According to Methodism, is it possible to live without sinning?

You may not trust the idea of original sin being inherited, but Methodists absolutely believe in the doctrine of original sin being passed on from Adam and Eve to every human.  As a biblical doctrine, original sin is an essential part of the foundation of Christianity, and John Wesley defended it through reason and experience.   Wesley concludes this sermon by saying:

Know your disease! Know your cure! Ye were born in sin: Therefore, 'ye must be born again,' born of God. By nature ye are wholly corrupted. By grace ye shall be wholly renewed. In Adam ye all died: In the second Adam, in Christ, ye all are made alive. 'You that were dead in sins hath he quickened:' He hath already given you a principle of life, even faith in him who loved you and gave himself for you! Now, 'go on from faith to faith,' until your whole sickness be healed; and all that 'mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus!'

Apart from God’s grace leading us to redemption, we have no hope of deliverance from the control of original sin over us. By God’s grace, made available to all in Jesus Christ and through discipleship to him with his church, we do.  Source: https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-how-did-john-wesley-understand-original-sin

Given that Methodists do not believe that children are bon innocent, then the answer to your question, ‘is it possible that one can remain sinless till they die?’ must be no.  As to the question, ‘how do Methodists deal with this?’ we need to dig a little deeper to understand that, with God’s grace, it is possible to aspire to holiness and to seek perfection.  Personally, I don’t think any of us will attain perfection this side of heaven, but that’s no excuse not to try!
This article http://ee.umc.org/what-we-believe/does-the-united-methodist-church-believe-that-babies-are-born-in-sin   explains that although Methodists do not choose to follow the way of sin, the nature of man is inclined to evil.  The article goes on to explore Romans chapter 5, which is all about salvation.  Here is a brief extract:

"as by one man's disobedience [Adam's] the many [meaning all who are born] were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience [Jesus] the many will be made righteous." This is Paul's way of spelling out both the doctrine of sin and the doctrine of salvation. Remember here, we are dealing with Paul's way of setting this up. Christ can redeem all because his faithfulness to God in perfect love and obedience matches and exceeds the disobedience of one man, Adam.

The notion of original sin does not compute very well with the modern outlook. Most of the 20th century church tried to dance around it and then wondered why Jesus' saving work was hard to get serious about. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." says 1st John, vs. 8.

The point is that we, from birth, need the grace of God available in Jesus Christ. We cannot hope in some tiny spark of goodness at our core that is always there to get us through. We are without merit or claim upon God on our own. This is a hard pill to swallow in our "enlightened" and modern perspective. On the other hand, what a gracious hope and gospel we proclaim and live if we simply accept the desperate need we are in from the beginning and the washing of water and the word in baptism where God claims us as God's own in union with Christ, dying to sin and living alive to God by the power of the Spirit.

Methodists deal with the issue of inherited sin by acknowledging it is only by the grace of God that we can die to sin and be spiritually reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit that indwells believers.


What is the biblical basis for dual-covenant theology?

Since your question focuses on dual covenant theology's biblical basis, I will cite the main points and verses and leave you to research the major proponents' more complex arguments in their writings at your leisure:

After the Great Flood, God imposed a set of laws on Noah and his family and their descendants (Genesis 9:3-10), which makes them binding on all of humanity alive today (known as the "Noahide Code" or the "Noahide Laws"). These are the baseline requirements of behavior for all people.
God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac, i.e. the Israelite/Jewish nation (Genesis 17:4-14, 19). This covenant was promised by God to last forever (v.7).
One major legal component of this covenant was that Abraham and his male progeny be circumcised (vv.10-14). God said that Abraham had obeyed "My commandments, My statutes and My laws" (26:5) under this covenant.
The Abrahamic Covenant was refined in greater detail at Mt. Sinai. A major component of the Covenant was the Mosaic Law (Exodus 19-24). The people accepted to obey the whole Law by saying "we will hear and we will obey" (24:7). Later, under Ezra, they communally reaffirmed their faithfulness to the Law (Nehemiah 9-10).
God promised that the Mosaic Law would remain in force forever (Exodus 27:21, 28:43, 29:28, 30:21, 31:17; Leviticus 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Numbers 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10; Deuteronomy 5:29; Psalm 119:160, etc), and is "perfect" (Psalm 19:7).
God said that any "prophet" who tells Israelites/Jews to stop obeying the Mosaic Law is a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-6, 18).
God said that the elements of the Mosaic Law will not be changed even a little (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, 13:1). This was supported by Jesus, who said that "neither a jot nor a tittle" (i.e. the letter yud or the calligraphic elaboration of a yud) will pass from the Mosaic Law until "all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 16:17). This fulfilment he speaks of has not yet occurred, since the messianic age has not yet arrived, and we are still living in an unredeemed world.
God and the prophets said that the the Israelites/Jews were capable of completely obeying the Mosaic Law properly (Deuteronomy 30:9-14; Psalm 119; Luke 10:25-38; Matthew 19:16-20).
God said that the "New Covenant" will involve "My Law" (torati) being placed inside people and written on their hearts, implying that they will fully internalize the Mosaic Law and obey it fully and properly (Jeremiah 31:33-34).
God promised that as long as the celestial bodies remain in place, Israel will remain a distinct nation (Jeremiah 31:35-37), not be absorbed and undifferentiated into a larger non-Jewish religious movement.
Jesus was only focused on delivering his message to "the house of Israel", not to Gentiles (Matthew 10:6; 15:24), even referring to them as "dogs" on one occasion (15:26-27). Jesus never told his (Jewish) followers that they no longer had to obey the Mosaic Law, he gave the Law a different interpretation from the scribes and Pharisees (e.g., grinding wheat in one's hands is not a Sabbath day violation, 12:1-5; miraculously healing the sick is not a violation of the Sabbath day, 12:9-13; eating with unwashed hands is not a violation of the kosher laws, 15:2, 20=Mark 7:2, 5, 18, etc).
"Nobody comes to the Father" except through Jesus (John 14:6), but Jews don't need to "come" to God because they're already with him, and have been since Abraham's time (e.g., Genesis 28:15; Exodus 33:14; Joshua 1:9; Jeremiah 29:13; Psalm 41:12; Zephaniah 3:17).
When Jesus gave the Great Commission in Matthew 28, he told his followers to spread the Gospel to "all nations". "The nations" (in Hebrew ha-goyim) is a common idiom referring to the non-Jewish world. E.g., Isaiah 9:1 which speaks of "Galilee of the nations" (Galil ha-goyim), is translated in the LXX and Gospels as "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matthew 4:15). So Matthew 28:19 can be translated as 'go therefore and make disciples of the entire Gentile world, baptizing them ...' (=Luke 24:47, 'should be proclaimed in his name to the whole Gentile world, beginning from Jerusalem...'), not the Jewish people.
At the Jerusalem Council, James ruled that non-Jewish members of the Christian community would not be required to convert to Judaism and become bound by the Mosaic Law ("judaizing"). Instead, they were only required to follow the Noachide Laws that were already binding on all humanity (Acts 15:5, 19-21, 21:25). (Note that the exact number and content of the Noahide Laws were a matter of debate within the Jewish community for many centuries, with different groups having different lists and interpretations. So it's not unusual that James and the Council would have their own unique version.)
The Jerusalem Council, which was the authoritative leadership of the Jewish-Christian communities (Acts 15, 21:18; Galatians 2:9, 12), never authorized the reverse, "gentilizing" i.e. that Jews/Jewish-Christians can or must abandon any aspect of the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20-21). (Levine refers to this as the "two-track method" of James, see book below).
Peter's vision where a voice tells him to "kill and eat" "unclean creatures" (Acts 10:10-16) is not related to kosher food laws - Peter himself interprets his vision as meaning "I should call no man unholy or unclean" (v.28), not food.
Paul was the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Galatians 1:15-16, 2:8; Romans 11:13; 1 Timothy 2:7), and so the authoritative leader of the Gentile-Christian communities. His letters were written to Gentiles only: e.g., the Galatians, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Romans, etc, not to Jews, and so have no bearing on what Jews/Jewish-Christians must to do/believe. One example of this is his detailed discussions about whether believers should eat meat from the marketplace (i.e. had most likely been sacrificed to idols before being sold in the agora) (1 Corinthians 8, 10); this is only relevant to Gentiles, since the Jewish community in every city had their own meat slaughtering facilities and markets in line with the Mosaic Law, and so this was never a problem for them.
While Paul strongly objected many times to Gentile-Christians "judaizing" (most prominently, by becoming circumcised) (e.g., Galatians 3), he does not state that Jews/Jewish-Christians must "gentilize". In fact, he acted in the reverse, circumcizing Timothy (whose mother was Jewish, making him a Jewish-Christian) (Acts 16:3) but not Titus, a Greek (Galatians 2:3), and paying for and joining a group of (Jewish) nazirites performing vows at the Temple (Acts 21:23-26), as the Jerusalem Council enjoined (v.23).
When Paul wrote, "there is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), he was referring to the equality of all believers who are mystically one body, but this oneness does not erase the distinct social and religious roles of different people: e.g., women must still submit to men (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34) and cover their heads (11:6), slaves must still submit to their masters (even if both are Christians) (Colossians 3:22; Ephesians 6:5; Philemon). Ergo, Jews are still required to obey the Mosaic Law while Gentiles are still only required to obey the Noahide Laws.
In Revelation, John of Patmos describes the great dragon making war on the rest of the "woman's" offspring, those who "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" (12:17). In Hebrew, the phrase "commandments of God" (mitzvot Elohim) invariably refers to the entirety of the Mosaic Law. In addition, the "mark" of the Beasts (13:16) appears to be a demonic parody of the wearing of phylacteries (tefillin) worn by Jews on the head and hand in obedience to Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. This implies that the Jewish-Christians were still keeping (and John expected them to continue keeping) the Mosaic Law.
Paul cites the example of Abraham, who "believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6) as a Pentateuchal basis for salvation by faith/grace (Romans 4:3). But there is a second major method of "righteousness" (tzedekah) mentioned in the Pentateuch, when Moses tells the children of Israel that "this shall be our righteousness: to be careful to do all this commanded before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us" (Deuteronomy 6:25), i.e. obeying the Mosaic Law. Abraham availed himself of this second method in addition to the first (Genesis 26:5).

For more information, I recommend you read "The Rapprochement Between Jews and Christians" by Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Star of Redemption" by Franz Rosenzweig, "Jesus the Pharisee" by Harvey Falk, and "The Misunderstood Jew" by Amy-Jill Levine. Pope John Paul II stated agreement with some of the above tenets. Some other writers you may find useful to check out are: David Stern, Stan Telchin, Maimonides, Jacob Emden, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Moses Mendelssohn, Sir James Parkes, James Trimm, William Campbell, and Mark Nanos. Happy researching!


What should be the role of music in corporate worship?

Music is a critical part of a praise service, but it is not always appropriate for other services, such as vigils.

The role of music in the bible is widespread, and there's no right or wrong way to use it. Whether you listen to the music, sing along, or ignore it.

A very common use of music is to take the worshipper on a journey. At the beginning of the worship, some uplifting songs to get people in the spirit, and then using slower, quieter songs to take them down into self reflection and confession. Then, positive, upbeat music to end on a high. It's not uncommon in churches with a younger demographic for these later songs to be rock songs, or very contemporary songs.

There are certainly inappropriate uses of music. Music that detracts from the purpose of the service is inappropriate, which is why you won't usually find music at a vigil service, and the songs at a funeral aren't usually rock songs (although sometimes that could be appropriate, depending on the wishes of the family)

As for the roles, this depends greatly on the exact congregation you're in. At some, the worship leader (pastor, priest, etc) needs to maintain control over music and song selection to ensure that appropriate songs with appropriate lyrics are chosen. Others this is entrusted to a lay person with good biblical knowledge, but often there are both people and they work togther.

For the congregation, I'm of the belief that they should take whatever role they are most comfortable with. Some (most) will sing along, others will listen, others may feel the need to dance, raise their hands, and others (particularly teenagers during a traditional service with hymns from the 1700s) will just ignore it and wish they were elsewhere.


You're right, creationism, of whatever variety, is not scientifically falsifiable.

Creationists do not think this is a problem. In fact, they would say that all alternatives to creationism are equally unfalsifiable. The scientific method cannot test the past; it may be able to tell us what is possible, what is likely and what is unlikely, but it ultimately cannot confirm any theory about the past. This is especially the case for unique or miraculous events, such as the creation of the universe or Noah's flood.


Is the Summa Theologia infallible to Catholics or not?

No, the Summa Theologica/Theologiae is not infallible. It was written by St. Thomas Aquinas, who though he was very good, holy, and learned, was not infallible.

On those occasions on which the Pope is considered infallible (that is, when he addresses the whole Church as its teacher and pastor, and defines a doctrine which must be held by the whole Church), or for that matter on occasions when any group (e.g. an ecumenical council) is held infallible, it is not the Summa or any similar work that is ultimately the source of this infallible understanding; it is the Word of God Himself. That is the only possible source of infallible knowledge:

  At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, [the Magisterium] listens to [the Word of God] devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

(Dei Verbum Section 10 Part 2, quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 86)

One example in which we see this quite clearly is in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This is a belief of the Church from ancient times, proposed as a dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. Yet Aquinas disagreed with the idea! In his discussion of the question "Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?", that is, before the infusion of the rational soul, which was understood at the time to take place after conception, Aquinas says:

  In whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Mat. 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Tim. 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 27, Article 2)

Obviously St Thomas, being wrong in this respect, could not have been infallible. It was quite some time before the theology of the Church's understanding caught up to the belief itself.


Could a Catholic priest potentially use a digital tablet (iPad, etc.) for the Lectionary or the Book of the Gospels during mass?
It seems the Rome has not yet pronounced on this matter officially. Yet the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has made a statement on this subject matter. They responded in the negative.

When the priest is finished proclaiming the Gospel at mass, he reverently kisses the Lectionary. This would seem like a lack of liturgical decorum to kiss some sort of electronic devices.


Is Matthew 28 saying something about Baptism?

The baptizing mentioned in Matthew 28 is not so much as a command as a part of a command.  The sentence structure here in the greek has one verb which is 'go'. Everything else modifies how we should go.  We should go discipling, we should go baptizing, we should go teaching.

Those commenting on the order of the words are, I believe, correct. The order is not significant.  Also note that the 'them' that are to be baptized here refers to the 'nations' that have been discipled.  God calls the people who are called by His name to receive the covenant sign of inclusion (baptism in the New Testament circumcision in the Old Testament).

It is true that those who are outside the covenant should convert to the Christian faith before receiving baptism (Acts 8:12) but that still leaves the question about those who grow up in the Christian Faith.  Paul clearly states that the children of one believing parent are somehow set aside and different.  I believe that the difference here is that the children are part of the covenant community.


Why didn’t the blind man at Bethsaida get healed the first time?

This was apparently Jesus way of teaching us that our rewards are commensurate with our faith:
All Scriptures are from the King James translation.
In verse 24 the man could see but only partially, that was probably because he had heard of Jesus healing power, but was still skeptical.
In verse 25 he had experienced Jesus healing power, and then expected that Jesus did have the power to completely heal his blindness, and the second time he had full faith, and was completely healed.
We have more information about the rewards being equal to our belief in:
Matthew 9:28 through 30
28  And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.

29  Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
30  And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

We today are privileged to  see that truth demonstrated in the lives of the faithful, Have you noticed that those who are the most dedicated to the Lord have the happiest marriages and are the richest in his blessings?
Even though the most of them are not well off in worldly goods they do have all of their needs met, and they seem to have an extra measure of peace and happiness.
Those people also seem to be content with what the Lord gives them and are never envious of others worldly possessions, but are genuinely happy for the others gains, just as Jesus decreed in:

Matthew 6:8  Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

So taken together we learn that:

God already knows what we need, and he will give us our needs, but there is actually more to it than that.

Jesus also told us that we should ask the father 'daily':

Matthew 6:11  Give us this day our daily bread.

Jesus said in Matthew 9:29 (above)"according to your faith".
Several years ago four friends and I decided to put those scriptures to the test, and began by agreeing that to start with 10% of everything was God's portion, and that if we were to make an offering it had to be more than that 10%. None of us was well off by earthly standards, and as a matter of fact we were actually only living from paycheck to paycheck. None of us thought we could get by even giving the 10% let alone anything over that. We did agree though that we would start by giving that 10% right off the top.
I am sad to say that I was the only one who began by keeping that promise at first. At the end of the first month we got together again as we had promised to do, and compared how we were doing. After the first month I was the only one who had met all of my bills and still had money left over. As a thank you to the lord I took that overage and had the pastor give it to someone needy.
The next month all four of the others followed our agreement and each found that they finished the month with a few dollars left over.
Since that day we have all continued in our agreement of giving our tithe first and when we have extra give some to the needy, either through the Church or some charity, and the five of us have not had financial worries since, we are far from being wealthy, but we are happy and content and peaceful.
My reason for telling you this is not to start a stampede to give, but to let you know that Jesus meant exactly what he said, and if you take him at his word and trust him he will show you blessings commensurate with your faith.
I do feel it is necessary to tell you that we did not do this just to test whether or not the Lord would give us the desires of our hearts, but to see if our condition would improve despite no other things changing, such as some unexpected income, or bills being mysteriously lowered. I cannot vouch for the others but in my case it was to demonstrate that I had enough faith to trust that God would meet my needs, which he did. I hope that the others faith was strengthened enough by my circumstance that they also expected that God would meet their needs.
Not only that but just as with the blind man in verse 24 he will strengthen your faith as you see him give blessings in accordance with the trust you place in him.


Why do we only pray for things that are possible to happen?

There is nothing wrong with this question at all.  It simply illustrates that God has established certain rules of normalcy of which he rarely violtates.  When he does violate the paths of which he usually ordains the boundaries of life, it is an extraordinary miracle.  Miracles like Moses parting the Red Sea, or Jesus raising the dead are not normal possabilities otherwise they would no longer be 'miraculous'.  The reason why 'most' Christians do not pray for these things (some do and even convince themselves they are regularily answered although not provable to others) is that we innately know it is not God's will.  God does not promise to answer any prayer that is not his will, so why waste the time praying for what we know he will not answer?

  This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (NIV, 1 John 5:14–15)

As far as genuine miracles go, it is understood in the Bible that an unusual divine knoweldge that it is his will through revelation and faith can make someone ask for what seems impossible and know with full assurance that it will be done. For example, David when he attacked Golliath knew it was God's will to cut the head off of that boaster. God gave David special knowledge and faith to do this. Such things are called 'gifts' as not everyone recieves them like everyday common graces to the faithful.

  To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledgel by means of the same Spirit, to another faithm by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healingn by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,a r and to still another the interpretation of tongues. (1 Cor 12:8-11, NIV)

Now clearly these gifts, especially the extraordinary miraculous ones have not always been given by God. He decides when and to who they are given. They are gifts not rewards for good deeds.  There are times in the Bible where they seem wholy absent and other times when they are very much in operation.  In our days they do not seem that active, otherwise more people would be praying in the way you suggest and the media would be all over it having no means of explanation through scientific analysis.

In other words the question is not 'why do we not pray such and such' but 'why is it not God's will for such things to occur as frequently as it has in the past' or for those more charismatic folks, 'why do we not believe as much as those in the past'?


Who were the "scribes" whom Jesus often disputes against in the canonical gospels?

In Ancient Judaism, preserving and accurately copying the scriptures was a task considered to be of the utmost importance.  As such, an official Temple position dedicated to this task was created.  Such a scribal position was not unique to Judaism; indeed, many ancient societies had trained professionals whose primary job was to maintain and copy religious records and scriptures.

Such copyists and maintainers of the religious records were regularly immersed in the text and thus quickly became experts in it.  Thus, in Temple-era Judaism the term "Scribes" refers both to the copyists and to experts in the scriptures in general.  In later Rabbinic writing, the Scribes are described as "teachers with authority" and elsewhere as "copyists and teachers" (jobs that taken on by Rabbisafter the Temple fell, with the specific scribal roles disappearing entirely by the Talmudic period).  Such literature considers their teachings to have been authoritative and ascribes many legal interpretations to the Scribes.  Scribes also functioned as councilors, philosophers, and sophists at times.

Historically, most of the scribes were probably priests or members of the priestly class.  Ezra, for example, is described as a scribe (Ezra 7:6) and priest (Ezra 10:10).  However, in the late Temple period, non-priests were added to the ranks as duties of the scribes increased.  In the Maccabean period, the term "Scribe" became a title.  Ben Sira describes a Scribe as a wise man with comprehensive knowledge.

Josephus does not speak of a specific "Scribes" group, but says that scribes were employed at all levels of government.  As such, the Scribes of Jesus' day do not appear to have been a distinct social group, but more akin to bureaucrats.  That is, experts on the Law and Jewish life in general, not a distinct class of people.  That said, the evidence suggests most lived in Jerusalem and were closely associated with the Temple priests.  These Scribes likely help enforce Jewish law and pick Sanhedrin members.

This picture is consistent with the Gospel accounts.  Mark describes the Scribes as high officials and advisors of the priests.  Matthew portrays them as learned leaders of the people.  Luke shows them as leaders and protectors of Judaism associating with the Pharisees and Chief Priest.  Collectively the accounts show people who did not necessarily have official power, but yielded considered authority due to the people's respect for their knowledge.

Source: Allen Ross, "The Scribes" (2006), hosted at Bible.org


What does the bible say about homosexuality?

There's an entire Wikipedia post regarding this subject.  (Thus it's my source as it's easily referenced.)
1
Leviticus 20:13 is the first:

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a
woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put
to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

2
Genesis 18-19 has the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where homosexuality was a big part of their culture.  The town was destroyed for their wickedness.

Genesis 19:4-5
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city
of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to
Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us
so that we can have sex with them.”

Ezekiel even talks about this event here:

Ezekiel 16:49-50
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

These verses clearly state that Sodom was destroyed because of they were haughty and did detestable things.  While Ezekiel isn't clear which detestable things were done, the Genesis account only indicates rampant homosexuality (possibly alluding to public, homosexual orgies) as the cause for this phrase "detestable things".
This also echos the Leviticus scripture showing that God finds homosexuality detestable.
Looking at the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, we have to either conclude it was homosexuality that was detestable, or something that was not written about.  But why would Moses have included homosexuality in Genesis if it weren't the "detestable thing" for which God was destroying the city? In fact, if it wasn't one of the primary reasons for God destroying the cities, why write about it at all? It simply becomes another attribute of the city.
It's hard (if not impossible) to separate the destruction of Sodom from the concept of homosexuality.
3
In the New Testament, there is Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the
same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with
other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Then there's 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8–10, which refer to sexual sin on a more general basis.  Those previous three are pretty solid references, though.


What is Christ's role in salvation according to Arian theology?

From Arius' own hand:

  We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and on earth; who descended, and became human, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into heaven, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the holy spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one catholic church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the other. . . . If we do not so believe and do not truly receive the Father, the son, and the holy spirit, as the whole catholic church and the holy scriptures teach (in which we believe in every respect), may God judge us both now, and in the coming judgment.1

According to Arius, he and his fellow Arians believed everything in common with the rest of the church, excepting only that they disagreed on the 'origin' of Jesus:

  But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? . . . Before [Jesus] was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.2

But in response to the Arians, Athanasius argued that their perception of Jesus was that any human was ontologically equal to Jesus.

  For granting what they say, that, whereas His qualifications were fore-known , He therefore received grace from the first, the name, and the glory of the name, from His very first beginning, still there will be no difference between Him and those who receive the name after their actions, so long as this is the ground on which He as others has the character of son.3

According to Athanasius, the Arian position meant that humans were qualitatively identical to Jesus, with the only substantial difference between that Jesus was created before humans were. Ergo, because Jesus is created, he cannot save what is also created:

  Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it ; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself.4

This should be taken with a grain of salt, however; in the process of arguing against the Arians, it appears Athanasius exaggerated their view of Jesus, so he may well be making a straw man argument.5

1 Letter of Arius and Euzoïus to Emperor Constantine, c.327 AD. Emphases mine.

2 Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, c.318 AD. Emphasis mine.

3 Athanasius, De Decretis, paragraph 6. Emphasis mine.

4 Athanasius, Discourse II Against the Arians, paragraph 69. The objection is, fundamentally: Only uncreated God can save, so if Jesus is not uncreated God, he cannot save. I believe this is a rather weak argument, philosophically and scripturally, but I digress.

5 e.g. Athanasius claims Arius' belief is that 'the Son is [not] by nature the Father's true Word . . . He is improperly called [the] Word [of God]', contrary to Arius' self-expressed belief (as in the first quote above) that 'the Lord Jesus Christ . . . [is] God the Word'.


Looking through several Bible commentaries, it looks like not a lot known definitively about Chloe.
While some have speculated that Chloe refers to a place, most commentators are reasonably sure that the name refers to a person:

Some take Chloe to be the name of a place; a city so called is said to have been in Cappadocia; but it seems rather to have been the name of a woman. Horace (b) several times makes mention of a woman of this name, and so does Martial (c). Pausanias (d) calls the goddess Ceres by it, the goddess of husbandry; the word signifying green grass of the field.
—Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

There is disagreement as to whether she belonged to the church of Corinth or not:

It is uncertain whether she belonged to the Corinthian or to the Ephesian church.
—Vincent's Word Studies
The person the apostle speaks of was one that very probably lived at Corinth, and was a member of the church there, and at the head of a family of great worth and credit…
—Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

It seems likely that the "members of Chloe's household" who provided Paul with the report of the rivalry were slaves

Her name [Chloe] was evidently well known to the Corinthians, and some slaves of her household, probably travelling between Ephesus and Corinth, on their owner’s business, had brought to St. Paul the account of the distracted state of the church in their city.
—Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

The slaves mentioned later in 1 Corinthians may have been those slaves:

It has been conjectured that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, Corinthians who were now with St. Paul at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:16), may have been Chloe's slaves or freedmen.
—Pulpit Commentary

In general though, we don't know much more about her as she is never mentioned beyond this passage.


Besides Jesus, is there any other figure in the Bible that would claim that some of the prophecies in the Scriptures were about him?

The below verses from the Gospel of John is where John the Baptist is quoting a prophecy about himself:

  John 1:19-23 (NIV) Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”

  They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

  He said, “I am not.”

  “Are you the Prophet?”

  He answered, “No.”

  Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
  John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”

John the Baptist quoted from Isa 40:3:

  Isa 40:3 (RSV) A voice cries:
  “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,
      Make straight in the desert a highway for our God".

  Isa 40:3 (NASB) A voice is calling,
  “Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness;
  Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God".

  Isa 40:3 (NKJV) The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
  “Prepare the way of the Lord;
  Make straight in the desert
  A highway for our God".

  Isa 40:3 (TLB) Listen! I hear the voice of someone shouting, “Make a road for the Lord through the wilderness; make him a straight, smooth road through the desert".


Why does Intelligent Design reject evolution, even intelligently designed and executed evolution?

The Intelligent Design Debate is all about getting people to admit there is some creator of the universe rather than Evolution.  Its not about saying this creator is God or some other such deity.
IMHO it is used as a stepping stone as people who don't want to believe there is a God can swallow the idea easier.
To summarise the ID theory:

Irreducible Complexity: Even when you reduce biological organisms down to their most basic systems they are still too complex to happen randomly.
Specified Complexity: Biological organisms are not just complex but they are specified or ordered complexity. Since the pattern (or order) specified to make biological organisms they can't happen randomly.
Intelligent Designer: When both the above are true there must be an Intelligent designer.

(DISCLIAMER: I may have gotten parts of the ID thoery wrong in my attempt to simplify it please help correct me if I have.)
EDIT:- To address the (macro) Evolution stance:
I can't say for certain as I am not associated with any ID organisation but my theory would be that if macro Evolution was the method that the Intelligent designer used to create organisms it would give rise to the ability that it could be done again (evolve). (ID theory was brought out of an anti-evolution philosophy. Does that make it biased? I'm not sure but I like when we question long held blind-beliefs.)
Keep in mind that both Evolution theory and the Intelligent Design theory are still theories.  Neither of which (no matter how many people believe it is true) have any substantial proof either way.


Are the Gospels considered anonymous by historians only or by the Catholic Church also?

I can't speak for Catholicism in general, but I can say with confidence that they agree that the traditional titles were a later addition. For instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."

Michael Kruger argues that "we have little reason to doubt the titles of these gospels and thus little reason to doubt the authorship of these books."

I won't duplicate his full reasoning here, but in essence, he argues that the titles for the books are very early (though not original) and that there is no extant disagreement about them. Also, if one were trying to bolster a book's credibility with a famous name, one wouldn't choose a lesser known character like Mark or Luke (a Gentile!) to do it.

Why would they have written anonymously? He suggests it parallels the OT practice in historical books, which were likewise anonymous, and places them in the tradition of OT historiographical practice. "Such a stylistic device allowed the authors of the gospels 'to disappear' and to give 'highest priority to their subject matter.'"

As for material covered, yes Matthew, Mark, and Luke have some considerable overlap, though the exact figure of how much depends on how you count. This is commonly called the synoptic problem. It has been known from ancient times and is not a heresy, though it can be taken in an unbelieving direction, as with most anything. In the second century, Tatian produced his Diatessaron, a harmony of the four gospels that cleaned it all up, but the church stuck with the "redundancy" of the four originals.

As for how the authors viewed their task, Kruger has a general answer for the NT and an answer for the book of Matthew in particular. The latter argues from the text itself (esp. the first chapter) that Matthew clearly saw himself as continuing the biblical history from the OT with the story of Jesus.

The other gospels show some additional hints of their purpose, as in John 20:30f (emphasis mine): "The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name." The author's understanding of inspiration and accuracy is touched on within the gospel itself, as when Jesus says in John 14:25f, "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, ... will remind you of everything I have said to you." Compare also Luke 1:1-5 and Acts 1:1-3 on Luke's stated purpose and method of composition.

The doctrine of inspiration starts in passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20 and proceeds from there.


Do Protestant catechisms teach that man is created by and for God, and God always draws man to himself?

From a Lutheran perspective, we believe that people will have a "god," because we are naturally driven to look for something/someone for all good things (this is essentially Luther's definition of what a god is).  So, we would agree with the statement in the Catholic Catechism that "man is a religious being."  We also would cite St. Paul in Romans 1:19-20, Acts 14:15-17, Acts 17:22ff.

However, to know the true God, we need His revelation to us which comes through the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as through the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper).  It is through these means of grace that God calls us to Himself and justifies us sinners before Him on account of Christ.  We are naturally turned away from the true God and need Him to bring us to Himself through these means.

The Small and Large Catechisms of the Lutheran Church talk about these in more detail, particularly in the Large Catechism's exposition on the First Commandment and in the exposition on the Third Article of the Apostles' Creed.

I'll quote from the statement about the Third Article, because the catechism makes the point that it is the Holy Spirit who brings us to faith in Christ for our salvation:

  Just as the Son obtains dominion, whereby He wins us, through His
  birth, death, resurrection, etc., so also the Holy Ghost effects our
  sanctification by the following parts, namely, by the communion of
  saints or the Christian Church, the forgiveness of sins, the
  resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting; that is, He first
  leads us into His holy congregation, and places us in the bosom of the
  Church, whereby He preaches to us and brings us to Christ.

  For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe
  on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and
  granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the
  Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and
  gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc.
  But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it
  would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not
  lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word
  to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to
  bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us.


According to Biblical Unitarians, is it theoretically possible for God to incarnate as a human and live a holy and humble life?

My guess is there is no single answer on this for all Biblical Unitarians, but given what I understand of Biblical Unitarianism, the answer is probably:
No. "God is Spirit." (John 4:24) 'Omnipotence' is a word with a classical theological development that isn't found in the Bible, although the word 'pantokrator' which means 'all-ruling' or 'all-mighty' is. God is the Creator (Genesis 1:1). As such, He could create a human who in turn could teach us by way of example what it is to live a holy and humble life - and that is exactly what He did.

"[The incarnation] appears to mean that the divine Maker became one of
His own creatures, which is a prima facie contradiction in
theological terms. [...] Such an assertion, considered abstractly
against the background of Old Testament monotheism, might seem
blasphemous or nonsensical— as indeed, orthodox Judaism has always
held it to be." Jesus Christ: Incarnated or Created?

and

"Jesus makes clear reference to two distinct categories in John 3:6
when he says that the “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit
gives birth to spirit.” Jesus clearly declared God to be “spirit”
(John 4:24). Note that he did not say, “I am spirit,” or “God is
flesh” or even “The Father is spirit.” By thus placing “God” in the
category of “spirit,” when he himself is clearly a man of flesh and
blood, Jesus effectively excluded any possibility that he was God. If
God, being spirit, can incarnate Himself as a man, then the clear
scriptural distinction between flesh and spirit disintegrates. But God
the Creator, who is spirit, can create flesh, as He did in Genesis 1."

Furthermore

Athanasius [a bishop of Alexandria who spearheaded what became the
orthodox Trinitarian position] says that God can do anything He
chooses to do, and that He chose to turn Himself into a man for the
sake of our salvation. Jesus Christ is not one of God’s creatures, he
insists, but God Himself, incarnated in human form. These sound like
clear statements, but, actually, they are hopelessly confused.
Can God do anything He chooses to do? Of course—except those things
that are inconsistent with being God. Can He choose to be evil or
ignorant? Could He be the Devil—or nothing at all?
Perfection cannot be improved upon or changed. He is not a pantheistic
“god” who dwells in everything. He is holy, meaning that He stands
apart from and above His creation, yet is intimately involved with it.
Therefore, God cannot alter His essential nature, which by definition
is perfect, and perfection cannot be improved upon. But even if He
could, in doing so He would, by definition, no longer be “God.”

To think God Himself could incarnate is to get caught up in a category error. It is like asking "Could God not be loving?" God is love (1 John 4:8). Or "Could God be unjust?" A core attribute of God is justice. 'Omnipotence' does not mean God can defy his own nature.


Does Roman Catholicism teach that appearances of *Santo Nino De Atocha* have some particular meaning?

Ultimately no one can truly say why the Santo Nino De Atocha, appears to someone. But that said particular circumstances of an individual surrounding may shed some light on a possible reason.

It seems that the saintly apparition of the Holy Infant of Atocha should be in some way a consolation of sorts, possibly only known to the individual.

Apparitions of the Saints are not uncommon in the history of the Catholic Church. The Holy Infant of Atocha seems to be no exception.

El Niño de Atocha seems to appear to people in need. What that need is can be very diverse or when danger is physically present as when the faithful made perilous pilgrimages:

  He (Holy Infant of Atocha) would especially appear to them when they found themselves in dangerous situations, often pointing to them the safe route to take to avoid any danger. Many times, He would accompany them on their journey. The descriptions of Him were always the same: He had a pilgrim’s dress, a hat with a plume and a cape about His Shoulders. In His left Hand, He held a pilgrim’s staff with a gourd of water attached. - The Story of the Holy Infant of Atocha

On other occasions, he would heal them of some infimity:

  In Mexico city, 1996, a girl went to an eye clinic for grave eye problems. The Holy Infant of Atocha appeared to her when she was 17, assuring her that she would not feel any pain, that she would be healed, which happened to the amazement of the doctors there. There are parishes and shrines named after Him both in Mexico and in the United States, as well as Spain. Pilgrimages to Spain to honor Him are still common as are those to Mexico. - The Story of the Holy Infant of Atocha

Santo Nino de Atocha, save our families!

Whatever the situation may be the Santo Nino De Atocha appearing to someone is a heavenly sign that some sort of grace has been accorded to an individual or his family.


Two Editions of Pelikan's "Whose Bible Is It?"

It is not uncommon for book publishers to tweak the cover of a book slightly when the book goes for a second printing, due to having sold all of the original copies.  The quick succession (only a year after the original printing) suggests it was simply a reprinting, and not a "new edition."  And their marketing gurus probably decided that a new cover and a shortened subtitle would help sales.

It also appears that the second printing was only done in paperback (judging by availability on amazon), whereas the first printing was both in hardback and paperback.  This could also just mean that they ran out of the first printing of the paperback copies first.

I have not been able to find any hard evidence to support this guess, but it seems logical, and I find no evidence to the contrary, either.  I suppose an email to the publisher, Penguin Press, might set the record straight, if it's that important to anyone.


Historical figures mentioned in the Bible that skeptics doubted existed but were later confirmed by archaeology

Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961.

Inscribed on the stone is:

  Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius.”

more  info


What are the Biblical arguments against modalism?

Biblically the biggest problem with modalism is that you end up having God talking to himself several times in the NT.

The idea of modalism is simple enough - God has different "modes" of being, kind of like an actor who simply appears with different masks in different situations [1]. If the same person is merely appearing in multiple forms simultaneously, there are some weird situations in Scripture that result, and have implications that are dicey.

When Jesus is Baptised, a voice from heaven declares, "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased".  If Jesus is just a different view of the same God, why would he say something like this, to himself?  It makes God seem a bit arrogant, frankly.
When Jesus is on the cross, he cries out "Father, Why have you forsaken me?"  How could he forsake himself if he is the same person forsaking and forsaken.  Note - specifically in relation to the cross, the view that the Father was on the cross is a heresy known as Patripassianism - from "the Father suffering"
In Hebrews 9:14, "the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offer[s] himself unblemished to God".  How can Christ offer his own blood to himself if he is the same person?  Unless that were somehow possible, Substitutionary Atonement is also invalid.(See Note 2)

By maintaining the distinct personalities (and personhood) of each part of the Trinity, you avoid all of these ridiculous to downright bad implications.

1 Or kind of like the Doctor meeting his past selves, crossing the timelines, and somehow necessitating running up and down corridors a lot. But I digress!

2 Note - Substitutionary Atonement is only one theory of salvation, so even if you could some how prove Modalism true and S.A. false, it wouldn't deprive us of salvation - it would just upset a lot of people who think this legal metaphor is the only theory that describes salvation.


Refute perceived differences in the Gospel between Peter and Paul from Sola Scriptura perspective

Peter's view that salvation is through faith in Jesus is evident. The difference is his epistles focuses more on the topic of sanctification through the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:2), which is a result of faith, but the underlying doctrine is the same.

1 Peter 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1 Peter 1:9  Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

In this next section, Bible verses also show that sanctification is a fruit of faith and is a theme preached by both apostles as a part of the gospel.
When the grace of God is received through faith, it has a sanctifying influence as we partake in divine nature (1 Peter 1:4, Romans 8:4) and die to self (1 Peter 2:5, Romans 6:6).

Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Romans 6:12-13 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Too much emphasis is sometimes put on separating justification and sanctification. But if the heart in unrenewed, the belief of Christ is merely a theory, the seed of the gospel never takes root, and their belief is only external just as Satan and the demons also believe in Jesus.


How can Paul having been alive apart from the Law reconcile with the doctrine of original sin?

For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Paul means that

Before he heard the law he thought he was OK, fine, alive.  But when he heard the law he realized he was not OK, not fine, but spiritually dead. Or
He means that when he heard the law all it did was stir up sin in him, for "the strength of sin is the law" (1 Corinthians 15:56).  And the law does this because with its demands it just irritates us and increases our rebelliousness.

1.
The law is like a mirror. I thought my face was perfectly clean, but when I looked into the mirror I saw I was filthy.  So when I see the law of God I realize I am spiritually sick, even dead.

2.
Also the law stirs up sin.  It happens like this:  I hear God's standard and it is very high and I realize that no matter how hard I try I am going to fail: so I get angry against God, I resent Him and His laws, and I realize, or maybe I don't realize it, but I actually hate Him more than ever.

Also, I prefer sin to holiness, and I resent that God is against the things I like.  So what do I say?  I will sin against God to spite him to his face. "In for a penny,in for a pound", I might as well go to Hell for stealing a million as for stealing a pound, I will sin all the more; I will silence my conscience by sinning and sinning, I will ignore my conscience over and over until it no longer screams at me, or if it does, until I can no longer hear it.

The trouble with the law is that it can tell you what is the right thing to do, but it doesn't and cannot offer you any help to do it.  It is only a signpost on the road, it isn't an engine with a tank full of fuel.

Furthermore, like all laws, it really shouts loudest when we do the wrong thing; it doesn't pour out congratulations when we do the right thing: when we do the right thing the law says "You know very well you should have done that anyway, that is the least anyone expected of you; you only did your duty"; and when we do the wrong thing it says "You're finished!  Boy, are you in big trouble now, or what?!"

When Christian went to "The House of Interpretter" in the book, Pilgrim's Progress, Christian was shown someone who was sweeping in a room, but all that was being achieved was making a huge cloud of dust... the floor was not being cleaned because all the dust would settle again, in fact the one sweeping was just making things worse, working to no effect.  Once the dust had settled again someone came and sprinkled a little water on the floor, and after that the floor was swept again: this time the dust was nicely swept up.  The first picture is the law working in isolation from grace; the second picture is grace and law working together, the soul is cleansed.

Once I know I am freely and fully forgiven by the free grace of God believing all my sins are paid for by Jesus Christ dying and taking their full punishment then the law can no longer condemn: and now I want to please God by keeping, as much as I can, His law.  Now within me is an inner power to keep his law, not perfectly, but in a measure never before possible, I am sincere in my desire to draw near to God, to grow in grace and holiness.  But it isn't me, its the grace of God in me. Its no longer I who do it but Christ who lives in me.


How could Queen Victoria of England marry her first cousin?

In the Roman Catholic Church canon law forbids marriage between first cousins. The same applied in England before the Reformation, but since then the Church of England has allowed marriage between first cousins. Even within the Catholic Church it is possible for a dispensation to be granted allowing marriage to occur in specific cases even when forbidden by canon law. In the case of European royalty, in several countries, the Pope granted dispensations allowing marriage between first cousins and even between uncles and nieces. As Tapestry points out, many genetic defects have been ascribed to this practice.

The English Reformation got off to a slow start and the initial schism between England and Rome was over marriage rules.

Catherine of Aragon married Prince Arthur, eldest son of Henry VII of England.  The hope was that when Arthur became king, Catherine would be his Queen, and having a Spanish princess  married to the King of England build alliance and preserve peace.

Sadly Prince Arthur died before his father. The new plan was that she marry the new heir, Prince Arthur's younger brother, Prince Henry. However it was against canon law for a man to marry his brother's widow. Pope Julius II granted a dispensation and, when Prince Henry became king, as Henry VIII,  he and Catherine were married.

Catherine had seven pregnancies. There were two miscarriages, two stillbirths and two babies died. Only one daughter, Mary, survived. Henry wanted a male heir. England, it was widely held, needed him to have a male heir.

Leviticus 18 v16 says a man must not have sex with his brother's wife. Leviticus 20 21 warns such marriages will be childless. Was the lack of a male heir an instance of the curse? Was God angry that Henry had married his brother's widow? Yes, said Archbishop Cranmer of Canterbury. Influenced by the Reformation on the Continent they came to believe that, in marrying Catherine, Henry had defied God's law. In granting a dispensation the Pope had tried to usurp God, he had no right or power to overrule the Bible. The Pope's dispensation was invalid, so Henry's marriage was invalid, so he was free to marry Anne Boleyn.

This led to schism between England and Rome. As the Reformation and Counter-Reformation progressed the Church of England and the Church of Rome pulled away from each other in different directions, but the first salvos were on marriage laws and Papal power.

This , I hope, explains why there are different rules in the Church of England than in the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England bases its bans on Leviticus chapter 18. This lists several types of relative a man cannot marry. There are some implicit rules for women. A man cannot marry his mother. This implies a woman cannot marry her son. He cannot marry her so she cannot marry him. The idea that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander led the Church of England to say that if a man cannot marry his mother, then a woman should not marry her father.

Also Leviticus bans certain in-laws from marying and the Church of England extends this to all very similar relations. A person cannot marry a grandparent, parent, sibling, child, grandchild, aunt/uncle or nephew/niece. The same applies to a former spouse's grandparent, parent, sibling, child, grandchild aunt/uncle or nephew/niece; and the former spouse of a grandparent, parent, sibling, child, grandchild, aunt/uncle or nephew/niece.

There is nothing in the Bible to prohibit marriage between first cousins. Therefore there is nothing in the Church of England to forbif it.

Albert and Victoria were both Protestants, he was a Lutheran who converted to the Church of England,  the church of which she was already, at the time of their marriage,  Supreme Governor.


He was being mocked for claiming that he was King of the Jews, so the soliders gave him a "crown." And to make it worse, they made it of thorns, so it was extremely painful.


According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, who was the first God who began the eternal progression?

The Mormon doctrine states that creation has always been in existence.  As such, we can't presume that there was a beginning.
Because of this, there wasn't a first God, but an endless succession prior to the one true God.
Brigham Young once stated:

How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods...
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 7:333)

Furthermore, LDS Apostle Orson Pratt stated:

We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so one, from one generation to generation
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt (The Seer, pg. 132)

(It should be noted that the Orson Pratt writings were later discounted by the LDS church and shouldn't be taken as doctrine.  Still, it elucidates the point.)
Summary
Essentially, since there was no beginning, there was no "first".  Therefore, there was no "first God" in regards to the eternal progression.  The universe, being eternal, has always been around.  The progression of Gods has likewise been eternal.


According to the Catholic Church, are there levels of spiritual enlightenment in Christianity?

I believe you are looking for the three ways or states of the spiritual life.

  Our process of conversion to Christ is a journey that takes place over the course of a lifetime. You can probably look back to times in your life where you can remember making great progress on your spiritual journey, and other times when you have felt like you were moving backwards.

  The Fathers, theologians, and saints of the Church discuss three stages, or states, of perfection in the spiritual life: the purgative way, the illuminative way, and the unitive way. Each “way” or state represents an advancement toward sanctity—perfection—and total union with God.

  Here is a quick synopsis of the ways:

  Purgative Way:

  This is the state of beginners. In this stage it is often difficult to overcome daily temptations, and practicing the virtues can require an inner battle because of attachment to venial sin. Though the desire for perfection and progress is there, the beginner falls frequently. If a beginner concerns himself seriously with repenting of his sins and has an actionable desire to stop offending God, he may eventually move to the Illuminative Way.

  Illuminative Way:

  This is the intermediary stage between purification and total union with God. In this stage, there is enlightenment in the ways of God and a clear understanding of his will in one’s life. There are now only occasional “slips” into sin.

  Unitive Way:

  This is the final stage of Christian perfection. A soul in the unitive state has a constant awareness of God’s presence and habitually conforms to God’s will. In this stage, the soul loves God and others without limit. - The Three Ways or States of the Spiritual Life

Many Catholic authors have written extensively on the subject of these three stages of the spiritual life including Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (in The Three Ages of the Spiritual Life: Prelude of Eternal Life) and St. John of the Cross (in The Dark Night of the Soul).

cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 24 a. 9 c.:

  The spiritual increase of charity may be considered in respect of a certain likeness to the growth of the human body. For although this latter growth may be divided into many parts, yet it has certain fixed divisions according to those particular actions or pursuits to which man is brought by this same growth. Thus we speak of a man being an infant until he has the use of reason, after which we distinguish another state of man wherein he begins to speak and to use his reason, while there is again a third state, that of puberty when he begins to acquire the power of generation, and so on until he arrives at perfection.

  In like manner the divers degrees of charity are distinguished according to the different pursuits to which man is brought by the increase of charity. For at first [purgative way:] it is incumbent on man to occupy himself chiefly with avoiding sin and resisting his concupiscences, which move him in opposition to charity: this concerns beginners, in whom charity has to be fed or fostered lest it be destroyed: in the second place [illuminative way:] man's chief pursuit is to aim at progress in good, and this is the pursuit of the proficient, whose chief aim is to strengthen their charity by adding to it: while man's third pursuit [unitive way:] is to aim chiefly at union with and enjoyment of God: this belongs to the perfect who "desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ."

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article on this subject.

It could be noted that the unitive way is the stage which some souls receive the gifts of contemplation and union with God.

  It is in this state that the gift of contemplation is imparted to the soul, though this is not always the case; because many souls who are perfect in the unitive way never receive in this life the gift of contemplation and there have been numerous saints who were not mystics or contemplatives and who nevertheless excelled in the practice of heroic virtue. Souls, however, who have attained to the unitive state have consolations of a purer and higher order than others, and are more often favored by extraordinary graces; and sometimes with the extraordinary phenomena of the mystical state such as ecstasies, raptures, and what is known as the prayer of union. -  Catholic Encyclopedia.


Is there a term used by transgender Christians who don't want to transition because of their faith?

Gender wiki uses the term non-op for persons who identify as other than birth assignment gender but do not wish to transition.

  Non-op refers to those who do not wish to have gender confirmation surgery. Some non-op may wish to socially transition and/or take hormones, while others may not wish to transition at all.

There can be a number of reasons why a non-op chooses not to transition at all.

When the reason for resisting a desire to transition is because of deeply held Christian beliefs it would be appropriate to say the person is non-op for faith based reasons.

I could find no single word terminology that expresses all of that.


When were the early Christians no longer considered a sect of Judaism?

It seems that this question has two points. First, when Christians stopped to practice Jewish traditions. Second, when others stopped to think that they are a Jewish sect. Either part has a strict border.

Regarding the first part, I would assume that this is related to the destruction of the Temple when many Christians left Palestine. This event also caused significant changes in the Jewish community: many Temple related rituals disappeared. No other change was so significant. On the other hand, there are some attempts to go back to the Jewish tradition and practices, e.g. Adventists of the Seventh Day.

Regarding the second part, the limited understanding in the Roman empire was caused by the illegality. Thus, the most important date seems to be 313. On the other hand, there are still people in the modern era who thought Christians to be a Jewish sect:

  Historically speaking, the Christian religion is nothing but a Jewish sect.... After the destruction of Judaism, the extinction of Christian slave morals must follow logically.... Ah, the God of the deserts, that crazed, stupid, vengeful Asiatic despot with his power to make laws! (Adolf Hitler)

End note

In some sense, Christians are a Jewish sect, they have Jewish roots and Christianity was founded by a Jew. This fact is obvious from the the Biblical canon, as well as from liturgy.


What is the biblical argument against the claim that Jesus is just "a god", but not "God Almighty"?

I love Narnian's answer indicating that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. Here are a few other proofs to supplement that answer.

1. There is only one God

  "I am He, And there is no god besides Me" -Deuteronomy 32:39

  “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
  “And My servant whom I have chosen,
  So that you may know and believe Me
  And understand that I am He.
  Before Me there was no God formed,
  And there will be none after Me." -Isaiah 43:10

  Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." -Isaiah 44:6

  “I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." -Isaiah 45:5

  "there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." -Isaiah 45:21

God went to great lengths to clarify that there was only one God in all of existence. I see two possibilities:

There is only one God in all of existence, or
God just wants everyone to believe that there is only one God in all of existence! (I say this tongue-in-cheek, of course; God is not a deceiver; there is indeed only one God.)

Either way it seems extremely foolish to teach anything other than "there is only one God in all of existence."

2. God Almighty: Lord: Savior: Jesus

The verses just cited also indicate that the one and only God is the Lord and Savior, but here is further support:

  when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him,“I am God Almighty" -Genesis 17:1

  “I, even I, am the Lord, And there is no savior besides Me." -Isaiah 43:11

  I have been the Lord your God Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior besides Me. -Hosea 13:4

Here we see that God Almighty is the Lord, who is the only Savior. (Note: A number of passages, including Nehemiah 9 prove that the same "God" is being referenced in both of these passages.)

  For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus -Titus 2:11-13

  grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. -2 Pet. 3:18

Our great Lord, God, and Savior is Jesus. If Jesus is not God Almighty, these passages would be blasphemous.

3. The blood of God

  Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. -Acts 20:28

Given that there is only one God, and given that He purchased the church with His own blood, and given that it was Jesus' blood, we have yet another proof that Jesus is that one true God.


What is morphological analysis, as it applies to bible study?

This question was answered on Biblical Hermeneutics.SE.

Morphological analysis codes are used in the study of the original languages of the Bible. For example, a word might be listed with the morphological code "A-NPM," which would indicate the following:

A-NPM

Part of Speech: Adjective
Case: Nominative (subject; predicate nominative)
Number: Plural
Gender: Masculine

Follow the link provided above for more information.


No, they would not be re-baptized (unless there was doubt about the validity of the first baptism, in which case he would need to be conditionally baptized).

In the case of a public apostate, it would be prudent for a bishop to issue a public letter making the ex-apostate's reversion known to all, so as to avoid the possibility of scandalizing those who might think he is still excommunicated. Oftentimes, the penance for a public sinner is public, so his reversion could be manifested that way as well.


Something produced by Jehovah's Witnesses that explains their basic beliefs?

I don’t know how I missed that link provided by Kris either!  I searched online for two hours but got drawn into a bewildering array of articles, none of which specifically answered that question.  Even when I keyed in “jehovah witness beliefs” I did not find that link.  I had to go to their Bible Based Books web site to find it.  Clearly, their web site could do with simplification – either that or I’m really stupid!
The official link given by Kris provides a brief overview of their basic beliefs from which you can look at more detailed information on a variety of topics (such as why they don’t believe the Trinity or why only 144,000 persons since the time of Jesus can ever go to heaven: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/
However, it is not a comprehensive publication. The only book that is referred to as appropriate for people to learn about their beliefs is the ‘Bible Teach’ book.  It is specifically designed to be used as a study book and the objective is to get interested people to agree to a regular home study session.  The idea is to carefully guide people along a path that will gently encourage them to come along to the weekly meetings to further increase their appreciation and understanding of “the truth”.  A 2015 article said this:

The length of the study course depends on you. The book What Does the Bible Really Teach? contains 19 lessons. You can cover any or all of the lessons at a pace that suits you.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015243?q=frequently+asked+questions&p=par

The 2005 ‘Bible Teach’ book is the latest in a long line of similar publications that are used by Jehovah’s Witnesses to teach interested persons in their beliefs.  They all use the question and answer teaching method.  The answers to the questions are to be found in the relevant paragraph.  The subject matter and chapter headings follow a similar pattern covering identical topics:

1968 The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life
1969 Is the Bible Really the Word of God?

A 1995 Watchtower mentioned the Public Meetings as an appropriate place for people to learn about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They are held in local Kingdom Halls:

17 Another long-time feature of the teaching program is the Public Meeting. As its name indicates, this meeting was established particularly to acquaint non-Witnesses with basic Bible teachings. Thus, the one giving the talk needs to present the information so that it is understandable to those hearing the message for the first time. This means explaining terms such as “other sheep,” “brothers,” and “remnant,” terms that non-Witnesses may not understand. Since people who attend the Public Meeting may have beliefs or life-styles that are quite contrary to the Scriptures—though acceptable in today’s society—the speaker should always be tactful and never make fun of such beliefs or life-styles.  Source:  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1995564?q=basic+beliefs&p=par

Whatever you do, make sure you compare their New World Translation with other Bibles, preferably accredited Study Bibles that provide extensive commentaries in order to better understand the differences between some of the key doctrinal issues that distinguish Jehovah’s Witnesses from Trinitarian Christians.
P.S. Try this official web site link: https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=faq


Better safe than sorry? Should you confess if you're not sure if you've committed a sin?

If you aren’t sure if you have committed a sin it is better to confess anyway?

If the action or deed may be a possible venial sin then one may go to Confession. It will not do any harm and one may even get some spiritual insight into leading a holy life.

If however one is not sure if one has committed a mortal sin, one should go confession. Mortal sin for a Catholic must be confessed to a priest within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

  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. - Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If in doubt, it would be best to go to confession. If one did commit a mortal sin, one would be restored to the state of grace and the sacramental life within the Church. If one did not do a mortal sin, then one has gained insight into leading a holier life and obtained confidence in going to a priest in  the Sacrament of Confession as means to keep oneself holy.


Isaiah 1:10-12
 tells us that those words were addressed to the rulers and priests. These people were to judge cases brought before them righteously, in the "courts," as it says in verse 12. But they have not sought justice, punished the oppressors, nor sided to help the widows who have no husbands to defend them and help them.

Verses 21-26 tells us about their wretched ways, that they cared nothing about justice, but they were "companions of thieves," loving bribes.

In conclusion, the passage you quote is God telling them to turn back to dealing righteously in the courts, to take up justice again.


Why was the epistle of Clement to Corinth not considered canonical?

I don't believe that we can discern exactly why the Church Fathers considered certain writings as belonging within the New Testament canon and others not, but those writings that were included in the canon - with the notable exception of Paul's Epistles - were either written by those who were direct disciples (though not necessarily Apostles) of Christ or were documenting what His direct disciples had witnessed.  Examples of the latter might include Mark, who early Church histories maintain received his Gospel from Peter; and Luke, who was not an Apostle, but - as at least held in the eastern Church - was one of the Seventy and was Cleopas' companion on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24).

It should be noted that prior to the New Testament canon being formally closed for the entire Church at the 7th Ecumenical Council (787), Clement's Epistle did appear in some New Testament manuscripts - most notably the Codex Alexandrinus, dating to the early 5th century.


What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

To understand blasphemy against the Spirit, one first needs to understand what blasphemy is. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it thusly:

  Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Basically, it's going against God's will and treating Him with anything less than the respect and love He deserves.

The Holy Spirit, being one part of the Holy Trinity, is what confers the gift of grace upon people. So, to blaspheme against the Spirit is to willfully reject God's grace and forgiveness. Or as the Catechism puts it:

  "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

The analogy I've heard is that it's to know God exists and know His power, but to believe you can do better. If you're familiar with the story of the fall of Lucifer/Satan, it's essentially his actions in a nutshell: he knew God exists and he knew God's divine grace, yet he openly rejected it.

And thats why it's so unforgivable: God can't forgive you or save you if you reject His ability to do so.


Are there any Bible verses about 'Being on your Knees' that do not specifically mention praying?

As Mac’s Musings has already mentioned, in 2 Kings 1:13 a captain of the king “fell on his knees before Elijah” to beg for mercy.  Here are some more Old Testament verses that describe people getting down on their knees for reasons other than to pray:

Kneeling before a king to seek favour: “Bathsheba bowed low and knelt before the king (David)” (1 Kings 1:16).
Kneeling in worship of pagan gods: “I reserve seven thousand in Israel – all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him” (1 Kings 19:18).
Kneeling as an act of worship: “The whole assembly bowed in worship... the king and everyone present with him knelt down and worshipped” (2 Chronicles 29:28-29).
Kneeling to pay honour to an official: “All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honour to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him.  But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honour” (Esther 3:2).
Kneeling as an act of worship and submission:  “Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker” (Psalm 95:6).


Why do some Christian churches have classes about other churches?

Because, and I say this with all humility, everyone of us concedes (or at least should concede), we could be wrong.

Besides- one thing we know about God's Truth is that it can always stand up to rigorous inquiry. If it did not, either we serve a weak God (which we don't) or our understanding of God is wrong.

Either way, the last thing any Christian should be scared of is the Truth.


Should we consider everyone better than ourselves?

Should we consider everyone better than us?

The answer is DEPENDS on what we are comparing.  We also need to remember that in some cases we need to compare ourselves to God instead of to our neighbors.

  Can all of those arguments be put in harmony?

The answer is YES.  You listed 3 arguments (below) but this answer currently focuses only on the first two.  Because this answer's explanation makes a critical distinction between what we are comparing, we need a more detailed source before we can harmonize the third argument.

Argument from Aquinas
Argument from chapter II of The Imitation of Christ
Argument from lack of knowledge about how others would have acted if they receive the same graces we do

Introduction

We need to be very careful NOT to compare things that the text doesn't ask us to compare.  For proper interpretation context, I read the whole Question 161 from the Summa and the whole Chapter II from the Immitation of Christ (1886 translation).  More modern English translation here.

The Preface of the 1886 translation says that George Stanhope adds "words, clauses, and even sentences, that do not alter the purport and order of the thoughts, but give more time for dwelling upon each link in the chain" and still preserves the spirit of the book.   But I think this translation changes the meaning somewhat for your bolded quote, which warned me that I should better read the larger context:

  For lowliness of mind, and not thinking of a man's self "more highly than he ought to think," is the most difficult, but withal the most profitable, lesson; and the preferring others before ourselves, is a point of true wisdom and high perfection.  Nor ought our opinions of this kind to be changed, though we should see another guilty of some egregious folly, or very grievous wickedness, since we ourselves are men of like passions and frailties; nor can we tell how long our own virtue may continue unshaken.  Remember then, that infirmities are common to all mankind; and so remember it, as to persuade yourself, or at least to suspect, that these are dealt to thee in as plentiful a measure as to any other person whatsoever.

I had to look up the dictionary to get the less common meaning of "frailty" which is:

  imperfection or weakness of character; frailty implies a general or chronic proneness to yield to temptation

ANALYSIS of Aquinas's relevant text

HUMILITY (Question 161) is part of the discussion on MODESTY (Intro in Question 160), which in turn is part of Temperance.  In Q160 Art.1, Aquinas says Modesty is for less difficult things to moderate compared to Temperance which is for concupiscences of pleasures of touch.  There are 4 kinds of Modesty (listed below).  HUMILITY is treating the first kind.

Movement of the mind towards excellence, moderated by HUMILITY which is opposed to PRIDE
Desire pertaining to knowledge, moderated by STUDIOUSNESS which is opposed to CURIOSITY
Body movements and actions, becomingly and honestly, whether seriously or in play
Outward show in dress and the like

In Q161 Art. 1, HUMILITY is shown to be a virtue to handle attractive goods to the appetite, specifically the difficult-to-obtain goods.  It is similar to the virtue MAGNANIMITY (to strengthen the mind against despair to pursue great things), but HUMILITY is to temper and restrain the mind "lest it tend to high things immoderately."
In Q161 Art. 2, Although REASON is needed to realize the disproportion that surpasses our capacity, to know one's deficiency, and to rule the appetite, Aquinas places the virtue of HUMILITY's sphere of operation in the appetite itself, to direct and moderate the movement of the appetite.
In Q161 Art. 3, the question is "Whether one ought, by humility, to subject oneself to all men?", to which Aquinas says yes, quoting Phil 2:3 "Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves.".
Then he made the 2 distinctions, in both cases HUMILITY does NOT apply:

If we have God's gift we know we have it (per 1 Cor 2:12).  There is no point to lower ourselves, because it's God's gift.
If both we and our neighbor have defects, then if we lower ourselves against others that means we are bragging that we are the greater sinner (per Gal 2:15).  See zippy2006's answer for detail.

What CAN we apply Phil 2:3 to?  There are 2 things that we can humble ourselves to them.

If neighbor has God's gift that we don't have
If we have evil that neighbor does NOT have

PARAPHRASE of Chapter II of Imitation of Christ

Section 1:

We have a natural desire to know, but it is better to be a peasant who serve God than proud philosopher.
He who knows himself well is vile in his own sight, so doesn't care of the praises of man.
If the philosopher knows a lot but doesn't have love, the knowledge doesn't help him before God who judges according to deeds, not knowledge.

Section 2:

Inordinate desire of knowledge produces distraction and deceit, i.e. desire to appear learned and to be called wise.
There are many things to know that profit little to the soul, so it's foolish to seek knowledge when the soul is dying.
What satisfies the soul is not many words, but a good life that refreshes the mind and pure conscience that gives great confidence towards God.

Section 3:

The more knowledge, the more to be judged unless we live holy in proportion to knowledge.  So don't be proud of the knowledge we have, but have the FEAR of responsibility because of the knowledge.
Realize the more you know the more you don't know, so you should instead confess ignorance, remembering that there are always others who know better than you.
If want to learn something worthwhile, then love to be unknown and be considered as nothing.

Section 4:

The perfect wisdom is to think oneself as nothing and to think well and highly of others.
When another commits serious crimes don't consider yourself better, for you don't know how long you can keep your virtue / integrity.
Remember that although everyone has a chronic proneness to yield to temptation, none is more prone than yourself.

INTERPRETATION: digesting the data

The Aquinas text's context is TEMPERANCE (one of the 7 virtues).  The treatment of HUMILITY (Q161) is to discuss MODESTY in our natural desire to seek praiseworthy and inherently GOOD things by the mind so we do not seek beyond moderation which can lead to PRIDE.  After receiving information from REASON to know the right proportion and one's deficiency, HUMILITY needs to rule the knowing appetite.
How does HUMILITY do that, i.e. when does Phil 2:3 apply?  Two ways:

If a neighbor has God's gifts we don't have, we consider them better than ourselves [the implied advice here is to pursue our natural desire for GOOD things without being jealous of the neighbor who has MORE; we need to be humble because we are truly LESS than they are in terms of possessing God's gifts]
If we have evil (sin, vices) that neighbor doesn't have, then of course we consider our neighbor better than ourselves [the implied advice here is to be humble because they are more virtuous than us]

But in the following cases, we should not consider our neighbors better than ourselves, i.e. Phil 2:3 doesn't apply here:

If we have God's gift that the neighbor doesn't have [the implied reason here is because we need to be humble TOWARDS GOD instead, who is the Giver]
If we are comparing ourselves to neighbor as sinners [the implied reason here is that we will be bragging about having more evil, which is offensive towards God]

The context for Chapter II of The Imitation of Christ is also about pursuit of good things, focusing on knowledge (like the proud philosopher) rather than doing / serving (like the humble peasant).  If there is no love knowledge is useless, in fact can BITE you because God demands responsibility and expect proportionally more holiness from you.  Natural desire for knowledge then has to be moderated and tempered so NOT to produce deceit, or better yet, don't pursue it at the cost of your soul.  Rather, if you find yourself want to brag about your wisdom, remember how your neighbor may have more knowledge than you.
Here's my interpretation for the last paragraph: Therefore, the perfect wisdom is to tune your attention to other's virtues.  When you see your neighbor commits a serious crime, remember that both you and your neighbor share a common human frailty, namely the chronic proneness to yield to temptation.  You can say that NOW you are better (since you didn't commit that crime) but your desire for knowledge will deem you more vulnerable than your neighbor for the reasons stated earlier.  So it is best to ADMIT that at your current state (preferring knowledge to virtue/serving) you are much weakened, and to motivate you to seek virtues why don't you say to yourself "none is more frail than myself".
The previous chapter 1 and succeeding chapter 3 should also provide support for my interpretation in #5:

  [Chapter 1 paragraph 3]: What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.

  [Chapter 3 paragraph 7, emphasis mine]: A good and devout man arranges in his mind the things he has to do, not according to the whims of evil inclination but according to the dictates of right reason. Who is forced to struggle more than he who tries to master himself? This ought to be our purpose, then: to conquer self, to become stronger each day, to advance in virtue.

CONCLUSION

There is no conflict between Q161 and Chapter II since:

Both talk about moderating natural desire to pursue knowledge with the attendant temptation to PRIDE and VANITY, which is dangerous to the soul and can distract us from virtue.
Both talk about humility when comparing the good things we have and the good things neighbor have, but in a different way:

In Aquinas's text: when we know what the neighbor has that we don't have
In Thomas Kempis's text: when we THOUGHT we know more than our neighbor but actually don't (i.e. by remembering that there are always others who have more knowledge than us)

When it comes to comparing the case when one party does crime but the other doesn't (yet), the comparison is DIFFERENT:

In Aquinas's text: it's when WE do it but the neighbor doesn't
In Thomas Kempis's text: it's when the NEIGHBOR did it but to protect ourselves we should disregard that crime as irrelevant in comparison to our fragile virtue in light of human frailty

The main point of Thomas Kempis's chapter II is the danger of pursuing knowledge instead of virtues.  It offers mortification exercises (below).  Therefore we shouldn't take the quote out of context.

to remain humble towards God (whom we should serve)
to be mindful of our progress in holiness
to remember that God is interested in our deeds and holiness (so we should measure ourselves to His standard rather than measure to the neighbor's state of holiness), and
to be realistic in the true measure of our knowledge

What both texts DID NOT SAY: It's a virtue to consider ourselves the greater sinner than our neighbor despite the facts of the case.
Both passages have nothing to do with the saints considering themselves the greatest of all sinners.  That is because although the words compare themselves with other people and saints, but in practice they compare their own heart against their awareness of the perfect God.  Ken Graham's answer addresses this very well and provides a relevant blog article to resolve the puzzle.  So I think we should take their words as figure of speech, similar to how C.S. Lewis in his spiritual autobiography says that he is "the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England".


Is there any protestant method how to deal spiritual dryness?

Joh 10:10  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Yes Kenneth E. Hagin who started Rhema and was a major contributor to the beginning of the Word of Faith movement has a series called "What to do when faith seems weak and victory lost". A portion of the doctrine is blame the devil, what does the word say, agree with the word, say the word and you're not supposed to feel anything.


Can the grace of God depart from a Christian?

As with many things in scripture, the first thing to do is zoom out and grab some context.

  For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Galatians 5:1-6)

First, Paul is talking about the circumcision party of the Jews and how they are making the grace of God meaningless by their adherence to the old law. You can see that in the previous sentence he is using hyperbole to make a point, so it makes sense to take this phrase as well in that tone.

Second, the greek word εκπιπτω (ekpipto) which here is translated as "to fall away" is also used in the phrase "to run aground" (as in a ship at sea) (Acts 27:26) or "lose your balance" (2 Peter 3:17). The idea is that you are falling away from the vertical line you once held, not that you are being severed from something.

This is just a cursory examination of this particular verse and it's context. The arguments for and against the preservation of salvation are many and varied.

For a more in depth answer, I recommend wikipedia: Perseverance of the Saints