, pray for us.
St. Corona is invoked in connection involving making money,such as gambling or treasure hunting. Gregory the Great, Roch, and Sebastian are all listed as patron saints of plagues, Robert Bellarmine is the patron saint of contagious disease (along with Sebastian, again), and Godeberta is the patron saint of epidemics. That said, just because St. Corona has not historically been considered a patron saint of disease doesn’t mean that she can’t be now. Unlike the highly formal process of becoming a saint in the first place, there’s no official protocol for being named a patron saint of any given subject.

Recently, the popes have named patron saints, but patron saints can be chosen by other individuals or groups as well. Patron saints are often chosen today because an interest, talent, or event in their lives overlaps with the special area.
There’s no time limit on choosing a new patronage for a saint, there’s no minimum number of people who need to agree on it, and there’s no statute against picking a subject that didn’t even exist while the saint was alive. For example, Pope Pius XII declared St. Clare the patron saint of television in 1958, even though Clare, born in 1194, would’ve been completely baffled by the word television alone.
In short, if you want to consider St. Corona the patron saint of epidemics or anything else, you’re not breaking any rules, according to Catholicism.

For more information about St. Corona, the following articles may be of interest:

St. Corona, pray for us
A German Cathedral Plans to Display Its Shrine to Saint Corona, Who It Says Is the Patron Saint of Epidemics
The True Significance of St. Corona, the Viral Saint
Saint Corona - Pandemic Casts Spotlight on a Nearly Forgotten Martyr

*Churches in Austria to reopen from 15 May. Is this just another coincidence?
The coronavirus  or covid-19 virus is so called because under a microscope, it looks like a globe with little globules, resembling a crown.


What is significant about the swaddling clothes with which Jesus was wrapped as a baby?

I don't want to plagiarize, but there is a very good Catholic article on this here.

In summary, the significance of swaddling clothes lies both in the fact that it is humble, common, ordinary, and also that it ties to Solomon - specifically the Wisdom of Solomon 7, 3-6.

  7:3 And when I was born, I drew in the common air, and fell upon the
  earth, which is of like nature, and the first voice which I uttered
  was crying, as all others do. 7:4 I was nursed in swaddling clothes,
  and that with cares. 7:5 For there is no king that had any other
  beginning of birth. 7:6 For all men have one entrance into life, and
  the like going out.

Per the author of the article, this tie is a reinforcement of Christ's place in the Davidic line, and his rightful place as heir to the Throne of David.

This may or may not be agreed upon by all denominations,  (The Wisdom of Solomon isn't in the Protestant Bible) or even all Catholics.  The idea of it signifying humble beginnings for the King of Kings does seem to be more universal.

Another article at http://living4jesus.net/dynamic/in.swaddling.htm tells that swaddling cloth used in Scripture is not swaddling clothes that a normal infant would be buried in, but rather the strips of cloth used in burial rites.

  Have you ever wondered about "swaddling clothes"?

  Everyone knows that Jesus was born in a manger, and the 2nd chapter of
  the gospel of Luke says that he was wrapped in "swaddling clothes" and
  laid in a manger. In fact, even hospitals today use a cloth that they
  call a "swaddling" cloth. Unfortunately, it's a misnomer that will
  soon be over 2,000 years old, because "swaddling clothes" have nothing
  to do with a child being born!

  In the Middle East, people traveling long distances were often met
  with many hardships and trials on their journeys. In the event of a
  death in travel, the body could not continue to be transported for
  many days. For that reason, travelers wrapped a thin, gauzelike cloth
  around their waist many times. If someone died on the journey, the
  others would use this cloth, referred to as "swaddling clothes" to
  wrap the corpse in before burying them.

  When Jesus was born, there was no room in the Inn, and so Mary and
  Joseph used a nearby stable for Jesus' birth. With no other cloth to
  use, Jesus was wrapped in Joseph's "swaddling clothes" - the cloth
  normally reserved for a person's death.

  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords came into this world in a lowly
  manger and was wrapped with burial clothes - in truth, He was born to
  die. To die for the sins of all mankind.

Clearly, there can be many deeper meanings read into the significance of Swaddling Clothes.  Whether all are accurate, or simply a part of our tendency to romanticize and look for deeper meaning, I'm not sure, but I thought that each of these was worth sharing.


Are Catholics married in a civil ceremony still permitted to receive communion?

A Catholic "married" in a civil ceremony is not in a valid marriage—unless they have regularized their marriage, thereby respecting the 6th precept of the Church on obeying the Church's marriage laws. If that Catholic is cohabitating and having sexual relations, he or she is committing fornication, which is a mortal sin. Receiving Communion outside of the state of grace (i.e., with a mortal sin on one's soul) is very dangerous:

1 Cor. 11:27:

  Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of our Lord.


What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?

The answer here is that Satan (as well as other angels) either did not know that God was indeed all-powerful, or what the meaning of all-powerful implies. As a Christian, I have come into many debates about the idea of Omnipotence, and everyone is familiar with the conundrum, 'If God is all powerful and all knowing, how can he be all good?' Satan is obviously familiar with this (in fact, I would not be surprised if he is its inventor.) The implication of this conundrum is that to make sense of God, you need to drop one of those three attributes.

Some Fathers are of the opinion that neither Satan nor the other angels were, prior to this, fixed in virtue and goodness, and thus were in a state where they could either decide to obey God or not. We must not overestimate the knowledge of angels, nor assume that because we now know something (such as the nature of the Trinity) it was always common knowledge of angels. It is clear in the temptation that Satan doesn't realize that the man Christ is God; so Satan repeatedly misunderstands - possibly willfully - who or what God is. To be fair on this one, pretty much no one knew exactly what was going on, even the demons who knew a bit more than the average person, but as Satan evidences, not a whole lot.

Finally, it seems to be agreed upon in all oral tradition that Satan's pride is the cause of all of this; his misunderstanding of God, (or shall we say, his assuming certain things about God) and his decision to rebel. It seems obvious that if you knew what God is you would never rebel (what would the point be?) but all of us know of people who apostatize - essentially deny what they knew before. Therefore to some extent it is immaterial what knowledge Satan had prior to his rebellion; he rejected it. We see an image of this in the man Judas Iscariot, who despite working miracles and being with the Godman, turns on him anyway. The cause in Judas' case seems to be considered Envy, so we also can't discount envy in Satan's rebellion as well, given its similarity.

There is a story told in our tradition that goes as follows.

  A certain saint had love for all creatures, even to the point that he
  prayed for Satan and the demons that they might repent. At the instant
  that he prayed this, Satan appeared to him and snarled, 'No, it is God
  who needs to repent!'

In the end, there is always the 'mystery of iniquity' as Paul says - the choice of the naked and inexorable will, even over and against all sense, all truth, all beauty and all goodness.


How do mainstream Christians handle the Epistle of St. Barnabas' prophecy that Jesus will return in the next 50 years?

The Epistle of Barnabas is not considered canon. Sticking purely to canon, the bible is very explicit that we do not know. The world could end tomorrow. Or this afternoon. Or 10,000 years from now:

Matt 25:13

  Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man comes.

Mark 13:32

  No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.

1 Thessalonians 5:2

  for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.


Why do Christians in India eat meat in church?

There might be some confusion here, because killing animals in the church would probably not be done by most Christians.

If, however, you mean "why to Christians kill and eat animals, in general?" then I can answer that.

Christianity inherited its beliefs about food and animals from Judaism. Animals are perceived differently to Christians. They are not equal with humans and their lives are precious, but not as valuable as human lives. From the creation story in Genesis, Christians are taught that animals, and even all of Creation, is under man's dominion and stewardship. Consider this comment below for some further thoughts.

Further, consuming animal meat is a large part of the culture Christians inherited from Judaism. There are Christians that advocate vegetarianism, but they are very few in number. Most Christians think that neither is a sin, to eat or not eat animal meat, so if you personally do not want to eat you do not have to, but you should also not judge what others eat. Consider 1 Corinthians 10:31 (NIV):

  So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Most Christians today interpret this as it being acceptable to eat or drink whatever you like so long as you glorify God when you do (i.e. avoid drunkenness and gluttony).

Reference: What does the Bible say about vegetarian diets?


How long can the Catholic Church be without a pope?

You would have the succession, since the Pope would be the valid successor to his predecessor. So there is no break in succession. But the Church would be limping, as it were, until its proper order is restored. You don't need a Pope to be Catholic; it's just that Christ instuted the Church with a Pope, and so it is definitional to the heirarchical structure of the Church that He wanted (it's therefore not negligible). A flock can only remain on course for so long before it scatters. cf. John 21:16; Matthew 26:31; Luke 22:32.

If you were born and died during Sede Vacante ('vacant Seat') period (meaning a valid Pope yet to be elected; and there is no current Pope), you are no less Catholic because of that, for example. All Popes, virtually without exception, die before there is a new Pope—it is the normative process of election. Pope Benedicts XVI's recent resignation is extremely, extremely rare.1

There were (disciplinary) rules put in place by Popes to minimize the amount of time it takes for the bishops (cardinals) to elect a new Pope. A striking instance was the Papal bull (or document) issued by Pope Gregory X called Ubi Periculum (papal documents are named after the beginning sentence or a beginning sentence in the Latin document—here, 'Where [there is] danger' ("...of a long vacancy"). But the stringent measures (deitary in nature) prescribed therein, to prevent long periods of sede vacante, were done away with by his successors (being a disciplinary matter, not a doctrinal one, Popes can, and do, undo what their successors judge to be right for the time).

We now have a working system, and trust that God will provide for His people in difficult situations for these, and rectify them before too long, just as He has in the past. He won't allow the gates of Hell to prevail against His Church. Matthew 16:18.

"If there is no time set up then simply we don't need a pope for let's say 300 years and elect one then and say we still have a succession of the popes"

This is just speculative, and not really realistic, nor productive. Not to mention that it would be true that succession is retained in such a scenario. If another valid Pope is elected, then he is Pope. It doesn't rely on the proximity to the last Pope's death or election.

It has more to do with the Church being without a head (earthly, I mean), contrary to the institution of the Church as such. Matthew 16:18-19b; Isaiah 22:22-23. A lengthy period in which there is no "a father to the inhabitants of" the Church, is indeed a danger or risk ("periculum") to the Church's health as a society. Much like a family can exist without a "father," but is severely detrimented if he is not there for whatever reason.

1  The last 'resignation' of a Pope was six centuries ago. It is estimated that only 10 or so (at most) Popes have ever done so, under quite different and varying circumstances.


What is the scriptural basis for gluttony being a sin?

Vices (Capital / Deadly Sins) are opposed to Virtues

Soundbyte answer (scripture)

  Sirach 18:33 Become not a glutton and a winebibber with nothing in your purse.

Scripture supporting the virtue of Temperance, which is Gluttony's opposite:

Esther 1:7 Esther 1:8 ; Proverbs 23:1-3 ; 25:16 ; Daniel 1:8 Daniel
1:12-16 ; Romans 13:14 ; 1 Corinthians 9:25 1 Corinthians 9:27 ;
Philippians 4:5 ; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 ; 1 Timothy 3:2 1 Timothy 3:3
1 Timothy 3:8 ; Titus 1:7 Titus 1:8 ; Titus 2:2 Titus 2:3 Titus 2:12
; 2 Peter 1:5 2 Peter 1:6; Sirach 37: 28-30

Reasoning based on scripture for why a vice (for example gluttony) is a sin.

Most of the scriptural support for that position relates to temperance (ample citations in both OT and NT).  Since gluttony is in opposition to temperance, and temperance is a virtue, and temperance is amply cited in scripture as how one should behave, then gluttony is framed as a sin, though its character as a sin becomes a matter of degree.

The Definition of Sin

  CCC 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it
  is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse
  attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures
  human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a
  desire contrary to the eternal law."(Saint Augustine).

The four cardinal virtues taught from the Roman Catholic perspective are:
prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.  (CCC 1805; Wisdom 8:7)  Scripture supports Temperance as a virtue.  To directly oppose virtue is to pursue or to commit (or to be predisposed to commit) sin.

Note: gluttony may be classified a venial sin, rather than as a mortal sin.  It's being "deadly" or "capital" is not negated by that classification.  Like other venial sin, it predisposes one to sin in general. In due course, this is believed to lead to more serious (mortal) sin.

  1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

To put that in modern jargon, some sins (mortal) put you in the waiting line to get into Hell.  Without an explicit turning back to God, repentance, baking or broiling is in the cards.  Lesser sin (venial) puts you on the highway to hell, but there is more time or hope for a detour (through Christ, reconciliation, repentance, penance, prayer, etc) to turn around.  (From the older meaning of repentance, which is "to turn again, toward God" -- the connotation being that you turned away from God through sin in the first place).

Confusion in terms.  Mortal sin ("sin unto death") is the condition or state wherein life {eternal life, life with God} is either voided, at risk, or in some way a first class ticket to damnation.  What is now referred to as capital sin (to avoid confusion, I suppose, from deadly sin meaning mortal sin) may not necessarily be deadly (mortal) but it also may be.  (For example, another vice, lust can be or can lead to mortal sin per Jesus' admonition about those who lust after another's wife already being adulterers ...)

A variety of scripture on avoiding sin (to whatever degree) is folded into the tradition of classifying the seven deadly sins / seven capital sins.  (This answer is confined to the Catholic perspective. @DickHarfield has provided some historical context on the origins of this belief: the Catechism cites the same tradition).

What are vices? (Capital / Deadly sins)

  V. The Proliferation of Sin
  CCC 1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts.  This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce
  itself and reinforce itself ...
  CCC  1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called "capital" because they engender other sins, other vices.  They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

Gluttony as a deadly sin (Capital sin)

The vice (capital sin/deadly sin) of gluttony is opposed to the virtue of temperance.  It is considered a capital sin because it leads to sin and near occasions of sin.  Why?  Focus in earthly/fleshy/material things, things of the world, rather than focus on God. (1 John 2:6-17, per @Marc's citation).

What is temperance?

  CCC 1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of
  pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits
  of what is honorable.  The temperate person directs the sensitive
  appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do
  not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the
  desires of your heart."  (Sirach 5:12) Temperance is praised in the Old
  Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your
  appetites." (Sirach 18:30)  In the New Testament it is called "moderation" or "sobriety." We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this
  world. (Titus 2:12)"

Given the virtue presented, avoidance of the opposed vice follows.  When temperance is not pursued, sin will follow.

An example from the book of Sirach.

  Sirach 18:30
  27 A wise man is circumspect in all things; when sin is rife he keeps himself from wrongdoing.
  28  Any learned man should make wisdom known, and he who attains to her should declare her praise;
  29  Those trained in her words must show their wisdom, dispensing sound proverbs like life-giving waters.
  30  Go not after your lusts, but keep your desires in check.
  31  If you satisfy your lustful appetites they will make you the sport of your
  enemies.
  32  Have no joy in the pleasures of a moment which bring on poverty redoubled;
  33  Become not a glutton and a winebibber with nothing in your purse.

An example from the epistle to Titus 2:11-14

  11 For the grace of God has appeared, saving all  12 and training us
  to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live
  temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age,   13 as we await the blessed hope, the appearance* of the glory of the great God and of
  our savior Jesus Christ,   14 who gave himself for us to deliver us
  from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people as
  his own, eager to do what is good.

(Lawlessness implies sin / vice)

A "deadly" sin may be, or may lead to, mortal sin.  It's a matter of degree.

Gluttony is at least (as a vice) a venial sin.  Self indulgence is believed to lead to other sin due to focus on the flesh/world, away from God.  It can go from deadly to mortal depending on whether a person indulges themselves in it.  It remains capital/deadly in the sense that it leads us in the wrong direction, which ultimately (if left uncorrected) can only lead to one place: damnation.

A crude physical analogy:
There are varying degrees of physical danger (analog for sin) via ingestion.

Heavy drinking/alcoholism (venial) can lead to death, but there is
time, for all the wrong that it does, to reverse the trend. It may also lead to drunk driving and either killing one's self, or killing someone else. (mortal sin).
Drinking hemlock (mortal) leads straight to death.

(note l) In love, we pray (1 Jn 5:16–17) for those who are in sin, but not in deadly sin (literally, “sin unto death”), probably referring to apostasy or activities brought on under the antichrist;


Washing of feet - Is it a part of Communion?

There are some denominations that practice foot washing as an ordinance. I have heard of some that practice it separate from communion and others that include it with communion.

In the Bible it is a recorded event at the same time as the last supper.

There is speculation that the argument recorded in Luke among the disciples about who was going to be the greatest in the Kingdom was taking place as Jesus began to wash the feet of the disciples (recorded in John). This cannot be specifically proven, but it would fit with a clear answer to the disciples contentions.

To understand foot washing and why is was a necessary job and assigned to the lowest person in the household, one has to appreciate that without motor transport, goods are transported by donkey. The donkey leaves an accumulating reminder of his presence in the streets. Places with infrequent rainfall can accumulate a lot of reminders. If you wear sandals, you will find that you also accumulate reminders.

Jesus tells his disciples that they should do likewise for each other.

  John 13:14-15  If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet;
  ye also ought to wash one another's feet.  For I have given you an
  example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Some have taken these words as the establishment of a ritual ordinance. Some of those have included this ordinance with communion. Others take this as a general admonition towards a willingness to do even the lowest task for our brothers and sisters in Christ.


What's the basis for saying Jesus went to hell?

Peter, in his testimony on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:14 ff, speaks of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and he quotes Psalm 16:10 where David the psalmist prophesies :

  For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. [KJV]

Peter speaks the Greek word hades Strong 86 when quoting the Hebrew word sheol Strong 7585  which David uses, sheol being the place of the dead, either meaning the grave where the body is laid or meaning the place of spirits which are deceased.

Paul makes this clear when he, also, refers to Jesus' death :

  Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? [Galatians 4:9, KJV] :

the 'lower parts of the earth' bearing the same meaning as sheol in the Hebrew, Peter clearly expressing that after his death and before his resurrection, Jesus - first - 'descended'.

Again, Peter writes of this in his first epistle, I Peter 3:19 :

  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.

[The matter of preaching to the spirits in prison is a considerable subject in itself, Jude 1:6 and I Timothy 3:16 also being included within its scope.]

But there is no hint in scripture of the other Greek word gehenna Strong 1067 which is (in the KJV, at least) also translated 'hell' - being the lake of fire - there is no hint that Jesus could have descended into that since it has not - yet - been kindled.

John makes that clear in his record of the visions given to him, when, after - first -

  I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and the books were opened [Rev 20:12] . . .

. . . John records what was revealed to him regarding the end of time and after the resurrection of the dead :

  And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, every one according to their works. Then death and hell (hades in the original) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.[Revelation 20:13-15 KJV]

Here, death and hades are cast into the lake of fire, indicating that they are two different things, and indicating that one precedes the second.

(In the above I am referring to the Received Greek Text and quoting the King James Version throughout.)


How do Biblical Unitarians interpret 1 Corinthians 2:10-14 with regard to God and the Spirit of God?

When we read of the Spirit doing this or that, we should include all references to this 'feature' of God - is it a person, a force, a power, an influence or what?
We should begin with the bible and then use that revelation to compare other ideas against - not the other way around. (having an idea or tradition and looking for biblical support for it)

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

There is no reference to a person in this passage.
The analogy provided speaks of the 'spirit of man' and the 'Spirit of God' - neither push us in the direction of a separate 'person'. Is our spirit separate from who we are? Then by analogy of the text, neither is God's spirit separate from Him. (God is defined as the Father by Jesus himself)
We have several verses that speak of the spirit of truth or wisdom, spirit of Zerubbabel, spirit of Pul king of Assyria, spirit of glory, spirit of grace and supplication, spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire, spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood,  spirit of despair - none of these are a separate 'person', but a means of expressing the quality God is imparting or inherent in the individual.

because I know that through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, my distress will turn out for my deliverance. Phil 1:19

We might ask what is the 'Spirit of Jesus Christ'? (Not who)
God is the great Provider. All good comes from Him. All truth, love, kindness, grace etc is His holy provision. Jesus, as the exalted son, has accomplished his mission by being subject to - a person? Or the power, influence, grace, love of God delivered via the spirit OF God into Jesus' heart and mind - into his emotions and intellect, his passion and logic.
It is this 'nature' that Jesus expressed consistently and perfectly (even against severe trial and temptation) that IS the 'Spirit of Jesus Christ'. Not a sperate person that told him what to do, but the presence and provision of God to enable his success.
The holy spirit is simply the expression of God that enables us to see with God's eyes and His mind the things of Godly life and relationship. Jesus also was given this spirit at baptism. Why? Was it just a token gesture for those watching? Was it just a confirmation for Jesus that his Father was with him? No, not such a trivial witness. Without this spirit OF the Father, he could not have succeeded in his mission of living without sin and heading to the cross in humble and gentle obedience to his Father's will, and suffer the humiliation of those (his own people) who hated and wanted him dead and those who killed him.
This same spirit of God that allowed him to submit his will to the Father's. Having his own will, which obviously differed from God's - brought about by trial and temptation, shows that another spirit was influencing him for pride and self-centred thinking leading to actions and/or potential sin. He resisted this by surrendering to the supplied influence for good. Jesus was not controlled by God, but willingly led by God.
This same 'Spirit of Jesus Christ' and Spirit of God that dwells in us as a gift in this life. (a deposit only - the full transformation will occur at our change to immortality)

who is a first instalment of our inheritance, in regard to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Eph 1:14

who is from the Gr. ho meaning which, what or that - not who.

For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose. Phil 2:13

Notice the influence to will and act - the thoughts and the works. This is exactly the same as the experience of Christ - God working in him to will and act for His glory.
The insistent translation of referring to the spirit as he, him, who etc is a bias forced by a traditional approach to the nature of God's spirit and not from the text. This has entrenched such a view of personhood that was never understood, expressed or taught by the apostles. It wasn't until the so-called 'church fathers' arrived that this teaching became commonplace and replaced the apostolic teaching that Jesus provided to them to begin the church with.
As the question correctly pondered, 'verse 11 gives the impression that the Spirit of God is an intrinsic part of God, just like the spirit of a person is an intrinsic part of a person'. There is no separate person the Holy Spirit (which has no name) but the very essence of God - who is invisible, spirit and needs to influence matter by His Holy nature - the spirit IS that expression and extension of God's being that may connect with created humanity and ALL His creation in ways yet to be comprehended.
With regard to the query about, 'searching the depths of God' etc. This can be readily understood as the believer is granted, through God's spirit dwelling in /with them, access to the innermost expression of who God is. His love, His grace etc, are not some mysterious secret, but are revealed into the believer so that they too may be an expression of God in their lives - as a son or daughter should be. Not that we have to somehow 'work out' what we are supposed to live like - this is placed within us by the presence of God in His spirit working with our spirit.
(To imagine that an omniscient 'God the Holy Spirit' person is searching out the depths of His omniscient Himself is rather absurd)
Without this holy spirit in us, God would make no sense at all to our default carnal nature full of deception and all the spirit of the 'world' which we (used to) live by. So His spirit 'searches out' God's ways and allows us to 'comprehend' a better way to live that is sacrificial and giving, rather than selfish and getting.
These considerations of the scriptures and the Holy Spirit are condensed from here - What is the HS and BU recognition of biblical revealed wisdom.
God has to counteract the negative, hateful, selfish, prideful spirit of the devil - not a sperate 'person' to the devil, but the way of evil which is not of God - for He alone is holy and those that are His are also made holy.


Christian apologetics regarding the killing of innocent children during the Genesis flood

There is another way to look at this question: There is nothing different about the death of people who died in the flood and people who have died throughout history in the millenia since.

The maximum age at death recorded in the Bible is 969 years, for Methuselah. To Noah, God revealed that he would henceforth limit the maximum lifespan for humans to 120 years. This is an eightfold reduction in the maximum lifespan. Since we do not see a terribly abrupt cutoff in the distribution of people's longevity today, we can assume that God did not just add a cutoff, he shifted the whole curve.

Today, 25% of people in the world are 14 years old or less. This was higher in the past, but childhood mortality has been declining due to better nutrition and medicine. However, in Noah's day, it is likely that childhood mortality was similarly low, compared to conditions after the flood.

If we apply an eighfold shift to the curve, then that means that in Noah's day, only 3% of people were aged 14 or less. That means that the flood of Noah killed fewer infants and young children than is the common situation throughout of most history since then. Stillbirth, infant diseases and starvation, child sacrifice, child abuse, war, weather, and all the other causes of death to children in the centuries since Noah probably have killed a higher percent of children than the proportion killed during the flood.

This reduces the question: "How can you justify causing the death of children in the flood of Noah?" to another question: "How can you justify God's taking of the life of any child at any time throughout history?"

In Luke 13, Jesus said this:

  13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the
  Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus
  answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than
  all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you,
  no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those
  eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think
  they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I
  tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Jesus did not teach that the circumstances of a person's death correlate simply to how good or wicked that person's life was. The book of Job teaches the same thing. Job's friends confidently asserted that Job's children were exceptionally wicked because of the storm that killed them. They said the same thing about Job, by comparing his financial and physical condition to what they expected should happen to wicked people under God's judgment. God rebuked them strongly.

I know - I haven't answered the question. But the question as stated assumes a category of children that we do not need to deal with any differently than the children alive today. For that, Elihu's answer to Job in Job 37 is appropriate:

  11 He loads the clouds with moisture;
  he scatters his lightning through them. 12 At his direction they swirl around
  over the face of the whole earth
  to do whatever he commands them. 13 He brings the clouds to punish people, or to water his earth and show his love.
  14 “Listen to this, Job;
  stop and consider God’s wonders."

Sometimes suffering is punishment, and sometimes it is training that produces growth and is evidence of God's love.

As for what happens to those children, as a Reformed / Baptist believer, I believe that God welcomes such children into heaven.


Paul's analysis of Abraham's "offspring(s)" in Galatians 3

Evangelicals defend this analogy by arguing (1) that even in the original context, "Abraham's offspring" did not refer to all Abraham's physical descendants, (2) that "Christ" can be interpreted as a spiritual descendant, not merely a single physical descendant, and (3) that the context, particularly Galatians 3:28–29, demonstrates that Christians are joined together in Christ as descendants of Abraham.

First of all, we know that "Abraham's offspring" cannot refer to all the descendants of Abraham: John Calvin points out that in Genesis 21:12, the offspring is limited to Isaac, and then later again Esau is excluded.  Thus, Paul is arguing here that "offspring" cannot refer to all Abraham's biological descendants, but only those who are called by God.  Calvin writes (using seed as a synonym for offspring):

  He merely shows that the word seed must denote one who was not only descended from Abraham according to the flesh, but had been likewise appointed for this purpose by the calling of God.

So how do we get from "those who are called" to a single "offspring"?  Like Calvin, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown argue that the single "offspring" is the unified body of Christ, with Christ himself at the head:

  one … Christ—not in the exclusive sense, the man Christ Jesus, but "Christ" (Jesus is not added, which would limit the meaning), including His people who are part of Himself, the Second Adam, and Head of redeemed humanity. Ga 3:28, 29 prove this, "Ye are all ONE in Christ Jesus" (Jesus is added here as the person is indicated). "And if ye be Christ's, ye are Abraham's SEED, heirs according to the promise."

That is, the singular "offspring" refers to Christ, considered generally: the redeemer, as opposed to the biological descendant of Abraham.  Abraham's offspring, thus, is Christ, and all those who are joined to him through redemption, both from Abraham's biological descendants, and from his non-biological descendants.  As JFB states, Galatians 3:28–29, just a few verses later, makes this plain:

  28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

The Greek word translated "offspring" in v. 29 is the same word that is used earlier.  Thus, by virtue of being "one in Christ Jesus," all Christians are Abraham's "offspring," in the singular sense of offspring.

The New Bible Commentary (1970) summarizes:

  The divine agreement referred, says Paul, not to the plurality of Abraham's natural descendants, but to his offspring, seen to be Christ as the head of a new race.  The sense is not to successive generations of men, but fulfillment in one kind of offspring, which is summed up in Christ.  This interpretation is not evident in the language of Gn. 12:7; 13:15; 17:7, 8, and 22:18, but neither is it excluded.


In Catholic theology is Yehovah the Father or all three persons?

Since יהוה or "He who is" (the name which St. Thomas Aquinas, the 'Angelic Teacher' of the Church, arrives at by logic as the only apt name for the kind of Creator we must needs acknowledge as responsible for creation) can only refer to the Eternal Creator, it must mean the Divine Nature and as such can be used of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost equally.
Since the Fourth Lateran Council states:

Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 2.
...there is one supreme entity, incomprehensible and ineffable, which is truly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, together (simul) three persons and each one of them singly. And thus in God there is only trinity, not quaternity,1 because each of the three persons is that entity, namely, substance, essense, or divine nature, which alone is the principle of the universe and besides which there is no other.
...
thus the Father and Son as well as the Holy Ghost proceeding from both are the same entity.

Without question "divine nature," "one supreme entity...alone the principle of the universe" etc. corresponds to "the one who is"  (יהוה) and thus all three Persons are equally and rightly called יהוה.
As far as early Church Fathers go, they variously interpret certain passages where God (יהוה) speaks to be either the Father or the Son or Holy Ghost. A good example is this passage from St. Justin:

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 37-39
And that this too may be clear to you, there were spoken from the person of the Father through Isaiah the Prophet, the following words: "The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel does not know, and My people has not understood. Woe, sinful nation, a people full of sins, a wicked seed, children that are transgressors, you have forsaken the Lord." And again elsewhere, when the same prophet speaks in like manner from the person of the Father, "What is the house that you will build for Me? Says the Lord. The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool." Isaiah 66:1 And again, in another place, "Your new moons and your sabbaths My soul hates; and the great day of the fast and of ceasing from labour I cannot away with; nor, if you come to be seen of Me, will I hear you: your hands are full of blood; and if you bring fine flour, incense, it is abomination unto Me: the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls I do not desire. For who has required this at your hands? But loose every bond of wickedness, tear asunder the tight knots of violent contracts, cover the houseless and naked, deal your bread to the hungry." Isaiah 1:14, Isaiah 58:6 What kind of things are taught through the prophets from [the person of] God, you can now perceive.
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks from the person of Christ, the utterances are of this sort: "I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good." Isaiah 65:2 And again: "I gave My back to the scourges, and My cheeks to the buffetings; I turned not away My face from the shame of spittings; and the Lord was My helper: therefore was I not confounded: but I set My face as a firm rock; and I knew that I should not be ashamed, for He is near that justifies Me." Isaiah 50:6 And again, when He says, "They cast lots upon My vesture, and pierced My hands and My feet. And I lay down and slept, and rose again, because the Lord sustained Me." And again, when He says, "They spoke with their lips, they wagged the head, saying, Let Him deliver Himself." And that all these things happened to Christ at the hands of the Jews, you can ascertain. For when He was crucified, they did shoot out the lip, and wagged their heads, saying, "Let Him who raised the dead save Himself." Matthew 27:39
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:3 And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. For that saying, "The tongue has sworn but the mind is unsworn," might be imitated by us in this matter. But if the soldiers enrolled by you, and who have taken the military oath, prefer their allegiance to their own life, and parents, and country, and all kindred, though you can offer them nothing incorruptible, it were verily ridiculous if we, who earnestly long for incorruption, should not endure all things, in order to obtain what we desire from Him who is able to grant it.

1 In context, this is against the heretical notion that the Father (actually, and not only as a matter of speaking) 'has' the Divine Nature, which is then made 'other'—that there is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which 'have' a fourth Thing, the Divine Nature.' No heretic actually worshiped a quadrinity, but the Council rightly rejected this as the obvious conclusion of the heretical understanding of the relationship between the Divine Nature and what it means that the Persons are that Nature.


When and how did the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John get attached to the gospels?

Irenaeus

We can thank Irenaeus, not only for identifying the tetramorph gospel, but also for providing the names of the authors who are traditionally assigned to them.  He summarized the tradition he received:

  Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.—Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1.

Matthew

Irenaeus was likely dependant on Papias (who Eusebius quotes):

  But concerning Matthew [Papias] writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able."—The Church History of Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39.

From a historical perspective, this is a bit awkward as the evidence is that Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.  But for the purposes of this question, that's the answer. (See also: Gospel of Matthew on the Early Christian Writings site.)

Mark

Eusebius writes:

  Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

    This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.

  These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.—The Church History of Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39.

So Eusebius quotes Papias (of whose works we only have fragments quoted in other works) quoting1 John the Presbyter who identifies Mark as recording Peter's gospel message.  Although Irenaeus also identifies Mark as the author, it's likely he got his information from Papias.  Justin Martyr seems to2 also link the Markian text with Peter, which is an independent confirmation.  Usually this Mark is identified with John Mark mentioned a few times in Acts and one of Paul's letters.  There really aren't any other candidates if you credit Papias' account.  (See also: Gospel of Mark on the Early Christian Writings site.)

Luke

Appropriately, the author of the earliest church history (Acts) and the most careful study of Jesus' life among the Gospels (Luke) is fairly conclusively identified with Luke the physician.  Clement of Alexandria positively identifies Luke as the author of Acts:

  It remains that we understand, then, the Unknown, by divine grace, and by the word alone that proceeds from Him; as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For in walking about, and beholding the objects of your worship, I found an altar on which was inscribed, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.”—The Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 12.

Clement also quotes a bit of Luke's gospel and names him as the author in another book. Tertullian and the earliest manuscript bear witness to Luke's authorship.  Since the recipient of the work is included in the preface, it's even possible the author signed the copy he originally submitted, though we don't actually have that copy to know for sure.  (See also: Gospel of Luke on the Early Christian Writings site.)

John

Internal evidence suggests that author of John was the Beloved Disciple.  Traditionally, that figure has been associated with John, one of Jesus' inner circle.  Again, Irenaeus likely received his information from Papias.  Eusebius jumps quickly over the question of who wrote the Gospel of John (probably because the identification was common knowledge by the 3rd-century) in order to address the authorship of Revelation:

  It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

  This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.—The Church History of Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39.

By calling John the apostle, "the evangelist", Eusebius identifies him as the author of the gospel (euangelion in Greek).  He proposes another John as the author of Revelation.2  There are a number of other candidates, but this is how John got associated with the gospel that bears his name.  (See also: Gospel of John on the Early Christian Writings site.)

Footnotes:

Or perhaps paraphrasing.  Ancient texts didn't use much in the way of punctuation, so it's hard to delineate quotations in the best of circumstances.  With this many layers of quotation, it's especially rough.
The key is to see that Justin Martyr mentions Boanerges, which indicates the Gospel of Mark. He calls the gospels the "memoirs of the apostles" and Mark seems to be Peter's memoir:

  And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of [him] that this so happened..."—Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter 106.

However, the memoir could be of Jesus ("Him"), so this is only supplementary evidence.
It's possible that this is a misreading of Papias by Eusebius.  Irenaeus seems to think there was just one John in the Asian church:

  And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him.—Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 33.

Perhaps at issue is the authorship of Revelation, which was the source of the early chiliasm controversy.  If there are two authors named John (one for the Gospel and one for the Apocalypse), than one may be taken as historical and the other as fanciful.


What did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration?

In Jude 9, we read:

  But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “ The Lord rebuke you!”

This is often taught as the body of Moses was taken into heaven.

We also know that Elijah ascended in a fiery chariot in a whirlwind:

  And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven

This would mean that the bodies of those mean would have been kept in heaven, so it could very well be that the two men were actually physically present.


Absolutely, definitely not. Works are important, but we are not justified by works.
The Catechism states this unequivocally:

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end.’”
42 Cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:36, 6:40 et al.

We are not justified by slavishly following the Law (which is what “not justified by works” is saying) — we are justified by faith, and that faith will transform our lives with the fruit of the Spirit which pervades every act so that our works show that we are justified.

Matthew 5:16 — Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Peter wrote of this in 2 Peter 1:

1 3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is short-sighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

Peter deliberately lists the fruits of the Spirit. In "making every effort" to add those virtues to faith, Peter is saying "allow the Spirit to do his work" because a living faith will engender good works (cf James 2:26). Any effort we bring to bear for ourselves is using our conscience to do good works. Verse 4 says that we participate in the divine nature by virtue of God's great and glorious promises. This means that it is necessary that we believe those promises will be fulfilled: this is faith.
This is not to say that good works are not inherently good! They point towards — and ultimately come from — God, as Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have pointed out. One's conscience is God-given, formed by the natural Law, and in doing what we inherently perceive to be good we are allowing the Spirit to work in our lives.
But we are saved by faith. That is all that is necessary. Everything else comes from faith.

You may recognise some of this as coming from another answer to a very similar question.


What's the justification for believing that God interacts with us today
the same way He did thousands of years ago?

In a word: Experience.

Consider the value the following men place on experience:

  “This grace of God is a very great, strong, mighty and active thing. It does not lie asleep in the soul. Grace hears, leads, drives, draws, changes, works all in man, and lets itself be distinctly felt and experienced. It is hidden, but its works are evident.”
  ― Martin Luther

  “The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life. It cannot be grasped by reason and memory only, but it is fully understood when it possesses the whole soul and penetrates to the inner recesses of the heart.”
  ― John Calvin, Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life

  “And Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself.”
  Acts 26:24.
  And so say all the world, the men who know not God, of all that are of Paul’s religion: of every one who is so a follower of him as he was of Christ. It is true, there is a sort of religion, nay, and it is called Christianity too, which may be practised without any such Imputation, which is generally allowed to be consistent with common sense, —that is, a religion of form, a round of outward duties, performed in a decent, regular manner. You may add orthodoxy thereto, a system of right opinions, yea, and some quantity of heathen morality; and yet not many will pronounce, that “much religion hath made you mad.” But if you aim at the religion of the heart, if you talk of “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” then it will not be long before your sentence is passed, “Thou art beside thyself.” ― John Wesley, Sermon 37 "The Nature of Enthusiasm"

In different ways, they are arguing against a 'dead' orthodoxy that merely consists of intellectually assenting to propositions to be 'believed'; but rather for an experiential faith that makes a profound difference to the life of a believer. As these men all believed in sola scriptura, what constitutes 'valid' experience is of course determined by scripture (i.e. 'how God dealt with the ancients') - this necessarily includes 'how God relates to us today'.

The preceding is the substance of my answer, but for the sake of further clarity: From the sermon quoted earlier, Wesley goes on to say, in warning on the dangers of 'enthusiasts' receiving revelation by...

  ...what is justly called an extraordinary manner: I mean, by visions or dreams, by strong impressions or sudden impulses on the mind. I do not deny, that God has, of old times, manifested His will in this manner; or, that He can do so now: nay, I believe He does, in some very rare instances. But how frequently do men mistake herein! (Ibid., emphasis added)

Wesley at least, affirms that at least some of the 'supernatural' ways God has related to men in the past do still happen, but are not necessarily the norm, rather:

  Perhaps some may ask, “Ought we not then to inquire what is the will of God in all things? And ought not His will to be the rule of our practice?” Unquestionably it ought. But how is a sober Christian to make this inquiry? to know what is the will of God? Not by waiting for supernatural dreams; not by expecting God to reveal it in visions; not by looking for any particular impressions or sudden impulses on his mind: no; but by consulting the oracles of God. “To the law and to the testimony!” This is the general method of knowing what is “the holy and acceptable will of God.” (Ibid.)

So this is the norm (as per the model of the Bereans - cf. Acts 17:11), however just because 'visions...dreams...strong impressions or sudden impulses on the mind' from God are 'very rare', they are not non-existant.

It is actually a reasonably common mistake, upon cursorily reading the Bible, to assume that the way God normally interacts with man is overtly miraculous. Such a view (a seemingly implied premise of your question) focuses on the 'spectacular portions' of scripture ignoring the fact that over the historical period covered by scripture, the miracles, visions and dreams etc. presented are actually few and far between (the periods of the Exodus and the ministry years of Jesus being the exceptions that actually prove the rule).  Scripture is not just a 'highlights package' of God's 'greatest hits', but it does actually record (significantly extensive) periods where nothing much is happening on the miracle front - the people of God are chronicled as proceeding through life in a fashion that is either characteristically obedient or disobedient to earlier revelation, but not necessarily 'encountering' God until (or sometimes, not even when) some crisis eventuates. Prophets receiving their prophetic revelation may be viewed as a significant exception to this, but for the vast majority of people contemporaneous with the prophets, they could easily have viewed the prophets and what they said as just a guy mouthing words unless there was some miraculous confirmation or direct fulfillment of foretold events (which often didn't happen for generations after the fact) - indeed at least in Jeremiah's case, that is exactly what happened.

In regard to some of the other issues you raise -

Many societies today are vastly different from the societies of the ancients.
Take the rise of democracy, for instance, or the rise of various economic systems
like capitalism and communism. Take the advent of Science and how
electronic/computer technology has become so pervasive and significant. The
controversies surrounding abortion and contraception absolutely could not have
happened two thousand years ago.

The Bible itself portrays:

People groups that undergo significant cultural transformations - including, but not limited to, the development of various technologies and operating under different political and economic systems - but God's interactions with those people groups not changing significantly as a consequence of these particular changes, but rather -
God changing the way he relates to people according to how they relate to Him. In the book of Judges for example, viewed at one level, God changes the way He relates to His people from chapter to chapter - alternately allowing them to be oppressed and then delivered (of course, viewed more wholistically, God is completely consistent - it is the people who He deals with that are inconsistent). The Amorites (cf. Genesis 15:6 & book of Joshua) and Ninevites (book of Jonah) are further salutory examples of this.
Significant and lasting changes in the way He relates to people according to 'Covenants' he makes with them (particularly Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses & the children of Israel, David and of course the New Covenant offered through Christ to all peoples of the Earth).

Summary: the Bible itself portrays a variety of ways that 'God behaves towards mankind'. Theologians who affirm sola scriptura necessarily bind themselves to scriptural (especially New Covenantal) models of this interaction - for them to deny that God would 'interact with us today the same way He did thousands of years ago' would be inherently inconsistent.


Do any Early Church Fathers ever argue that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:9) is the Law/ Torah?

I have found this discussed in a couple of places. It is compared to Romans 7:5-7.

An excerpt from the third century father Methodius:

  Read a compendious interpretation of some apostolic words from the same discourse. Let us see, then, what it is that we have endeavoured to say respecting the apostle. For this saying of his, “I was alive without the law once,” [Rom. vii. 9.] refers to the life which was lived in paradise before the law, not without a body, but with a body, by our first parents, as we have shown above; for we lived without concupiscence, being altogether ignorant of its assaults. For not to have a law according to which we ought to live, nor a power of establishing what manner of life we ought to adopt, so that we might justly be approved or blamed, is considered to exempt a person from accusation. Because one cannot lust after those things from which he is not restrained, and even if he lusted after them, he would not be blamed. For lust is not directed to things which are before us, and subject to our power, but to those which are before us, and not in our power. For how should one care for a thing which is neither forbidden nor necessary to him? And for this reason it is said, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” [ Rom. vii. 7.] For when (our first parents) heard, “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” [Gen. ii. 17.] then they conceived lust, and gathered it. Therefore was it said, I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;” nor would they have desired to eat, except it had been said, “Thou shalt not eat of it.” For it was thence that sin took occasion to deceive me. For when the law was given, the devil had it in his power to work lust in me; “for without the law, sin was dead;”  [Rom. vii. 8.] which means “when the law was not given, sin could not be committed.” But I was alive and blameless before the law, having no commandment in accordance with which it was necessary to live; “but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.”[Rom. vii. 9, 10.] For after God had given the law, and had commanded me what I ought to do, and what I ought not to do, the devil wrought lust in me. For the promise of God which was given to me, this was for life and incorruption, so that obeying it I might have ever-blooming life and joy unto incorruption; but to him who disobeyed it, it would issue in death. But the devil, whom he calls sin, because he is the author of sin, taking occasion by the commandment to deceive me to disobedience, deceived and slew me, thus rendering me subject to the condemnation, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[ Gen. ii. 17.] “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good;” [  Rom. vii. 12.] because it was given, not for injury, but for safety; for let us not suppose that God makes anything useless or hurtful. What then? “Was then that which is good made death unto me?” [Rom. vii. 13.] namely, that which was given as a law, that it might be the cause of the greatest good? “God forbid.” For it was not the law of God that became the cause of my being brought into subjection to corruption, but the devil; that he might be made manifested who, through that which is good, wrought evil; that the inventor of evil might become and be proved the greatest of all sinners. “For we know that the law is spiritual;” [ Rom. vii. 14.] and therefore it can in no respect be injurious to any one; for spiritual things are far removed from irrational lust and sin. “But I am carnal, sold under sin;” [  Rom. vii. 14.] which means: But I being carnal, and being placed between good and evil as a voluntary agent, am so that I may have it in my power to choose what I will. For “behold I set before thee life and death;”[ Jer. xxi. 8; Ecclus. xv. 8; Deut. xxx. 15.] meaning that death would result from disobedience of the spiritual law, that is of the commandment; and from obedience to the carnal law, that is the counsel of the serpent; for by such a choice “I am sold” to the devil, fallen under sin. Hence evil, as though besieging me, cleaves to me and dwells in me, justice giving me up to be sold to the Evil One, in consequence of having violated the law. Therefore also the expressions: “That which I do, I allow not,” and “what I hate, that do I,”[ Rom. vii. 15.] are not to be understood of doing evil, but of only thinking it. For it is not in our power to think or not to think of improper things, but to act or not to act upon our thoughts. For we cannot hinder thoughts from coming into our minds, since we receive them when they are inspired into us from without; but we are able to abstain from obeying them and acting upon them. Therefore it is in our power to will not to think these things; but not to bring it about that they shall pass away, so as not to come into the mind again; for this does not lie in our power, as I said; which is the meaning of that statement, “The good that I would, I do not;”  [ Rom. vii. 19.] for I do not will to think the things which injure me; for this good is altogether innocent. But “the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do;” not willing to think, and yet thinking what I do not will. And consider whether it was not for these very things that David entreated God, grieving that he thought of those things which he did not will: “O cleanse Thou me from my secret faults. Keep Thy servant also from presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me; so shall I be undefiled, and innocent from the great offence.” [Ps. xix. 12, 13.] And the apostle too, in another place: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” [2 Cor. x. 5.]

Methodius, Part III. From the Discourse on the Resurrection.
A Synopsis of Some Apostolic Words from the Same Discourse.

also check, The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter XII.—The importance of knowledge to true spiritual life.

The tree of life is mentioned in Proverbs:

Pro 3:18, 11:30, 13:12; 15:4

and in the Apocrypha

  Sir_19:19  The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is the doctrine of life: and they that do things that please him shall receive the fruit of the tree of immortality.


How have mainstream Christian denominations interpreted the Acts command to abstain from blood?

TL;DR: Appearance of evil: Drinking blood was an element of Pagan sacrifice

  Are we under obligation to avoid any or all of those 4 things [meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication] today?

Original context: Pagan sacrifices

These four items appear to be linked together because all of them were elements of pagan sacrifices. According to this essay,

  Often, pagan worship included the sacrificing and eating of animals, sometimes with the drained blood being offered as a “course” in the meal. These festivities also generally included sexual participation by the guest in any number of immoral ways. Coffman* noted: “Idol feasts were shameful debaucheries, marked by the most vulgar and immoral behavior.... In fact, it is possible that all four of these restrictions relate to idol worship” (1977, p. 299)

*Coffman, James Burton (1977), Commentary on Acts (Abilene, TX: ACU Press)

Other discussions in the epistles of Paul

The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that sexual immorality was unacceptable in the church.

1Cor 6:18 Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin that a man does is outside the body,” but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. WEB
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, WEB
Eph 5:3 But sexual immorality, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be mentioned among you, as becomes saints; WEB

Paul also specifically allows eating of meat which has been sacrificed, as long as it did not produce a bad witness. If a brother or sister in the Lord would be offended, or if someone specifically pointed out that "this meat was sacrificed" -- presumably to test what the believer would do -- then the meat offered should be avoided. It appears that eating the meat was not in conflict with the requirements of the Jerusalem conference if there was no offense. It is not clearly stated in scripture whether eating strangled animals or drinking blood was also ok if it gave no offense, but these seem to be closely related and are not otherwise forbidden to Christians.

Later church practice

Almost all Christian groups today reject sexual immorality as sinful, though there is some variation in what constitutes immorality (some groups even finding premarital relations to be acceptable). Pagan sacrifices seem to be rare enough in Europe and the Americas that little is written about it in most denominations. In practice, most Christians would avoid being seen as an active participant in any sacrifice they consider inappropriate. While most groups say nothing about blood or strangled animals, the Witnesses of Jehovah and the Eastern Orthodox churches do forbid them. Some Pentacostal groups interpret the conference requirements as commands still in effect, but spiritualize them, for example "strangled meat" is careless doctrinal statements.

A Catholic viewpoint:

  Notice, neither the letter nor the restrictions were meant for the Church as a whole, but only to the Gentile converts in a certain section of the world. Nor was it making any "dogmatic" statement, but only a practical one. Thus most do not interpret this passage as being meant for all generations of Christians. It was meant to keep peace between the Jewish and Gentile converts in a specific community at a specific time. In addition, it, like the rest of scripture, was prohibiting the consumption of blood 1, not its use in medical operations 3

The Orthodox churches apparently consider all four prohibitions to still be in effect today. Here is a statement from an Orthodox apologetics site:

  Actually – and this is not well-known – the Orthodox position is that the Apostolic Council is still binding, and this includes the prohibition on eating blood (including blood sausage, etc and strangled meats.
  This prohibition on eating blood has however never been understood as a strict prohibition on the use of blood transfusions in case of medical emergency.


What did Thomas Merton mean by cartesian when it comes to modern christianity?

In a very vague sense in many 19th and 20th century Christian writings when someone talks about "Cartesian" they mean they just mean whatever can be boiled down to the maxim:

I think therefore I am

And like evolution, people get the impression that reading that line gives them all they need to know about Principia philosophiae the same way "Survival of the Fittest" gives them all they need to know about Origin of Species.  And because of this:

It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.
G.K. Chesterton - The Everlasting Man

Maybe Thomas Merton was writing about something deeper. He was a popular author writing philosophy for the masses, and this, at least probably lends itself to the idea that describing something or someone as Cartesian means branding them a Materialist Philosophy; one that would be banned in happier times (i.e. the Middle Ages).


Protestantism is too big and diverse to so make any sweeping statements about it.  According to Wikipedia, Lutheran, Anglican, and some Calvinist churches still have godparents.  Generally, if a denomination still practices infant baptism, its more likely to also have formalized godparent roles.  (Of course, Orthodox and Catholic churches retain the role.)

However, in my experience, most protestant denominations do not regularly include the formal godparent relationship.  Once in a while, I've seen family friends stand with the parents at an infant dedication, but it's more of an ad hoc sort of deal.  Instead, as I mentioned in a related answer, the entire congregation commits itself to assisting the natural parents in raising children.

But as vsz mentions in the comments:

  It depends. In my region most Protestants are Calvinists, and being a godparent is a very important role that binds the two families together, not just an "ad hoc" act.

The Reformation was such a complicated mixture of cultural, religious, intellectual, and national conflicts that making sweeping generalizations rarely covers all the bases.

From the perspective of a parent, I've found that many people in our church have legitimately taken a hand in training our son both spiritually and naturally.  And as a member of the congregation, I take my commitment to other people's children seriously whether they have been formally dedicated or not.  My wife and I would rather be rebuked for overstepping the boundaries (we have been) than to allow our friend's children to lack outside, Christian, adult interactions.

Many Christian parents organically seek out others who serve many of the same functions of godparents.  Some don't.  There's a risk of a congregation not responding to cries for help because of the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility.  Perhaps re-instituting the godparent relationship will help.


In Eastern Orthodoxy, when doing a service, do little mistakes really matter, and should they be cause for concern?

You clarified your question in a comment:

  If there are a dogma regarding that, if it is considered a sin, if God
  and/or The Church focuses on very precisely compliance of Typikon or
  Orthodox Tradition, if it does not matter a such kind of mistake in
  generally

Sin, as John wrote, is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).  This is also the definition cited in The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Church, by Metropolitan Philaret.  The 20th century Orthodox theologian and monk, Justin Popovic explained this verse:

  The law of God is the Gospel:  lawlessness is sin.  Its [sin's] only
  law is to be without the law of God and against the law of God.  In
  essence, the law and that which is lawful is only that which is divine
  and of the Gospel; lawlessness is everything that is in opposition to
  that which is divine and of the Gospel.

  Commentary on the Epistles of St. John the Theologian, (tr. Sebastian Press, 2009), p. 40

In the Gospel, we are commanded to be perfect (Matthew 5:48).  In this sense anything we do or fail to do in dishonoring or honoring God and our brothers and sisters through inattention is sinful.  The prayers and rubrics in the Typicon were prescribed by our hierarchs for the spiritual benefit of all who read and attend the service, so we fall short of helping our brothers and sisters when we make mistakes in the service through our inattention.  But we also fall short when we have an unkind word for them or an unkind thought about them.  There is not a special checklist that God maintains that relates specifically to errors of one sort or another.


Why does the throne in Daniel 7:9 have wheels and are they literally wheels?

David Pawson has an interesting answer, referring to a similar vision in Ezekiel 1. First, bear in mind that the Israelites were at that time in captivity in Babylon. Then:

Clearly, the throne can travel in any direction. This symbolizes the omnipresence of God, who is able to be anywhere and everywhere. He is a mobile God. This is significant because, until this point, every vision of God’s throne in the Bible had portrayed it as static, fixed in Jerusalem. So it was a comfort for Ezekiel to learn that God’s throne was mobile, for it meant that he could move to Babylon. This was an important truth to communicate to the exiles, who may have believed that God lived in one place, hundreds of miles away in Jerusalem.
Furthermore, the ‘eyes’ on the rims of the wheels tell us that God can see everything, everywhere. It’s a very meaningful picture. No wonder Ezekiel was overwhelmed with the vision and fell to the ground.

Summary: yes the throne has wheels to symbolise that God is with His people, even when they are not near the temple. But, no, they are not literal. God is speaking to Ezekiel in a vision which he and the people he preached it to would immediately understand and draw comfort from.
For more information see this page which quotes directly from David Pawson's Unlocking the Bible Omnibus.