Does God will the diversity of religion?

No, the diversity of sects is due to the sin of man.

  2 Peter 2:1But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition (αιρέσεις απωλείας) [lit. "heresies of perdition", false religions] and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

All false religions begin with false teachings. For example: Judaism denies Christ is the Messias. Islam denies Christ's divinity and thus also the Trinity. Protestantism denies the visibility of the Church, the ministerial priesthood, the transubstantiation, and that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is truly a propitiatory sacrifice.

God does not will that believers mingle with non-believers:

  2 Cor 6:14-16Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: I will dwell in them and walk among them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.

See also "The Church's Constant Teaching on our dealings with Non-Catholics."

Religious indifferentism and liberty of conscience is a heresy. Bl. Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors:

  Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.


Why do Catholic persons not partake of mass every single day?

If the Douay Rheims bible states this for Matthew 6:11 : “Give us this day our super-substantial bread.” Why is it, therefore, that Catholics not attend Mass every day?
The short answer is that many choose not to or can not do so for a variety of reasons.
Daily Mass is attended out of devotion and piety. There is no official obligation on the part of the Church to go to Mass everyday of the week.
For myself, the number one reason, why I can not get to daily Mass is work. But some may ask: Surely there would be enough time after work? Well not true! There are three parishes in my area. Daily
Mass is at 8:00 AM at all three and that corresponds with the middle of my shift!
No pope has interpreted this passage as solely meaning the Eucharist, but it may well be applied to the Eucharist. According to Catholicism it can  be applied to another interpretation as well:  our daily necessities or our daily Eucharist.

Our Supersubstantial Bread
The Lord has left us a mystery to contemplate.  It is right there in the middle of the “Our Father” when Jesus teaches us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.” (Mt. 6:11) This is generally recognized to mean pray for our basic daily necessities. (CCC 2837)  This is true.  Yet, hidden in the mundane and seemingly redundant word “daily” is the veiled, mysterious Greek word epiousios (επιούσιος).  Epiousios is a unique word, sacramental-like in nature, a visible sign of a hidden reality.  Epiousios occurs nowhere else in the Greek Bible except in the same Our Father passage in Luke 11:3 and the Apostle’s Didache.  In fact, epiousios is not found anywhere else at all in Greek literature.  The only recorded reference to epiousios, ever, is Jesus’ prayer.
As the early Church Father and master of the Greek language Origen (d. 254 AD) concludes, epiousios was “invented by the Evangelists.”  The millennia have bore out his assertion that epiousios was a new word, a neologism of uncertain etymology.  The usual Greek word for “daily,” hemera, is, after all, used this elsewhere in the New Testament, but not in this instance.  Why did St. Matthew and St. Luke feel compelled to create a new Greek word to accurately reflect the words of Jesus?  They most likely had to use a new word to faithfully translate a novel idea or a unique Aramaic word that Jesus used in His prayer.  What was Jesus’ new idea?  Although there are multiple levels of meanings to epiousios, Jesus is making a clear allusion to the Eucharist.  “Our daily bread” is one translation of a word that goes far above our basic needs for sustenance, and invokes our supernatural needs.
St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible.  When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.”  Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.”  The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.”  When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread.  This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible.  Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837)  In his commentary on St. Matthew’s gospel, St. Jerome states this directly: “We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.”
St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible.  When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.” The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.”  When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread. This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837) In his commentary on St. Matthew’s gospel, St. Jerome states this directly: “We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.”
St. Jerome also suggests that the Hebrew word for epiousios was the word maar meaning “for tomorrow,” invoking an eschatological interpretation of epiousios. In this sense, we are praying “this day” for our bread “for tomorrow,” or our future bread.  We are petitioning God for tomorrow’s future bread today. Pope Benedict reflects on this “petition for an anticipation for the world to come, asking the Lord to give already ‘today’ the future bread, the bread of the new world – Himself.”  This again has Eucharistic overtones, as the Catechism states, “the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come.” (CCC 2837)
This eschatological interpretation is also borne out in the parable for the “coming day’s bread,” that Jesus teaches immediately following the Our Father. In Luke 11:5-8, Jesus tells the story of a man, who at “midnight” asks a friend to lend him three loaves of bread, as another friend of his has arrived from a journey and he has nothing to give him. As scholars have noted, there is the crucial matter of timing in this parable.  In the morning the man can provide an abundance of food and bread for his guest, but at midnight he has nothing.  This is an allusion to the fact that in the coming day of the Lord in heaven we will have a superabundance to meet our every need, both material and spiritual. But, as of yet, in this temporal life, a constant need remains. - Our Supersubstantial Bread

The Church has never obliged the faithful to go Mass everyday. This would cause undue hardship on many. Historically, this would have been impossible for those working in agriculture in days prior to modern machines.
Would one travel x miles to Mass and leave the fields or livestock unattended?
In towns and cities, it would be more possible to attend daily Mass. But then, this too is thought as by being out of devotion and not out of obligation.
So, why do Catholic persons not partake of mass every single day?

Sometimes the distance to Mass is very great and not all Catholics have vehicles.
Some Catholics are in prison or doing military service for their country.
Work schedules for many conflict with Mass times, especially the further away from cities one dwells in.
Daily Mass has never been an obligation for the faithful. Many do go to daily Mass.


Do Mormons believe that Jesus was not begotten by Holy Spirit but by Adam?

No, Mormons do not believe that.

  The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's "bare mention" was "without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth." Only the scripture, the "accepted word of God," is the Church's standard.

  —Joseph F. Smith, letter to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897, HDC.

The best we can figure, as far as I know, is that Brigham Young was misquoted or, at least, it was entirely his opinion. Today the LDS Church refutes it as false doctrine.


Trouble finding these quotes from St. John Chrysostom

The source for the first quotation is the Chrysostom's 14th homily on St. John's Gospel. I've bolded and italicized the part of which the Latin above is a gloss.

  After having said, Of His fullness have all we received, he adds, and grace for grace. For by grace the Jews were saved: I chose you, says God, not because you were many in number, but because of your fathers. Deuteronomy 7:7, Septuagint If now they were chosen by God not for their own good deeds, it is manifest that by grace they obtained this honor. And we too all are saved by grace, but not in like manner; not for the same objects, but for objects much greater and higher. The grace then that is with us is not like theirs. For not only was pardon of sins given to us, (since this we have in common with them, for all have sinned,) but righteousness also, and sanctification, and sonship, and the gift of the Spirit far more glorious and more abundant. By this grace we have become the beloved of God, no longer as servants, but as sons and friends. Wherefore he says, grace for grace. Since even the things of the law were of grace, and the very fact of man being created from nothing, (for we did not receive this as a recompense for past good deeds, how could we, when we even were not? But from God who is ever the first to bestow His benefits,) and not only that we were created from nothing, but that when created, we straightway learned what we must and what we must not do, and that we received this law in our very nature, and that our Creator entrusted to us the impartial rule of conscience, these I say, are proofs of the greatest grace and unspeakable lovingkindness. And the recovery of this law after it had become corrupt, by means of the written (Law), this too was the work of grace. For what might have been expected to follow was, that they who falsified the law once given should suffer correction and punishments; but what actually took place was not this, but, on the contrary, an amending of our nature, and pardon, not of debt, but given through mercy and grace. For to show that it was of grace and mercy, hear what David says; The Lord executes righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed; He made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel Psalm 103:6-7: and again; Good and upright is the Lord, therefore will He give laws to them that are in the way. Psalm 25:8

I found this, because the same Latin passage is quoted in St. Albert the Great's Commentary on the Sentences, but with the citation pointing to Chyrsostom's 14th homily. Francisco Suarez (who lived 1548-1617) gives the same erroneous citation to the 13th homily as St. Alphonsus (lived 1696–1787) did, so we might hypothesize that St. Alphonsus was not looking at the original himself, but at Suarez or another author who also quoted Chrysostom with the incorrect citation.


Does Irenaeus indicate that people were raised from the dead in the 2nd century?

Christians from both sides of the continuation of spiritual gifts debate understand Irenaeus's quote here more charitably than Gibbon, and do not see it as evidence that people were being raised from the dead in the late 2nd century.  I'll refer to the writings of cessationist B. B. Warfield and charismatic Ronald A. N. Kydd.

Warfield addresses Gibbon directly and agrees with his assessment of the period, saying "Irenaeus alone of all the writers of this period speaks of raisings of the dead at all."  Eusebius mentions one raising told by Papias from the apostolic age, but his overall work indicates the scarcity of such events:

  It is very clear that Eusebius was not familiar with raisings from the dead in his own day, and also that Papias was not familiar with them in his day; and it is equally clear that Eusebius did not know of numerous instances of such a transaction having been recorded as occurring in the course of the early history of the church, which history he was in the act of transcribing. (14)

Warfield cites the writings of several other early authors, such as Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian.  The latter in particular, in On Modesty, XXI, contrasts the spiritual powers of the apostles from their successors, saying that the former "raised the dead."  Warfield concludes:

  It is an understatement to say that Irenaeus's contemporaries were unaware that the dead were being raised in their day.  What they say amounts to testimony that they were not being raised. (14)

So why, then, does Irenaeus say this?  Kydd defends Irenaeus as a scholar, citing the vindication of his writings on Gnosticism following the discovery of the Gnostic Nag Hammadi documents in the 1940s.  And based on their analysis of the passage, Kydd and Warfield hold that Irenaeus is actually refering to the apostolic-era raisings of the dead, not ones happening in his own day. Warfield writes:

  Irenaeus throws the raisings from the dead well into the past.  This is made evident not only from the past tenses employed, which are markedly contrasted with the present tenses used in the rest of the passage, but also from the statement that those who were thus raised had lived after their resuscitation a considerable number of years, which shows that recent resuscitations are not in view. (242)

Warfield also notes the phrase, "as we said," which he argues points back to Irenaeus's mention of raisings from the dead in the apostolic era (5.7.2), not recent instances.  Kydd summarizes:

  Warfield concludes by saying that "there is no reason why the cases he [Irenaeus] has in mind may not have occurred during the lifetime of the Apostles or of Apostolic men," and I think he is right. (45)

Eusebius, Church History, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 1
Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, 43–45
Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, "The Cessation of the Charismata," 11–16, 241ff.


Why are relics that can perform miracles not idols?

Fr. Ronald Knox (a good guy to read if you're a fan of Chesterton) wrote:

  In a word, we are treating material objects and vocal formulas as the occasions upon which God himself will see fit to bestow a blessing upon us, in answer to the prayers offered when the object was hallowed, or the formula instituted. An exception must, of course, be made in favour of spots which are kept sacred by historical memories, or of relics which belonged to the saints; here our appeal for help is grounded, not upon the places themselves but upon the events which happened there, not upon the relics themselves but on the
  merits of the saints who have left them to us. And if, here and there, a taint of superstition (properly so called) infects the devotion of ill-instructed souls the Church will rather smile at their folly than hold up reproving hands; she knows how to deal with children.

  Fr. Ronald Knox - THE BELIEF OF CATHOLICS

So, in a sense a relic is like a materialized prayer.  They're pointers to spiritual realities.  I can't remember if you're a programmer by nature held over from Stackoverflow, but I think a programming analogy is useful.

If there's a generic thing called a prayer and it can manifest itself in many ways; through utterances (arbitrary or wrote), thoughts, good deeds, even instinctual actions (as a virtuous person might do who lays down their life for a friend).  Then there's no reason a prayer cannot manifest itself through scapulars, crucifixes, relics, etc...

The Encyclopedia of Catholic History says that the two councils which talked about relics were the Second Council of Nicea. Your question was met head on, but with little explanation except:

  How much more is it necessary that in the churches of Christ our God, the image of God our Saviour and of his spotless Mother and of all the holy and blessed fathers and ascetics should be painted? Even as also St. Basil says: "Writers and painters set forth the great deeds of war; the one by word, the other by their pencils; and each stirs many to courage." And again the same author "How much pains have you ever taken that you might find one of the Saints who was willing to be your importunate intercessor to the Lord?" And Chrysostom says, "The charity of the Saints is not diminished by their death, nor does it come to an end with their exit from life, but after their death they are still more powerful than when they were alive"

The second council is the mysterious council of Constantinople in 1084 that I can find nearly no information on.

It's a dogma that the blessing of God stays with things and places, so one ought to take it on faith.

  the Council of Trent (1563) defended invoking the prayers of the saints and venerating their relics and burial places.

    The sacred bodies of the holy martyrs and of the other saints living with Christ, which have been living members of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit and which are destined to be raised and glorified by Him unto life eternal, should also be venerated by the faithful. Through them, many benefits are granted to men by God.

  Fr. William Saunders - WHY DO WE VENERATE RELICS? - EWTN

Elijah and Elisha (according to the Golden book versions at least), told the people who were healed through their intercession (Naaman and "the prayed for boy") that it was God who worked the miracle.  A right understanding of relics would be that God is working the miracle.

My kids said the same thing when we were reading a few days ago about the Snake that God told Moses to raise up in the desert, but the explanation given (in the Catholic children's bible) is that's a type for Christ crucified.

Furthermore, relics are often kept in a place that requires a pilgrimage to go to.  Canon law stipulates that relics cannot be transferred permanently to a new home without consent of from Rome.

  Relics of great significance and other relics honored with great reverence by the people cannot be alienated validly in any manner or transferred permanently without the permission of the Apostolic See.

So either you need to make a pilgrimage to see them, or they do (as was the case recently when we viewed the relics of St. Maria Goretti that toured America last year)

The pilgrimage itself, acknowledged throughout the history of Christendom, is a powerful prayer.  It's like the 4 men who lowered their friend in through the roof to be healed by Jesus, it's a lot of work to get there.  But by their faith they're healed.

In summary, relics are sacramentals (tactile reminders of invisible realities) that are concrete prayers tied to times and events in history where God's grace was most evident.

TL;DR;

  Anathema to those who dare to say that the Catholic Church has at any time sanctioned idols.

  Second Council of Nicæa


Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called 'synoptic' gospels?

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very similar: they record many of the same miracle stories, parables, and sermons. John by contrast has fewer miracles (and most are unique), no parables at all, and is the only Gospel to record Jesus's teaching on the nature of God at the Last Supper (ch. 13-17). Synoptic comes from the Greek for "see together" because they tell Jesus's story in the same way.


According to the Catholic Church, is there any supernatural (non-physical, non-mathematical, non-scientific) part of a human being?

The answer can be found here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; in particular, it says:

  366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

This paragraph makes pretty clear that the Catholic Church says there is a part of man that is not “tangible” or “mathematical”.

The other paragraphs in this sections explain it a little better and I think can provide an answer to your other doubts.


What is the Biblical basis against the existence of one "ideal" spouse for each person?

Finding the Right Spouse Not Really Biblical

The history of marriage in the Bible seems to provide little basis for the idea that we must find "the one right person in the entire world."  Abraham remarried after Sarah died and, as the saying goes, "had many sons".  Abraham's servant chose a bride for Isaac, so Isaac certainly had no opportunity to find the right one for him.  Jacob actually chose one and ended up getting the one he wanted and another one he didn't want (or expect).

A problem with the idea of "the one right person in the entire world" is that more often than we would like, tragedy strikes and a spouse dies.  That leads to the surviving spouse finding another "one right person in the entire world," who presumably was not the "one right person in the entire world" while the other "one right person in the world" was living.

Finding the Right Kind of Person

There is, however, good reason to seek "the right kind" of spouse.  The passage about being "equally yoked" is often quoted to support the idea that believer should not marry unbelievers.  It would seem, however, that the verse is broader than marriage and broader than just believer to unbeliever.  A large discrepancy in the commitment level of two people to Christ could certainly be problematic.  One person who is deeply committed to Christ could probably experience a lot of grief if the spouse prioritizes other things over church and such things as that.

  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has
  righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with
  darkness?  2 Corinthians 6:14 ESV

So, it is wise to look for a godly person with integrity and honor who is emotionally healthy, not selfish, who you would be friends with even if you weren't married to them.

Be the Right Person

The Bible actually gives a lot of instructions, not about finding the right spouse, but about being the right spouse.  Husbands are commanded to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ modeled in His sacrifice for the church.  Wives are urged to respect their husbands.

  25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave
  himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her
  by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the
  church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such
  thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same
  way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves
  his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but
  nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because
  we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father
  and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one
  flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to
  Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife
  as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.  Ephesians 5:25-33 ESV

We are not accountable for the life and actions of others, but we are, indeed, accountable for our own lives and actions.  So, we are responsible to become the person God calls us to be.

We should each seek to become a caring, servant-minded, giving, humble, honorable, faithful, godly person of integrity and honor--not just try to find someone like that to marry who then has to put up with us for the rest of their lives.


God's presence in the temple during Jesus' earthly ministry

This is a facinating question, but let's start with some context about Matthew 23.  Jesus has pretty much had it with the Pharisees, their hypocrisy, and their willfully ignoring all the signs of His coming.  So Jesus is chastising them.  This one particular accusation is Matthew 23:16-22.  Here it is (KJV):

  Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the
  temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the
  temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is
  greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

  And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever
  sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and
  blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth
  the gift?

  Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all
  things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by
  it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by
  heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth
  thereon.

Jesus is not declaring that God's Presence literally dwells within "that temple over there."  He's making a really important point.  Let me shink that down a bit to make the point more visible.

  ...Ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it
  is nothing.... [When, in reality,] whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it,
  and by him that dwelleth therein....

What is His point?  That the Jewish leadership had lost their way, declaring implicitly that Jehovah no longer mattered when swearing oaths in the temple, but He should!  (When you simplify the Lord's elegant chastizement, it's fairly easy to see why He was so frustrated, possibly even angry.  The Pharasees had really missed the point of the faith!)

Christianity fundamentally believes that the ancient Hebrews had fallen into apostasy.  This is supported by statements such as 1 Sam 8:6-7...

  ...For they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I
  should not reign over them.

And there is perhaps no stronger statement against the general righteousness of the Jews than Jehovah's commandment to Jeremiah (which He says several times throughout the book of Jeremiah).  From Jeremiah 7:8-16 we read:

  Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor
  prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear
  thee.

Can you imagine a chosen people so out of touch with God that He would command His own prophet not to pray for them?  It is clear that the Chosen People drove the spirit of God from their temple long before Jesus walked the earth.  The people should have been able to find the spirit of God in their temple --- but they couldn't, due in no small part to Jewish leadership.  This is one reason why the ancient Apostles taught so often that through sanctification the spirit of God will dwell within us ... because the temples of the day were no longer sanctified.

So, short answer to your question: Jesus was chastizing the Pharisees for pushing the people away from their God, the spirit of Whom should have been found in the temple, but because of wickedness, could no longer be found.

(BTW, you should go read the accepted answer to the question @bradimus pointed to.  It's good, and covers a perspective I do not cover here.)


1 John is really the 'discernment' Epistle showing many ways that false teachers can be identified.  The main thing is to look at the life and doctrine of a teacher to ensure they stick to the basic Christ centred ideas and life of love. The basic rules are:
False teachers do not love Christians and they live in wickedness. Real Christians know how sinful they are, confess their daily sins, but do not love the world. Real Christians love God, as proven in their love of those who believe in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, that is God's children.

If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a
liar and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:10)

The Lord's daily prayer included 'forgive us our sins' (Math 6:12). Every Christian knows that they sin every day because nobody loves God with all the heart, soul and mind, which is the greatest command. (Math 22:37)

Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. (1 John 2:4)

Some may seem correct in doctrine, but live in open sin. For example they may say it is alright to commit adultery, practice homosexuality, or the worship of someone other than God, which is idolatry, etc. Such a person is like the Devil appearing as an angel in word, but betrayed in action.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. (1 John 2:9)

A Christian cannot hate another person in the intense way that this implies. It is impossible for a born again; regenerate should to be filled with hate because God’s Spirit remains in them. This especially holds true for our attitudes towards any who belie in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. This is the ‘brother or sister’ being mentioned. Therefore churches and cults, that consider their denomination as the only group that will be saved, are built upon false teachers. Paul says; let such teachers be ‘accursed’ even if they were a Pope, Saint, Apostle, or even an Angel. (Gal 1:8) Anyone who genuinely believes in Christ, proven by their love of all the others who also believe, will have eternal life. (John 3:16, 1 John 5:11-13)

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. (1 John 2:15)

Anyone who puts money, sex, career, worldly status, or religious status before the gospel loves the world and is not a Christian.  (1 John 2:16)

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

This cuts to the spirit of all true Christians. The Holy Spirit is a loving Spirit so if that Spirit is within a soul, that soul will love others.  When somebody loves us we can tell. Not only does this help us discern our own attitudes but if somebody seems right in doctrine but is always angry, impatient, not kind, jealous of others, bragging all the time, always argumentative, selfish, or any other non-loving characteristic, the Bible seems to say we should switch channels and listen to someone else. They are clanging gongs (1 Cor Ch 13)

False teachers deny the incarnation of Christ in one way or another. They either deny the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, or they deny the incarnation, or atoning sacrifice of sin on the cross. They might deny the whole gospel by thinking their good works will save them rather than Christ.  Real Christians believe that God assumed human nature in Christ, and that by faith in Christ alone we have eternal life.

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (1 John 4:2)

The gospel hinges on believing that the eternal Son of God took on human nature to offer his soul and body for the punishment of your sin, and my sin. In fact faith is this one statement determines who Christians are and who liars are.

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:11–13)

A Christian can be sure they have eternal life by relying on the death of Christ for their forgiveness. If they rely on their own works by being a good moral person, or being baptised into a specific church, they may still yet go to hell.

In the end, discernment is easy for those who have the Holy Spirit. Jesus said:

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)

The Bible lists the fruit of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal 5:22) The nature of fruit corresponds to the type of tree from which it grows, and all Christian have been engrafted into Christ as the root, who’s life is our sap and nutrient. Naturally this fruit is not just the attitude but also the doctrine of justification in Christ by faith apart from the works of the law, as is the argument of the entire Bible.


Why did the Presbyterian Church of Korea split in 1959?

I realise you asked this question five years ago, and an answer may no longer be needed, but I was curious, so here is a summary of what I found, starting with an introduction:

The Presbyterian Church of Korea (PCK) is based in Seoul, South Korea. However, its inception took place in Hwanghae Province, current North Korea. There, Sang-Ryun Suh founded the first Protestant church of Korea, the Sorae Church in 1884...  Soon after the liberation from Japanese Occupation, the General Assembly experienced divisions of the “Koshin” group in 1951, “Kijang” group in 1953 and the “Hapdong” group in 1959 due to issues such as the forced Japanese shrine worship and related theological disputes, and the General Assembly re-identified itself since then with the current name, “The Presbyterian Church of Korea”, as the “Tonghap” group. Source: https://www.cwmission.org/member-church-feature-presbyterian-church-of-korea-pck/

From there I found a paper entitled ‘Unity and catholicity in the Korean Presbyterian Church: An ecumenical Reformed assessment’ which delves into the history of the PCK and the disunity that resulted in three major schisms (1952, 1953 and 1959).  These schisms arose after the Japanese annexation (1910-1945), and during and after the Korean Civil War (1950-1953).
I will partially quote from the paper, in the hope that is allowed.  I went to the “How to cite this article” link, but couldn’t understand what I was supposed to do, so here is the link to the paper that I refer to:  http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052016000100032

One socio-political factor that played an important role in the disunity in the PCK was the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910 and subsequent forced Shinto worship, with a meticulous plan. Regardless of opposition by most pastors of the PCK, Japan finally compelled the PCK to practise Shinto worship.

One element of conflict in the PCK at that time was theological education. After the closure of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary in 1938 due to Shintoism, the Chosun Theological Seminary was founded in 1940 by Korean pastors who did not take Shintoism seriously, but actively helped the Japanese policy and were theologically liberal, denying the infallibility of the Bible in the conservatives' eyes. After liberation the Chosun Seminary was the only theological seminary and was approved by the GA in 1946. An example that reflects the seriousness of liberal theology in the Chosun Seminary was an incident where 51 students opposed its liberal teaching and appealed to the GA. As a result of that incident, Pastor Han Sang Dong, who was a central figure among the released pastors and their followers, opened a new theological seminary, the Korea Theological Seminary, in the hope of restoring and purifying the PCK through teaching pastoral candidates conservative orthodox theology.

In 1959 the PCK experienced a devastating schism that tore it into two halves of almost the same size, between the party advocating for the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the anti-WCC (or National Association of Evangelicals) party. This schism began with an illegal and morally shameful incident involving a most influential theologian, the principal of the GA (Chonghoi) Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Park Hyung Ryong. Park's followers (of the anti-WCC party) thought of his collapse as their political collapse in the power struggles of the PCK. At that time, the membership of the WCC became an item on the agenda of the GA meeting. The anti-WCC party criticised the WCC and attacked the WCC party by raising questions about its theological liberalism and support of communists and guerrillas. The WCC party regarded the attack of the anti-WCC party as a strategy to escape from its crisis and to maintain its political hegemony in the PCK. This conflict, regardless of attempts at reconciliation, led to a tragic split in the end. The WCC party was called the Tong Hap Church and the anti-WCC party was called the Hap Dong Church.

The fourth schism happened in 1979 in the Hap Dong Church between the mainline GA party and the non-mainline parties. The situation was very complicated and it is difficult to describe it clearly, because a number of parties have come into being since 1979. Not only pastors in the GA, but also professors and students in the theological seminary complained of the secularisation and corruption of the GA leaders and the illegality of the board of directors of the theological seminary. They requested that the leaders of the GA and theological seminary practise purification.

The paper continues with a section on the analysis and assessment of the disunity in the Presbyterian Church in Korea.  I hope you will find the information useful, even though it is five years late!


Is 1 Corinthians 15:27 problematic for trinitarians?

The Queen of England is greater than me in that she is my Queen and I am her loyal subject.. but we are equal in that we are both human.
My father is greater than me in that he is my father, but we are equal in nature, in that we are both human.
The Son of God is, and always has been from eternity, subordinate to the Father in his role as the Son.  This subordination is not because of any difference in nature, each one has the divine nature and is therefore God.  The three members of the Godhead are equal in nature, but have different roles.
So Jesus called God his Father "making himself equal with God" (John 5:18) - that is Jesus is equal with God the Father in that they share the same nature.  But "my Father is greater than I" - that is in the Father's role as the Father.
In this understanding Christ was always, is always, and always will be subject to the will of his Father, obeying Him as His Father.  This obedience springs out his perfect love for his Father.  His obedience is no contradiction of his Divine Nature: Jesus always was, is, and always will be God the Son.


Matthew 18:10 "Children's angels always behold the face of the Father" - what does this mean?

For Catholics, one can read from the Catechism paragraphs 328-336.  In terms of a guardian angel, we read the following, showing the Catholic Church believes children do not lose their angels:

336 From infancy to death human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. [Cf. Mt 18:10; Lk 16:22; Pss 34:7; 91:10-13; Job 33:23-24; Zech 1:12; Tob 12:12.] “Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life.” [St. Basil, Adv. Eunomium III, I: PG 29, 656B.] Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.

St. Paul makes an interesting reference to his Guardian Angel here:

Acts 27:23 For last night an angel of the God to whom (I) belong and whom I serve stood by me 24 and said…

Further, this makes it sounds as if John's Guardian Angel was involved:

Rev 1:1b He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John

Also the following:

Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
Ps 91:11 For he commands his angels with regard to you, (Heb 1:14) to guard you wherever you go. (Ps 121:3; Prv 3:23) – Referenced by Satan in Lk 4:10–11/Mt 4:6 when he tempts Jesus in the desert
Mt 18:10 (Ez 34:1–3 & 16; Lk 15:3–7) “See that you do not despise one of these little ones25, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.”


How are the Catholic church's teaching on plastic surgery and GRS self-consistent?

This post from the National Catholic Bioethics Center explains the problems with gender reassignment pretty well. It explains the Catholic view is that gender is fundamentally a part of a human being's identity, and is bound up with both body and mind, not residing only in one.

  Properly understood, a person cannot change his or her sexual identity. For persons not suffering [from hermaphroditism] a person is either male or female. A person is the unity of soul and body, and ‘soul’ should be understood not as an immaterial self, but as that which makes the body be what it is, namely, a human person. We are either male or female persons, and nothing can change that. A person can mutilate his or her genitals, but cannot change his or her sex. Changing one’s sex is fundamentally impossible; these procedures are fundamentally acts of mutilation.

Because of this rootedness of sexual identity in the whole person one cannot actually change ones sex.

  A person can change what genitalia they have, but not one’s sex. Receiving hormones of the opposite sex and removing genitalia are not sufficient to change one’s sex. Sexual identity is not reducible to hormonal levels or genitalia but is an objective fact rooted in the specific nature of the person.

To accept the validity of a sex change operation one must believe that sexual identity is rooted only in the mind, and not the body. This is at variance with Catholic beliefs.

  Those who hold this position assume a dualism between mind and body. Properly understood, persons are either male or female. The body (of the person) is a fundamental indication of what sex we belong to. It is a physical, empirically verifiable reality that does not change simply because our beliefs or desires do. Once the dualism behind the question is rejected, and one recognizes that our sex is indicated by our bodies, we can see that sexual identity is an objective, readily discernible fact about us.

Finally, if there is no reason for the change driven by sexual identity, then the medical procedure becomes an act of mutilation.

  Changing one’s sex is fundamentally impossible; these procedures are fundamentally acts of mutilation. Mutilation results in a person being rendered impotent or sterile and dependent for the rest of one’s life on a hormonal regimen which makes one appear to be other than what he or she is. There is nothing wrong with the genitalia of persons seeking such operations. But they are removed in order to conform to the person’s subjective belief about who he or she wants to be. Doing violence to one’s body when there is nothing wrong with it is an unjustifiable mutilation.

Finally, to answer the question about whether the Catholic church should accept 'current medical practice' as correct, 'current medical practice' is as often based on philosophy and sociology as it is on science. Medical approaches to homosexuality, abortion and mental illness have all changed very significantly in the last fifty years, and those changes have been driven at least as much by changes in societal beliefs as they are by medical science.

EDIT: The article also goes on to address the issue of whether this stance gives undue weight to the body over the mind. The argument goes that if a person believes in their mind that they are one sex, while their body indicates otherwise, is it not giving undue precedence to the physical to insist that the body's sex is paramount? The response to this is that a person may have false beliefs about themselves in their mind (not just about sex but about other things), whereas the body cannot give a false indication of sex (except in very rare cases, where surgery is permitted).


Why must the hypostatic union be viewed as taking place at Jesus' conception?

The doctrine of the Trinity says that God is three persons in one being. One of those persons, the second person of the Trinity, took on flesh and became a human, the man Jesus.

If I understand what you're suggesting, you would run into one of these two problems:

Because the pre-baptism Jesus was a person, the hypostatic union would be two people, a heresy called Nestorianism. This is a very complicated topic, so I'll quote from a blog I found that explains some of the problems much better than I could:

  When pressed the Nestorian will say that Jesus is both God and man but what he means by this is that Jesus is one person and God is another person and two persons reside in the same human body. In other words, Jesus is not really God at all. God is somehow in Jesus but not really Jesus. Therefore, the logical and rational conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus is not fully God and it would therefore be idolatry to worship Jesus.  ...  The Bible never speaks of Jesus as if He were two persons.  Rather the Bible speaks of Jesus as though He were one individual man who is as fully human as anyone else.  He thinks, feels, eats, acts, lives and dies just as any other human person would.  But Jesus is more than a human person.  He is also a divine person and this person is one person being both divine and human at one and the same time.  The other error of Nestorianism is that it denies that the Son of God, the Word, became flesh.  ...  The Nestorian thinks he has solved the problem of the apparent contradiction of Jesus being one person who is both fully God and fully human.  But the Nestorian only thinks he has solved the "apparent" problem which is no real problem at all.  And even more than that the Nestorian position divides Christ into two persons which are not united at all.  (by Charlie J. Ray, emphasis added)

If the Word is a different person than the human Jesus then really the whole idea of the incarnation is lost.
Something that is not God became God. This is very similar to the heresy called Adoptionism, as some people who believe that say that Jesus was adopted as God's son and became divine. This goes against God's singular uniqueness of being the eternal God. This is much less controversial (I think the only 'Christian' group which says that the non-divine can become divine is the LDS) so I'll leave it there.


Technically - In Shoftim (Judges) 13:3-7, we learn the Angel of YHVH (מַלְאַ֨ךְ יְהֹוַ֜ה) and the Wife (הָאִשָּׁ֗ה) of Manoah (מָנ֑וֹחַ) make the Nazirite vow for Manoah's son Samson (Shimeshon , שִׁמְשׁוֹן) to hopefully become a Nezir (נְזִיר) . * Samson never makes a Nazirite (נָּזִ֗יר) vow. Samson prays and makes a request after he is humbled, losing his hair and sight.

Shimshon's Prayer in [Shoftim (Judges) 16:28]:
"And Samson called to the Lord and said, "God YHVH, remember me and strengthen me now, only this once my Lord YHVH, that I may be avenged the vengeance for one of my two eyes from the Philistines."

( וַיִּקְרָ֥א שִׁמְשׁ֛וֹן אֶל־יְהֹוָ֖ה וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִֹ֡ה זָכְרֵ֣נִי נָא֩ וְחַזְּקֵ֨נִי נָ֜א אַ֣ךְ הַפַּ֚עַם הַזֶּה֙ הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וְאִנָּקְמָ֧ה נְקַם־אַחַ֛ת מִשְּׁתֵ֥י עֵינַ֖י מִפְּלִשְׁתִּֽים)
Samson never vows to abstain from wine (Yayin, יַ֣יִן), but His mother is told to abstain from Yayin during her pregnancy. * Children do not always become what their parents want them to become. Regarding the Nazirite vow in Bamidbar (Numbers) 6:2-3, a mother cannot make a Nazirite vow for her son. The vow must be made by a Yisraelite man or woman who sets themself apart to become holy for God.


Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating?

Yes it was a miracle. It is clearly stated that God did this for Israel. There is no need to fall back on "illusion" if this is marked as a miracle. When a miracle happens, "natural laws" might as well no longer apply, because God applies. That is part of what "miracle" means.

You've made a number of assumptions that I think are unwarranted. The passage states that both the sun and the moon stopped moving. Their orbits around the earth are not synchronized, so we can rule out the possibility that God only stopped the rotation of the earth. Though even if He did stop its rotation, why would there be a problem? Imagine the even application of a force to every single particle on the entire planet.

He might have stopped the rotation of the earth and then moved the moon as well. Or He might have turned space around the earth to counteract its rotation, and then turned space again at some point past the moon, to counteract its rotation.

Alternatively, God may have swung the sun and moon and stars around the earth. This would have caused the distant galaxies to move at far, far, far beyond the speed of light. Again, no acceleration forces if God were "putting His hand on" every particle. This would have been trivial for God, who created everything and is infinitely powerful. That's not mathematical infinity. It's Divine infinity.

Or He might have done it in some way far, far, far beyond our comprehension. It is a miracle, and marked as such. What's the problem, again?


Hebrew translation for the Deuterocanonical books?

Per Wikipedia:

Two major annotated Hebrew translations of the apocrypha were published in the 20th century. Both editions include commentaries by the editors, both are vowelized, and both of them incorporate parts of the original Hebrew for Ben Sira that were found in the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Avraham Kahana, ed. and trans., Ha-Sefarim ha-Hitsonim. Tel-Aviv: Hotsaat Meqorot, 1937 (2 vols.), most recently reissued in 2006.
Eliyah Shemuel Hartom (aka. Elia Samuele Artom), ed. and trans., Ha-Sefarim ha-Hitsonim. Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1965-69.

The Kahana translations are scanned here.


Did Thomas Merton write "I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity" ? If so, in which writing?

David Steindl-Rast, "Man of Prayer," in Thomas Merton, Monk, ed. Patrick Hark (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1976), 90.

The 1974 ed. doesn't have such a quote, so, considering the influence of Modernism (spec. religious indifferentism) on the post-Vatican II religious life, either Merton himself became a Modernist or the author interpolated that quote.


Can someone be saved if they willingly live in sin?

If a person should be aware that God forgives sins and should yet purpose to live a sinful life, then (whatever they theorise about an unknowable future) they are already in danger of perdition, of destruction and of eternal hell-fire, for the following reasons :
1. Because it is hard-hearted

To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, [Hebrews 3:15 KJV]

Scripture warns us not to harden our hearts against God's goodness. "... Despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" [Romans 2:4 KJV.]
The goodness of God in granting us a fresh day to live, another day of hope, another beat of the heart with which to function, another sun-rise giving another opportunity to pursue eternal life ... should all urge us to repentance and faith.
Not to harden our hearts, yet more and more.
2. Because it is un-believing

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. [Hebrews 10:39 KJV]

Not to proceed in one's life with faith is to not proceed at all in the direction of heaven. It is to 'draw back' as the writer to the Hebrews words it.
And such unbelief will cause even more hardening of the heart.
3. Because it is sinful.
If a person should deliberately put off repentance in favour of any other thing at all, then that course of action is, in itself, sinful.

... who were dead in trespasses and sins: ... [Ephesians 2:1 KJV]

To continue in committing deliberate misdeeds, and wilful sinful actions is to be dead to all that is good and to be alive to all that is wicked.
4. Because it is un-caring

if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. [Ezekiel 33:9 KJV]

If a person should deliberately continue to live a sinful life they are being a bad example to others. Far from helping others to repent and believe the gospel, they are purposefully setting forth an example of a wicked life and that adds to their culpability.
The thought of what one's actions do to other people is sufficient to prevent one publicly living a wicked life.
5. Because it attempts to mock God

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. [Galatians 6:7 KJV]

What we do, every day - and every hour of every day - sows seed in our own lifetime. And we shall reap what we have sown. If one should deliberately sow evil seed, knowingly, then one deceives oneself to think that one will not reap exactly what one has sown.
For God is not mocked.
6. Because it is contrary to Wisdom

Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

God is not mocked. And neither shall Wisdom be so mocked.
To purposefully life a wicked life, supposing that there will be opportunity in the future  to amend one's ways is contrary to all wisdom.
It is downright foolish.
7. Because it is foolish

Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with his stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee. [Job 36:18 KJV]

But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: [Luke 12:20 KJV]

8. Because such a thought should not exist.

What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound? Let it not be.  [Romans 6:1 Young's Literal Tranlation.]

If God should be gracious to his sinful creatures and show kindness in the sending of his own Son that he might be the Saviour of the world, then the very idea of continuing to sin against him should not be in the mind of any one of them.
The thought should not even exist.
Let it not be.
9. Because others have proved it is a fatal way.
Esau presumed that, after he had lightly regarded what was of God (his heritage and his advantages) he could, on a future occasion, reverse his decision. But he was very much mistaken :

...for ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. [Hebrews 12:17 KJV]

Esau could find no place of repentance. Despite his efforts and despite his weeping tears.
The place was gone.
Another had taken his place.
And Esau was rejected.


What was the first name of Barabbas whom Pilate let off from the prison?

Jesus as Barrabas' first name does not appear in any Latin manuscripts.  The reason it appears in the Critical Greek text - from which the CEV seems to have been derived - is explained in Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

  The reading preserved today in several Greek manuscripts and early
  versions was known to Origen, who declares in his commentary on the
  passage, “In many copies it is not stated that Barabbas was also
  called Jesus, and perhaps [the omission is] right.” (Origen discloses
  in what follows his reason for disapproving of the reading Jesus
  Barabbas; it cannot be right, he implies, because “in the whole range
  of the scriptures we know that no one who is a sinner [is called]
  Jesus.”)

  In a tenth century uncial manuscript S 028 and in about twenty
  minuscule manuscripts a marginal comment states: “In many ancient
  copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called
  ‘Jesus’; that is, the question of Pilate stood there as follows, Τίνα
  θέλετε ἀπὸ τῶν δύο ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν
  λεγόμενον Χριστόν; for apparently the paternal name of the robber was
  ‘Barabbas,’ which is interpreted ‘Son of the teacher.’ ” This
  scholium, which is usually assigned in the manuscripts either to
  Anastasius bishop of Antioch (perhaps latter part of the sixth
  century) or to Chrysostom, is in one manuscript attributed to Origen,
  who may indeed be its ultimate source.

Although the CT committee admitted the phrase Ἰησοῦν and Ἰησοῦν τὸν before Βαραββᾶν in Matthew 27:16 and 27:17, respectively, the Greek text was enclosed in square brackets.  The reading was assigned certainty category "C", indicating that "the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text."

Augustine seems to have been the only Latin (pre-schism) Church Father to have commented specifically on these verses (On the Harmony of the Gospels, III.VIII.32) and he makes no mention of Barrabas' first name possibly being "Jesus".


How do credo-baptists explain baptism in the Nicene Creed?

The Credo-baptists that affirm the Nicene creed, would argue that "baptism for the remission of sins" need not be interpreted as "baptism accomplishes the remission of sins", but more along the lines of "baptism witnesses the remission of sins" eg:

  ... The phrase, “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” does not mean that baptism leads to forgiveness of sins but that the Christian gospel depicted by baptism is the only gospel that truly saves. This creed was an appropriate response to false teaching of the past, and it remains a useful means to guard against false teaching that might occur in the future. - (Delray Baptist Church, Alexandria VA, "in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention")

Further background information on varying Baptist responses to creeds can be found at  Baptist Theologian (Gardner-Webb University, NC) Stephen Harmon's post "Do real Baptists recite creeds?".


What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is NOT closed?

The main argument is an argument from silence. This can take two forms:

There is no list of books of the Bible anywhere in Scripture.
Scripture nowhere prohibits people from adding books to the canon.

Another argument says that a closed canon can lead to bibliolatry (elevating Scripture above God).

You can see such arguments made here and here.

Proponents of an open canon could also argue that the very idea of a "canon" is foreign to Scripture.

In theory, they could use the same arguments that continuationists use. But there is generally little overlap between the two groups.


What is the prayer of faith as recorded in James 5:15?

The verse is not referring to any specific prayer, but rather to the prayer of faith (ευχη της πιστεως) as opposed to prayer that is undertaken without faith.  For this reason James emphasizes a verse later:

  The entreaty of a righteous man hath much strength

He further provides Elijah as an example (v.17-18):

  Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by
  the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the
  heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.


Christ as community (ecclesiocentric)

In his dissertation "Sanctorum Communio" (1927), christology and ecclesiology do basically conincide. Christ is "existing as community" ("Christus als Gemeinde existierend").

The mediator and center0: christocentric alteration

Christ and the world. In Bonhoeffer theology since his "christology" lecture (1933), the question of Christ is always connected with the question of the world (Welt).1 In his late writings, his prison letters, this is expressed as the question of "Christ and the world come of age".2 Earlier in his Ethics he states: "In Jesus Christ the reality of the good has entered into the world".3

Christ as the mediator ("Mittler"). Based on this question, Christ is defined as the "mediator" between humans and God and the humans,4 since there are no direct relations anymore. As such, Christ is the center ("Mitte"). Bonhoeffers already clarified that in his christology lecture (1933): Christ is …5

the center of human existence ("menschliche Existenz")
the center of history ("Geschichte")
the center of nature ("Natur")

or, as he later says: He's "the center of life".6 Hence the christology is the middle and fundament of Bonhoeffers theology.

Relation to Karl Barth

Both, Barth and Bonhoeffer, were accused of a "christological narrowing"7 – a "christomonism"8.

Jürgen Moltmann claims a difference: While Barths christology is Trinitarian,
Bonhoeffer's christology is theocentric9 (since it's fixed on the doctrine of incarnation).

0) This description is based on Ernst Feil: Die Theologie Dietrich Bonhoeffers. Hermeneutik – Christologie - Weltverständnis. Münster 20065.
1) "Wer Christus heute für uns eigentlich ist", Wiederstand und Ergebung (WE), p. 178.
2) "Christus und die mündig gewordene Welt", WE, p. 218.
3) "In Jesus Christus ist die Wirklichkeit des Guten in die Welt eingegangen", Ethik, p. 207.
4)"Nothing can be known about God nor about the humans until God became a human in Christ" ("Es kann […] weder von Gott noch vom Menschen etwas gewusst werden, bevor Gott in Jesus Christus Mensch geworden ist."), GS III, p. 230.
5) GS III, p. 199 f.
6) WE, p. 211
7) Cf. Gerhard Ebeling: Die nicht-religiöse Interpretation. In: MW II 19
8) This accusation was first done by Paul Althaus. According to Gerhard Ebeling: Wort und Glaube. Tübingen 1960, p. 99. it would also apply to Bonhoeffer. Cf. also Ernst-Heinz Amberg: Christologie und Dogmatik. Untersuchung ihres Verhältnisses in der evangelischen Theologie der Gegenwart. Göttingen 1966, p. 125
9) J. Moltmann: Herrschaft Christi und soziale Wirklichkeit nach D. Bonhoeffer in: Theologische Existenz heute, NF 71. München 1959, p. 29


If we are the bride, who are the invited?

Revelation 21:2 personified the New Jerusalem as a bride.

  2 And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

As we know through Scripture, New Jerusalem will be the city those in Christ will call home. With this description, the marriage would be between the Lord and the New Jerusalem, with the invited being us who are accepted in to the Holy City.


Is there any scriptural support for the belief of convulsions/seizures being a sign of the Holy Spirit's presence?

There is no Biblical precedent for convulsions or seizures being a sign of The Holy Spirit's presence.

Falling on the floor in a convulsion does have a Biblical precedent, but not a good one:

  When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

Mark 9:201

I'm not saying that the people you have seen are possessed. However, I do think it is wise to be very wary about this ministry. Consider carefully the fruit of the ministry - are they encouraging people to develop a relationship with Jesus or are they encouraging mere physical manifestations? If the latter, I would stay clear.

1. In verse 25 this is described as an impure spirit; Jesus says it is a deaf and mute spirit. This is also referred to as a demon.


What are the basis and larger connotations of the term “untimely born“ as St. Paul refers to himself in 1 Corinthians?

Remember that St. Paul said this in the context of listing eyewitnesses to Jesus's resurrection in which he was the last one to whom Jesus appeared, in contrast with the other apostles. St. Thomas Aquinas provided a natural reading of 3 ways of St. Paul's comparing himself to the other apostles as 3 aspects of a fetus untimely born:

outside the proper time (born after the coming of the Holy Spirit)
with violence (coercion at Damascus), and
lacking quantity (consider himself less virtuous, see v. 9)

From St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on 1 Cor 15 (I added emphasis and formatting):

Last of all. Here the Apostle recalls the appearance made to him alone. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the order of the appearances; secondly, he assigns its reason (v. 9).
He says, therefore: I have said that Christ was manifested to all, but last of all, i.e., finally and after the resurrection he appeared to me as to one untimely born, and therefore as the latest. He says, as one untimely born for three reasons. One, untimely born refers to a fetus, because it is born outside the proper time or because it is brought forth with violence or because it is not born with due quantity; and because the Apostle saw these three things in himself, he says: as one untimely born.

For, first of all, all he was reborn outside the time of the other apostles. For the other apostles were reborn in Christ before the coming of the Holy Spirit, but Paul after.

Secondly, because the other apostles were converted to Christ spontaneously, but Paul by coercion: “He fell to the ground and heard a voice” (Ac 9:4). And this is of great value against heretics, who say that no one should be forced to the faith, because Paul was forced. And as Augustine says: Paul made more progress in the faith, although he was forcibly converted, than many who came spontaneously.

Thirdly, because he regards himself as less than the others and that he had not arrived to the virtue of the other apostles.


Is there any method to prevent an unbelieving pope from being elected?

This is a bit like asking if the NFL has a procedure in place to prevent someone who secretly can't play football from playing as a quarterback. The answer is yes, but it's impossible to explain in full detail how this works. Here's a rough idea, though:

At the very least, the would-be pope would undergo the scrutiny of: his fellow priests, his own bishop, various parishioners, various fellow scholars, various bishops, those in the Holy See who check up on candidate bishops, priests over which he would gain authority, fellow bishops including cardinals, and the present pope. He would also spend a fair bit of his life being busy in the Church.

Then, at some unpredictable point in time, he would need to be considered not only "good enough", but the best candidate by 2/3 of the cardinals during a papal conclave. This is an event that, due to modern media coverage, can be followed by up to over a billion praying Catholics. And also non-Catholics.

The Holy Spirit surely plays no small role in all aspects of this process, a process which has been developed over a period of about 2000 years. Many of the stages are specifically aimed at attempting to ensure that the devil does not succeed in having a non-believer elected as pope.

This process was, of course, not used by Christ when he intentionally chose Judas as one of the twelve, knowing that Judas would betray him. (Judas should not to be confused with St Peter, the first pope.)

As for "firing" the pope, this is a separate question, but the short answer is: no.


Did Martin Luther believe in guardian angels?

With regards to the question as to whether Luther believed that each individual has an assigned guardian angel, from his comments on the subject that I've read, he held that not just one angel looks after each individual but that many do, but whether he believed they're specially assigned to each individual is harder to assess. He held that different ranks of angels are assigned to different ranks of people but that's not quite the same.  Here's an excerpt from his sermon on Matthew 18:1-10 preached on The Day of St. Michael and all Angels in 1532:

What we should learn today is that our Lord God has so ordained that each Christian should have not only one but many angels protecting him, just as each also has his own particular devils who slink after him and, if unable to do more, trouble a person with bad dreams, saddle you with scandalmongers who slander, thwart, and defame you. Be aware that these are all wicked henchmen of the devil and be careful that you do not live as do the heathen; they, too, see and experience such misfortune, but in their thinking it just happens accidentally, for they know nothing about the devil. But let us learn to recognize that this is the accursed devil's doing. On the other hand, when you see that something has turned out well, be ready to say that a good angel prompted it, otherwise things would have gone worse for a person. To illustrate, when a person is saved from a flood or is unharmed when a stone falls on him, this is not luck but the work of a beloved angel.
But there are distinctions among angels, as well as among the devils. Princes and lords have great and special angels, as we see in Daniel 10. Children and common folks have ordinary angels. For there will always be a given angel who is greater, mightier, and wiser than the rest. The same is true, also, of the devils. That explains why, as Christ says, that they belong to a kingdom (Luke 11). For just as many persons and different offices constitute a kingdom, so also among the devils there are different ranks. There are the lesser devils who tempt with adultery, greed, vain arrogance, and other similar sins. But then there are higher spirits who tempt with unbelief, with despair, with heresies, and have misled the factious spirits and the pope. It is extremely important, therefore, that we accustom ourselves to prayer, and in time of grave danger conscientiously petition God not to take from us the protection of the beloved angels, lest we come to nought, for we are too weak for the devil. (pages 380,381; The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 7, published by Baker Book House, 2007)

I need to add something to my answer above. I've come across a statement Luther made two years later in 1534, when he preached on the same feast day, where he says the following:

Also, we are to know for a certainty that every human being has his own appointed angel who looks after and watches over him. We are familiar with the common proverb that expresses people's customary comment when someone is shielded from harm, You had a good angel! or, Your holy angel was with you and protected you. That is well said and, in fact, nicely reminds us of the benefaction God bestows on us through his beloved angels. (page 387, ibid)

So Luther did believe we each have our own guardian angel.


How does election work according to mainstream Presbyterian thought?

Theology has the idea of the Ordo Salutis, or Order of Salvation. A Christian branch like Reformed Theology (of which Presbyterianism is a part) will have a particular way of organising the various doctrines of salvation. The Order of Salvation shows the logical order of these doctrines: how one doctrine leads to and interacts with the others. Note that it is often not a chronological order, and many 'stages' of the Order of Salvation may, from our perspective, happen at the one time.

For Reformed Theology Predestination and Election are the earliest stages and refer to God's sovereign and independent choices. There is nothing that election requires; it is not contingent on anything else. It is purely God's free choice, based on nothing in us.

The Presbyterian doctrine of election is laid out in the Westminster Confession chapter 3.

  I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

  II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all
  supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he
  foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such
  conditions.

  III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some
  men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others
  foreordained to everlasting death.

  IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
  particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain
  and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

  V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the
  foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and
  immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his
  will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free
  grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or
  perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as
  conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of
  his glorious grace.

  VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the
  eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means
  thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are
  redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his
  Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and
  kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other
  redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted,
  sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

  VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the
  unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or
  withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power
  over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and
  wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

  VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be
  handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will
  of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may,
  from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their
  eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise,
  reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and
  abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.


What is the Biblical or traditional precedent or command regarding praying before meals?

There is definitely precedent:
As Christians, we should be following the example set by Christ, who gave thanks before feeding the multitudes in Matthew 14:19-21 and Matthew 15:34-36. He also did so in Luke 24:30.

  Matthew 14:19-21

  King James Version (KJV)

  19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took
  the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he
  blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the
  disciples to the multitude.

  20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the
  fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

  21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women
  and children.

  Matthew 15:34-36

  King James Version (KJV)

  34 And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said,
  Seven, and a few little fishes.

  35 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.

  36 And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and
  brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the
  multitude.

  Luke 24:30 (King James Version)

  King James Version (KJV)

  30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread,
  and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

Paul also did so in Acts 27:35.

  Acts 27:35

  King James Version (KJV)

  35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God
  in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.

I could go on, citing verses that tell us to be thankful in all things, to pray without ceasing, but those would be weaker, and not specific to your question, so I'll stop with these three examples as Biblical precedent.

There is a command in Deuteronomy about giving thanks after the meal:

  Deuteronomy 8:10

  King James Version (KJV)

  10 When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the Lord
  thy God for the good land which he hath given thee.


Is the Tamil name Savari derived from the name Xavier?

It appears that the Tamil name Savari is not a Christian name and is unrelated to Xavier, after St. Francis Xavier.

The given name Xavier is a masculine name derived from the 16th-century Spanish Navarrese Roman Catholic Saint Francis Xavier.

St. Francis Xavier’s last name indicates where he is from: Javier, Spain.

Although not a very common name in Tamil, Hindi or Sanskrit, it could be used as a baptismal name in the Catholic Church for it is not offensive to the dignity of Christianity.

In Hindi it means a passenger.
In Sanskrit it means gift of God.
In Tamil it means mounted state or riding.

No exact English transliteration of the Tamil name can be found at the moment, but the above should suffice for now.

The Wikipedia page on the given name of Xavier states that it is as follows in the Tamil language: Savari (சவாரி). However, seeing that it gives no sources for this connection, it must be treated as dubious for the moment. In the Basque language it is a place-name (and surname) etxe berri, meaning 'castle', 'new house' or 'new home'. This does not agree with the above information as regards to the Tamil definitions of this name and is thus doubtful until proven that the contrary is true.

For more information on non-Catholic Christian names and baptism, please read my response to this question: Is Nessa or Vanessa a Catholic name?


What is the Biblical Basis for God the Holy Spirit having a spouse?
This is a metaphor for the Virgin Mary as having been espoused by the Holy Spirit as she became pregnant through the overshadowing of the Paraclete.
The best place to start is at the Annunciation.

26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. - Luke 1:26-38

Catholic Answers has this little bit to add:

Was the Blessed Virgin Mary Joseph’s spouse or the Holy Spirit’s spouse?
Answer:
St. Joseph was the husband of Mary in the common usage of the idea of marriage.
The pious custom of referring to the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary is a symbolic expression of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not meant in a literal manner but rather in terms of Mary’s singular devotion to God and unique relationship to the Trinity. It is similar to how religious sisters sometimes refer to Jesus as their spouse.
Scripture contains several examples of a mystical spousal relationship:

For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name . . . (Isaiah 54:5).

. . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you (Isaiah 62:5).

. . . my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD (Jeremiah 31:32).

I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband (2 Cor. 11:2).

The following may be of interest to some:

Bride of Christ (Wikipedia)
Marriage like Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-32)


Why do some Christians interpret Daniel's 1260 day prophecy as days and not years?

Whether a day is interpretted as a literal day or as a year depends on the context.  Interpretters looked at the 70 sevens of the Daniel 9 and almost unanimously decided it cannot be literal days, but it could be years. (However, some interpretters duck the whole issue and go for an indeterminate length of time.)

With the 1290 days (Daniel 12:11) and 1335 days (Dan 12:12), though, the context suggests literal days. How could an individual patiently wait for the coming of 1335 years? (Dan 12:12)

Daniel 8:14 says 2300 "evening-mornings":  some think that means 2300 days, and some, such as William Hendriksen, think it means a total of 2300 sacrifices, half in the morning and half in the evening making 1150 days.  Hendriksen then says this is the exact number of days that the sacrifices stopped in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, though where he gets that information I do not know.


When can our prayers change God's mind/will? Is it wrong to pray against the will of God?

We can pray to God for anything anytime, but He is allowed to respond.
The fact that we can communicate with a timeless being is itself hard to fathom. Check out this passage about Hezekiah who, upon hearing that the Assyrians would come to destroy him, prays to God. God then decides to act based on Hezekiah's prayer...or does He?

Isaiah 37:14,15,20-23,26 ESV Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it; and Hezekiah went up to the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. And Hezekiah prayed to the Lord: ... "So now, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the Lord.”
Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria, this is the word that the Lord has spoken concerning him: Whom have you mocked and reviled? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes to the heights? Against the Holy One of Israel! ... Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old
what now I bring to pass, that you should make fortified cities crash into heaps of ruins,

Within the same statement God says "because you prayed" and "I determined it long ago." This is how it works when created things within time (us) communicate with a being outside of it (God).
In one sense (form our perspective), our prayers can certainly influence God's decisions in our lives. Jesus knew this and asked God to change His mind:

Luke 22:41-42 ESV And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

But in another sense (from the viewpoint of God) his will has already been predetermined. This is something we simply cannot understand, and that's OK. What we do know is that God has set up the universe in such a way that we can, and should, ask him for things all the time. If what we're asking for is good and not sin then it's fair game.

Matthew 7:7-8 ESV Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.


If you are a cardinal, does that mean that you are an immediate successor to a dead or resigned pope?

During the Sede Vacante period the College of Cardinals have no real powers and thus can not be the immediate successor(s) of a pope, but simply maintain that the everyday affairs are kept going. At the moment of a pontiffs death all cardinals who are head of a dicastery loose their positions until the election of a new pope, at which time the new pontiff may or may not return them to their former positions.

The cardinals simply maintain that things move along as they should.

  THE POWERS OF THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS DURING THE VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE

  During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the College of Cardinals has no power or jurisdiction in matters which pertain to the Supreme Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office; such matters are to be reserved completely and exclusively to the future Pope. I therefore declare null and void any act of power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office which the College of Cardinals might see fit to exercise, beyond the limits expressly permitted in this Constitution.
  During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the government of the Church is entrusted to the College of Cardinals solely for the dispatch of ordinary business and of matters which cannot be postponed (cf. No. 6), and for the preparation of everything necessary for the election of the new Pope. This task must be carried out in the ways and within the limits set down by this Constitution: consequently, those matters are to be absolutely excluded which, whether by law or by practice, come under the power of the Roman Pontiff alone or concern the norms for the election of the new Pope laid down in the present Constitution.
  I further establish that the College of Cardinals may make no dispositions whatsoever concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, much less allow any of these rights to lapse, either directly or indirectly, even though it be to resolve disputes or to prosecute actions perpetrated against these same rights after the death or valid resignation of the Pope.12 All the Cardinals are obliged to defend these rights.
  During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, laws issued by the Roman Pontiffs can in no way be corrected or modified, nor can anything be added or subtracted, nor a dispensation be given even from a part of them, especially with regard to the procedures governing the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, should anything be done or even attempted against this prescription, by my supreme authority I declare it null and void.
  Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect, I decree that all power of issuing a judgment in this regard belongs to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points. I also establish that should it be necessary to discuss these or other similar questions, except the act of election, it suffices that the majority of the Cardinals present should concur in the same opinion.
  In the same way, should there be a problem which, in the view of the majority of the assembled Cardinals, cannot be postponed until another time, the College of Cardinals may act according to the majority opinion. - UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS


How Can I Appropriately Live Life Accordingly to God's Will?

God's will for a specific human life has less to do with what the circumstances of the life are and more to do with how that life responds to the circumstances.  Insofar as God orchestrates or allows the particular circumstances of a life He does so for two main reasons:

In order to give birth to faith,

  The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,  that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, - Acts 17:24-27

or to refine faith,

  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,  to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,  who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.  In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,  so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,  obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

If you have not yet abandoned your own efforts to shape your own life into a life that pleases God then I encourage you to lay everything down at the foot of the cross.  Jesus Christ, the Son of God has lived THE life that pleases God and you are invited to rest from your own efforts and take part in His life:

  because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. - Romans 10:9-10

If you are already born again by the grace of God through faith in Jesus, having appealed to God in Christ, trust that God's promise in Christ is to send His Holy Spirit to be in you to guide you into all truth, to testify to you of Jesus (reminding you of everything he said) and to undertake the process of sanctification (which is part of God's will for you).  This sanctification process often takes place in the fires of trial where we learn to subordinate our desires to the desires of God and it is ultimately for our eternal good.

  I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. - Romans 12:1-2

I do not know if God's will for you is to publish fantasy novels or do any other particular thing and you may not currently know either.  Remember that Abraham was called to go to a land that God would show him.  Abraham was the father of Faith precisely because God did not show him first but, rather, called him to walk by faith rather than by sight.  Abraham did and was called God's friend.

This is most often very difficult...no one enjoys discipline at the time (I know that I never have).  God is working to shape us into that which we cannot imagine but that He can clearly see.  Relax into the Potter's hands, struggle to give thanks in all circumstances, and trust in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  He will never leave you nor forsake you.


Are there other biblical examples of people turning into pillars of salt?

There are no other instances in the Bible of becoming turned into a pillar of salt. Regarding the meaning of salt there does not seem to be a symbolic correlation of 'salt' with the judgment that lot's wife suffered. In fact salt generally means to preserve, like an antibiotic due to its pure composition and ability for preserving meat from rotting. I suppose if we said she was condemned absolutely or 'purely' we might extend the metaphor but  that seems forced.

The fact that she became a solid rock-salt-like figure who must have stood there for sometime does have meaning. She was turned into a memorial of death for all to witness. Even today the region where Sodom and Gomorra was said to be (around the river Jordan and the Dead Sea) is filled with unusual salt levels. Swimmers can even float in the water. This long lasting memorial shows that loving the world and turning our eyes to gaze upon it when we should be fleeing from the 'wrath to come' by turning to Christ through faith, indicates that all unbelieving souls will ultimately be judged in an absolute and severe sense.

Maybe the solidity itself has meaning too, beyond its lasting memorial effect. The heart that is wicked is often referred to as 'hard' in the Bible. Hard hearted is a sign of rebellion and wickedness. In this sense not only is she a memorial but it shows that loving the world makes one absolutely hard an insensitive to God and his love. But this is again possibly a slightly forced metaphor. The striking point about the story is its simplicity and avoidance of any further explanation. Maybe that is more to the point. God will judge the sinner and there is nothing complicated about it. No alternate solutions will be found. It will just happen while standing dead in one's tracks.


Effectiveness of prayers of intercession

The best analysis/meta-analysis I know of regarding intercessory prayer has been conducted by the Templeton Institute, with a negative result.  Thus, there is presently no statistical support for the belief that prayer will be answered in an obvious or measurable way.

However, praying for intercession need not necessarily be done because you think God will listen to your individual plea and change outcomes accordingly.  It could also be done because you have hopes for how things will turn out and want to express those hopes in a meaningful way.


What is the origin of the tradition that Thaddeus founded the Armenian Church?

Fortunately, The Kingdom of Armenia: A History (by M. Chahin) has an online extract that covers this very issue. On page 261, Chahin says tradition has it that King Abgar of Edessa (c. 5 BCE-32 CE) wrote to Jesus begging him to cure him of a malady. The allegedly written reply, along with His portrait (painted by Abgar's messenger, Ananias), purports to inform the king that one of His disciples would visit him, after the Writer's ascension. On the arrival of St. Thaddeus, the king, having been cured, along with his wonderstruck people, was converted to Christianity. Soon after that momentous event, the king died. His nephew, Sanatruk, king of another province in Great Armenia, embraced Christianity when St. Thaddeus visited him, in spite of fear of the wrath of his nobles. His anxiety was justified when he was compelled to apostasise and to martyrise St. Thaddeus.

Chahin goes on to provide historic evidence that there was a substantial Christian community by around 100 CE, although I think this is a typo and Chahin actually meant 200 CE - "for there were persecutions during the reign of Khozrov I (217-52) and his predecessors.  Already by the third and fourth centuries, the throne of the Armenian pontiffs was being called the 'chair of St. Thaddeus'.


How do Christians who reject pre-fall death reconcile their views with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (66 million years ago)?

Those creationist Christians typically place the "extinction event" in Noah's day, thus long after the fall of the historic Adam.
An example is from the well-known Young Earth model defender, Institute for Creation Research, who published a rebuttal in their 2001 article Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs written by one of their scholars: Donald B. DeYoung, PhD who is also the President of the Creation Research Society.
After summarizing Luis Alvarez's theory, he highlighted that scientific support is not unanimous, that there are 5 major extinctions in the evolution view, that there are still 3 basic remaining questions, and that the creationist explanation is still viable.
Excerpt from the article: (emphasis mine).

A Creationist Conclusion
In the evolution view there have been at least five major extinctions of life during earth history. We may expect continued zealous efforts in coming years to tie these alleged extinctions to crater-like blemishes across the earth. Creationists challenge the time scale which widely separates these extinction events. In one alternative view, there was just one single major earth catastrophe of judgment which caused the near extinction of life, the Genesis flood of Noah's day. Thus the separate extinctions actually are closely related episodes taking place during the year-long global flood.
The K-T clay layer is just one small portion of sediment accumulation during the flood. There was both volcanic and collision activity associated with the flood, perhaps including Chicxulub and other craters (Froede and DeYoung, 1996). However, the dinosaurs were not driven to extinction at this time. Instead, living dinosaur types were sheltered aboard the Ark. They then gradually disappeared in post-flood centuries due to climate changes and other possible causes.
Several dramatic movies have portrayed deadly asteroids or comets pummeling the earth and endangering humanity itself in the years to come. The creation view is far more optimistic about the future, realizing that there is a definite future plan for mankind. We are not the result of chance, nor do we, or the earth's animal and plant life, face imminent extermination from a random space collision.