Are there philosophical explanations for why God would allow animals to suffer due to non-human causes?
St. Thomas Aquinas has something to say about it!
The problem of animal suffering is the atheistic argument that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would not use millions of years of animal suffering, disease, and death just to create a world for humans to live. Atheists making this argument emphasize the great amount of evidence for animal disease, death, and suffering in the natural history of the earth (and still to this day), and they conclude that the God of classical theism does not exist. This is simply not so.
We know the sin entered the world through one man. Sin is felt throughout God’s Creation, and that includes the animal kingdom.
St. Paul tells us such in Romans 88 22-24.

22 For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now.
23 And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?

Another biblical story comes to mind here: Gerasene demoniac:

Jesus Heals the Gerasene Demoniac
5 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3 He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. 6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7 and he shouted at the top of his voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he had said to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” 10 He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12 and the unclean spirits[c] begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea. - Mark 5:1-13

Why did Jesus allow the demons to enter the pigs? He could have sent them back to hell where they came from.

Animal rights
Classical theological commentary cited this story to argue that animals have no moral importance in Christianity. Saint Augustine of Hippo concluded from the story that Christians have no duties towards animals, writing:

Christ himself shows that to refrain from the killing of animals and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition, for judging that there are no common rights between us and the beasts and trees, he sent the devils into a herd of swine and with a curse withered the tree on which he found no fruit.

Similarly, Thomas Aquinas argued that Jesus allowed the demons to destroy the pigs in order to make the point that his purpose was primarily for the good of men's souls, not their bodies or property (including their animals). This interpretation has been shared by a long line of commentators up to the present day, including I. Howard Marshall and Mark Driscoll. - Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac

Dr. B. Kyle Keltz in his book Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering is a genuine eye-opener in this subject matter.

The problem of animal suffering has been championed by atheists at least as far back as the time of Charles Darwin, and it is increasingly touted today. For example, Richard Dawkins claims,

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

As Dawkin’s quote suggests, The problem of animal suffering is the atheistic argument that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would not use millions of years of animal suffering, disease, and death just to create a world for humans to live. Atheists making this argument emphasize the great amount of evidence for animal disease, death, and suffering in the natural history of the earth (and still to this day), and they conclude that the God of classical theism does not exist.
In my recently published book Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, I discuss a solution to this problem in light of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. In this post, I am going to summarize my argument in the book. I will first discuss the nature of animal pain and suffering. Then I will consider non-human animal minds and the evidence that animals are not self-aware. Finally, I will emphasize Aquinas’ ideas on why God made a finite world governed by natural laws, making animal suffering possible. All of these related concepts will come together to form a comprehensive solution to the question of why an all-good God would allow animal suffering.
The Nature of Animal Pain
While pain and suffering seem to be terrible things, a closer examination shows that they are actually good for non-human animals. Aquinas, following Augustine, believed that evil is not a substantial thing; evil is a privation of the good. Evil is not a thing in animals and objects, but it is the absence of a good thing in animals and objects. Moreover, evil is not just the privation or absence of any good; it is the absence of a good that ought to be in an animal or object. So for example, it would be an evil for a dog to be blind, but it would not be an evil for a tree to be blind. The ability to see ought to be in a dog according to its canine nature, while the ability to see is not something that is naturally in trees.
When thinking about the nature of pain, the existence of pain in non-human animals cannot be something that is evil, according to the Thomistic view. This is because pain is an existing, physiological process in non-human animals. Pain is not the privation of a good, although it is caused by a privation of the good (e.g., a scrape or cut on the arm).
But doesn’t this implication cause problems for Aquinas’ evil-as-privation view? Most people, even most philosophers, seem to think that pain is intrinsically bad. It seems a good God wouldn’t allow His creatures to feel pain because it is so unpleasant. While this view of pain seems intuitive, it actually ignores the purpose and benefits of pain.
To no one’s surprise, the findings of contemporary science suggest that pain is crucial for the survival of humans and non-human animals. For example, clinical cases involving children born with a nervous system defect, making them feel virtually no pain, show that these children do not live very long. Their insensitivity to pain makes them suffer repeated injuries to the same areas due to fractures while moving around, joint injuries because of poor posture, and tongue injuries while eating. Even sitting for prolonged periods can cause injuries if someone does not shift in their chair.
Yet what is surprising and not immediately intuitive about pain is that its unpleasantness is necessary to protect animals. Philosophers such as David Hume have argued that the unpleasantness of pain doesn’t seem to be essential. But pain research involving Hansen’s disease (leprosy) patients has shown that the unpleasantness of pain is necessary to protect wounds. Doctors in these cases tried to help patients who couldn’t feel pain in their hands and feet by strapping a light or buzzer that would alarm the patients to stress or impacts that could cause injury. It was found that the patients almost always ignored the lights and sounds, leading to repeated and sustained injuries, and it wasn’t until the doctors integrated electrical shocks in the warning devices that improvements were made. But even with the electrical shocks, the patients usually would override the system, perform their desired task, and then reengage the system. One doctor concluded that without an internal signal of unpleasant pain, the patients were “task-oriented” instead of being “self-oriented.”
Of course, humans have free will and can decide to ignore warnings, but it isn’t hard to apply the same concept to non-human animals. Animals might not survive as long as they normally do in the wild as they might not be as repelled from harm without the unpleasant effects of pain. Even chronic pain has been found to improve the survivability of non-human animals.6
So, regarding the nature of pain, the philosophy and the scientific evidence seem to coincide. Pain is actually not intrinsically bad, as it is necessary to keep non-human animals healthy and alive. Without pain, and its unpleasant commands to avoid further injury, non-human animals would lot live long at all in this world governed by physical laws; pain is good in that it ought to be in non-human animals.
Non-Human Animal Minds
Since the existence of non-human animal pain is actually a good thing, it seems there should be no problem of animal suffering. However, it is still argued that non-human animal pain and suffering are bad because of their unpleasantness. If God is all-powerful, then why can’t God just make a world where animals don’t feel pain? The necessary aspect of pain doesn’t take away the fact that there are countless animals who are experiencing pain and suffering even today.
At this point, it is good to consider the nature of the animal mind. This topic constitutes the largest chapter in my book, and the details are many.7 But long story short, contemporary research in non-human animal cognition suggests that there are no non-human animals who are self-aware.
Regarding contemporary research, scientists have studied several possible indicators of self-awareness in non-human animals including metacognition, episodic memory, and the ability to perform abstract reasoning. Metacognition is the ability to think about one’s own thoughts; episodic memory is the ability to remember past events or imagine future events from a subjective, personal perspective; and abstract reasoning is distinct from instinctual, associative reasoning, which doesn’t involve the knowledge of abstract, universal, and immaterial concepts.
While some non-human animals show promise and possibly perform actions explained by metacognition (e.g., capuchin monkeys8), episodic memory (e.g., scrub jays9), and abstract reasoning (e.g., great apes10), ultimately, there is no evidence that suggests these actions are solely explainable through self-awareness. In each case, it is possible (and likely) that these non-human animal actions are explainable through lower-order processes. Actions suggesting metacognition are thought to be explainable through associate, non-rational learning in which non-human animals simply associate rewards and punishments based on memories instead of reflecting internally. Likewise, actions suggesting episodic memory in non-human animals are thought to be explainable through associate learning based on semantic (non-personal) memories instead of episodic (personal) memories. While studies into the possibility of self-awareness in non-human animals have shown that some animals come close (e.g., higher apes, elephants, dolphins), the majority of non-human animals are not even considered to possess self-awareness. Accordingly, while a few researchers have suggested it is possible some non-human animals are self-aware, the overwhelming consensus among researchers is that non-human animals are not self-aware.
All of this scientific evidence supports the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic view that humans are unique on the earth in that only humans are capable of abstract rationality because only humans have rational souls that are capable of abstracting immaterial forms from material objects. Aquinas believed that in the process of knowing (when the mind abstracts a form from matter), a human is able to judge that he or she exists as a knowing being. In other words, the action of knowing makes it possible for a being to know that he or she knows. And in knowing that one knows, a diachronic sense of self develops over time as the knower judges that he or she has existed throughout the entire process.
Moreover, the rational soul is thought to be the principle making it possible for humans to have free will. According to Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, only something immaterial can take in the form of something else without substantially changing into the new form taken. Thus, there must be something immaterial about humans because in the process of knowing, they abstract and store the forms of the things they know. This means that the rational powers (intellects and wills) of humans are immaterial and are not affected by the physical laws of nature. So, while human choices are affected by biological, psychological, sociological, and other factors, ultimately human choices are not completely determined.
What all this means for the problem of animal suffering is that non-human animal suffering is not morally significant. It is not wrong for God to allow animal suffering because there is no person in the non-human animal kingdom who is experiencing suffering. This might sound strange, and to be clear, I am not denying that non-human animals suffer. I am only denying that non-human animals experience suffering as persons (i.e., self-aware beings with a will and intellect). In other words, there is no non-human animal who knows it is feeling pain (metacognition), remembers or thinks about itself as having personally experienced pain (episodic memory), or has concluded rationally that pain is bad and should be avoided (abstract reasoning). While non-human animals are conscious of pain and suffering, they are not aware of their pain and suffering, and it is not wrong for God to allow this suffering because as I noted earlier, there is no person in the non-human animal kingdom who is suffering and/or willing to not suffer.
Why God Created a Finite World with Animal Pain
A question might still remain: Why would God create a world in which pain is necessary in the first place? This is a question that is answered mainly through the thought of Aquinas. Following thinkers like Pseudo-Dionysius, Aquinas argued that the only reason God would want to create is to communicate or spread His goodness.
Basically, Aquinas argues that since God is completely perfect, there is nothing God could ever want or need. Yet since God is infinitely loving, and love is not something that people want to keep to themselves, it follows that God would be inclined to create a world so He could share His goodness and love. Thus, God’s purpose for creating is to communicate His goodness to rational beings who are able to know His goodness and share His love.
But there is a metaphysical reality that God must work around. The problem is that God is infinite, self-sustaining, and immaterial, but anything He can create will be finite and contingent. So, since God can’t make something infinitely perfect (because this would be to create Himself, which is impossible) to communicate His goodness, He is left with creating a finite, contingent world containing immaterial and physical beings and things.
Aquinas thought that God must create a hierarchy of beings that points metaphysically upwards to God, and God must order the universe with physical and moral laws. For example, in creating an abundance of elements in a vast universe, God is showing numerous beautiful ways in which things can exist and displaying His power to create such a universe. In creating a hierarchy of living beings, including vegetative (plants), sensitive (non-human animals), and rational (humans) beings, God is demonstrating that created beings can possess various levels of perfection, pointing metaphysically upwards to God’s infinite perfection. Any finite world God will create must be governed by a physical law because without physical laws, His hierarchy of beings would cease to exist. Physical laws order the universe to God’s purpose of communicating His goodness. Likewise, God must promulgate a moral law to humans because they cannot be ordered to His goodness solely through physical laws because of their rational souls, which include the ability to make freely willed decisions.
Basically, because of the metaphysical reality of God’s infinite, self-sustaining perfection and the contingent, limited nature of anything He will create, any world God will create will be finite and will have a limited amount of resources; any world He will create will be governed by physical laws and include a hierarchy of beings including vegetative, sensitive, and rational beings. This means that any world God could create will be a world that will include animals who will require the ability to feel pain in order to survive.
Conclusion
One of the most interesting things to me in performing this study on the problem of animal suffering was how much the medieval philosophy of Thomas Aquinas lines up with findings from contemporary science. There technically is no problem of animal suffering because animal pain and suffering is not intrinsically bad, but necessary for non-human animal flourishing. Moreover, non-human animal suffering is not something morally significant for God to allow because there are no persons in the non-human animal kingdom. Even if an animal were found to be rational, this would mean such an animal would technically be a human (i.e., a rational animal) and should not be considered a part of the problem of animal suffering, which solely considers non-human animals. While atheists often argue that the world we see looks like the product of natural, blind processes, only classical Christian theism predicts that any world that exists will be a world governed by both physical and moral laws and will include rational beings capable of knowing and loving.
While many aspects of the problem of animal suffering seem intuitive and sound at first, upon further investigation, the problem falls apart. Pain feels bad, but it is not intrinsically bad because it needs to be unpleasant for animals to survive. It is bad for humans to experience pain because this is against their will, but non-human animals cannot will to be free from pain nor are they able to be aware of their pain. The only thing that is infinitely perfect is God, so any world He will create to communicate His goodness will be finite and will entail the possibility of non-human animal pain and suffering. - Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering

Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering
How many times have I heard Pope John Paul II state that we should not live as though God does not exist! Christians find it sinful to kill animals simply for the sake of killing morally wrong. Believers and atheists still enjoy their steak dinners, but to kill without reason is immoral. The question of abortion is not brought into the equation here, but I wonder how atheists view this in their viewpoint of killing the innocent living person in the womb, Alex O'Connor does not mention in his YouTube video: Christianity's Biggest Problem!


How can a loving God make a deal with the devil?

First a disclaimer –

Your question is another form of the renowned problem of evil. How can God be loving and kind in light of all the suffering that exists in the world?

It is easy to try to give over simplifying answers especially when I myself haven’t gone through the problems many other people have to face. I do not think I can fully answer your question, all I can offer is some speculative arguments.

End of disclaimer.

The problem of evil is not an easy one and as such one could not expect its answer to be simple (And not expect it to come from a simpleton like me). The problem has been dealt innumerable times by many Philosophers and Apologists.

Leibniz and Lewis come to mind. (I would recommend The Problem of Pain)
Nor is the problem essentially a new one. Even the prophets of God had the same confusion –

  Habakkuk 1:2 How long, LORD, must I call for help, but you do not
  listen? Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save? 3 Why do
  you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?

I think the crux of your question is the premise that humans are innocent until they do something very terrible like murder.

  Innocent people and livestock died.

And it is this premise that I'll focus on –

We all think ourselves to be quite innocent. There are a few faults
here and there but there’s a good reason for those.

  Proverbs 16:2 All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are
  weighed by the LORD.

All our goodness is accidental or circumstantial. I have never
stolen anything in my life. Though I'd like to believe it's all
because of my good nature it might be because I've never really
needed to. While we humans can only look on the external actions of a
person and make our judgement on that basis, God is not fooled by
appearances.

By the way of an analogy the user of a software system can only tell
if a program malfunctions by analyzing the output. On the other hand
a programmer can read the code and make an estimated guess if the
code will actually work. Badly written code executing in an ideal
environment may work. While a code of mathematical precision may
break under extensive regression test. In these cases a programmer
is (and as God is in our case) - not fooled.

It is in this context that He says -

  Matthew 23:26 I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are
  entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

And -

  Matthew 23:6 " ... first clean the inside of the cup"

Our sense of goodness is in out of touch with reality. Have you ever
watched a documentary on Khmer rouge or the war crimes in World War
II?

  Innocence is the last characteristic one could attribute to the human
  race. - Monika Michael

And -

  1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and
  his word is not in us.

Also -

  The more I know of men, the more I respect dogs. (Author Monika can't
  remember)

And also -

  Jeremiah 17:9 The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and
  desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?

God does not owe His salvation or His favor to anyone. Nor does He
need to explain Himself to anyone.

  Psalm 50:12 ... all the world is mine and everything in it.

  Matthew 20:15  I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have
  compassion on whom I have compassion.

Now directly onto your question. We don't know exactly what happened, we aren't given much information. There are two possibilities (in my mind) -

Perhaps Job's sons were wicked, not God fearing like their father. (Example,
David and Solomon, Eli the high priest and his wicked sons) And God
decided to use the situation and kill two birds with one stone. Bring
judgement on his sons and set a personal matter straight with Satan.

In the end all things even those not in approval to His immediate commands
will accomplish only His purpose.
Perhaps Job's sons were not wicked. They died in a dramatic fashion and so we ask the
question - what was their sin? Again we're judging based on
appearances. If someone dies quickly we think it's because of sin.
If someone dies by age we thinks its all right.

The fact is that we all have sinned and are going to die one day or
another. The timing of our death has nothing to do with it.  The
righteous may live few days and the wicked may flourish (I'm in my
full old testament rhythm today) but in the end each man will get
what he deserves.

The Apostle Peter was not rescued from the prison because he
was sinless but so that he might preach the gospel. When he had
finished his job he did have to die. Similarly maybe Job's sons were innocent as you say. But they did have to give up their souls to God one day. He took it early. Whether he takes it right now or 60 years later is His prerogative.

In the end all I can say is -

  Romans 9:20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

Perhaps Jobs sons were holy and righteous (like me) and they died,
well then -

  Philippians 1:23 I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;


How much authority does a father have over his wife and children?

Typically, the most prominent example of how "men should have authority over women" stems from Ephesians 5:22, in which Paul admonishes wives to submit to their husbands.
That said, a contextual reading will bear much fruit:

21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

In a nutshell, a few facts are pretty plain:

Husbands are to love their wives

Verse 21 & 22 can be read separately or independently

If one is going to base a headship claim in 5:23, then one cannot ignore 5:24 - 25 without being seriously inconsistent.

Traditionally, 5:22 is often read "Wives, submit to your husbands."  Note, this is not a blanket invitation to tyranny, however, as there is clearly an equal and separate obligation to the husband to love and care for his wife.
This has, especially as society at large has changed, led many theologians to read verse 21, not as a separate sentence, but as an introductory clause.  In the Greek, as there is no punctuation, it is this equally possible that the text reads as follows:

Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

This concept of mutual submission in love also squares well with the general concept of all being equal before a sovereign God.
Note, however, that an understanding of "headship" is by no means universal across denominations.  Even within the Catholic Church, there is a wide spectrum of understanding what exactly the rights and responsibilities of authority entail.
Regardless of the exact nature of authority, however, it is also important to understand that any right of authority is, by definition to be tempered with love.  While it would be easy to point out that Ephesians 6 picks up the theme saying, "Fathers, do not exasperate your children,"  I'd suggest rather that there is more fruit to be had in looking at what love means.
Love, in 1 Corinthians 13, is pretty straightforward:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Even if one chooses to equate headship with authority, the fact that it is to be exercised in love should naturally proscribed certain abuses inconsistent with love in any event.


In advance: Neiter the Old nor the New Testament contains consistent statement regarding ecology.

Nevertheless, three interesting passages:*

The dominium terrae in Gen 1:28

The passage in it's context (Gen 1:26-1:28):

  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
  28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
  30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
  31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The ideal world in the first chapter can be called a "Utopie of Nonviolence"1
The seeds, fruits and green plants are sufficient as a food base and neither a human nor an animal has to kill another creature for food procurement (cf. Gen 1:29). A harmony between human, animal and plant world is possible.

Only in the eary modern period (Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes), the "subdue it" (Vers 28) was interpreted as exploitation of the nature. Note that today's interpretations don't think of it as an invation for violent trampling but rather as a passage, that highlights the aspect of colonization and livestock2: The humans shall make the earth habitable by their work and tame the forces of nature.

The confrontation with the reality in Gen 9:1-7

  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
  2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
  3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
  4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
  5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man' brother will I require the life of man.
  6 Whoso sheddeth man' blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
  7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

God's blessing is still given. But here breaks through: The actual human experience of imperfection and the possibility of human error – the paradisical state of nonviolence is reduced.

Erich Zenger calls the force by which the man is equipped necessary to keep things in order. In order to prevent that the living space becomes a place of death, the man got the capability to protect threatened lives.3

In conclusion we can say …

… that the humans, as the preservers of life, received the order to deal with that in a responsibile way.

The sufferings of this present world (Rom 8:18-23)

  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
  19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
  20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
  21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
  22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
  23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

In these passage a new eschatological dimension is added.

The eary Christian community was familiar with the thought of the World's imperfection. Paulus names that the suffering which is by the people and in the creation. By the fall of men every human-being and the whole creation is subjected to futility. But by Jesus Christ the humans and the world around is enlightend.

Ofcourse eschatology isn't interesting for ecology at all. But nevertheless this passage is to be noted from an ecological view of point because it states the close relatedness between humans and the creation.

*: Simone Birkle, Zukunft wagen, Ökologisch handeln (2002)
1: Erich Zenger, Du liebst alles was ist (1989), 142
2: Norbert Lohfink, Macht die Erde euch untertan (1974), 138
3: Erich Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken, 118


How do Jehovah's Witnesses pay obeisance to Jesus in their daily lives?

Every prayer is offered through the name of Jesus.
Forgiveness of sins asked for through the merits of Jesus ‘  sacrificial death.
Expression such as “in the name of our reigning King and redeemer Jesus Christ we pray...,”.  “Our Lord and Savior Jesus”.  Are common in daily life.
These can be seen as acts of obeisance.


Did Christians stop the practice of Berith (Brith, Bris?) immediately?

This was a topic of dispute in early Christianity, between believers who had come from the Jewish faith, and gentiles. The issue relates to whether Christianity is part of Judaism - which would mean that converts had to be circumcised - or whether it is an independent faith. If it is not needed for adult converts, then it would not be applicable for children either.
Acts 15:1-21 records a council, held in Jerusalem, to decide. This probably took place in 50 or 51AD. Peter said (v7-11, NIV):

Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

and the council agreed to write to Gentile believers, saying (v28-29):

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

That did not entirely settle the issue, since it says nothing about whether Jewish converts could or should observe the law of Moses, and in addition there continued to be many "Judaizing" Christians that required converts to be circumcised and follow the Torah. Historically speaking, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, and the Roman slaughter and dispersal of Jews, dramatically reduced their numbers and influence. Though groups such as the Ebionites continued to exist for several centuries after that, "mainstream" Christianity no longer required circumcision at all.
Paul writes about circumcision at great length in his letters, especially in Galatians but also in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and elsewhere. For example, Romans 2:25-29 says:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God.

His theological case is that circumcision is a sign of faith, but it is not the same as actually having faith. For Paul, the outward symbol is unnecessary. More generally, one of his major themes is that adherence to the Law does not guarantee salvation (see Galatians 5, for example).


What does it mean that the "The Evil One snatches away what was sown in them."

The defining characteristic about the path is that it is hard, like a sidewalk or road. People represented by the path are hard-hearted. Their hearts are not receptive to the word. They are the people described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-3.

  1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB)
  But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

What Satan "takes away" need not be their choice in the matter but the chance to think about the message. Among his tactics of distraction are pleasure, busyness, etc. His "taking" is also not against their will, but rather their acceptance of his leading. He has no real power over our choices except what we give him.

Matthew Henry refers to these people:

  Careless, trifling hearers, are an easy prey to Satan; who, as he is the great murderer of souls, so he is the great thief of sermons, and will be sure to rob us of the word, if we take not care to keep it.

Adam Clarke describes them as:

  A careless inattentive hearer is compared to the way side-his heart is an open road, where evil affections, and foolish and hurtful desires, continually pass and repass, without either notice or restraint. "A heart where Satan has" (as one terms it) "ingress, egress, regress, and progress: in a word, the devil's thoroughfare."


What is the origin of Angel of God prayer?

Some have attributed it to St. Anselm, but that remains dubious.

  Angele Dei, also know as the Prayer to One's Guardian Angel, was in the past attributed to St. Anselm (c1033-1109), for it appears in medieval collections of St. Anselm's works. However, it is clear that this prayer was added to Anselm's works sometime after his death. As best can be determined, this prayer is an interpolation of Reginald of Canterbury's (d. c 1109) Life of St. Malchus. St. Malchus (d. c 390) was a famous hermit who was a friend of St. Jerome (c 341-420). The popular English translation given below is from the later half of the 19th century and appears in the Baltimore Manual of Prayers (1888). - Angele Dei, Angel of God

Many scholars think that it may have been written by Reginald of Canterbury.

  For many years it was believed that St. Anselm of Canterbury, a Benedictine monk who lived during the 11th century, was the author of the prayer. However, recent scholars have discovered that the prayer was likely inspired by Reginald of Canterbury, another Benedictine monk who lived at the same time as St. Anselm. Scholars found a prayer in Reginald’s Life of St. Malchus that bears a strong resemblance to the current Angel of God prayer.

  In Latin, Reginald’s prayer begins as follows.

  Angele, qui meus es custos pietate superna,
   me tibi commissum serva, tueare, guberna;
   terge meam mentem vitiis et labe veterna
   assiduusque comes mihi sis vitaque lucerna.

  The Angel of God prayer starts in a similar way in Latin.

  Angele Dei, qui custos es mei, Me tibi commissum pietate superna;
   (Hodie, Hac nocte) illumina, custodi, rege, et guberna.

  It is uncertain if Reginald composed the Angel of God prayer, but it is clear that whoever did had access to Reginald’s Life of St. Malchus.

  What this means is that this prayer has a rich history, dating back almost a thousand years. The Church has preserved it over all these years because of its simple yet profound truth. It recognizes the existence of our guardian angels, and invokes their aid in our time of need. - Who composed the “Angel of God” Prayer?


According to Reformed Theology how can God judge us if we are born sinful?

Galatians 4:7

  So you are no longer a slave, but God's child; and since you are his
  child, God has made you also an heir.

so now we need to bring the good fruit

John 15:8

  This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing
  yourselves to be my disciples.

We are held accountable to what we have inherited.

1 John 3:3

  All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

Simply said, If Christ could live holy life we can do it too. He was not spared from temptations. No excuses, that we are born sinful. Through the baptism we were born again in HS.


Why is there not a single date in the Bible?

The "AD/BC" way of counting dates that you want dates to 525 AD by Dionysius Exiguus.  Prior to that, people kept time in "regnal" time, meaning that they would count the Xth year of the reign of Y. Since the Old Testament was pretty much complete by 400BC (nearly a milennia earlier) and the New Testament by 95 AD, it would be every bit as odd to see an "AD/BC" date as would to see a reference to Miley Cyrus in the text.

The Bible has many, many "regnal" dates, perhaps most famously in Luke:

  And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

1 & 2 Kings does a lot of this as well:

  16:23 In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah.

Even the prophet Haggai gave us specific dates:

  In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying

These are the dates you should be looking for.

Finally, as a simple thought exercise - remember this. BC dates are before Christ. If you knew that you were living in, say, 587 BC, you'd know that the Messiah would be arriving in, oh, 587 years. Kind of removes the need for a prophetic word of God, don't you think?

Update: What about months?

The Hebrew Calendar has 13 months with different non-Roman names. (Or, more precisely, years in which there are two months of Adar) Even today, many countries use different calendars with different month names. Here in Esther, we read:

  In the first month (that is, the month of Nisan), in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus’ reign, pur (that is, the lot) was cast before Haman in order to determine a day and a month. It turned out to be the twelfth month (that is, the month of Adar).

Remember, the Romans didn't even bother to name two of their months, and most of them were ordinal (Sept=7, Oct=8, Nov=9, Dec=10). Months just aren't that important to an agrarian society. They care about seasons - planting, harvesting, starving. Dates are of concern to bureaucrats and historians - and history to a Greek person would be totally different than to a modern (read Herodutus!) Asking "Why no dates" really is like asking a farmer why he doesn't wear a watch, or asking a fish why he doesn't ride a bike.


When scripture quotes a non-biblical source, without any opposition of the source, does it imply any endorsement?

I'm hesitant to give an across-the-board answer, but there is a well-established principle in understanding Scripture that applies somewhat here.  It was included in an earlier answer of mine addressing the question of what we are to take literally as opposed to figuratively in Scripture, from a Fundamentalist standpoint.

First:

  [Because the Bible is inspired, it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative][2].  No word of fallible man can stand in authority
  over Scripture.

  Scripture is intelligible. God meant for us to understand it.
  Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.
  Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in
  context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of
  Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context.

Then, the part that I think applies here, important bullet point bolded for emphasis:

  Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society
  out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of
  Interpretation” which is as follows:

  When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other
  sense;

  Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal
  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the
  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths
  indicate clearly otherwise.

  so, from this quote, from Dr. Cooper's perspective,  we see that we
  are to take Scripture at face value (literally) unless...

  The immediate context makes it clear that the passage is not to be taken literally.
  Related passages, the literal sense does not make sense
  The literal sense of the passage would contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths.

That last principle can and should, from a Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura, Biblical inerrancy be applicable to anything questionable:

Does the passage contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths

If the Bible includes a passage, and doesn't oppose it in the context of the surrounding verses and doesn't contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths, then we can say, at best, that the author isn't opposing the statement, that it's not doctrinally incorrect, and that it's not blasphemous.  I don't think we can go so far as to say Scripture (or the author of that particular passage) endorses the idea, unless it is clear, within the context of that passage that the author is endorsing it.


What does it mean to pray in Jesus' Name?

This can be answered by answering a more general question: what does "in someone's (anyone's) name" mean?  It means to act by proxy, on the authority of something or someone greater than yourself. It's a concept that our culture has kind of lost, though it still exists as a storytelling trope.  When a medieval herald reads a proclamation "in the name of the king," or a cop yells at a fleeing thief to "stop in the name of the law!" this is what they mean.  It's a convenient shorthand for "I'm not just saying this of myself; I'm speaking with the authority of a higher power."

So how does this apply to acting (and praying) in the name of Christ?  It means to act in his place.  To pray in the name of Jesus is to pray what Jesus would pray if he were in your position.  When we understand this in the context of Christ as the Perfect Man and our Exemplar, it means to pray for the right things, to seek the will of God and not our own desires.  And whatever we ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, that will be given to us.


What is life in Heaven going to be like?

I'm reminded of the story of two twins inside a mother's womb.  They are discussing what things might be like on the other side of "birth".  One wonders if there really is a "Mom".  Neither can conceive of what life will be like, though, since neither has ever been there.  They've heard that it's a painful trip, but that there's a wonderful world of adventure and excitement beyond their wildest dreams just waiting for them.  After birth, they find that what they were told was, indeed, true.

There are parallels as we discuss what things could be like after "death".  We know it may be a painful trip, and we read of wonderful things on the other side.  Some may wonder if there really is a "God".  However, none of us can really perceive what heaven will be like.

Still, we are told a few things in the Scriptures.

We will reign with Christ (2 Timothy 2:12)
We will have eternal pleasures (Psalm 16:11)
We will have eternal possessions (Matthew 6:19-21)
We will live in perfect communion and relationship with God, no longer separated (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

To be sure, the effects of the Fall will be destroyed as well.

No more death (1 Corinthians 15:26)
No more tears (Revelation 21:4)
No more shame (2 Corinthians 5:1-4)

So, eternal pleasures (beauty and joy), possessions (joint heirs with Christ), prominence (a kingdom of priests, sons and daughters of the King).

Finally, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."  1 Corinthians 2:9


What is the gist of CARM's criticism of Joyce Meyer?

CARM has said a few things about Joyce Meyer and has called some of her teachings heresy.

  [CARM was] glad to see an affirmation [in Meyer's teachings] of the Trinity, that man is a sinner, that without Jesus we can have no relationship with God, that salvation is a free gift, and eternal hell of conscious damnation.

Some things Meyer has said that CARM has labeled as misguided or heresy are:

"Jesus stopped being the Son of God on the cross." CARM calls this heresy and dangerous and urges Meyer to repent.
"Jesus was the first person to be born again." CARM calls this "a serious error since it implies that Jesus needed to be changed"
"Jesus paid for our sins in Hell." CARM says Jesus paid for our sins on the cross.
"Jesus went to Hell in our place and suffered and was tormented." CARM says there is no reason to believe that Jesus suffered in Hell to finish atonement for the sins of the World.
"If you don't believe that Jesus went to Hell you cannot be saved." CARM calls this heresy.
Joyce Meyer describes her Christ given righteousness in a way that CARM finds unbiblical and motivated by pride.
"Demons literally stood on Jesus in Hell and laughed." CARM calls this completely made up and part of the same heresy that Jesus was tormented in Hell.
Meyer claims to have a gift of revelation from God, but CARM argues that must be impossible because some of her teachings stand in contrast to what the Bible says.

It seems that most of CARM's objections relate to Meyer's teaching that the cross was not sufficient and required Jesus to be tormented in Hell too.

Additionally, CARM takes objection that Meyer has taken the proper role of a preacher which CARM believes is a position that should only be held by men.

Since first approaching her in 2011, CARM claims that Joyce Meyer has not responded to their inquiries or accusations.

Sources:

Joyce Meyer by Matt Slick - CARM.org
Did Jesus die spiritually? by Matt Slick - CARM.org


The idea of Common Grace is that the grace of God is accessible and granted to all people (ie "common" to all people).  This is different from "special" or "saving" grace in that special grace is extended only to the elect.

More clearly, it's the idea that there is grace available and inside everyone.  It can be seen in such verses as:

Matthew 7:9-10

  9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?

This is common grace in that everyone (even pagans, idolaters, and abominations) still love their children and will try to take care of them.  These parents extend grace even though they are not Christians.

However, even though this grace comes through these "evil" parents, it actually comes from God:

James 1:17 (NIV)

  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Because of this, God has given grace (and love and mercy) to all humans regardless of their state of salvation or their obedience to him.

This is just "common" grace.

Wikipedia has a lot more regarding it, but that's a simple definition of it and the biblical basis for it.


If war were to break out between Russia and USA, would Russian Mormons fight against the USA?

Latter-day Saints abide the law of the land in which they live; honorably answering a call when conscripted for military service is part of this belief. Volunteer military service is also respected as a way of serving one's country. Latter-day Saints should live in accordance with the revealed will of the Lord and according to their own conscience.

  Latter-day Saints in the military do not need to feel torn between their country and their God. In the Church, “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12). Military service shows dedication to this principle.

(From https://www.lds.org/topics/war)

This happened in WW2. There's even a movie based on a true account about this ("Saints and Soldiers"). War is awful, but Mormons accept this reality where they do not have the power to avoid it.

Further reading: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/military-service


Was Martin Luther known to have read the First Epistle of Clement?

No. Luther is not known to have read the First Epistle of Clement. In fact it is certain that he did not read it.

Luther was, in general, very well read in the Church Fathers; and he would have known, from Eusebius and others,  that such an epistle had once existed. However it  had long since disappeared, and no copies were known to exist. It was only in 1628, more than 70 years after Luther's death, that Western scholars were able to read it. This happened when  Patriarch Cyril I, of Constantinople, presented King Charles I of England etc. with a copy of the Bible containing, separately at the back, a copy of Clement's Epistle. This became known as the Codex Alexandrinus, because it had been found, a few years earlier, in Alexandria.  The Patriarch had intended it to go to King James,  but he died before it arrived. It was published by Patrick Young, the Royal Librarian.

Doctor Bell in his translation of the Familiar Discourses of Luther lists some, though not all, of the Early (and later) Fathers Luther was familiar with including a date when they were thought to have been active.

Athanasius of Alexandria (387)
Basilius Magnus and Gregorius (380)
Ambrose of Milan (380)
Aurelius Prudentius (380)
Austin of Hippo (430)
Beda, a Benedict in England (737)
Cyprian of Carthage (259)
Cyril of Alexandria
Chrysostom of Constantinople (420)
Gregory I, Pope (511)
Hierem, eldest of Striden (522)
Irenaeus of Lyon (175)
Polycarpus, tutor  to Irenaeus (1&5)
Nicolas de Lyra (330)
Origen of Adomantz (261)
Philo the Jew (50)
Josephus (100)
Ignatius of Antioch (111)
Prosperus of Rogen (460)
Sedulius (430)
Tatianus the Heretic (170)
Thomas Aquinas  (1274)
Bonifacius of Mentz (755)
Bernard of Cistern (1140)
Hugo Parisiensis (1130)
Anselmus (1110).

Further detail is included in Staniforth Maxwell's Early Christian Writings and the Apostolic Fathers. This link is to a preview. The pages are not numbered but it is on the twelfth page.


Annulment: How do Catholic courts evaluate evidence admission? (Fruit of the poisonous tree)

I suppose you are refering to some document or something equivalent.

The code of canon law, about "The Nature and Trustworthiness of Documents" in its numbers 1540 to 1543, but specially the last one, states that if a "document is otherwise defective, it is for the judge to decide what value, if any, must be afforded them.", but I have not found reference about how the documents should be obtained to be valid.

But is my opinion, that must be obvious and your conscience must be clearly convinced, that the information you obtained is true and you had the right to know it.


Which verse mentions "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."?

It is in Deut 8:3, part of an extremely important and the last sermon Moses gave to the 2nd generation of Israelites while they were camping on the Plains of Moab before entering Canaan.  The main theme was reminding them of the importance to follow God's commandments so they would prosper in the promised land.  Otherwise they could end up like the 1st generation after Exodus whom God punished to die in the wilderness (except Caleb and Joshua).  Even God didn't allow Moses to enter Canaan.

The New Testament recorded Jesus quoting Deut 8:3 in response to the temptation of the devil while Jesus was fasting 40 days in the wilderness, similar to how the 1st generation was tested in the wilderness for 40 years.  But unlike the Israelites, Jesus succeeded.  Two passages recorded the quote:

Matt 4:4
Luke 4:4


What is older: Dead Sea Scrolls or Septuagint? Which is more reliable?

A question of reliability ultimately appeals to a method for determining such, an answer this open is hard to answer except for by the answerers feelings, as is demonstrated in the first answer to this question.

The reliability of the dead sea scrolls is that of fragments and many are isolated fragments, meaning they have no counterpart to know the whole text.  And in cases where the text is whole, such as the 'Great Isaiah Scroll', the preservation of the transliteration in to the Masoretic is very close.

However:
Presuming that by the word 'reliable' it is meant accurate?
The LXX offers more consistent and refined comparison when view beside the totality of the Masoretic text as a standard for comparison. The Dead sea scrolls as fragments then only help in comparing the Greek LXX Septuagint with the 9th-10th century Masoretic Hebrew Text.

Presuming by the word 'reliable' means the doctrinal quality as to attain a more complete doctrine of the testament of scripture prior to the Christian era?
The LXX offers a more complete comprehension of the intertestamental period as well as well known working classic language to understand the meaning of certain Hebrew words which the Masoretic text is the possessor of alone (Hebrew which is only found in the bible).


Why did Jesus say "you will be put to death" and yet "not a hair of your head will perish"?

Jesus is talking here about the resurrection of the dead. Because of what Christ did all will live again. So yes you could die for the gospel but you would gain eternal life in Christ.

Just adding some scripture to back this up:

  (KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

Just supporting that we will be raised from this mortal state which is corruptible (hence why we die) to an immortal state that is incorruptible.


Why did God create the idea of opposites?

In the vein of your question, I pose a simpler question whose answer may help us think about yours in the right frame of mind.

Does Good, by Definition, Require Evil in Order to Exist?

It is common for people have circular definitions for "good" and "evil." Evil is the opposite of good; good is the opposite of evil. In reality, the two are definitely playing for opposing teams, but they are not really opposites.

Evil definitely depends on good for its meaning. The converse is definitely not true, however. Good has meaning all on its own which does not depend on evil. In Genesis 1, after God creates the substance of the universe, he pronounces (nearly) each of these things "good." At this point, no evil has been mentioned, and by the end of creation, God pronounces the sum of his creation as "very good." Good seems to carry the meaning, "how God made it and intended it to be" or "according to God's will." Before chapter 3, the only thing that's spoken of as "not good" is a deficiency (something not yet created, woman) that God immediately remedies. There's no need for evil in this definition of good.

When sin and death enter the world, we see that evil is a corruption or perversion of good. Evil cannot be defined without their being good. Good has no such dependency.

Why did God Create (Moral) Opposites?

In a moral sense, I don't think you could say that there are opposites. There's what's good, which existed from the beginning of creation and would have remained even if humans had never sinned. Evil wasn't created by God. The capacity for evil was "created" because freedom is an essential element in genuine love, and for there to be freedom, the possibility of choosing something other than what was good was necessary.

God didn't create Heaven and Hell as two neighborhoods in the afterlife. In a metaphorical sense, Heaven is "intimacy with God" and Hell is "separation from God." Before Genesis 3, there was no need for Hell (for humans, anyway—little is said of the genesis of angels and daemons), and so it need not have existed as if God made it ahead of time knowing that he was going to need it eventually.

Moral "opposites" push you in opposite directions, but they are not, themselves, actual opposites.


Who wrote the book of Genesis? (Overview)

There are two theories:

Traditionalists

Tradition says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, including the book of Genesis.

Here is a lengthy argument for this.
JEDP Theory

Some modern scholars believe that Genesis (along with the rest of the Pentateuch) was written by a series of authors.  The idea comes from the fact that God is referred to using multiple names (such as Yahweh, Elohim, Yahweh Eloheinu, etc.).

The idea is controversial based on (1) the fact that it goes against tradition and (2) the fact that even today we use multiple names for God ("our Heavenly Father", "God the Father", "God", "Jehovah", etc.).

Those are the two main theories.  Unfortunately, we don't have any way of truly knowing who wrote Genesis.  That's the reason for the varying theories.


What attributes does Jesus have from an LDS doctrinal perspective that are different from the Jesus in the Holy Trinity?

The answer to this, in regards to Jesus Christ's divinity, would be:  There is little to no difference.  The differences in Mormon theology do not alter the way Christ's Divinity is regarded by Mormons vs. the regard given by Trinitarians.  Trinitarians and Mormons both view Christ as Divine, and the Most Divine Possible.

I will provide some background, and also explain one potentially insignificant perceived difference that comes to my mind.

While the Mormon Church may believe that the Trinity are 3 separate beings with the same purpose, as opposed to 3 forms of the same being (possibly an oversimplification, but the Trinity is difficult for me to explain) The role of Jesus Christ is the same, through him and him alone comes Salvation.  He is Divine.  He is God.  (From of Mormon perspective you might alter that to say, he is "a God")  It it through his merits that all mankind may be saved and live Happily in the afterlife (slightly different perspective on afterlife for Mormons and Mainstream Christinity)

One specific attribute that may be a little (or a lot) different, is the existence of Jesus Christ's physical body.  Mormons Believe he still has one, a Divine immortal body that is inseparable from his spirit.  Mainstream Christian religious belief may not agree with this idea.  I've met pastors who have said that Christ only took a physical form while on earth, and once ascended to heaven returned to a spirit, or spiritual form, and that we too will be like that while in Heaven.

Mormons believe the physical form and spiritual form together will be the final Divine form.  Not a mortal physical body, but an immortal physical body.  Mormons will refer to this body as a Celestial, Perfected or a Glorified Body.   You'd find information about this in The Doctrine and Covenants, a publication from the LDS Church.  It's also been repeated by LDS Apostles and Prophets throughout the years.

The difference in Mainstream Christian or more specifically Trinitarian beliefs vs. Mormon beliefs on Christ's Divine physical form may be the biggest difference, if and when it's a difference at all.

The following link may suggest that the difference I perceive is not really a difference:  Jesus Ressurection Was Physical

Here is an Official LDS statement on who Jesus Christ is, and his Divine purpose:  The Living Christ


Were Annanias and Saphira guilty of the "unforgiveable" sin?

I don't believe that they necessarily did, though it is certainly possible.

The unforgivable sin, in my understanding, is living your life without remorse or repentance to God for your sins. Annanias and Saphira sinned just before they died (were killed), but that doesn't mean they weren't previously saved. After all, all Christians sin after being saved, but the difference is that we do not continue to have unrepentant sin patterns which control us.

It is possible that God was just using Annanias and Saphira as an example, as Paul writes to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. The Corinthians in this case were sinning by profaning the practice of communion with gluttony, and as a consequence God made them sick to the point of death.

  Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

John Piper has a good talk on the unforgivable sin.


How has the position of the Catholic Church on drugs changed over time?

So I think this answer needs to dichotomize to be useful.

Mood altering drugs

Drugs that alter the mood, could be classed like alcohol, as something to be taken temperately, if it is possible to take them  temperately.  Smoking cigarettes can be done in moderation.  It is quite possible that smoking marijuana cannot.

  Wine was created from the beginning to make men joyful not to make them drunk

  Sir 31:35

Downers

There is no prohibition against self-medication within the Catholic Church. But there is a strict prohibition against complete inebriation (here's where I conflate being stoned with being drunk, YMMV).  There has been since the time of Noah.

The use of depressants to treat mental anguish might be licit.  It might also be contrary to what St. John Paul II called "Salvific Suffering". See: Salvifici Doloris Which is wrapped up in the reason Jesus rejected the drugged wine offered to Him on the cross.

Self-medication may inhibit someone else's ability to be a "Good Samaritan" for us, as St. John Paul II.

Psychedelics

Drugs that produce a near instant sense of euphoria; or that cause inebriation quicker than can be said is temperate are always contrary to virtues of Temperance.  Sloth and Gluttony are their fruits and they're to be avoided because of it.  Any good effects that come of doing evil are also to be avoided.

  A good intention ... does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. CCC 1743

Use of ecstasy or mushrooms to treat depression might be an exception. But that would be a circumstance when ones present state is improved.  (The sick, need the physician, anything else is self-mutilation - which is also to be avoided)

Uppers

Drugs that give "mental clarity" should also be avoided in places where such usage could be considered underhanded cheating.  They're brain stimulants that are as dishonest to use as human growth hormone is to a cyclist. The other reason to avoid them is that they often have the worst side effects and are the most addictive.  Nicotine, Caffeine are ways to use uppers moderately, but even they can be abused.

Drugs to produce a desired effect

Some drugs do not alter mood, but do something else to the body:

Abortion

Drugs to procure abortion would be illicit by virtue of them causing the death of the child in the womb. CCC 2322

Contraception

Any contraception is contrary to the idea of marriage, contraceptive drugs would be too CCC 2370

Suicide

Taking medication meant to induce death is always wrong, according to the Catholic Church 2280 It can even be scandalous.

Sleep

Not inherently evil, but if you abuse sleep aids, you might fall into the sin of Sloth.

Steroids

Taking medication to increase muscle mass is not inherently evil, unless it is for self-mutilation (malice), self-aggrandizement (pride) or to have an unfair advantage over competition.
Since these are the only non-medical reasons a person would have (other than complete flippancy, which is probably sinful too) it would seem that steroids are likewise verboten.

Analgesics

The FDA has a pretty clear system for determining which drugs are OK for over the counter use, which are OK by prescription and which are just not OK to have around (i.e. schedule 1 drugs).  Now, sometimes politics play a role in determining what drugs go where, but our civil society.  But Sirach, at least, makes a pretty good case for listening to doctors.

  Honor the physician for the need thou hast of him: for the most High created him ...
    The most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them
  Was not bitter water made sweet with wood?
  The virtue of these things is come to the knowledge of men, and the most High hath given knowledge to men, that he may be honored in his wonders
  By these he shall cure and shall allay their pains, and of these the apothecary shall make sweet confections, and shlal make up ointments of health, and of his works there shall be no end.

  Sir 38:1,4-7

In summary, between the times of Sirach and St. Pope John Paul II, the thing that has become the Chuch has consistently erred on the side of the Natural Moral Law when it comes to drugs.  First you consider what a thing is, then you ask what is it for.  If a thing is bad, then using it is bad.  If the thing that you use it for is bad, then using it is bad.


What is the reasoning behind the belief that Eve was NOT created on the sixth day?

The Biblical basis for claiming that Eve was created after the sixth day is one from inference instead of literalism.

The account in Genesis 1 starts with all the creatures first, then man on the sixth day. Chapter two continues on describing a different time of creation, or a smaller, second creation, if you will.

The story in Genesis two has Adam created separately, then God places him in the garden (verse 15). Then God decides that Adam should not be alone so he brings all the beasts to Adam to name them. Because of the wording, some literalists say that God made separate beasts right in front of Adam to be named; Adam then names all of them (verses 19-20).

Adam found none of the beasts suitable for his helpmate, so God put him into a sleep then made Eve from his rib (verses 21 -22).

The inference is that naming all the beasts would take a good deal of time. Even assuming that there were less kinds then there are today, seeing all of them, examining them, then deciding a name for all of those kinds would surely take longer than a day. Unless God brought the beasts to Adam in rapid fire succession, and Adam named them just as quickly, literalists holding this position insist that the event took a long time, much longer than a day.

Proponents of this view must neglect a literal reading of these verses, however. The final verse in Genesis 1, declaring the close of the sixth day, unmistakably puts the creation of mankind then. Takers of this view simply state that they are two separate stories with two separate lessons and neither is necessarily literal or more valid than the other.

A random source


What does the Bible say about people with mental illness?

The Bible does not really have a concept of mental illness in the sense we have it today. There are, as far as I know, no stories in the Bible that clearly talk about the mentally ill.

There are of course cases of people described as "demon possessed" or "having an evil spirit". Many have speculated that these are people who would today be described as having a mental illness. Examples that spring to mind include the demon called "Legion", (Mark 5 1-20), Luke 4:31-37, The Philippian slave girl (Acts 16).

Whether we consider this a real demon or a mental illness, one thing that all these stories have in common is that after the demon has left (or they have been cured) no blame is attached to the person. We don't read that the people have to repent, or are forgiven. We could reasonably infer that they are not responsible for what they have done.

ADDITION:While not strictly within the scope of the question, I found while researching this article which discusses the moral responsibility of the insane from the Catholic viewpoint. Its conclusion is that there are kinds of insanity that remove the culpability of those that commit sin, chiefly those of a delusional nature or which prevent the sufferer knowing right from wrong. However if the sufferer still knows right from wrong they may still be responsible for their sins.


What is the biblical basis for modern-day prophets?

The scriptures below show that God speaks through prophets, and that he will always speak through prophets.

  God Speaks Through Prophets

  "... Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established;
  believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper." (2 Chronicles 20:20)

  "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto
  his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

  "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
  fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are
  built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
  himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:19-20;)

  "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:28)

  Eternal Nature of God

  "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
  (Hebrews 13:8)

  "For I am the Lord, I change not; ..." (Malachi 3:6;)

Scripture is the written words of the Prophets, the Bible is the word of God spoken through prophets. God calls prophets to deliver his words to the children of men, but it is important to understand that a man can only be a prophet if he is called of God:

  "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that
  ye should go and bring forth fruit..." (John 15:16)

How to verify a prophet of God

It is wise to be wary of any man that claims to have received revelation from God, especially when he claims to have received it on behalf of someone else.

  ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
  but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  (Matt 7:15;)

Just as Christ told his disciples to go and bring forth fruit, he also promised that we can tell a man is a disciple of God by their fruits.

  16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
  or figs of thistles?

  17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
  tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

  18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
  tree bring forth good fruit.

  19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
  cast into the fire.

  20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matt 7:16-20;)

How shall we know them by their fruits?

  "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
  Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he
  shall testify of me." (John 15:26)

In Galatians chapter 5, Paul explains that a true disciple of Christ is led by the Spirit, and lists the fruits of the spirit.

  22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
  gentleness, goodness, faith,

  23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Gal 5:22;)

To know truth you must pray unto the Lord always, so that he may confirm or deny the words of any supposed prophet. If a man claims to have received a prophecy from God, and you can feel the spirit while you hear his words, then take the matter to prayer. The Spirit will confirm or deny the truthfulness of all things. If a man speaks words that cause fear and doubt, pray to know if he is a false prophet, and again the Spirit will speak the truth. Anyone that preaches fear and doubt is a false prophet.


Burying a fish as a Christmas tradition?

Rakfisk is a traditional Norwegian dish, which is made by burying trout or char in the ground for several months, and then eaten without cooking. It is traditionally eaten around Christmas, but it is not a specifically Christian tradition (any more than turkey or mince pies). Since it is eaten at Christmas, the burying would have to have happened several months before, unless the fish is buried for an entire year. Norway is not a particularly Catholic country, so it is unlikely to have been a Catholic tradition.


What should be a Christian's attitude when his prayers are not answered?

First, we should recognize that our requests were not in accordance with His will:

1 John 5:14-15 (NASB)
14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

That's not to say that our asking for it was sinful (though, that's a possibility: James 4:3), but we do not have all of the information that God has.  Keep in mind that what seems painful at the time, may be in your ultimate best interest.  Therefore, knowing this, consider it all joy that God is able to work out all things for the best.

Romans 8:28 (NASB)
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
James 1:2-4 (NASB)
2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

One example of this principle at work is given by Paul, who describes to the Corinthians a "thorn in his flesh" that he wished to be taken away.

2 Corinthians 12:8-9 (NASB)
8  Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9  And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

God told Paul no, and Paul saw in hindsight that God used this thorn to keep Paul from spiritual pride (v7).
So trust God that His plan is superior to our own.  Through all hardships (and good times, for that matter), trust God, constantly seeking closeness with Him.

Matthew 6:25-34 (NASB)
    25 “For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? 27 And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? 28 And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29 yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! 31 Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32 For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
  34 “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


Was the Covenant made with the Church or does 'Everlasting' mean something other than 'eternal?'

My answer may not be extensive due to time restraints, but I think it's important to emphasize this main point.

The old covenant (Jer. 31:32), which the Israelites entered into at Sinai (Exo. 24:7), cannot be eternal because it never promised eternal life to the Israelites. Instead of eternal life, God (the other party of the covenant) promised that the Israelites would prolong their days on the earth (Deut. 4:40), that is, in the land of Canaan (Deut. 5:33), if they kept His commandments (i.e., His covenant). Because of their disobedience, the Israelites were exiled on several occasions, with the last exile culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. by the Roman army. That being said, if the days of the Israelites in Jerusalem were not prolonged...than how much less were they to receive eternal life? Again, the old covenant never promised eternal life.

That being said, there's no wonder why the author of the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 8:6) says that Jesus Christ is the mediator of a "better covenant" (κρείττονός διαθήκης) established on "better promises" (κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις). Among these "better promises" is the promise of "the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began, but He manifested His word in due times by the preaching" (Tit. 1:2-3) which was committed to the apostles.

The old covenant cannot be eternal because those who enter the covenant are neither immortal nor are they promised immortality. They all must inevitably die (granted, there are one or two exceptions, but let's consider the general rule instead). Also, one should understand that once one party of a conditional, bilateral covenant dies, the entire covenant is rendered void for both parties (see the apostle's example of the marriage covenant in Rom. 7:2-3). Thus, whenever an Israelite dies, he is no longer a party to the old covenant; the old covenant is nullified with respect to him.

On the other hand, while those entering into the new covenant are mortal, they are promised eternal life upon their entrance into the covenant. Thus, the covenant endures eternally because the parties of the covenant, whether Jesus Christ or those who believe in, are or shall be immortal (possessing eternal life). On the one hand, they are promised eternal life by resurrection from the dead. But, on the other hand, all those who believe in Christ live with him (Rom. 6:8).


According to the edit, the essential question is why the Church prescribes a specific penitential action (abstaining from meat) on specific days, rather than just telling us to do penance (our own way).  I think the reason for being so specific is that, although a general exhortation to do penance would be followed by some people, it would fail for a great many other people, even well-meaning people who intend to do penance. Penance is too easily procrastinated. If I eat meat (knowingly) on a day of abstinence, I know that I've committed a sin that I need to confess. If I procrastinate a general intention to do penance, it never quite feels like a real sin --- after all, I'm planning to do some penance next week or next month or whenever.

The preceding paragraph was about why the Church makes specific rules. Another aspect of the question is why the rule refers specifically to abstaining from meat. I don't know the historical reason for that, but here's a guess. For many centuries, meat was not part of the regular diet of "ordinary" folks; only the rich could afford to eat meat often. So the requirement of abstinence had little or no effect for most people, but it required the rich to occasionally live like the rest of the population, an exercise in humility.

Does this guess vitiate my first paragraph? After all, ordinary people also need to do penance, yet, if I'm right, they weren't seriously affected by the law of abstinence.  The answer to that is that abstinence from meat was not the only penitential practice prescribed by the Church.  There are also days (and a whole season --- Lent) of fasting, which imposes a limit on the amount of food that one is allowed to eat. That would affect everyone, not just the rich. (And the restrictions were more severe longer ago).


When the Bible says "forever," how can we tell it really means forever?

While both עולם (olam) and Greek αἰών (aiōn) can mean "eternity," they can also be limited to a particular duration of time or "an age."
Olam Ha-Zeh and Olam Ha-Ba
The Jews typically divided time into two ages or worlds (עולמים): "this age/ world" or עולם הזה (olam ha-zeh), and "the age/ world to come," or עולם הבא (olam ha-ba). In this particular context, we know that עולם couldn't possibly be understood as "eternity," since there would not be a "this eternity" and an "eternity to come." For more information, see the Jewish Virtual Library.
Contexts Denoting Finite Duration
There are certainly contexts in scripture wherein עולם simply cannot refer to "eternity."
For example, in Exo. 21:6 (KJV), it is written,

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
וְהִגִּישֹׁו אֲדֹנָיו אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישֹׁו אֶל־הַדֶּלֶת אֹו אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת־אָזְנֹו בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדֹו לְעֹלָם

Here, the English phrase "for ever" is translated from the Hebrew word לְעֹלָם (le'olam). But, could a slave really serve a master for eternity? Such is not possible, since every slave was mortal and would eventually die. In fact, what this tells us is that death frees man from the commandments (cp. Rom. 7:1-4). This is why a Jew who is born again is no longer under any obligation to keep the commandments of the Old Covenant (i.e., the Torah), including the Sabbath. Now, if by chance particular commandments were ratified under a New Covenant, then an individual would keep those, for it's an entirely different covenant.
In addition, Rashi says that the phrase לְעֹלָם in Exo. 21:6 does not mean eternity, but rather, עד היובל (ad ha-yovel, i.e. until the "Jubilee," which occurs every 50th year; cp. Lev. 25:54). So, in theory, if a master had taken a slave on the 49th year and 360ish day of the year, and the 50-year Jubilee occurred a few days later, the slave was able to go free. Ergo, לְעֹלָם may only refer to a few days.

Many learned Jewish scholars have contended that the Torah of Moshe is eternal because various words used in reference to commandments seem to imply eternality. On the other hand, other learned Jewish scholars have contended that these words do not imply the eternality of the Torah.
In his treatise ספר העיקרים (Sefer ha-Ikkarim), Rabbi Yosef Albo (1380–1444) of Spain wrote,

יש מי שחשב להביא ראיה לנצחיות תורת משה ממה שנמצא בכתוב בקצת מצוות יזכיר לשון חוקת עולם ובקצתם לדורותיכם ובקצתם אות היא לעולם...אבל לא באו אלו הלשונות להורות על נצחיות התורה כלל, כי אפשר לומר שבהבטל שאר המצוות יבטלו אלו גם כן.

which is translated as,

There are those who have thought to introduce proof of the eternality of the Torah of Moshe from that which is found in scripture with a few of the commandments. They mention the expression "חוקת עולם" ("a statute of an עולם"), and לדורותיכם ("in your generations"), and אות היא לעולם ("it is a sign לעולם")...But these expressions are not introduced to indicate the eternality of the entire Torah, for it is possible to assert that when the rest of the commandments are abolished, these will likewise [be abolished].

Sefer ha-Ikkarim, Book III, Ch. XVIII
Furthermore, he wrote,

מלשון עולם או עד עולם או חוקת עולם או לעולם אין ראיה, כי כבר ימצאו אלו הלשונות ודומיהן על זמן מוגבל, לא על זמן בלתי בעל תכלית.

which is translated as,

Neither is there any proof from the expression עולם (olam) nor עד עולם (ad olam) nor חוקת עולם (chukkat olam) nor לעולם (le'olam), for these expressions and their like are already found [to be] until a limited time, not an infinite time.

ibid
One example Albo gives is Pro. 22:28, in which it is written,

Do not remove the landmark of [עֹולָם] which your fathers made.
אַל־תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עֹולָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֲבֹותֶיךָ

Clearly, this landmark could not have been made by their fathers in eternity. Rather, the גְּבוּל was a boundary made for a plot of land made by one's ancestors. When a father died, this land was inherited by a child. Hence, the commandments instructs one not to re-define the boundary, as it would infringe on another person's land (cp. Deut. 19:14). Thus, we see that עֹולָם in this particular context does not refer to eternity.


In Roman Catholicism, how far back in history does the process (Sacrament) of Confirmation go?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the sacrament of Confirmation comes directly from the beginning of the Church, as performed by the Apostles, and thus, it is part of the Oral Revelation (or Tradition, Living Magisterium), and partly seen in the Written Revelation (i.e. the Scriptures). The Encyclopedia states:

The Sacrament of Confirmation is a striking instance of the development of doctrine and ritual in the Church. We can, indeed, detect much more than the mere germs of it in Holy Scripture; but we must not expect to find there an exact description of the ceremony as at present performed, or a complete solution of the various theological questions which have since arisen. It is only from the Fathers and the Schoolmen that we can gather information on these heads.

Then there are two quotes used to support this Biblical basis:

We read in the Acts of the Apostles (8:14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles "sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost".
Again (19:1-6): St. Paul "came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied".

From them, the author concludes:

From these two passages we learn that in the earliest ages of the Church there was a rite, distinct from baptism, in which the Holy Ghost was conferred by the imposition of hands (dia tes epitheseos ton cheiron ton Apostolon), and that the power to perform this ceremony was not implied in the power to baptize.

The article goes on to expose evidence and support for the rite later in history, including the Church Fathers.
This perspective is part of the Catholic doctrine, as expressed in the Cathecism (and quoting Paul VI's apostolic constitution Divinae consortium naturae):

1288 "From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ's will, imparted to the newly baptized by the laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. For this reason in the Letter to the Hebrews the doctrine concerning Baptism and the laying on of hands is listed among the first elements of Christian instruction. the imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the sacrament of Confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church."

Finally, regarding the age of baptism, as stated in the comments by Ken Graham, the Eastern Rites (and the Orthodox Church, in which the sacrament is called Chrismation) performs both sacraments together, whereas the Latin Rite and Western church performs them separately. The same page of the Catechism linked above states:

1290 In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a "double sacrament," according to the expression of St. Cyprian. Among other reasons, the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations. In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments.

Regarding particularly the Western church, the age at which the confirmation was administered varied considerably. For example, the Encyclopedia states:

It was especially during the thirteenth century that vigorous measures were taken to secure the proper administration of the sacrament. In general, the councils and synods direct the priests to admonish the people regarding the confirmation of their children. The age limit, however, varies considerably. Thus the Synod of Worcester (1240) decreed that parents who neglected to have their child confirmed within a year after birth should be forbidden to enter the church. The Synod of Exeter (1287) enacted that children should be confirmed within three years from birth, otherwise the parents were to fast on bread and water until they complied with the law. At the Synod of Durham (1217? Cf. Wilkins, loc. cit. below) the time was extended to the seventh year.

The latter became, later on, the custom. The Encyclopedia states:

Further, when infant baptism became customary, confirmation was not administered until the child had attained the use of reason. This is the present practice, though there is considerable latitude as to the precise age. The Catechism of the Council of Trent [(1545-1563)] says that the sacrament can be administered to all persons after baptism, but that this is not expedient before the use of reason; and adds that it is most fitting that the sacrament be deferred until the child is seven years old, "for Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children, who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified."

This custom of the use of reason being reached at age 7 continues to be in the Canon Law today, under the title "age of discretion", as can be seen here.
This shows that Confirmation was indeed administered at quite different ages across the centuries, and far from the custom of 14 years old, as in some countries today.