In a word, no. According to Jesus Himself He rightly said at John 1:18, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." And at John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, except he who is from God, he hath seen the Father."
John 4:24 states, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." In other words, God is a spiritual being and as noted God the Father cannot be seen.
God's Son, Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God as in there are no others. (John 3:16). Since this is true Jesus as the Son of God shares the same nature as His Father. Jesus did not have a biological father. On the other hand, Jesus also identified Himself as the "Son of Man." On His mother's side He has the same nature as His mother which is human being.
So Jesus Christ has two natures, one on His Father's side and one on His mother's side. It's a universal law that all sons share the same nature as its father. Philippians 2:6-8 teaches that Jesus Christ who always existed as God took on another form which was that of a bond-servant/man. Philippians 2:8, "And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross."
At John 14:8 Philip said to Him/Jesus, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Vs9, Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who sees Me has seen the Father, how do you say, Show us the Father?"
Jesus here is not saying that He is God the Father, look at vs10, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father; and the Father is in Me? (Please notice two persons are in view here.) The words I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works."
The point of this is the fact that the Father has no separate manifestation from the Son. The Son is the only manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is known of the Father is revealed through the Son. To see the Son is to see the essence of the Father. Please read John 1:1,18; John 10:30; John 12:45; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.)
Everything Jesus did was to please His Father and to glorify the Father. This also means that we are to follow Jesus' example in our daily life. Goin back to Philippians 2, notice what the Apostle Paul states at verse 3-5.
Starting at Vs3, Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you REGARD ONE ANOTHER AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIMSELF." Vs4, do not merely look out for your own personal interest, BUT ALSO FOR THE INTEREST OF OTHERS."
Vs5, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus." I already went over the verses that follow. The point is to follow the example of Jesus Christ and honor Him just like were suppose to honor the Father. (John 5:23).


According to Catholic doctrine, do our fallen, finite nature and our relationship with God set us up for abusive relationships in this life?

The Original Poster raises a number of related questions, which have to do with the nature of love and how that applies to human relationships (in particular when they are abusive).

From the outset, it is important to note, as freethinker26 states, that the Catholic Church does not condone or otherwise encourage abusive relationships. In reality, such relationships are a distortion of authentic love, and indeed, authentic supernatural love tends away from such relationships, not toward them. Anyone who finds himself in a situation that places either himself or others (e.g., children) in danger is perfectly within his rights to separate from his spouse, and—if the danger is grave enough—may even be obligated to do so.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states candidly:

  Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble (No. 1649).

In this same passage, however, the Church teaches that a valid marriage—however abusive one of the spouses has become—remains a marriage, and so the victim should not regard himself as free to marry someone else. (He may, of course, begin the process to investigate the marriage’s nullity: more often than not, the emergence of abusive behavior is a sign of a deeper problem, one likely to have produced circumstances that rendered the exchange of matrimonial consent impossible.)

(Note that reconciliation is recommended when that is possible; in the case of grave and persistent abuse, it is generally not possible.)

The effects of the Fall on married love

To answer the O.P.’s other questions, it is important to understand the effects of the Fall of Adam on mankind. Our First Parents enjoyed sanctifying grace—the gift of friendship with God and adoptive sonship—as well as various praeternatural gifts, including precociousness of the intellect, strength of the will, immortality, and freedom from suffering. The principal effect of the Fall was the rupture of man’s friendship with God—that is, the privation of sanctifying grace. This rupture is by far the most grievous effect of Adam’s sin, and it continues to be what constitutes so-called Original Sin nowadays.

The effect of this rupture with God is that they could no longer love supernaturally: either God or each other. In other words, together with sanctifying grace, they lost the theological virtue of charity.

Moreover, our First Parents also lost the praeternatual gifts: their intellects were darkened, their wills became weaker, and they became particularly prone to sin.

In Baptism, Christians regain sanctifying grace, friendship with God, and the ability to love supernaturally—hence Baptism is the remedy for Original Sin. However, they retain the loss of the praeternatural sin and the tendency to sin.

(Regarding the Fall of Man, see CCC 396-409; regarding sanctifying grace, see CCC 1996-2005.)

The effects of the Fall on marital love

The combination of these losses is at the root of all disorders in marital love. We can see the First Parents began to have marital trouble immediately after their Fall:

  Your desire shall be for your husband,
      and he shall rule over you (Gen. 3, ESV).

Although the Scriptures speak of obedience of a wife to her husband, the authority exercised by the husband was never intended to be tyrannical—the husband is not supposed to rule his wife. Consider, for example

  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 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. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph. 5:22-25).

and also

  For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (1 Cor. 7:4).

In this last passage St. Paul is speaking about the marital act, and recommends that, generally speaking, spouses should generously give each other their conjugal rights. More broadly, however, it establishes the principle that, although there is a difference in authority between the spouses, it is never an absolute or tyrannical authority, but one founded on Christ’s love for the Church. Indeed, the spouses have, in a certain respects, a reciprocal authority over each other.

Clearly, abuse of any kind is out of the question; it is inimical to marriage as God intended it. Abusive relationships, in fact, arise when marital love is lived out in a disordered way; in no way do they stem from authentic Christian love.

(Regarding marriage under the regime of sin, see CCC 1606-1608.)

Authentic supernatural love, and how it should be lived out in marriage

Fallen man is conceived and born, as I mentioned, deprived of sanctifying grace. That deprivation not only makes it impossible for him to love supernaturally, it produces a tendency in him to sin. In short, fallen man is unable to control his appetities—his tendency towards things that are good in and of themselves—which leads him to neglect greater and more important goods.

Thus, for example, an unfaithful spouse might seek the thrill and pleasure of a new love affair, while sacrificing the far greater good of faithful marriage.

Baptism remedies the privation of sanctifying grace and restores us to friendship with God. Hence, although it does not remove all the effects of that privation (we will retain the troublesome tendency to sin all our lives), the baptized have the strength they need to overcome their sinful tendencies and, more importantly, acquire the ability to love God supernaturally and to love their neighbor for His sake.

It is important to understand, therefore, that authentic Christian love does not consist in a self-emptying for its own sake. It entails self-emptying, certainly, but for the sake of allowing God to act in our souls. In the words of St. Paul,

  I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (Gal. 2:20).

That is the goal that we strive for. Indeed, Christian love consists not so much in giving ourselves to others (certainly not “too much of ourselves”) as in giving Christ to others. And we do not have the strength to do that under our own power: it is something that only God can do in us when we have sanctifying grace. (Regarding Christian love, or charity, see CCC 1822-1829.)

Marital love is no different. Christian spouses are called to love one another with supernatural charity. That certainly entail some self-emptying on the part of each spouse, as the spouses will inevitably have differences in tastes, opinion, and habits, and—more importantly—each spouse will inevitably offend the other in some way, hence requiring loving forgiveness from the other spouse.

A marriage lived out in this way does not lead, as such, to an abusive relationship. Both spouses have a responsibility to love the other with the love of Christ (even if, as Paul reminds us, the husband has a special responsibility to love his wife as Christ loves his church; and the wife has a special responsibility to obey her husband as the Church obeys Christ). Neither spouse is free to take advantage of the other selfishly.

A marriage lived out in faith and authentic love is hence the greatest protection against abusive relationships that we have.

How this squares with abusive relationships

What happens, however, when—because of the free choices of one or both of the spouses—there is a breakdown in marital love? What happens when one spouse begins to abuse the other?

It is important to realize that authentic Christian love does not oblige a person to endure dangers to his own safety or to the safety of others. On the contrary: grace and supernatural love exist in order to protect the integrity of the person. If a person is living in a situation that is objectively and gravely harmful to himself, or to those under his care, then he is certainly permitted, and may even be obliged, to flee from it.

There are extreme cases in which a person is permitted to risk his life or some other grave harm, but they occur only when some other, much greater good is at stake. For example, a person offered a choice to renounce his faith or suffer martyrdom is justified in choosing to suffer martyrdom (CCC 2473); similarly, because of the imminance of the the danger, a person may choose to risk his own life in order to save someone else in danger of drowning.

However, remaining in an abusive relationship is not one of those cases. Although marital unity is a great good, it has already been gravely transgressed by the offending spouse. By leaving such a situation, the injured spouse is not instigating a new rupture; he in only acknowledging one what already exists. (Separation, in any case, does not dissolve the marriage.)

Conclusion

Based on the discussion above, I will now answer the O.P.'s questions succinctly and address his concerns.

It is true that, because of Original Sin, we are unable to love as we ought. However, we must not underestimate the power of sanctifying grace, which we receive at Baptism (and the grace that spouses receive in the Sacrament of Matrimony). Those graces actually restore our ability to love as we ought. Moreover, it is our doing: when we love authentically, it is Christ who loves in us.

Authentic Christian love does not consist as such in emptying ourselves or giving in to others. Rather, it consists in allowing ourselves to be full of Christ, and giving him to others. We have nothing to give to God or others, unless He first gives it to us.

Remaining in an abusive relationship is absolutely not the same thing as martyrdom. With martyrdom, one’s life is weighted against a vastly greater good: namely, the Faith. However, those remaining in abusive relationships (although evidentlywe must never judge them harshly) are choosing to endure sufferings for the sake of a good that has already been, to some degree, ruptured. If the abuse is grave and sustained, they have every right (and possibly an obligation) to flee from it.

Although the abused spouse is entitled to flee from the situation, he is still called to love even his abuser. However, love must be understood here to mean supernatural love, not the feeling of love. Supernatural love entails desiring what is best for the beloved, and it does not necessarily entail feelings of any sort. No one blames the victim of abuse for having feelings of disgust or even hatred toward his abuse, but he is nevertheless called to rise above those feelings. Authentic love will lead him even to forgive his abuser.

Note that forgiveness does not mean returning to an abusive spouse (and, in fact, in most cases, returning would not be advisable). It does entail desiring what is best for him: his repentence and conversion, as well as his eternal salvation.

Finally, I think it would be mistake to say that those who remain in abusive relationships are committing idolatry. Although they will not find God, certainly, in the abusive behavior of their spouses, neither are they trying to offend Him. Abused spouses suffer terribly, and so they are not really in control of their situation. They are badly in need of help (if possible, professional counseling). In other words, they tend to remain in the relationship for psychological, rather than moral, reasons: it is not so much their free choice, as their dependence on the other, that keeps them there.


A Baptist would point back to the garden of Eden and the nature of the problem.  There are sins that a person commits by an act of the will in opposition to what is known to be right and there are sins committed in some degree of ignorance, both of omission and commission.  Remedies for these (more accurately atonement of these) were prescribed for God's people, the Jews, in the levitical law and the sacrificial system.
Requisite was the offering of a sacrifice according to the penitent's means and the nature of the offense.  A reading of Leviticus is useful here as a manual regrading the levitical system. Genuine repentance for an act on the part of the transgressor is an integral part of the offering and is sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit but always required.  Often God expresses displeasure over the offerings being given for the expressed reason that "their hearts are far from me".
This brings us to what lies beneath.  When Adam fell he did more than disobey God, he internalized rebellion.  His created nature changed when he decided to take for himself that which is the purview of God alone:  knowledge of good and evil.  Since like begets like, all of Adam's progeny (humanity) are born with this rebellion within the fabric of their natures.  Oswald Chambers, a Scottish Baptist (1874 - 1917) describes this sin nature as a disposition:

The Bible does not say that God punished the human race for one man’s sin; but that the disposition of sin, viz., my claim to my right to myself, entered into the human race by one man, and that another Man took on Him the sin of the human race and put it away (Hebrews 9:26) — an infinitely profounder revelation. The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of self-realization — I am my own god. This disposition may work out in decorous morality or in indecorous immorality, but it has the one basis, my claim to my right to myself. - The Bias of Degeneration

It is for the destruction of the power of this disposition in humanity that Christ died.  He did not come only to expiate each and every individual sin (which we all need) but to break the power of that which binds us all, to call us all to turn to the Living God through himself, to give us the gift of the Holy Spirit and thereby, to set us free from the law of sin and death.

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. - Romans 8:2-11

Jesus is the once for all sacrifice that all of the law and the prophets foreshadowed and pointed towards.  Under the Law one must offer sacrifice continually, day by day and year by year in order to redress transgression and sin because it dealt on the order of action.  Jesus sacrifice was on the order of disposition to reconcile us once for all.

But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. - Hebrews 10:3-13

In the temple there was a thick curtain separating the holy place (ritual service) from the most holy place (where God's presence dwelt):

And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen. It shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it. And you shall hang it on four pillars of acacia overlaid with gold, with hooks of gold, on four bases of silver. And you shall hang the veil from the clasps, and bring the ark of the testimony in there within the veil. And the veil shall separate for you the Holy Place from the Most Holy. You shall put the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony in the Most Holy Place. - Exodus 26:31-34

Even in the Levitical system that God instituted there was no personal access to God Himself except through religious ritual and faith that God would express mercy through heartfelt obedience.  In Matthew's Gospel account of the death of Jesus Christ it is recorded that, at the moment of Jesus' death, the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom:

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. - Matthew 27:50-51

The Epistle to the Hebrews declares that Jesus condemned and removed the sin within humanity that separates us from God which the veil typified:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. - Hebrews 10:19-22

Sin causes separation between God and man and it is woven into the fabric of our flesh.  When the Son of God emptied Himself and veiled his glory within flesh he identified Himself with all humanity.  When he offered His own life to God as a spotless sacrifice (think Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16) He permanently removed the barrier restricting mankind's access to Almighty God.
Now that a better and permanent access has been opened there is no benefit for for those in Judaism to remain in the foreshadowing of religious ritual, serving in the Holy Place as though the veil of separation from God's presence still remained.
The following is from a Messianic Jewish blog entitled "The WORD in Hebrew":

When the phrase “Completed Jew” is used, it’s used in the sense of “completed faith” – Unlike in other religions or heritage, when a Jew comes to faith in the Jewish Messiah, it is not a “conversion”, but a COMPLETION OF FAITH . Since Jesus was Jewish and came to the Jewish people to be their Messiah, There is nothing more Jewish a Jewish person can do than to follow Him. Believing and following the Jewish Messiah, YESHUA, is a completion of faith for the Jew.


Can we know anything about Jesus' appearance from the Bible?

There isn't much, and that itself is telling.  Isaiah mentions a couple of things prophetically--first, that His appearance was not going to be particularly special:

  For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out
  of dry ground;  he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
  and no beauty that we should desire him.  3 He was despised and
  rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with
  grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was
  despised, and we esteemed him not.  Isaiah 53:2-3 ESV

and secondly, that He would become pretty marred, which is understood to have occurred at His scourging prior to the crucifixion:

  As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond
  human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind
  Isaiah 52:14 ESV

Aside from these prophecies, there is nothing that really indicates what He looked like.  We do know that children wanted to come to Him, so He likely looked normal enough.  The fact that there isn't anything mentioned about His appearance is an indication that there probably wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

King Saul was head and shoulders above everyone else, and that was notable.  Nothing like this is mentioned about Jesus.


Did Pentecostalism lead to Cessationism in the modern Reformed churches?

Churches associated with Reformed theology actually have a variety of views on the gifts of the spirit – many are in the "continuationist" camp.  But among those that are cessationist, their views long precede Pentecostalism.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.1, like most varieties of cessationists, rejects the possibility of new Scripture:

  Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) was a strict cessationist:

  It is this miraculous gift [prophecy] which the apostle here says shall vanish away, together with the other miraculous gifts of which he speaks, such as prophecy, and the gift of tongues, &c. All these were extraordinary gifts, bestowed for a season for the introduction and establishment of Christianity in the world, and when this their end was gained, they were all to fail and cease. (Charity and its Fruits, 439)

Other cessationists generally hold this but aren't quite so adamant.  For example, John Calvin:

  Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to the institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, Apostles; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, Evangelists; fourthly, Pastors; and, lastly, Teachers (Eph. 4:11). Of these, only the two last have an ordinary office in the Church. The Lord raised up the other three at the beginning of his kingdom, and still occasionally raises them up when the necessity of the times requires. (Institutes, 4.3)

All these writings long precede Pentecostalism, and all these views are shared by many Reformed cessationists today.  Thus it wouldn't be fair to say that Reformed cessationism is a reaction to Pentecostalism, though for some individual Reformed thinkers that may be the case.

And as mentioned before, there is such a thing as a Reformed continuationist.  Wayne Grudem is a prominent example, but even at the time of the Reformation some fit that category, such as John Knox.

So it's important to note that at the time of the Reformation, just like today, there are Reformed theologians who are cessationist and others who are continuationist.  The biblical arguments they use to defend their views haven't changed much either – overall, the rise of Pentecostalism has not directly influenced Reformed cessationism.


Why did the apostle John call himself, "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

There are two ways to read that. Reading it as an arrogant statement is certainly one, but I think it can also be read exactly the opposite way -- as a sign of humility. Not wanting to name himself in a "me, John, I was there see" way, he simply refers to himself based on his identity in relation to Christ.

As a Christian I think this is great way to think of ourselves. Rather than thinking about myself and my accomplishments, if I think about my identity as the way Christ sees me -- that I am simply a recipient of undeserved love -- my life is more likely to reflect him.

It doesn't have to be a boastful statement.


How do Sola Fide adherents interpret 1 Corinthians 13:2?

Actually, this verse says that faith without love (agape) is dead, and it says the same of gifts of the Spirit and works exercised without agape love.
Therefore, reading this to imply that works are necessary for salvation is bad hermeneutics.  Now, James, on the other hand has some clear things to say about faith without works:

James 2:14-26 (ESV) (emphasis mine)
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.


Is there a concept of Ministerial Priesthood existing in Protestantism?

There are a lot of protestant churches so it's hard to be exhaustive, but I think the Anglican Church is what you're looking for.

After splitting from Rome the Church of England went through a reformation that aligned much of their theology with the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions. You can find this in the 39 articles.

For example, this is very Protestant:

  WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings

But the church's structure is very hierarchical (episcopalian) with bishops, priests, deacons, etc...

There's also the issue of Apostolic Succession which has a complicated history in the Anglican church.

To belabor the point, the lack of distinction between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church is what led to the Puritans. In a similar vein the the Methodists broke off from the Church of England because Wesley ordained preachers and allowed them to administer the sacraments.


Do orthodox Christians fast on Monday to exceed the righteousness of the pharisees and scribes?

Monks fast on Mondays because Monday in the daily liturgical rite is dedicated to Angels and monks conduct "angelic life". Current Orthodox liturgical rite originates from VI century.

The link that you provided is definitely wrong with the aim of fasting, it is not to overcome someone in merits (as Pharisee thought in the parable about Pharisee and Publican) which is obvious pride but to repent of sins.

This site (Russian only) has a collection of interpretations of Matthew 5:20 from 14 Orthodox Holy Fathers and modern theologians, none of them mention fasting.

If some lay person with the blessing of his spiritual father takes the feat of fasting on Mondays - that is not delusion if he keeps the mentioned repentant disposition of the soul and does not think that he does something special. St. Nikodemos writes about fasting on Mondays that "those among the lay people who want to fast this day are praised before the Lord and will get appropriate retribution" (link).

In the Patericon of Volokolamsk (Russian), there is a story when two brothers, noble men, were captured by Tatars and one of them was fasting on Mondays even in captivity. Once an Angel appeared in front of him in the form of a man. The Angel took him and walked with him through the Tatars without them noticing anything. When Tatars found out that he disappeared, they killed another brother. When the man was saved, he asked Angel: "Who are you?" - "I am the Angel of Monday". The man later became a monk.


Where did the translators of the New World translation study the Biblical languages?

Frederick Franz studied Biblical Greek at the University of Cincinnati with the intention of becoming a Presbyterian preacher (Penton, M. James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. p. 174. ISBN 0-8020-7973-3.) He was also quite the linguist, speaking about half of the major Western European languages.

Albert Schroeder was a bit of a linguistic genius as well, earning his degree at the University of Michigan (according to his Dutch Wikipedia page, he did this in just one year, although there's no source to back it up - http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_D._Schroeder).

George Gangas lived in Athens, where he learned Greek. Not sure which school he studied at (if at all).

As for Hilton Menschel and Nathan Knorr, I'm not certain. My Dutch colleague who tends to know these kinds of things said he was confident that Knorr had not contributed to the New World Translation, but he couldn't tell me where he knew that from.


Yes and no. In historical Christianity, the term for universal salvation is apocatastasis. Apocatastasis refers to the restoration of all things to their original state, which includes the notion of universal reconciliation (even going so far as to insist that Satan himself will eventually be reconciled to God). The word appears in Acts 3:21.

  "Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of
  refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ
  appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time [(this is actually
  plural in the Greek: 'times')] for restoring [(apocatastasis)] all the things about
  which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago" (Acts 3:19-21).

Since this isn't the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange, I won't get too crazy on the exegesis of this passage but it must be noted that there is an alternate way to translate it. The word "things" is implied in πάντων in the above translation, but the relative pronoun (ὧν) could be referring to 'of times' (χρόνων). The argument boils down to whether there will be a restoration "of all the things about which God spoke" (as rendered in the above translation), or if there will be a restoration "of all the times about which God spoke." This alternate translation may be responsible for some of the early speculation about apocatastasis.

1 Corinthians 15:28 has also historically been used as a justification for apocatastasis:

  "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also
  be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that
  God may be all in all."

Scholars are still divided on where this teaching originated, most pointing the finger at Origen. It is debated whether or not Origen taught apocatastasis and whether this even implied universal salvation. It was certainly a very common belief among many early Church fathers, however. Origen is said to have been posthumously condemned at the 5th ecumenical council along with his belief in apocatastasis as universal salvation. Therefore it is commonly taught that the official teaching of the Christian Church is that universal salvation is heretical. However, many scholars have questioned whether apocatastasis was actually condemned. Origen was also condemned for a number of beliefs he held that were Platonic (such as the preexistence of souls, a heterodox Christology, animistic beliefs, etc.). Scholars have debated whether it was the Platonic foundations that he mixed with apocatastasis that were rejected or the entirety of the doctrine itself. There is significant evidence that suggests that many have misunderstood what was specifically denounced in the 5th council.

The idea as presented by Origen is that since God will be "all in all," then in eternity there will be no place that God is not. Since "God is love" (1 John 4:8), wrath is not an eternal attribute of God but rather how we experience His love without being pure in heart / righteous. Therefore hell is not viewed as conscious torment inflicted intentionally by God as punishment nor as a withdrawal of God's presence, but rather as the experience of the unfiltered love of God. For those who have been made righteous, this is a very positive experience. For those who have chosen to reject His love, it is like a consuming fire that causes them suffering. Origen taught that this fire was purifying and that eventually no one would hold out against God's love. Origen believed that all would eventually be reconciled to God.

Some have stated this by using the analogy of wind: God's love is like wind constantly blowing in one direction. When we walk in His will, the wind has our back and carries us along. But when we go against His will, we walk against the wind and experience His love as wrath. Thus God is always continually loving, but we are the ones who don't know what true love is. This can even be observed in human relationships: consider a loved one who hates a family member. Let's say that Helga is the mean and bitter loved one and Cindy is the kind relative. Helga intentionally buys Cindy a mean gift on Christmas - something that Cindy finds offensive. Cindy knows that Helga will be mean but chooses to love her anyways and purchases a thoughtful gift for her. When Helga opens the loving gift from Cindy, she throws it on the floor in anger and shouts, "You did this on purpose!" Perhaps this is even the key to understanding how God's love can be like "heaping burning coals on someone's head" (Proverbs 25:21-22; Romans 12:20). Many Eastern Orthodox believers view God's love in this manner. Many in our broken culture experience true love as a form of suffering. Orthodox Christians believe that eternity will be no different, since God is always love. This is basically the Orthodox doctrine of 'hell' in a simplified (albeit incomplete) way.

But what about universal salvation? It may be true that people will experience God's love as suffering, but will this experience be eternal? Do Orthodox Christians believe that all will be saved?

We must also consider another great saint who taught apocatastasis but was not condemned for it: St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory of Nyssa was one of the Cappadocian fathers who repudiated the Platonic teachings of both Irenaeus and Origen. Yet he never repudiated the teaching of apocatastasis, although he did modify it slightly. Since St. Gregory of Nyssa was never condemned as a heretic nor any of his teachings, it is often thought that perhaps apocatastasis is not heretical, but rather the way that Origen had presented it and infused it with Platonism was the problem (technically neo-Platonism for those philosophy/history buffs reading this). Add to this the fact that universalism may not have even been specifically addressed in the 5th ecumenical council and there is a valid argument that this view may not have been considered heretical by the early Church (cf. this, this, and this).

These beliefs can be seen throughout both Eastern and Western Christians through the medieval period, all the way up until the Reformation in the West. This hope for an eventual universal reconciliation has continued in much of Eastern Christianity - but not in any dogmatic way (this would be counter to the Orthodox approach to theology, which is a discussion for another time).

Of course you can find Orthodox Christians who vehemently support either extreme, but you can also undoubtedly find Universalists within mainline conservative Protestant denominations as well. The presence of alternate opinions does not imply agreement from all those within a tradition. There are also many underlying related concepts that I do not have time to sufficiently address, such as the notion that heaven and hell are 'places' that exist within space and time, the apophatic approach to theology, and much more.

The best way to summarize the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church is perhaps to say that they hold out hope for the eventual reconciliation of all to God. Thus it would be heretical to say that all will be saved, but it is legitimate to hope that all may be saved.

Here is a scholarly article tracing Patristic teachings on apocatastasis.


Why do Christians need to promote their religion to non-believers?

You basically have three sub-questions here, so let me attempt to answer them in order.

  Why do christians have to promote their beliefs to other people?

For two principal reasons: because we were commanded to at several different places in the Bible, and as an act of love.  The Gospel improves the lives of those who live its principles, and we want to share that with those who don't have those blessings in their lives.

  What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them?

Well, aside from what I posted above about loving others and wanting them to experience the same blessings we have, it makes a huge difference when the other people are not content to simply "not believe the same" and leave it at that, but actively attempt to use force--of either the physical, political or legal variety--to interfere with our ability to live our religion.  And one of the simplest ways to counter that is to turn an enemy into a believer.  (Sometimes it can have a very dramatic result; just look at Paul!)

  Do they not think they may offend atheists?

Perhaps, but that only matters if you think that avoiding hurting someone's feelings is more important than sincerely trying to help them improve their lives.  The Gospel encourages an eternal perspective, which tends to give us a different ordering of priorities than the strong short-term focus so prevalent in the world today.


Is there a name for when Jesus was baptized?

The answer to your question possibly is in fact linked to the Feast of the Epiphany. For on the Feast of the Epiphany we celebrate three mysteries of Our Lord's life. The [Catholic] Church calls Jesus' changing water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana his first miracle.

  The Feast of the Epiphany is the continuation of the mystery of Christmas; but it appears on the Calendar of the Church with its own special character. Its very name, which signifies  Manifestation, implies that it celebrates the apparition of God to his creatures.

  For several centuries, the Nativity of our Lord was kept on this day; and when, in the year 376, the decree of the Holy See obliged all Churches to keep the Nativity on the 25th December, as Rome did - the Sixth of January was not robbed of all its ancient glory. It was still to be called the  Epiphany,  and the Baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ was also commemorated on this same Feast, which Tradition had marked as the day on which that Baptism took place.

  The Greek Church gives this Feast the venerable and mysterious name of  Theophania, which is of such frequent recurrence in the early Fathers, as signifying a  divine Apparition.  We find this name applied to this Feast by Eusebius, St. Gregory Nazianzum, and St. Isidore of Pelusium. In the liturgical books of the Melchite Church the Feast goes under no other name.

  The Sixth of January, therefore, restored the celebration of our Lord’s Birth to the Twenty-Fifth of December; but, in return, there were united in the one same  Epiphany, three manifestations of Jesus’ Glory: the mystery of the Magi coming from the East, under the guidance of a star, and adoring the Infant of Bethlehem as the Divine King; the mystery of the Baptism of Christ, who, whilst standing in the waters of the Jordan, was proclaimed by the Eternal Father as Son of God; and thirdly, the mystery of the divine power of this same Jesus, when he changed the water into wine at the marriage-feast of Cana. - The Epiphany of Our Lord

What can we notice at the Feast of the Epiphany and its' Manifestations:

On this day, the Magi appeared to Jesus barring gifts of gold, frankincense and Myrrh.
On this day Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.
On this day Christ performed his first miracle by changing water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana.

At Christ's baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon Him; at our Baptism the Trinity took its abode in our soul. At His baptism Christ was proclaimed the "Beloved Son" of the Father; at our Baptism we become the adopted sons of God. At Christ's baptism the heavens were opened; at our Baptism heaven was opened to us. At His baptism Jesus prayed; after our Baptism we must pray to avoid actual sin.

  But, did these three Mysteries really take place on this day? Is the Sixth of January the real anniversary of these great events? As the chief object of this work is to assist the devotion of the Faithful, we purposely avoid everything which would savour of critical discussion; and with regard to the present question, we think it enough to state, that Baronius, Suarez, Theophilus Raynaldus, Honorius De Sancta-Maria, Cardinal Gotti, Sandini, Benedict 14th, and an almost endless list of other writers, assert that the Adoration of the Magi happened on this very day. That the Baptism of our Lord, also, happened on the sixth of January, is admitted by the severest historical critics, even by Tillemont himself; and has been denied by only two or three. The precise day of the miracle at the marriage-feast of Cana is far from being as certain as the other two mysteries, though it is impossible to prove that the sixth of January was not the day. For us the children of the Church, it is sufficient that our Holy Mother has assigned the commemoration of these three manifestations for this Feast; we need nothing more to make us rejoice in the triple triumph of the Son of Mary. - The Epiphany of Our Lord


Are there theological explanations for why God allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture?

In Matthew 13, Jesus reveals that it is God's will that some people understand and others be confused:

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of
heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be
given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have,
even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to
them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because
they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people
longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you
hear but did not hear it.

Jesus is here repeating sentiments found in Psalms 115 & 135 and in Isaiah 6.
Furthermore, Proverbs 2 tells us that wisdom only comes to people who make a long study of Scripture.

My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you, 2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding— 3 indeed, if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding, 4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure, 5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God. 6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. 7 He holds success in store for the upright,
he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless, 8 for he guards the course of the just
and protects the way of his faithful ones.
9 Then you will understand what is right and just
and fair—every good path. 10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. 11 Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you.

You have to prove you believe, that God's word matters to you and is precious before such wisdom is entrusted to you. Also, as Jesus said, the Kingdom of Heaven is one that grows like a mustard seed (Matthew 13 & 17). It does not start out full size. You begin with small understanding and if you cultivate it patiently, you end up with great understanding.
Thus the Church is filled with people at every level of understanding, and some charlatans with no understanding.
In the last three years, through an increased thirst for the reading of scripture, I have learned more than in the previous two decades combined. What that tells me is that even after thirty years of being a Christian, I have much to learn. If it is true for individuals like me, it is also true for denominations and other groupings of Christians. In my study of Ecclesiastes 3, I have found two interesting things. First, the 28 times (a time to be born , a time to die, etc) describe the phases we go through as we grow from infancy to adulthood, with the final time being peace. Second, these times also describe the history of Israel and the Church as God's people corporately grow from infancy to maturity. We are still not all the way there, but we will get there.


Why is the feast of the Visitation not transferred when impeded by Corpus Christi?

The Visitation, celebrating the vist of Mary to Elizabeth while expecting Jesus and John respectively, is classed as a feast rather than a solemnity. Only the most important celebrations count as solemnities.

Paragraph 60 of the General Norms for the Liturgical Year http://www.romcal.net/norms.html says what happens when days coincide.

  If several celebrations fall on the same day the one that has the highest rank ... is observed. But a solemnity impeded by a liturgical day that takes precedence over it should be transferred... Other celebrations are omitted that year.

Because the Visitation is not a solemnity it is never transferred. If May 31 is a Sunday,  Ascension Day or Corpus Christi then the celebration of the Visitation is omitted that year.

Other feasts omitted this year include Mary Magdalene (22 July) and Simon and Jude (28 October). These both fall on Sundays.

If a solemnity falls on a Sunday then the solemnity usually takes precedence over the Sunday. The Nativity of John the Baptist is a solemnity on June 24 which this year (2018) is a Sunday. It is not transferred, or omitted,  but will be observed on the Sunday.

However if a solemnity falls on a Sunday in Advent, Lent or Easter season, or a weekday in Holy Week or Easter week, in that case the solemnity is transfered.

In the ordinary general calendar, ignoring local propers, only the Conception of Mary (8 December), St Joseph (19 March) and the Annunciation (25 March) are transferred if they fall on Sundays, usually to the following day, if that is not in Holy Week or Easter Week. Only these are transferred because they are the only ones that can fall on Sundays in Advent, Lent or Easter. In Ireland St Patrick (March 17) is a solemnity and is transferred if it falls on a Sunday.

This year the Annunciation fell on Palm Sunday and so it was transferred 15 days, past  Holy Week and Easter Week to the Monday April 9th.

This link, from OP, corroborates: http://www.universalis.com/general/100/calendar.htm

In 2038 Corpus Christi is on June 24th and so two solemnities would fall on the same weekday. John the Baptist will be transferred to Friday June 25th.

But the Visitation,  being a mere feast and not a solemnity,  is never transferred but simply omitted if impeded by a Sunday or a solemnity.


Though it was historically attributed to Augustine, this letter was actually written by Fulgentius of Ruspe in the early 6th century.  It appears in English in volume 95 of the series The Fathers of the Church, page 59.  The introduction there notes the historical context and briefly discusses the authorship debate.

  In answer to Peter's request [for a basic doctrinal guidebook], Fulgentius discusses the teaching of the Church on the Trinity, the Incarnation, Creation, the Fall, Redemption, the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, and Marriage and Virginity.  While most believe that Fulgentius is the author of the entire work, there have been some who have posited a second author for the second half which constitutes a recapitulation of the first half with each section beginning: "Hold most firmly and never doubt...."

The Latin text is in Migne, Patrologia latina, volume 65, 671ff.


On what do Mormons base their practice of proxy-baptisms on behalf of the dead?

The practice is based on revelations given to the prophet Joseph Smith on the subject, explaining how it should be carried out.  The practice of baptism for the dead is not based directly on 1 Corinthians 15:29, since the biblical verse only alludes to the practice but explains nothing about the details of how it should be performed, but Latter-Day Saints use the verse as evidence that the practice did exist among early Christians.

The revelations explaining the practice are recorded today in various places, but the most important are found in sections 124 and 127 of the Doctrine and Covenants, where it's explained:

that the ordinance belongs to the House of the Lord and is to be performed in temples
that all baptisms must be witnessed and recorded to be valid
that it must be performed by someone with Priesthood authority
and that the practice is related to the concept of "that... whatsoever you bind on earth may be bound in heaven, [and] whatsoever you loose on earth may be loosed in heaven."

That's the basis of official LDS doctrine on the subject.  With regards to non-doctrinal references, several LDS scholars have done a lot of research on the historical basis for baptism (and salvation in general) for the dead, and the findings are interesting: not only did the practice clearly exist, but it just as clearly deviates and fades in people's understanding over time.

In Paul's time, it was familiar and uncontroversial enough to his audience that he saw no need to explain the practice, and was able to use it as a supporting argument in favor of something that his audience did find controversial: the literal resurrection of the body.  (See 1 Corinthians 15 for context.)

Tertullian, who lived a bit more than a century after Paul, knew about the practice:

  But inasmuch as some are also baptized for the dead, we will see whether there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice) with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. Why are they then baptized for the dead, he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptized?

  -- On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 48

However, he did not seem to think that it should be interpreted literally, though he didn't really know what it did mean instead:

  What, asks he, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? Now, never mind that practice, (whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection.

  -- Against Marcion, book 5, chapter 10

The Marcionites, who Tertullian was writing against in the second quote, were a splinter group of Christians whose doctrine about the nature of God had gotten mixed with a bunch of weird Gnostic ideas.  However, they seem to have preserved the doctrine of baptism for the dead intact to this point.  A couple centuries later, however, we find John Chrysostom going after them and he brings up the practice again, which seems to have picked up a strange element of ritual along the way:

  ...will you that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath says in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed.

  -- Homily 40 on First Corinthians

Note the introduction: Chrysostom is explicitly writing this in mockery of the Marcionites, (to "excite much laughter"), before an audience that is potentially unfamiliar with them and their beliefs.  Human nature being what it is, it's possible that his description may have been exaggerated for greater effectiveness. Nevertheless, the example is instructive.

And in 393 AD, not long after Chrysostom, the synod of Hippo came out with a declaration which, among other things, expressly forbade performing the rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper for dead bodies, showing that by that time there were people around--and in large enough numbers to make it worth the notice of an official council--who still had some concept of the original idea, but had apparently lost the notion that it was supposed to be performed by proxy!  Four years later, the Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed the earlier synod's ruling on the subject.

The progression shows that the doctrine was gradually lost over time without apostles receiving revelation from God to keep the church on track, and demonstrated why it was necessary for the doctrine to be restored in purity through revelation and not simply interpreted from sparse Biblical references through the wisdom of man.


Does Jesus's name lose authority in other languages? (Catholic)

On June 29, 2008, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote to the presidents of all conferences of bishops, prohibiting use of the term Yahweh in the liturgy, particularly in hymns and Psalm translations. The same reasons should also apply to Yeshua the Hebrew name of Jesus. Here is an excerpt from that Letter to the Bishops Conferences on The Name of God:

  When in fact St. Paul, with regard to the crucifixion, writes that
  “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is
  above every name” (Phil 2:9), he does not mean any name other than
  “Lord,” for he continues by saying, “and every tongue confess that
  Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:11; cf. Is 42:8: “I am the Lord; that is
  my name.”) The attribution of this title to the risen Christ
  corresponds exactly to the proclamation of his divinity. The title in
  fact becomes interchangeable between the God of Israel and the Messiah
  of the Christian faith, even though it is not in fact one of the
  titles used for the Messiah of Israel. In the strictly theological
  sense, this title is found, for example, already in the first
  canonical Gospel (cf. Mt 1:20: “The angel of the Lord appeared to
  Joseph in a dream.”) One sees it as a rule in Old Testament citations
  in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2:20): “The sun shall be turned into
  darkness. . . before the day of the Lord comes” (Joel 3:4); 1 Peter
  1:25: “The word of the Lord abides for ever” (Is 40:8). However, in
  the properly Christological sense, apart from the text cited of
  Philippians 2:9-11, one can remember Romans 10:9 (“If you confess with
  your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised
  him from the dead, you will be saved”), 1 Corinthians 2:8 (“they would
  not have crucified the Lord of glory”), 1 Corinthians 12:3 (“No one
  can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit”) and the frequent
  formula concerning the Christian who lives “in the Lord” (Rom 16:2; 1
  Cor 7:22, 1 Thes 3:8; etc).

Michael Marlowe has written an excellent article worth reding on the issue of translating the names of God. The last paragraph of it should succinctly summarize his view.

  Other “Sacred Name” cults put great emphasis on the use of the
  tetragrammaton, and also upon the supposed Hebrew form of the name of
  Jesus, for reasons that are not always clear. Some seem to believe
  that particular Hebrew pronunciations of the names for God and Christ
  are a mark of the true Church, and that there is even something wrong
  with using the Graecized and Anglicized form “Jesus” instead of
  “Yeshua,” or “Jehoshua,” “Yahshua,” or whatever pronunciation is being
  put forth as most authentic. The New Testament writers obviously cared
  nothing for all that. It stems from the dilettantish interest in
  Hebrew that one often finds among modern Pentecostals, Adventists, and
  other unorthodox people, who fancy that they are “restoring” something
  essential to true Christianity by using Hebrew names and words which
  the writers of the New Testament did not feel any need to use. These
  Hebrew words are then invested with sectarian significance. We sense
  that their desire to use a different name for God is connected with a
  tendency to reject the concept of God associated with historic
  Christian orthodoxy. Their Yahweh is not our Lord, their Yeshua is not
  our Jesus, their Messiah is not our Christ. Probably an inordinate
  interest in using the tetragrammaton also involves the same
  superstitious thinking that led some people in ancient times to use it
  as a magical word, with the idea that the power of the Deity can be
  summoned by the correct intonation of his name. This does not honor
  God, it spurns the custom of the apostles, and it would probably not
  have been tolerated by them.

  The use of “the Lord” to represent the tetragrammaton will no doubt
  continue to be normal in English Bible versions. The example of the
  apostles, confirmed by two millennia of tradition, is not to be set
  aside lightly. The interests of scholars who wish to call attention to
  the use of the Name are adequately served by the use of the capital
  letters which indicate where the tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew
  text.

After having a thorough study we should learn that using the exact original names of God should not matter to us. The Hebrew Roots movement among Churches is very helpful which remind us of the Jewish roots of Christian religion, however we should be careful not to fall in the trap of sacred name cults. Overemphasizing on certain names of God would lead to similar heresies like "Seventh Day Adventists" who overemphasize certain day of God. May be in the modern world under globalization many non-English speakers easily pronounce George Bush, but it might not have been same in old times. Names when translated to other languages get changed due to linguistic reasons. Here is a similar question addressing-  Why do English translations sometimes, but not always, transform names instead of just transliterating them?


How do Christians reconcile Deuteronomy 13:1-4 with their belief in the abrogation of the Mosaic law?

The historical answer for this, as it applies to Gentiles, was recorded on the book of Acts.

Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel (the Jews), not the Church.

Early on in Church history, the question of whether adherence to Mosaic Law was to be applied to Gentile believers.

  Acts 15

  New International Version (NIV) The Council at Jerusalem

  15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching
  the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom
  taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and
  Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas
  were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem
  to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent
  them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria,
  they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the
  believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed
  by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported
  everything God had done through them.

  5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the
  Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and
  required to keep the law of Moses.”

  6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much
  discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “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. 8 God, who knows
  the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to
  them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and
  them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 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? 11 No! We believe
  it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as
  they are.”

  12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and
  Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the
  Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up.
  “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us
  how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the
  Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as
  it is written:

  16 “‘After this I will return
      and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild,
      and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
      even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’[b]— 18     things known from long ago.[c]

  19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
  for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to
  them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
  immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For
  the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest
  times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

More is available at Grace Communion International.

  Why, then, these four rules? Some scholars say the Jews believed that
  these laws dated back to the time of Noah, and therefore applied to
  all nations. Others say that all four rules were associated with
  idolatry. Some say that these four rules were laws of Moses, and were
  given so Gentiles and Jews could eat together. None of these
  suggestions is fully convincing. (See later for more details.)

  However, the decree makes it clear that Gentiles do not have to be
  circumcised, nor do they have to obey the laws of Moses. They are
  circumcised spiritually, not physically. God never gave those commands
  to the Gentiles.

...

  To summarize: Some men said that Gentiles should be circumcised and
  obey the laws of Moses or else they could not be saved. Not so, said
  the apostles. Gentiles are saved by grace and faith. God is pleased to
  dwell in people who aren’t circumcised and who don’t keep the rituals.
  But since Moses is widely preached, we need to give a decree that
  clearly distinguishes the Christian faith from the Law of Moses. This
  pleased the entire church, so they wrote it in a letter and sent it to
  Antioch, where they “were glad for its encouraging message”


While I don't know of any other attempts to sample the Bible, I don't see any reason another method couldn't be tried.

However, I would be reluctant to endorse another method that focuses on individual verses because context matters a great deal when it comes to exegesis (i.e. interpretation).  Take for instance:

  For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.—Mark 12:25 (ESV)

Taken alone, this presents a host of problems:

It says that people neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection, but in context it's clear that Jesus means there is no marriage relationship between men and women.
While the verse implies we become like angels in the resurrection, that only refers to whether we are married to each other.  Apparently his audience was more familiar with angelology than the theology of resurrection.
This verse implies that we will rise from the dead to heaven, but that idea is contradicted by Revelation 21.

As N. T. Wright says:

  I remember a well-known Preacher saying that he thought a lot of Christians used the Bible as an unsorted edition of Daily Light.  It really ought to be arranged into neat little devotional chunks, but it happens to have got all muddled up.  The same phenomenon occurs, at a rather different level, when People treat it as an unsorted edition of Calvin’s Institutes, the Westminster Confession, the UCCF Basis of Faith, or the so-called ‘Four Spiritual Laws’.  But to treat the Bible like that is, in fact, simply to take your place in a very long tradition of Christians who have tried to make the Bible into a set of abstract truths and rules—abstract devotional doctrinal, or evangelistic snippets here and there.

In some ways, Knuth's sample does encourage us to ask questions of our Bible and seek the bigger picture.  Everyone knows (or thinks they know) why John 3:16 is in our Bible, but what about:

  And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes.—Judges 3:16 (ESV)

or:

  For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?—Hebrews 3:16 (ESV)

Hopefully such verses cause at least some people to hunt down that all-important context.


What is the process of the Church approving a Marian apparition?

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published it guidelines for Marian apparitions in the document entitled : Norms regarding the manner of proceeding in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations

The Vatican's "Norms regarding the manner of proceedings in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations" were approved by Pope Paul VI in 1978. An official English translation was released in 2011.

  I. CRITERIA FOR JUDGING, AT LEAST WITH PROBABILITY, THE CHARACTER OF THE PRESUMED APPARITIONS OR REVELATIONS

  A) Positive Criteria:

  a) Moral certitude, or at least great probability of the existence of the fact, acquired by means of a serious investigation;

  b) Particular circumstances relative to the existence and to the nature of the fact, that is to say:

  Personal qualities of the subject or of the subjects (in particular, psychological equilibrium, honesty and rectitude of moral life, sincerity and habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority, the capacity to return to a normal regimen of a life of faith, etc.);
  As regards revelation: true theological and spiritual doctrine and immune from error;
  Healthy devotion and abundant and constant spiritual fruit (for example, spirit of prayer, conversion, testimonies of charity, etc.).

  B) Negative Criteria:

  a) Manifest error concerning the fact.

  b) Doctrinal errors attributed to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or to some saint in their manifestations, taking into account however the possibility that the subject might have added, even unconsciously, purely human elements or some error of the natural order to an authentic supernatural revelation (cf. Saint Ignatius, Exercises, no. 336).

  c) Evidence of a search for profit or gain strictly connected to the fact.

  d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject or his or her followers when the fact occurred or in connection with it.

  e) Psychological disorder or psychopathic tendencies in the subject, that with certainty influenced on the presumed supernatural fact, or psychosis, collective hysteria or other things of this kind.

  It is to be noted that these criteria, be they positive or negative, are not peremptory but rather indicative, and they should be applied cumulatively or with some mutual convergence.

  II. INTERVENTION OF THE COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

  If, on the occasion of a presumed supernatural fact, there arises in a spontaneous way among the faithful a certain cult or some devotion, the competent Ecclesiastical Authority has the serious duty of looking into it without delay and of diligently watching over it.
  If the faithful request it legitimately (that is, in communion with the Pastors, and not prompted by a sectarian spirit), the competent Ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to permit or promote some form of cult or devotion, if, after the application of the above criteria, nothing stands in the way. They must be careful that the faithful not interpret this practice as approval of the supernatural nature of the fact on the part of the Church (cf. Preliminary note c).
  By reason of its doctrinal and pastoral task, the competent Authority can intervene motu proprio and indeed must do so in grave circumstances, for example in order to correct or prevent abuses in the exercise of cult and devotion, to condemn erroneous doctrine, to avoid the dangers of a false or unseemly mysticism, etc.
  In doubtful cases that clearly do not put the good of the Church at risk, the competent Ecclesiastical Authority is to refrain from any judgment and from any direct action (because it can also happen that, after a certain period of time, the presumed supernatural fact falls into oblivion); it must not however cease from being vigilant by intervening if necessary, with promptness and prudence.

  III. AUTHORITIES COMPETENT TO INTERVENE

  Above all, the duty of vigilance and intervention falls to the Ordinary of the place.
  The regional or national Conference of Bishops can intervene:

  a) If the Ordinary of the place, having done his part, turns to it to judge the matter with greater certainty;

  b) If the matter pertains to the national or regional level; always, however, with the prior consent of the Ordinary of the place.

  The Apostolic See can intervene if asked either by the Ordinary himself, by a qualified group of the faithful, or even directly by reason of the universal jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff (cf. infra, no. IV).

  IV. ON THE INTERVENTION OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION
  FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

  a) The intervention of the Sacred Congregation can be requested either by the Ordinary, after he has done his part, or by a qualified group of the faithful. In this second case, care must be taken that recourse to the Sacred Congregation not be motivated by suspect reasons (for example, in order to compel the Ordinary to modify his own legitimate decisions, to support some sectarian group, etc.).

  b) It is up to the Sacred Congregation to intervene motu proprio in graver cases, especially if the matter affects the larger part of the Church, always after having consulted the Ordinary and even, if the situation requires, the Conference of Bishops.

  It is up to the Sacred Congregation to judge and approve the Ordinary’s way of proceeding or, in so far as it be possible and fitting, to initiate a new examination of the matter, distinct from that undertaken by the Ordinary and carried out either by the Sacred Congregation itself or by a special Commission. - Rome February 25, 1978


During the first century A.D. and the time of Christ, wealthy Jews had adopted the Persian, Chaldean, Arabic and Roman customs of reclining on couches at a low table when holding special suppers or feasts.  The Romans had three couches on three sides of a square table.  The fourth side was left open for servants to assist in serving.  The guests would recline, resting on the left arm with the lower body stretched out.  This is how the woman could take her place behind Jesus to wash his feet (See Luke7:36-38)

With regard to the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-21), the account describes how the rich man was clothed in purple.  He undoubtedly was wealthy enough to entertain lavishly and so his guests would no doubt recline on couches around a low table.  Crumbs will fall from a low tale to the floor.

The first link describes how Jews adopted the eating styles and customs of other nations and the second link gives an illustration of Jesus and his disciples reclining on couches round a low table.

https://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=39&sub=477&cat_name=Manners+%26+Customs&subcat_name=Eating+Customs

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=eating+furniture+Romans+Jews+first+century+AD&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=JqpELiIlU-YSRM%253A%252CiVgZBhxN6zRmJM%252C_&usg=__LdX-O-MLSJ6PrbqIEe55vX_0YHU%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0-tbG_ebbAhVNalAKHRm9AKgQ9QEIfDAI#imgrc=QjfZcLHrWGFzzM:

P.S. I did not downvote your question.


Paul does say that "the whole creation" (including animals, presumably) suffers because of the fall:

  For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.—Romans 8:19-22 (ESV)

Francis of Assisi is famous for preaching to animals.  Whether or not this is apocryphal, it illustrates his concern for non-human life.  Wikipedia also notes:

  Francis preached the teaching of the Catholic Church, that the world was created good and beautiful by God but suffers a need for redemption because of the primordial sin of man. He preached to man and beast the universal ability and duty of all creatures to praise God (a common theme in the Psalms) and the duty of men to protect and enjoy nature as both the stewards of God's creation and as creatures ourselves.

The final words of God in Jonah express compassion for both Nineveh and its cattle.

On the other hand, humanity is clearly distinct from the rest of creation:

  Then 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 birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

  —Genesis 1:26-27 (ESV)

It would be a mistake equate the effects of sin on animals with their effect on humanity.  It's also clear that creation will be relieved of its curse when we take on our rightful place as children of God.

Summary

The Bible, early Christians and many doctrinal frameworks assert creation has suffered as a result of original sin.  But I don't know of any Christian group that puts the effects of the curse on animals at the same level as the curse upon humanity.


How many modern day pages were lost by Martin Harris?

Taking the liberty of assuming that the "116 lost pages" were similar in size and content to what was presented to the publisher for printing, I think we can uncover a reasonable estimate.

The Printer's Manuscript is the earliest complete pre-publication document we have of the original translation.  Like the Original Manuscript, it was written by hand and had the addition of punctuation.  While the scribes were different, it is probably reasonable to assume that the content would be reasonably similar overall.

This table provides a correlation to the current publication and the Printer's Manuscript.  According to the table, 116 pages would cover the extant from 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon.

In narrow columns, new chapter divisions, cross references, footnotes, etc., the "116 lost pages" would be about 144 pages of the current typed version, or about 21% of the total translated pages.

In regards to the amount of content lost, the "116 lost pages" contained the "Book of Lehi" and covered—according to the Words of Mormon—the same time period as the books from 1 Nephi to the Omni.  Nephi states some of the things previously recorded, perhaps in the Book of Lehi, which were intentionally left out of his personal account.


What exactly does one do in the Sabbath?

Isalah 58:13

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

this verse sheds a little light on how to obey the commandment. according to him, hanging out with friends is clearly not recommended. then what remains? even “sleeping” is a verb, that is, an action that formally may be prohibited, which is absurd! There is a text, also, which says that priests in the temple violate the Sabbath by working, but it is possible for them. it seems to me that the only right option is to turn to the sources in the book of Genesis, it was there that the Sabbath was first mentioned. God rejoiced at everything that, according to the book, he did in 6 days, enjoyed it. According to this, it seems logical to me to assume that the actions of "rejoicing", "praying", "serving others" are the right way to fulfill the commandment.


Can you re-enter the catholic church after leaving?

I believe I have the confirmation letter stating that I left the church....

This is a serious issue. From what you say, I am assuming that you have formally defected from the Catholic Church. By law, this act would have been entered in your baptismal register.Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica If this is true, then just going to confession would not be sufficient.

  I guess I got wiped-out from the registers.

This is impossible. They will still have your records. Please check with them. The actual details cannot be deleted from the Register. (Remembering the date of your baptism will help you a lot in rejoining the church)

  Can I re-join the catholic church after leaving it?

Yes you can. But to know how to do this you have to contact your parish priest. Preferably the one at the parish where you got baptized. The rules change from diocese to diocese.

If you meet the conditions of excommunication (automatic or otherwise - ie., apostasy, heresy, or schism, or some combination of those), then you would also need to have the excommunication remitted. But remember that even an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic. You really need to talk to your parish priest about this.

But you don't have to go thru RCIA and you don't have to be baptized again.

  Do I still have the right to a catholic wedding & funeral in the future?

If you re-join, you will have those rights. But make sure that you have set the records straight and "regularize" your status with the Church. The records in your baptismal register should be amended to note your return.

  How does God see me after leaving the catholic church?

You are still a child of God. God still loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. Never forget the Father figure in the parable of prodigal son:

    But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. - Luke 15:20

It is the father who saw the son first. Son was just walking, but the father ran towards his son with compassion for him.

[P.S: By the changes which came into effect by the motu proprio Omnium in mentem dated 26 October 2009, it is no longer possible to attempt a formal defection. But public defection (defected notoriously) is still possible]


Why do some Christians bowdlerise words like "God", writing "G-d" instead?

In Christianity there are hundreds of denominations and subgroups of Baptist, Pentacostal,    Methodist, Lutheran, Church of Christ, Church of God- Cleveland, vs Church of God Holiness, and countless splits over the centuries, so it's impossible to know all the subtle teachings.
I have been in ministry in 3 countries - USA and 2 in Europe and and lived in 11 states, and while I'm familiar with this practice, it's not the official teaching or practice of any Christian denomination that I know of.
I'm not disputing that some Christians do this, but the point is that it is usually some variation of Hebrew Roots movement, or Messianic Jewish groups, and like the practice of snake handling, it is a fringe practice and would be a fraction of 1%, and is not representative of mainstream Protestant Christianity.
To answer your question - let's assume there is a branch of Hebrew Roots Movement that uses this, or some other offshoot fundamentalist sect that teaches this. The origin of this practice comes from the Jewish concept that the name of God is so holy that you can't utter it - This was specifically for the special name of God YHWH, which is transliterated as Yahweh.
This was extended from not pronouncing this sacred name of God, to not writing it out fully.
This was not a strict command in the Torah that you can't write or say God's name, even for Jews, [5 books of the Law] nor is it in the Old Testament. It came about by Jewish tradition.
As you indicate, there are many other names for God in both the Old and New Testament, and these names indicate his special attributes and character- Elohim, Adonai, Lord, Christ, Alpha and Omega, the Great I AM, Kinsman Redeemer, Everlasting Father, Jesus, Emmanuel, El Shaddai, Yeshua Ha mashiach and many others.
If God didn't want us to say or write God's name, then Jesus would not have used God's name in the Model Prayer, when he taught the disciples how to pray, "Our Father, who art in Heavean, hallowed/holy is your name."
Also, the fact that we have dozens of names all through the Bible, it's very inconsistent and legalistic to arbitrarily choose one to write with only consonants like G-d.


Are there any biblical accounts of a women performing a miracle from God?

I'm assuming this isn't quite what you're looking for, but it would feel wrong to not mention this important miracle:

A virgin woman gave birth. Matthew 1:23-25.

It could probably be argued that everything Jesus Christ did in his life is "a miracle from God through a woman". Without Mary miraculously giving Jesus Christ the gift of life, he wouldn't have had a life to sacrifice - which would have made the New Testament a much shorter book.


We should not so much look for what the disciples were afraid of, but look at how the story in Mark's Gospel unfolds and why the disciples are being described as afraid, without apparent reason. David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie say in Mark as Story, page 1,  that the composer of Mark's Gospel has used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the characters and the conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generate certain insights and responses in the audience.

In the case of this passage, the author is building suspense in preparation for the following verses, in which Jesus foretells his crucifixion:

  Mark 10:33-34: Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.


From reformed perspective, what does the oil in the foolish virgin's lamp represent?

John Calvin in his commentary on Matthew encourages us to not get bogged down in the minutia of the parables. However, he essentially equates the oil to zeal.

  Some people give themselves a good deal of uneasiness about the lamps, the vessels, and the oil; but the plain and natural meaning of the whole is, that it is not enough to have ardent zeal for a short time, if we have not also a constancy that never tires. And Christ employs a very appropriate parable to express this. A little before, he had exhorted the disciples, that as they had a journey to perform through dark and dreary places, they should provide themselves with lamps; but as the wick of the lamp, if it be not supplied with oil, gradually dries up, and loses its brightness, Christ now says, that believers need to have incessant supplies of courage, to support the flame which is kindled in their hearts, otherwise their zeal will fail ere they have completed the journey.


Has the Catholic Church or any large Christian organization ever had a policy of paying people to not have abortions?

This takes the long route to coming to the actual answer. Unfortunately, the ultimate answer is purely speculative.  Whether any given entity would do something is all speculative compared to asking whether a given entity has done that thing.  The best we can do is look at what has been done, what has been said, and use logic applied to the complexity and uncertainty of human behavior, and say, "based on the evidence this is the most likely answer."  That's not an approach that will give us "the correct" answer, which is the typical StackExchange requirement, but I'll give it a go.

My approach will be to document what has been or is being done and draw the most likely conclusion based on that evidence.

Establishing an answer to whether the desire exists.

Evidence 1: Many Churches do pay for programs that help women in this situation. My own Church, with less than fifty adults old enough to work and earn money to give, partners with other area Churches to support a local organization called the Agape Center.

The Agape Center is founded, staffed, and financed by other like-minded Churches with no aid from anyone other than the members of these Churches.  In essence, it is an extension of the Church for the Churches that have banded together to create this center.

The center offers information, counseling, support, and care for women with "crisis" pregnancies. We wish we could provide the type of financial aid you reference. We simply don't have the financial resources to do so, but we would if we could.

And we are not alone. Many Churches have similar outreaches. Some are better funded and are able to do more.

I honestly don't know of any Church or Church organization that wouldn't foot the bill to save lives, if it had the resources.  I can't imagine a Church that would be so cold to those in need. It goes against basic, near-universal Christian principles of love and recognizing the value of life.

LDS, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, and many other Churches I've been involved with, attended, or otherwise dealt with have all had programs to help unfortunate women in this situation, and every single one would love to be able to do more.

Summing up the above, most Churches have a strong desire to do what they can to prevent and end abortions, and are willing to contribute financially.

The logical conclusion is, if they thought it were feasible I'm sure plenty of Churches would do it.

But that's pure speculation. So I'm marking this as a community wiki, expecting it to be deleted.


There's not much consensus on this. As with all answers on this site dealing with the subject of Creationism, there's a wide array of opinion on the subject.

Reading the text, in and of itself, without any external verses, interpretation, or debate over scientific validity of the claim certainly makes it appear as if Adam and Eve weren't created to be immortal, but if they'd eaten of the tree of life, they'd have gained immortality.

The apparent conflict with Romans 5:12 can likewise be taken in different ways.  It could be taken as an outright conflict (not my belief), or it could be that the word "death" is used as a metaphor.  "Death" is often taken to mean the judgment of God, or Hell in Scripture.

Based on the context of Romans 5, this seems the most likely explanation to me, as Paul is speaking of salvation, which has to do with eternal life, not physical life.

Comparative verse:

  Romans 6:23 (KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Tolerant of what? "Tolerance" is one of those words that people overuse yet never define. It generally carries the assumption that a person is only as good/strong/important as his ideas - if you reject a person's idea, you must be rejecting that person as well.

  You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs... will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant"...

"You believe that you know the truth and that this truth isn't happy for all people, therefore you hate some people." This is an emotional argument with no grounding in rationality. (He doesn't seem to realize that any person who accuses another of intolerance, is by definition, the pot calling the kettle black.)

Christianity has always accepted people without tolerating their sins. All people, whether Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc, are created in the image of God Almighty. To hate a person is to hate the One who made him (1 John 4:20). "Tolerance" is a cheap substitute for the love we (Christians) have been called to show all people.