What is Heaven like according to Catholics?

Most saints, before entering heaven, will first go to purgatory according to the Catholic church. While in purgatory they are purified ("purged") until they may enter heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding purgatory:

  All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly
  purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after
  death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness
  necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name
  Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely
  different from the punishment of the damned.
  ...
  Those who die in God's grace and friendship imperfectly purified,
  although they are assured of their eternal salvation, undergo a
  purification after death, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to
  enter the joy of God. By virtue of the "communion of saints," the
  Church commends the dead to God's mercy and offers her prayers,
  especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, on their behalf.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding heaven:

  Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified
  live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see
  him as he is,” face to face ... The life of the blessed consists in
  the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption
  accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly
  glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to
  his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly
  incorporated into Christ. ... Scripture speaks of it in images: life,
  light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house,
  the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor
  the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love
  him.” ... In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to
  fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation.
  Already they reign with Christ; with him “they shall reign for ever
  and ever.”

Pope John Paul II said:

  In the context of Revelation, we know that the “heaven” or “happiness”
  in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a
  physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with
  the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place
  in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit.

  It is always necessary to maintain a certain restraint in describing
  these “ultimate realities” since their depiction is always
  unsatisfactory. Today, personalist language is better suited to
  describing the state of happiness and peace we will enjoy in our
  definitive communion with God.

Catholic Answers practices this "restraint" when it says:

  We leave up to God "where" and "how" he fulfills his promise.

But the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the opinions of theologians regarding the "location" of heaven (which are just that, opinions):

  Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere.
  According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part
  of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere.
  Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and
  with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of
  this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer
  impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.

  In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there
  should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have
  their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be
  free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of
  which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their
  happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in
  affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation.
  At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies
  will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of
  the blessed (Revelation 21). Hence there seems to be no sufficient
  reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous
  utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the
  blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the
  blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place
  is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the
  expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further
  details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has
  decided nothing on this subject.

Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft has a Q&A on heaven. Here are some portions relevant to your question:

  What happens in hell?

  Nothing.

  What happens in Heaven?

  Everything.

  What kind of bodies will we have in Heaven?

  Christians say we will have transformed bodies, but real, physical
  bodies, as Christ had after his resurrection. His body could be
  touched and could eat. Yet it could come and go as he pleased, with
  neither walls nor distance as an obstacle. It was the same body he had
  before he died, and it was recognized as such by his friends. Yet it
  was so different that at first they did not recognize him. I think
  our new resurrection body will be related to the body we have now in
  the same way that our current body is related to the body we had in
  our mothers' wombs. If a fetus saw a picture of itself at the age of
  twenty, it would at first not recognize itself, so unforeseen and
  surprisingly new would it be. Yet it is the same self, even the same
  body, now grown radically more mature.

  What of injuries and deformities? Will they all be removed in the resurrection body?

  I think not. Christ still had his wounds. But they were badges of
  glory, not suffering and sadness. I think everything—in the body, in
  the soul, and in the person's world—that was offered to God and taken
  up into the eternal kingdom will be preserved and transformed and
  glorified in Heaven: but everything that was not—everything that was
  not the work of God or of the sanctified soul but was of the world,
  the flesh, or the devil—will be left outside Heaven's gate. The
  martyrs' wounds will glow like gold, but the amputee's limb will be
  restored, and so will the brain-damaged person's intelligence. God's
  justice and mercy are perfect, and so is his style.

Bottom line: Heaven is gonna be pretty great, but no one knows exactly how except that we shall see God.


Does anyone have a good definition of "Evangelical"?

Here are some statements of beliefs from some evangelical fellowships: The Gospel Coalition, IFES, Wycliffe.

Evangelicalism is a branch of protestantism, so it involves a protestant understanding of the gospel. But not all protestants are evangelical.

I think the biggest distinctive is what they say about the Bible. They reject those who say the Bible is flawed in some way, not relevant for today, that you need the authority of church leaders to understand it, or that God gives new relevations today that take priority over the Bible. To quote from the Gospel Coalition:

  Revelation God has graciously disclosed his existence and power in the created order, and has supremely revealed himself to fallen human beings in the person of his Son, the incarnate Word. Moreover, this God is a speaking God who by his Spirit has graciously disclosed himself in human words: we believe that God has inspired the words preserved in the Scriptures, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, which are both record and means of his saving work in the world. These writings alone constitute the verbally inspired Word of God, which is utterly authoritative and without error in the original writings, complete in its revelation of his will for salvation, sufficient for all that God requires us to believe and do, and final in its authority over every domain of knowledge to which it speaks. We confess that both our finitude and our sinfulness preclude the possibility of knowing God’s truth exhaustively, but we affirm that, enlightened by the Spirit of God, we can know God’s revealed truth truly. The Bible is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it teaches; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; and trusted, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises. As God’s people hear, believe, and do the Word, they are equipped as disciples of Christ and witnesses to the gospel.

Why is the movement called evangelicalism when it's primary distinctive isn't about the gospel? I think because historically the people they were reacting against neglected the gospel because they neglected the Bible. Promoting the authority of the Bible is a safeguard to ensure the gospel keeps first importance.


Why do some traditions recite the Lord's Prayer word for word?

There are two main reasons we recite the Lord's Prayer in worship:

It is a model prayer that Jesus gave us to teach us how to pray. We recite it to remind ourselves what genuine prayer looks like.
We pray it as a group to unify the congregation. When we recite the Lord's Prayer, we are all speaking to God with one voice.


How do the merits of the Saints in Heaven operate?

The Catechism of the Church States

  "The 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God.

The idea that a Saint Merits anything on there own is the issue here.  Many outside the Church believe for example that a Catholic Christian does some kind of work to earn Merit for salvation.  Merit however has more to do with Penance.  To understand fully how the Sacrament of Reconciliation works can be found in the CCC.

All works done by the Saints or Christians (Catholics) are done united to the Merit of Christ on the Cross,  which is infinite.

Collosians 1:24

  Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church

There is of course nothing Lacking in Christ afflictions, He has completed the redemption of the world, every living person past present and future.  What is lacking is not of Christ but of our participation in that redemptive work. Participation means of course, things that we "do".   A person might say "There is nothing you can do to be saved" and strictly speaking there is nothing (Strictly) that we can do.  Then a Catholic Christian could say biblically, "That I must do(Condignly) this is or that in union with Christ in order to be saved"

Matthew 6:19-21

Treasures in Heaven

  “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Our Merit is Condign merit not strict merit.  United to Christ our merit is pleasing to God.

So, the difficulty is here is in separating the our works from that of Christ, Works done for our own Glory, is like filthy rags, but work done in union with Christ is treasure. There is no end to that merit once united to the work on the Cross.


Psalm 14 is for the director of music, and is ascribed to David.  Psalm 53 is also for the director of music and is “according to mahalath - a Maschil of David”.  A ‘Maschil’ is a contemplative Psalm.
The Hebrew word ‘mahalath’ comes from a word meaning lyre. https://www.behindthename.com/name/mahalath
Although both psalms contain very similar words, the musical arrangement may have been different.
There is a clear lyrical difference towards the end of each psalm:

Psalm 14:5–6 states, “But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, / for God is present in the company of the righteous. / You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, / but the Lord is their refuge.” By contrast, Psalm 53:5 says, “But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, / where there was nothing to dread. / God scattered the bones of those who attacked you; / you put them to shame, for God despised them.”

What is the difference? Psalm 14 focuses more on God’s deliverance of the righteous, while Psalm 53 focuses more on God’s defeat of the wicked. It is possible that one of the songs is an adaptation of the earlier song, and the change in lyrics commemorates a specific event.

The third difference between the two psalms regards the use of God’s name. Psalm 14 uses “the Lord” (Yahweh) in verses 2, 4, 6, and 7. Psalm 53 uses “God” (Elohim) in all seven places where God is mentioned.   Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalms-14-53.html

Although the musical arrangements to both psalms may have been quite different, there is one significant similarity - both psalms are about the salvation of God. Both psalms end with these words: “Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! / When the Lord restores his people, / let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!” (Psalm 14:7; cf. 53:6).
This article I found looks into the division of the psalms into five books: https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalms-five-books.html


Do any traditions hold that the Jews will return to Israel prior to Christ's Second Coming?

Yes! There is a tradition that came from Israel, which is now nearly 2,000 years old.

It depends on how you look at it. You could call it a Jewish tradition. You could call it a Christian tradition. You could call it an Israel tradition. The reality is, it's all 3. (There are people who are simultaneously Jewish + Christian + Lutheran. It's possible to be all 3 at once.) So the tradition is simultaneously all 3 of these: Jewish + Israel + Christian, as Jesus Christ was a Jew who was born in Israel & is the Christ (The Anointed, Promised One), of which the term Christians are derived from, as followers of Jesus Christ.

The most Famous Jewish Rabbi, Prophet, Priest & King - Jesus Christ - mentioned this. It's recorded in Matthew 23:37-39 (NKJV):

  37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

So far, the Jews haven't said that as they don't all currently believe that He is the Messiah. Some do like the Chai v'Shalom congregation, but not all.

Then Jesus prophesies of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. when He says the following as recorded in Mark 13:2 (NKJV):

  2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Here is an article on the history of Israel from 70 A.D to 1948 A.D. and how it was not populated by the Jewish people for that period of time.

Now to follow up what will happen in the future, we can look at some more Jewish traditional history. Thus we can explore how & why Jerusalem gets restored.

An older tradition talks about the coming of the day of The Lord. It's recorded in Zechariah 14 & it's still in the future. Here are some excerpts:

Zechariah 14:1 & part of v.2 (NKJV):

  1 Behold, the day of the Lord is coming,
  And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
  2 For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;...

Did you note that part about all the nations. When the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. it was destroyed by 1 nation: The Roman Empire. So verse 2 discusses the future, as in post 2017... I don't know when... but in the future.

Then from 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NKJV), where a Jewish Pharisee wrote:

  16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

This tradition from the past also talks about the return of the saints in Heaven accompanying Jesus, right before the battle of Armaggedon:

Zechariah 14:3-5 (NKJV):

  3 Then the Lord will go forth
  And fight against those nations,
  As He fights in the day of battle.
  4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
  Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
  And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
  From east to west,
  Making a very large valley;
  Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
  And half of it toward the south.
  5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
  For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
  Yes, you shall flee
  As you fled from the earthquake
  In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
  Thus the Lord my God will come,
  And all the saints with You.

Did you catch that the Mount of Olives will be split in two & replaced by a valley, next to Jerusalem? That hasn't happened yet. Neither have all of the saints in Heaven returned to Earth yet. According to the 2,000 year old tradition from Israel, which has been passed down through the ages to us today... those events are still in the future. The Mount of Olives doesn't look like a valley yet.

Then after that we see what will happen in the future, according to another tradition. This one was written down by John in Revelation 21:1-2 (NKJV):

  1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Then later in Revelation 21:10-11 (NKJV):

  10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy[h] Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.

Apparently, God is designing a new Heavenly city & it will be called Jerusalem. God will live here on Earth in the new Jerusalem. Imagine it looking like this rendition. If you read the Jewish traditions in the Bible, you can find out more details about it!

Here is why that's important: Revelation 21:3 (NKJV):

  3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.

Which is a pretty cool tradition about why "the Second Coming of Jesus must be preceded by Jews returning to their homeland of Israel."


Could more miraculous works bring more persons to faith?

Preface: this is a generalization.  Atheists, like Christians, can't simply be lumped into a group where all of them think, act, react, and believe the same way.

I don't believe so.  In the words of Jesus Himself,in Matthew 16:1-4 (KJV)

  1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired
  him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.  2 He answered and
  said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather:
  for the sky is red.  3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to
  day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern
  the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?  4
  A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there
  shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And
  he left them, and departed.

In this case, Jesus was specifically dealing with the hypocritical "spiritual leaders' of the day, but I believe that the lesson can just as easily be applied to those who don't believe at all.  The problem with the Pharisees and the Sauducees was that they didn't believe and that they didn't want to believe because believing that Jesus was the messiah, the son of the living God, would have upset their world-view.  They were comfortable in their beliefs.

With most atheists that I've rubbed shoulders with (or even myself when I was one) the problem is only partly that we have no proof of God's existence.  The other half of the problem is that we would reject the proof if we saw it.

As reference for this last  statement, go back and search this site for questions on miracles - why are there no miracles seen today, and other similar questions, and read the comments.  If you do, you'll see that the atheists asking here pretty much reject any miracle as coincidence, or something explainable via non-miraculous means.

Additionally, non-atheists from other religions wouldn't necessarily be convinced by miracles.  The Old Testament is filled with stories of other nations seeing the miracles of God, but still worshiping their own idols and gods.


Do any denominations take "turn the other cheek" as a literal command to be followed?

No denomination simply ignores this verse. No major Christian teachers say to ignore Jesus' teachings. But given the different hermeneutical approaches of different people, there will be different ideas about how to apply his teachings.

John Stott wrote a widely used commentary on the Sermon on the Mount which addresses Matthew 5:39. Stott is highly respected in evangelical circles, and enlists Dietrich Bonhoeffer (an influential Lutheran) and Charles Spurgeon (a 19th century Baptist often called the "prince of preachers") to help make his points. Here's some of what Stott says about Matthew 5:39:

  Let it be said at once, albeit to our great discomfort, that there
  will be occasions when we cannot dodge this command but must obey it
  literally. It may seem fantastic that we should be expected to offer
  our left cheek to someone who has already struck our right, especially
  when we recall that 'the striking on the right cheek, the blow with
  the back of the hand, is still today in the East the insulting blow'
  and that Jesus probably had in mind not an ordinary insult but 'a
  quite specific insulting blow: the blow given to the disciples of
  Jesus as heretics'. Yet this is the standard which Jesus asks, and it
  is the standard which he himself fulfilled. ... Further, before we
  become too eager to evade the challenge of this teaching and behaviour
  as mere unpractical idealism, we need to remember that Jesus called
  his disciples to what Bonhoeffer termed a 'visible participation in
  his cross'. ... In Spurgeon's arresting phrase, we 'are to be as the
  anvil when bad men are the hammers'.

  Yes, but an anvil is one thing, a doormat is another. Jesus'
  illustrations and personal example depict not the weakling who offers
  no resistance. He himself challenged the high priest when questioned
  by him in court. They depict rather the strong man whose control of
  himself and love for others are so powerful that he rejects absolutely
  every conceivable form of retaliation.

  ...

  The only limit to a Christian's generosity will be a limit which love
  itself may impose. For example the apostle Paul once 'resisted' (same
  Greek word) the apostle Peter to his face. Peter's behaviour had been
  wrong, evil. He had withdrawn from fellowship with Gentile brothers
  and so contradicted the gospel. Did Paul give in to him and let him
  get away with it? No. He opposed him, publicly rebuking him and
  denouncing his action. And I think we must defend Paul's conduct as a
  true expression of love. For on the one hand there was no personal
  animosity towards Peter (he did not punch him or insult him or injure
  him), while on the other there was a strong love for the Gentile
  Christians Peter had affronted and for the gospel he had denied. (Gal.
  2:11-14)

  Similarly, Christ's illustrations are not to be taken as the charter
  for any unscrupulous tyrant, ruffian, beggar or thug. His purpose was
  to forbid revenge, not to encourage injustice, dishonesty or vice. ...
  He teaches not the irresponsibility which encourages evil but the
  forbearance which renounces revenge.

  ...

  The command of Jesus not to resist evil should not properly be used to
  justify either temperamental weakness or moral compromise or political
  anarchy or even total pacifism.

In that list is probably some things you had in mind for what it means to take Jesus' command literally (or "seriously" in the original post). So are there major denominations or movements who believe we should apply Jesus' command as "total pacifism"? There sure are. Pacifism is practically a founding principle of the various Anabaptist denominations (Mennonites and Amish) and Quakers. The non-denominational movement of "Red Letter Christians" also espouse pacifism because of Jesus' teachings. Pacifism in general is also pretty common in Christianity.

Christian anarchism is a subset of Christian pacifism. Christian anarchists believe that since the state is a purveyor of violence (via the police and military) it is inherently evil. Therefore Christians are not even to hold office. The Amish even say that joining unions, because of their coercive power, is a violation of Jesus' command. Christian anarchism was pioneered by the 20th century Russian Christian novelist Leo Tolstoy in his books What I Believe and The Kingdom of God is Within You.

Tolstoy was also an advocate of nonresistance (in the sense of not resisting any authorities). One writer explains what that means for modern believers this way:

  The path shown by Jesus is a difficult one that can only be trod by
  true martyrs. A "martyr," etymologically, is he who makes himself a
  witness to his faith. And it is the ultimate testimony to one’s faith
  to be ready to put it to practice even when one’s very life is
  threatened. But the life to be sacrificed, it should be noted, is not
  the enemy’s life, but the martyr’s own life — killing others is not a
  testimony of love, but of anger, fear, or hatred. For Tolstoy,
  therefore, a true martyr to Jesus’ message would neither punish nor
  resist (or at least not use violence to resist), but would strive to
  act from love, however hard, whatever the likelihood of being
  crucified. He would patiently learn to forgive and turn the other
  cheek, even at the risk of death. Such would be the only way to
  eventually win the hearts and minds of the other camp and open up the
  possibilities for reconciliation in the "war on terror."

Some movements, as Wikipedia notes, are "nonresistant" in some instances but more accurately subscribe to "nonviolent resistance" as a philosophy. Martin Luther King, Jr. is quite possibly the most famous advocate of nonviolent resistance, and he based that philosophy on the teachings of Jesus, as you can read in his book Strength to Love, which gets high accolades from Stott. His application of Jesus' principles during the civil rights movement is widely praised by Protestants, Catholics, and even non-Christians.

I don't believe any denominations advocate "temperamental weakness" (being a doormat) or "moral compromise" in response to this Scripture, though it's easy to see why individuals may understand Jesus' words that way on a superficial reading.


In a Venn diagram of the scriptures of Islam, Catholicism, and Judaism, what would be, roughly, the percentages of each portion?

Here's a rough Venn diagram (not to scale):

The approximate numbers of verses in each of these books is as follows:

Catholic Bible (35,500 verses)

Hebrew Tanakh / Old Testament (23,000)

Torah (6,000)
Psalms (2,500)

Deuterocanonical books (4,500)
New Testament (8,000)

Quran (6,000)

Of course, the length of verses varies by book, so it's not a great tool for comparison, but it at least provides a starting point.


What kind of "condemnation" is a believer exempt from in Romans 8:1?

The immediate context in Romans 8 gives the answer definitively. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.". The law of sin and death is what the believer is freed from, therefore death is the condemnation being spoken of. Instead of getting what we deserve ( death due to sin) we receive life through the Spirit because Christ died for us.
Although Christians still die, this will be reversed at Christ's coming for the church. Death will not be permanent.
Hope this helps.


What is the basis for the Catechism saying that one can always be forgiven by perfect contrition come from?

The answer is given in footnote 51 of what you quote:

Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent (1551), "On the Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction," ch. 4, "On Contrition":

  The Synod teaches…that…it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received…

The Council of Trent is infallible because its documents were ratified by a pope.


How were the old saints justified under the law? (Catholic and Protestant views)

Revelation 13:8 says:

  The Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.

It seems that God viewed the cross as an event beyond space and time.

If we read Hebrews 9:12-15, we can see and link together the three "eternals". The Lord accomplished an eternal redemption. By offering up Himself to God through the eternal Spirit, we have obtained an eternal inheritance.

It seems that the redemption of Christ has the divine eternal nature through the Spirit to transcend time in redeeming those who were thousands of years before Him as well as those who are thousands of years after Him. In other words, even if the world goes on for millions of years, Christ's redemption is still effective.

Watchman Nee, in his book, Fact, Faith, and Experience, says:

  If the blood of bulls and goats was not able to remove sin, as we
  mentioned earlier, how then were those in the Old Testament saved? It
  was by the cross. Man had sinned. Hence, only a man could accomplish
  the redemption of sin. Although the animals were innocent, and
  although they were without blemish, they could not redeem man from his
  sins. Why then did God promise in Leviticus 17 that the blood of
  creatures was able to redeem one from sin? There must be some very
  profound meaning here. The things of the law "are a shadow of the
  things to come, but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:17). Hence, the
  sacrifices and the offerings in the Old Testament all refer to Christ.
  Although Christ had not yet died at the time of the first covenant,
  God intended that all the sacrifices offered at that time be a type of
  Christ. Their death was taken as the death of Christ. Through the
  blood of many animals, God saw the blood of His beloved Son. Through
  many bulls and goats, He saw "the Lamb of God." Through the many
  sacrifices, He saw the substitutional death of Christ. When He
  accepted those offerings, it was as if He was accepting the merit of
  the death of His Son. Because of this, man was redeemed from his sins.
  God reckoned the innocent bulls and goats as His dear Son. Hence, He
  could forgive the sinners based upon the sacrifices they offered.
  Every time the offerings were slaughtered, they spoke of the coming
  sacrifice of the Son of God as the sin offering on Golgotha and of His
  accomplishment of the eternal work of salvation. Because the Lord is a
  man, He is able to redeem man from sin. Because He is God, He is able
  to redeem all men, past and present, from their sins.

  Those who offered the sacrifices in the Old Testament, consciously or
  unconsciously, believed in a coming crucified Savior.


Do Mormons respect the EU "Data Protection Directive" of right of access to personal data?

I know that software first-hand because I served as a ward clerk.

The quote is misleading. On the "members record" appears information about parents, children and husband/wife, along with their member number.

Members may have access to a so-called "summary of ordinances" (translation from german, i don't know the english  name). The only difference is that the member number of other persons (parents  etc.) do not appear. Clerks are encouraged to regularly show that summary to the member to check correctness, and members can keep it if they want.

The member number is identifying information that is used, for example, to register an account on lds.org. Giving that number to someone else would be the actual data protection issue.

I am aware this may only partially answer your question, but maybe it clears up some confusion.


According to Catholicism, why was Adam alone given the charge of naming the animals and birds?

From St. Augustine's Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichees, bk. 2, pp. 111-12:

CHAPTER 11
Man's Work in Paradise and Woman IsMade As His Helper

Although man was placed in paradise so as to work and guard it, [Gen. 2:15] that praiseworthy work was not toilsome. For the work in paradise is quite different from the work on the earth to which he was condemned after the sin. The addition "and to guard it" indicated the sort of work it was. For in the tranquility of the happy life, where there is no death, the only work is to guard what you possess. He also receives the command that we have already dealt with above.  This command ends so that it is not addressing one person, for it says, "On the day that you eat, you shall die the death." [Gen. 2:17] Hence, Scripture begins to explain how the woman was made. It says that she was made as man's helper so that by spiritual union she might bring forth spiritual offspring, that is, the good works of divine praise, while he rules and she obeys. He is ruled by wisdom, she by the man. For Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman. [1 Cor. 11:3] Thus it said, "It is not good that man is alone." [Gen. 2:18] For there was still need to bring it about not only that the soul rule over the body, because the body has the position of a servant, but also that virile reason hold subject to itself its animal part, by the help of which it governs the body. The woman was made as an illustration of this, for the order of things makes her subject to man. Thus we can also come to see in one human what we can see more clearly in two humans, that is, in the male and the female. The interior mind, like virile reason, should hold subject the soul's appetite by means of which we control the members of the body, and by just law it should place a limit upon its helper, just as man ought to rule woman and ought not to allow her to rule him. When this happens, the home is perverted and unhappy.

Hence, God first showed man how much better he was than the cattle and all irrational animals, and this is signified by the statement that all the animals were brought to him that he might see what he would call them and give them names. [Gen. 2:19-20] This shows that man is better than the animals in virtue of reason, since only reason which judges concerning them is able to distinguish and know them by name. This latter idea is an easy one to grasp, for man quickly understands that he is better than the cattle. The former idea is a difficult one to grasp, namely, that by which he understands that the rational part in him that rules is distinct from the animal part which is ruled.

Thus, according to St. Augustine, Adam named the animals to show that he is distinct from and superior to them (having an intellect, unlike them) and that he is to rule them, just as his soul is distinct from and superior to his body, which must be subjected to reason. Similarly, man must rule woman and not let woman overrule him.


How many laws from Old Testament are still valid in New Testament?

Most theologians agree that there are three kinds of Old Testament laws. Summed up well here.

  The Old Testament Law
  Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.
  Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.
  Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

Now these divisions in the laws are not actual, meaning scripture itself does not explicitly call a law one kind or another. The concept was derived from the teaching that the law was 'nailed to the cross' with Christ, and therefore, some of it no longer needs to be followed to the letter, simplistically speaking.

Thus, most Christian sects will say that the Christian must only follow the moral laws. What the actual moral laws are is hotly debated. One commonality, generally, is that many Christians consider most if not all of Leviticus as Civil and Ceremonial Law and most if not all of the Ten Commandments in either Exodus or Deuteronomy are Moral Laws. After that, they seem to be debated on a one-by-one basis.


LDS Church and Genealogy Research (What is the connection?)

It's not an ignorant question. You've touched on something that has great value to Latter-day Saints. Not only has the LDS Church partnered with Ancestry.com and others to make their genealogical records available to church members and developed FamilySearch to organize and collaborate family history research, the LDS Church also has the world's largest collection of genealogical records archived in a huge vault in granite mountains.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' three-fold mission is:

First, to proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people;
Secondly, to perfect the Saints by preparing them to receive the ordinances of the gospel and by instruction and discipline to gain exaltation;
Thirdly, to redeem the dead by performing vicarious ordinances of the gospel for those who have lived on the earth. (See Ensign, May 1981, p. 5.)

Or more succinctly:

proclaim the gospel, to perfect the Saints, and to redeem the dead.

Although "the three-fold mission" is not as frequently recited these days, these three primary values remain paramount in LDS living. As such, great efforts are made and sacred tithing funds are expended to share the gospel and to help both the living and the dead follow the example of Christ and receive essential ordinances.
In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, it states:

The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

Pretty much everything Mormons do revolves around strengthening families in Christ, and since in LDS theology the family unit can extend beyond the grave, knowing who your ancestors are and which ordinances they have received is really important.
The Old Testament promises us the spirit of Elijah (in Malachi 4):

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

It is probably because of this promise that it is not uncommon for people to report spiritual experiences as they research their family history and cultivate a stronger connection with their past.
The importance of genealogy is reinforced several times in the scriptures. Jesus' literal and royal lineages are both recorded in the New Testament. Several lineages are reported in the Old Testament, and The Book of Mormon has many others.
Knowing lineages allows Latter-day Saints to perform ordinances for their deceased ancestors in temples if they had not received them while living. Even though everyone is saved from death by Christ's resurrection, without the necessary ordinances we cannot live in God's presence with our family and become like He is. Thus, genealogy becomes vital in helping our families receive the ordinances of the gospel (like baptism).
Because Mormons believe that all of us are children of God, knowing who has gone before us helps us better understand our eternal identity and purpose. As we connect generations in the gospel, we better understand our relationship to God and come closer to Him.


According to Baptist when were names added to The Book of Life?

As far as I have been able to find out, according to Baptists, the names of the Elect were written in the Book of Life “from the foundation of the world.”  This is because Baptists believe in God’s sovereign right to predestine some to salvation.  Below are extracts from sermons by Charles Spurgeon, one of the foremost of Baptist preachers:

  A sermon by C. H. Spurgeon 1876: “Notwithstanding in this do not rejoice, that the spirits are subject to you; but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.” Luke 10:20:

  This joy consists in knowing our election; “knowing, dearly beloved, your election of God,” knowing that your names were written in heaven from before the foundation of the world.
  To be written in heaven means that you claim the right of citizenship in the New Jerusalem, “the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.” Just as there is a roll kept by great cities in which they inscribe the names of citizens, so we rejoice that our names are written in the roll of the city above, and that henceforth our citizenship is in heaven, from where we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus. This is a broad subject for rejoicing, for it includes priceless privileges and honours more than royal.
  We also rejoice that our names are written, that is, known and published in heaven. Paul mentioned certain of his fellow servants of whom he said, “whose names are written in heaven”: as much as to say though they have neither fame nor honour here they have a perpetual record where honour is worth receiving, namely, before the throne of God. The heavenly writing indicates that we are part and parcel of Christ’s new kingdom, we are inscribed among his soldiers, we are commissioned to bear hardness for his sake. We are written in heaven among the friends of Jesus, we are considered members of the sacred brotherhood. In the great book of the divine Fatherhood, we are numbered among the children, and henceforth we shall be regarded and treated as belonging to the one family in heaven and in earth. This is the matter concerning which we are called to rejoice. “Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
  “He who overcomes, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name from the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” There stands your name still recorded in the Lamb’s book of life, though many a tear of yours might well fall upon it to think what grace it is which keeps it there and will keep it there for ever.
  If you are forgiven, your name is written among the forgiven. If you are indeed quickened and made alive, your name is written among the living in Zion... The Lord does not give to any soul dead in sin the least right to believe that it is written among the living, neither does he give to any ungodly man the liberty to hope that he is written among the elect of God. We must have evidence, not dreams and airy suppositions; and the evidence of being written in heaven is that a man has been called by grace out of the world to follow Jesus. We see our election by our calling, and not in any other way. We may know what is written about us in heaven by what is written within us on earth. If grace has written upon your heart until you are “an epistle of Christ, known and read by all men,” your name is in his secret book. If you are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ you are his, and the Lord knows those who are his, and has written them down in his own private tablets which he carries near his heart. If your name is among true believers on earth it is among the redeemed in heaven: you need not question that, for the declarations of Scripture put it beyond a doubt.
  Source: https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/1312-why-may-i-rejoice/

Other sources provided these insights:

  17th Article Predestination and Election: "Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hast continually decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity."

  Waldensian Articles of Faith: "That God saves from corruption and damnation those whom he has chosen from the foundations of the world, not for any disposition, faith, or holiness that he foresaw in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ Jesus his Son, passing by all the rest according to the irreprehensible reason of his own free-will and justice."

  The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)- 3rd Article: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated to 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 mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto."
  Sources: http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/sermons/0041.htm
  The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):  http://www.romans45.org/creeds/bcof.htm

My only comment about the expression "before the foundation of the world" is that I take this to mean before God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden.


Why many Catholics believe that Mary is co-redemptrix?

Mary is co-redemptrix just means she has cooperated with Jesus Christ for our salvation. Explanations can be found in Lumen gentium quoted below :

  There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all" (1Tm 2,5-6). The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power.
  Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.
  This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother (cf. Lc 1,41-45). This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it, (Cf Eph. 1:18) when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the shepherds and Magi. When she presented Him to the Lord in the temple, making the offering of the poor, she heard Simeon foretelling at the same time that her Son would be a sign of contradiction and that a sword would pierce the mother's soul, that out of many hearts thoughts might be revealed (cf. Lc 2,34-35). When the Child Jesus was lost and they had sought Him sorrowing, His parents found Him in the temple, taken up with the things that were His Father's business; and they did not understand the word of their Son. His Mother indeed kept these things to be pondered over in her heart (cf. Lc 2,41-51).
  In the public life of Jesus, Mary makes significant appearances. This is so even at the very beginning, when at the marriage feast of Cana, moved with pity, she brought about by her intercession the beginning of miracles of Jesus the Messiah (cf. Jn 2,1-11). In the course of her Son's preaching she received the words whereby in extolling a kingdom beyond the calculations and bonds of flesh and blood, He declared blessed (cf. Mc 3,35 par. and Lc 11,27-28) those who heard and kept the word of God, as she was faithfully doing (cf. Lc 2,19 2,51). After this manner the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, (Cf. Jn. 19:25) grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with these words: "Woman, behold thy son" (cf. Jn 19,26-27).


Were paid indulgences compulsory prior to the Reformation?

When the 95 Theses were first published, Luther actually supported the idea of indulgences:

  #75. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.

The problem was that

They were being "sold" (you had to donate to get one, actually selling them had been excommunicable for something like 100 years at that point)
They were being treated as a "get out of jail free" card (people were saying that they did not need confession because they had indulgences).
He did not see why the Pope didn't simply empty purgatory.

It was not commonly taught that:

"Neglecting the purchase of indulgences assured one's soul of eternal damnation". Indulgences have to do with purgatory, not hell. If that is something which the Catholic Church has been accused of, then it is something which only happened recently.
"You were not a good person if you didn't buy." There is no real record of this position either. Indulgences had to do with forgiveness. Theoretically, a person who was good enough should not need them.

As far as showing them off, well, they were on pieces of paper, so people could. I don't really know why you'd want to though... it's a proclamation that you've sinned.


Why don't Catholics divide the blood of Christ into individual cups?

The practice is entirely biblical. At the Last Supper, Christ took a single cup at the end of the meal and handed it round the apostles:

  Mt 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has this:

  Through the fraction and through Communion, the faithful, though they are many, receive from the one bread the Lord’s Body and from the one chalice the Lord’s Blood in the same way the Apostles received them from Christ’s own hands.

A related question is why there tend to be individual wafers rather than a single large bread roll or loaf which is divided amongst the congregation. This is because of its change of substance: “This is my body,” which means that any crumbs must be dealt with. Tearing or cutting a loaf, while a valid symbol of the distribution, would create so many crumbs that it would be impossible to deal with. A wafer with sealed edges produces far fewer problems. Generally the wafers are consecrated in and distributed from a single vessel [ciborium].

It’s a related question because of the risk of spillage in distributing the sacrament in — and between — small individual cups. A large chalice has to be carefully handled, and the risk of spilling the sacrament is likely to be reduced. However this is incidental to the primary reason: Jesus used a single cup.


How does Christianity deal with biblical criticism related to the Old Testament?

Christians are very diverse on how they handle this type of criticism. Probably the most visible school of thought in today's media are the literalists. These Christians accept that the Bible was fully authored by God and is complete and infallible. For them, Gilgamesh is either fiction or a pagan account of the Genesis story. Hammurabi's code is a set of inferior pagan laws.

The most liberal Christians treat the Bible as one of many worthwhile ancient writings and as a product of the sharing of knowledge across cultures. The Genesis account was inspired by Gilgamesh. Mosaic Law and Hammurabi's Code may have been derived from the same source.

Most Christians fall somewhere in between the two. The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum and it's just a matter of course that there are similarities to other writings from other cultures. It doesn't change the Bible's supremacy and it doesn't impact their faith. An explanation I heard from a conservative reform Jew fits nicely. God spoke to lots of people. The Jews were just the ones who heard and obeyed.

That there were multiple authors of the Bible is just a given. Even the most conservative literalists believe that God used many people to write His word. Different groups might disagree on how many authors there were, but there was definitely more than one.


That happened before the Garden of Eden incident.  Before then, he walked in heaven (on the holy mount of God).

Ezekial 28:14-15 (NIV)

  14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,     for so I ordained you.
  You were on the holy mount of God;     you walked among the fiery
  stones.  15 You were blameless in your ways     from the day you were
  created     till wickedness was found in you.

He was actually cast down because he became proud.

Ezekial 28:17 (NIV)

  Your heart became proud     on account of your beauty,  and you
  corrupted your wisdom     because of your splendor.  So I threw you to
  the earth;     I made a spectacle of you before kings.

Then he thought that he could be God, that he could take God's place in the universe as ruler of it:

Isaiah 14:13-14 (NIV)

  13 You said in your heart,     “I will ascend to the heavens;  I will
  raise my throne     above the stars of God;  I will sit enthroned on
  the mount of assembly,     on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.”

That was his downfal:  Pride--he thought he was as good as God.


Have the Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the end of the world?

I believe they have for 1914 & 1925, but I may be missing some years.

Adding some info from the below source per request;

  1899 "...the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation
  16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of
  earth's present rulership, is already commenced," (The Time Is at
  Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).

  1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the
  return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old,
  particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the
  condition of human perfection," (Millions Now Living Will Never Die,
  p. 89).

  1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the
  Scriptures than 1914," (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262).

  1923 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the
  Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to
  base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming
  deluge," (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).

Below indicate the claim to be prophets;

  "So does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers
  and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the
  affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This "prophet" was not one man,
  but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep
  followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible
  Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses...Of
  course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God.
  It is another thing to prove it," (Watchtower,  Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197).
  (See Deut. 18:21.)

All taken from this Source


Existence of Catholic Church without hierarchy

The Church militant will always exist until the end of time. Matthew 16:18:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The papacy, and thus also the Church, will last until the end of the world, as the First Vatican Council said in Pastor Æternus (July 18, 1870), ch. II, "On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs":

That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.

Even if the vast majority of the hierarchy apostatizes, which happened during the Arian crisis,* the Church will still exist.*(St. Athanasius remaining one of the few Catholics)
St. Vincent of Lerins, in his Commonitorium book 1, chapter 2 (English translation of excerpt), foresaw the possibility of heresy taking over almost the entire Church, in which case there would remain few non-apostate, true members of the Church:

Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we shall observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly nearly all, priests and doctors alike.
What, then, will the Catholic Christian do if any part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the Universal Faith? What surely but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and corrupt member?
What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.
What if in antiquity itself error be detected on the part of two or three men, or perhaps of a city, or even of a province? Then he will look to it that he prefer the decrees of an ancient General Council, if such there be, to the rashness and ignorance of a few.
But what if some error spring up concerning which nothing of this kind is to be found? Then he must take pains to find out and compare the opinions of the ancients, provided, of course, that such remained in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, although they lived in different times and places, conspicuous and approved teachers; and whatever he shall find to have been held, written and taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently and persistently, that he must understand is to be believed by himself also without the slightest hesitation.


Can a practicing Catholic be an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church Monastery?

When examining your conscience, as a Catholic preparing for the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a book like the Handbook of Prayers, you'll hit this bullet point under the First Commandment:

  Did I endanger my faith by joining or attending meeting of organizations opposed to the Catholic Faith (non-catholic services, the Communist Part, free-masonry, "new age" cults or other religions)? Did I take part in one of its activities?

No, that would be "joining a non-Cathoic service".  The church looks pretty new-agey too.  Mr. Colbert, has no obligation as a TV personality to perform secular duties to marry people like a ship's captain or the Mayor of Pittsville.

The gravity of the sin, I think is varied by why he is doing what he is doing.  I'd say, at least he's not obviously officiating an illicit marriage, but why he's in that position, looking like an ordained minister - functioning as an ordained minister of a sect that holds values opposed to his own.

Now, lets analyze whether or not the Universal Life Church Monastery holds values

One the one hand you could have this type of a conclusion to the ceremony:

  Pronouncement

  Minister: By the power vested in me, by the Universal Life Church and by the state of Delaware, I pronounce you, Sally and Kevin as wife and husband, lawfully wedded before God.
  Kiss

  Minister: Kevin, you may now kiss the bride, forever sealing your union.
  Presentation

  Minister: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you Mr. and Mrs. Sally and Kevin Smith!

On the other hand:

  Pronouncement

  Minister: By the power vested in me, by the Universal Life Church and by the state of Delaware, I pronounce you, Sally and Jennifer as wife and wife, lawfully wedded before God.

  Kiss

  Minister: Sally, you may now kiss the bride, forever sealing your union.
  Presentation

  Minister: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you Mrs. and Mrs. Sally and Jennifer Smith!

and that's what they consider a Christian marriage service.  Now, there are lots of Christians who think this is peachy, but Catholic's can't just do what they want and not consider it sinful behavior, that's the price one pays for consuming the Body and Blood of Christ and also what one sacrifices when they knowingly commit a mortal sin.

One thing to note is, the reason this is not good is because it "endangers my faith".  It's a serious occasion of sin for a private individual. But, being a public figure and a self-proclaimed Catholic, it becomes scandalous, which is always worse.

This is the kind of stuff that needs to be denounced just as publicly as it was done in the first place.


Is there a medical dispensation formally allowed from Lenten fasting in Catholicism?

The USCCB website has several questions and answers about Lenten observances.
The last one of these is:

Q.  Are there exemptions other than for age from the requirement to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday?
A.  Those that are excused from fast and abstinence outside the age limits include the physically or mentally ill including individuals suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes.  Also excluded are pregnant or nursing women.  In all cases, common sense should prevail, and ill persons should not further jeopardize their health by fasting.


When did the angel archetype change from masculine to feminine?

According to this websitesite, the change occurred gradually over time, as the representation of the human form in art changed. In the middle ages, artists rarely painted distinctly masculine characteristics on their subjects:

…what modern viewers and artists perceive as “feminine” angels in many famous medieval European paintings were not intended by the artists to be females at all. Particularly during the Medieval period, the overt “sexuality” of much classic Greek and Roman art was almost totally repressed. Bodies were totally covered, both male and female, in long robes.
…
But artists of the time seldom painted overtly “chiseled,” square-jawed, masculine features on the faces of men. So unless a male was bearded, and particularly if he was represented as a young man, it wasn’t all that easy to sort out the vaguely uni-sex heads in pictures by gender.

In the 1800s, a move toward more realistic depiction of the human form in art coincided with a growing interest in angels apart from their original biblical context:

They may have a “spiritual aura” connected to them, which makes them look otherworldly, but without any special link to a Heaven where God’s throne is. They are viewed by many as being benevolent supernatural beings whose primary interest is helping out people—not necessarily because they have been sent by God to do so, but because it is just “their nature.”
And as this “new” kind of angel has taken shape in the past century or two, the emphasis has shifted more and more to a sort of gentle, nurturing, “motherly” (or “big sisterly”) role for angels—hence the trend toward almost entirely representing them as female.


What is the Catholic teaching on the use of animals?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2416: Animals deserve kindness as they are God's creation and under His care.

  Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417: Humans are charged with the stewardship of animals. Animals may be employed in just purposes.

  God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418: It is morally wrong to cause animals unneeded suffering.

  It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons

How these are applied to a specific situation can be debated and would likely involve pastoral advice.


To whom should we pray? To the Father or the son Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

According to Jesus,

  This, then, is how you should pray: "Our Father...

Jesus is clear that we pray to the father.

That said, I am personally convinced that if we get God's name wrong he still hears us. If my son occasionally calls me "mum" when he asks for my help I still help him (and it makes me smile, to be honest). I don't think a heavenly father would do any less.


What is the Biblical basis for opposing State Brutality?

The bible makes a case for civil disobedience when it comes to loving our neighbor as ourselves, and standing up to authorities regarding justice for the poor and oppressed, at the expense of disregarding governmental law. That's how Martin Luther King Jr. was justified in his stance on biblical, non-violent protest.

Reference such scripture examples as: The Samaritan woman at the well; the Good Samaritan; the Persistent Widow, and others (some supporting scripture to follow below).

The bible suggests that Christians should be willing to give up our lives unto death in the pursuit of petitioning for justice for others, whether they are Christian or not. We show our love by showing, and thus teaching, God's actionable love. Isaiah 58 poses the problem of the religious showing themselves as righteous by praying and fasting, yet neglecting 'true religion', allowing fighting, instead of becoming peacemakers. Police brutality is a lack of peace; we're called to petition them for peace, in a non-violent manner, which is not to say that's the same as 'making' peace. We aren't commanded to 'keep' peace, but to 'make' it where it does not currently exist - this requires taking action in addition to prayer.

“No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people. (Isaiah 58:6)

“No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people. Then your salvation will come like the dawn, and your wounds will quickly heal. Your godliness will lead you forward, and the glory of the Lord will protect you from behind. Then when you call, the Lord will answer. ‘Yes, I am here,’ he will quickly reply. “Remove the heavy yoke of oppression. (Isaiah 58:6, 8-9)

Christians who do not actively work against injustice of others maintains the unjust system (an example of which is the white privilege/systemic racism in America). Someone eventually must take action for change; the bible says that's us (Christians).

"By faith these people overthrew kingdoms, ruled with justice, and received what God had promised them. They shut the mouths of lions, quenched the flames of fire, and escaped death by the edge of the sword. Their weakness was turned to strength. They became strong in battle and put whole armies to flight. Women received their loved ones back again from death. But others were tortured, refusing to turn from God in order to be set free. They placed their hope in a better life after the resurrection." (Hebrews 11:33-35)

The above found in the New Testament refers to Old Testament events, yet is summed up in the New Testament for our instructing for the present time. This is part of the 'Heroes of the Faith' chapter, and we're to take note that the heroes had active faith, rather than simply a praying/fasting/evangelistic type of faith. Unfortunately, many Christians are not willing to encounter and engage in such struggle for others (all talk, no walk when it comes to getting involved with others against authorities, like the religious who crossed the street on the Sabbath to avoid caring for a Jewish man in critical condition because it was against Sabbath law - Luke 10:30-37)

Plenty of references regarding our actions toward maintaining justice in the Bible:

Blessed are they who maintain justice . . . . (Psalm 106:3)

This is what the LORD says: Maintain justice and do what is right . . . . (Isiah 56:1)

This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. (Jeremiah 22:3,13-17)

Follow justice and justice alone. (Deuteronomy 16:19, 20)

For the LORD is righteous, he loves justice . . . . (Job 11:5,7)

Learn to do right. Seek justice ... (Isaiah 1:17)


Why do there appear to be two very different variations of “tongues” in the New Testament?

In reference to the Acts passage:

The believers speaking in native tongues is a throwback to a Midrash on the Sinai event when the Law was received.  The rabbinic retelling has Israel speaking in all the tongues of the world, meaning that this is a monumental act of GOD happening.  The gospel is here, guided by the spirit and is intended for all peoples of the world, thereby undoing the judgement of the tower of babel.

The midrash is from Midrash Tanhuma 26c, as referenced in the book Speaking in tongues: the New Testament evidence in context.

And in respect to the Corinthians passages:

They are In respect to the spirit of GOD speaking through someone for the building up and edification of the local church and therefore not necessarily with the intention of evangelism.  The Corinthians used to fake speaking in tounges because they wanted to be seen as spiritual but here Paul is putting an end to that by saying don't speak in tongues in church unless there is an interpreter.

Craig keener, a Pentecostal evangelical conservative scholar has a great commentary on this called 1 + 2 Corinthians, it's totally worth the money.


The Bible seems to allow polygamy. Why doesn't the church?

Note: Throughout, I use the word "polygamy" in place of "polygyny", even though I explicitly mean to polygyny.

In short:
Polygamy is a sin because it goes against the law.  The law is in place because it is a carryover from the paganistic societies of ancient Rome.  Preventing polygamy was not a biblical concept, but one that came after Jesus, after authorship of the bible, and after the genesis of Christianity.
Why Polygamy is a sin
The reason that polygamy is no longer allowed by the church is because it's no longer allowed by society and is, therefore, against the law.
We Christians are told to uphold the law and subject ourselves to the law
Romans 13:1-2 (NIV)

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Because of this, polygamy is a sin if (and only if) it breaks the law.  Similarly, it is a sin in the same manner and degree that breaking a speed limit is a sin: it's something not forbidden by God and solely forbidden by the law.
Why it's illegal
Polygamy was not uncommon among the Jews in biblical times.  It wasn't until the the Romans came in that polygamy became outlawed.  Even then, it was still allowed; Josephus made notes explaining that polygamy was permitted to Herod because it was permitted by Jewish custom.
Polygamy modelled by Jesus's parable
We can see that polygamy was commonly accepted in the New Testament from the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13).  In this parable, Jesus tells of a bridegroom that is preparing to marry ten women.  This parable was used by Jesus to describes himself.  The polygamous bridegroom in the parable is a reference to Jesus.
Fall of polygamy
It was, in fact, the Greek and Roman rules against polygamy that spread (along with the Grecian and Roman empires) and became the culture, forcing out the practice of polygamy.
Monogomy and polygyny by Walter Scheidel, Stanford University (2009)

Thus, even though Greeks and Romans need not have been the first cultures to prescribe monogamy, these are the earliest securely attested cases and, moreover, established a paradigm for subsequent periods that eventually attained global dominance.
...
The true historical significance of Greco-Roman [monogamy] may well lie in its impact on the
Christian tradition.

It was these two huge historical forces that established monogamy in our society--not something born of God, but something born of Pagan societies.
Modern Society and Law
Christianity tied itself to the banner of the Roman empire 300 years after Christ (when Constantine established what would become the Roman Catholic church).  This organization spread Christianity by using the power and authority of the Roman empire.  It was this Roman concept of monogamy (predating Christianity) that carried over from its paganistic roots into the Christian society.  It was at that time (and not before) that Christianity became intertwined with the idea of monogamy.
This pagan idea of monogamy from Rome slowly infused into the Christian culture (source); and it was because association with Christianity (and the Roman Catholic Church) that the paganistic, Roman practice remains today.
This Roman practice has tangled itself into the Christian culture (via the early Roman Catholic church) and therefore all "Christian" nations since (founded under Western culture) have adopted the laws prohibiting polygamy from their outset.
Because of this, polygamy is illegal in most parts of the world.  Because it's illegal, it is a sin.
Catholicism Today
It should be noted that Catholicism today still carries over this idea from ancient Rome.  In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states "However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law."
Because of this, polygamy is solidly outlawed within Catholicism.  Granted, if you read the last section, this should not surprise anyone.

Answering Aguments Against Polygamy
God tolerated the sin for the time being
Malachi 3:6 says The Lord does not change.
To presume that he would accept something during one time in history that he detests at a different point is crazy--heretical even.  It goes against the nature of God (both in the Old Testament and New)
The bible shows it only causes trouble in marriage
This is really a weak argument.  The problem is that the Bible only tells us stories that are either edifying or interesting.  Yeah, it's going to talk about Abraham's difficulty with his wife and taking up a handmaiden as a wife.  But that story is both interesting and edifying.  The lesson here isn't against polygamy, but rather that we shouldn't marry a woman unless we marry her properly and with the right intentions.
Jacob's wives competed.  But the story there isn't to avoid polygamy, but to focus on God and make your marriages holy and godly.  If your marriages are focused on God instead of on selfish ambition, this won't happen!
Etc.
Each argument that says "polygamy is wrong because it leads to dischord" can also be used to say "marriage is wrong" for the same reasons.  Those are the marriages not focused on God--that is the source of their dischord.
On the contrary, if we look at the life of David, we see that he was a man highly loved by God and yet had multiple wives.  Some, however, use this very example to show how polygamy is wrong because his children fought (with each other and their parents).  However, can we blame this on David or his wives?  Absolutely not.
God only created one Eve for Adam
Note that this was written by Moses, who had (at least) two wives
This is also a weak argument.  When God created Eve, he created her as a helper.  Whether or not he intended for this to be a marriage situation is of secondary concern and something that we cannot know 1 2.
On the contrary, though, God has given us a pattern to follow for marriage:
Ephesians 5:22-25

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

We are to model our marriages after the the relationship that Jesus has with the church, not after the helper relationship that Adam had with Eve.
Furthermore, in the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13), Jesus describes himself using an analogy of a bridegroom that is preparing to marry ten women.  Why would Jesus really compare himself to a polygamist if it were detestable to him?
"Elders should be men of one wife"
Many use Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2,12 against polygamy.  They say that these verses talk about how deacons, overseers, and elders should be men of "one wife".
Point 1:  Simply because elders should be a "man of one wife", does not prevent polygamy among everyone else in the church.
Point 2: translation of this "one wife" is not as cut-and-dry as it may seem
To fully understand point 2, I want to compare these three passages to 1 Timothy 5:9:

A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man

The greek for the word "one" here is heis. From Strongs Concordance 1520, this word is translated as one, single.
However, if we look at Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2,12, the word we see for "one" is mias.  This is the same word used in Matthew 28:1 for "first".
While it's not definitive that mias should be translated as "first" instead of "one", it definitely shows that "a man of one wife" can have multiple translations.
In fact, let's look at the NIV version of this:
Titus 1:6 (NIV)

An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

"faithful to his wife"?  Why did they translate it that way?  Is it because they're trying to "please the polygamy crowd"?  Absolutely not!
The purpose of this passage is to indicate that the elders should be above reproach, faithful to his wife.  If you accept the mias as "first", it changes the translation of this passage to "man of his first wife", which means someone who's never been divorced!
That is the purpose of this passage: not to exclude polygamist, but to find men who should be held up as models for the community.  Men who are faithful and can maintain a marriage faithfully.
Two become one flesh
Note that this was written by Moses, who had (at least) two wives
Genesis 2:24

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

There are several passages that show that a man becomes "one flesh" with a woman regardless if it is his wife or a prostitute.
The idea of "one flesh" does not mean that the man is exclusive to that woman.  It means that they join themselves as if married.  This is true regardless of who the man does this with.
This is also clear in Ephisians 6:16-17 (NIV)

16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

It is clear that many believers can unite with the Lord as many prostitutes can unite with one man.
Furthermore, in John Skinner's Genesis: International Critical Commentary (T & T Clarke, Edinburgh, 1930) p. 70, Skinner notes that the word for "flesh" here is synonymous for "clan" or "family group"--both in the Hebrew and Arabic.  This word for "flesh", in fact, is the same word used here in Leviticus 25:49

An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves.

Clearly, there is no restriction of one man becoming an exclusive single flesh with a woman.
Other Arguments
There are many other arguments that can be heard and answered at BiblicalPolygamy.com


What is the purpose if the feast of visitation and on what day of the year is it celebrated?

The Visitation commemorates the event described in Luke 1:35-56, in which Mary goes in haste to her relative Elizabeth:

  39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord” (English Standard Version; the Magnificat immediately follows).

In the Catholic Church, it is celebrated on May 31. It is liturgically a feast, hence one notch below (so to speak) a solemnity. Since it is not feast of our Lord, it is not celebrated if it falls on a Sunday.


Why does God resort to genocide and destruction?

Remember that God is completely loving, but that he is also completely just.
A truly just God who already decreed that the punishment for sin is death is morally obligated to follow through on that punishment.

As an example, remember in Daniel 6 that Daniel broke the law about praying to any 'god' other than Darius. Despite the fact that Darius liked Daniel, when Daniel [disobeyed], Darius was obligated to throw Daniel into the lions den.

To do any less is to turn God into a liar (something which he by definition is not). He is tautologically constrained by goodness, justice, and omnipotence to act.
Indeed, the real question isn't "Why did God punish these towns (Sodom, the death of the firstborn in Egypt, the inhabitants of Canaan, the world right before the flood)?"  but rather, "Why doesn't he wipe out more civilizations?"
Is God merciful ?
The answer to that is his mercy, as evidenced by Jonah.
Jonah, as you will remember, was sent to Ninevah by God to demand they repent. Jonah did his duty, however grudgingly, simply telling telling them "Thirty days and Ninevah shall be destroyed." When Ninevah heard this, however, it repented.  As a result, God changed his mind and decided to wipe them out.
That's when Jonah gets upset.  Here's what he says in Jonah 4:2:

He prayed to the LORD, O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.

In response, God gives Jonah a living parable:

Then the LORD God provided a vine and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine. But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah's head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, It would be better for me to die than to live.
But God said to Jonah, Do you have a right to be angry about the vine? I do, he said. I am angry enough to die. But the LORD said, You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?

Why does justice demand death ?
Finally, it is reasonable to ask, why should a just God demand death for sin. After all, he is the one who pronounced originally that "in the day you shall eat thereof, you shall surely die."  (Here, I'm quoting Gen 2:17. Yes, Romans 6:23 is where I can unequivocally state the wages of sin is death, but I'm trying to stay in chronological order here!)
Here I want to delve into a bit of (hopefully informed) speculation.  The Jews understood that one could not look upon God and live.  (That's why (a) Jacob was amazed that he wrestled with God and lived, and (b) Moses, who asked to see God's face was told that he could not see it and live, but God did deign to show him his back.)
I don't think it is an unreasonable jump to suggest that when sinful man looks upon a completely holy God, he becomes so aware of his own inferiority that he cannot live with that knowledge.  (Its like that feeling of coming back to work after a wonderful Christmas vacation. The shock is killer!)
To look, unfettered upon the face of God, would be to literally die of shame.
Indeed, Dante says that the gates of hell are locked from the inside - Its not that God cannot abide man in heaven, but that sinful man cannot abide God.


Yes! You're Catholic.
Quick follow-up question though: did you receive a first Communion when you were younger?  If so, you probably just need to go to Confession before you can get in the Communion line again at Mass.  (That's true of any practicing Catholic who hasn't been in a while.)

If you never received Communion as a child, you may be required to attend an RCIA class ("rite of Christian initiation for adults") to re-learn the faith and get ready for a first Communion.  In most parishes, RCIA starts in the fall and runs through the next Easter, so don't dilly-dally and they will probably be happy to let you join this year's class late.

In either case, go talk to a priest before you take the advice of some guy on the Internet.


According to the Catholic Church, can a tattoo be considered a sacramental?

Interestingly, the only time the word medals is mentioned in the ARTICLE 1 - SACRAMENTALS of the CCC is under the Popular Piety section,

(italic is mine)

  Popular piety

  1674 Besides sacramental liturgy and sacramentals, catechesis must
  take into account the forms of piety and popular devotions among the
  faithful. The religious sense of the Christian people has always found
  expression in various forms of piety surrounding the Church's
  sacramental life, such as the veneration of relics, visits to
  sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the stations of the cross,
  religious dances, the rosary, medals, etc.

This paragraph is giving the impression that not even medals can be considered sacramentals!

There is also an etc in the end of the paragraph sufficiently ambiguous.

Better consult the Compendium of the CCC

(italic is mine)

  351. What are the sacramentals?

  1667-1672
  1677-1678

  These are sacred signs instituted by the Church to sanctify different
  circumstances of life. They include a prayer accompanied by the sign
  of the cross and other signs. Among the sacramentals which occupy an
  important place are: blessings, which are the praise of God and a
  prayer to obtain his gifts, the consecration of persons and the
  dedication of things for the worship of God.

Can a tattoo be considered a thing? Don't know.

Better ask a "tattooed millennial priest":

Can tattoos be sacramentals? [Article from the CNA]

  “Sacramentals, used well, keep us close to the grace of Christ given
  to us in the seven sacraments, and receive their graces by the
  authority that Christ gives his bride, the Church, when she asks for
  his help. When the Church asks Christ for graces, He never refuses his
  bride,”

and

  “This means that sacramentals only work when they are done according
  to the rules of the Church. If we want to ask Christ for these graces,
  we need to make sure we do so authentically as the Church, obediently
  accepting the rules she sets down. It's clear in Canon Law that the
  Apostolic See alone has the authority to establish sacramentals and
  define the criteria for their use [c. 1167],”

and

  "However, he added, it is possible that tattoos could be
  “sacramentals” in a broader sense of the word."

which means in a strict sense they are not.

He keeps talking,

  “A permanent image, engraved on the skin, could certainly serve as a
  constant, physical reminder of our new life in Christ. The image of a
  rosary, a cross, or other sacramental on our skin could lead us
  frequently to pray, to desire the seven sacraments more, and to think
  and act in communion with the Church,” he said.

and finally,

  “So, while a tattoo could not fulfill the requirements to be a proper
  sacramental in itself, if used in discernment and good faith it could
  certainly provide similar benefits and be helpful in the pursuit of
  holiness.”

And here we have the confirmation that tattoos can not be considered sacramentals.

I can't confirm a tattoo can be blessed without being considered a sacramental.


How are American non-denominational campus outreach lay ministries conducted?

When I was in college, I was involved in Baptist Student Union, I attended a few meetings of the Newman Society (a Catholic group), and ... I forget the name of the other group, it was a long time ago, but it was a Pentecostal group. Oh, and I attended one or two meetings of a forth but they weren't very active, so I migrated over to the Baptist group.

I'd say all of them functioned much like a lay-led Bible study slash Christian social club. They each had a lay leader who would present some sort of Bible study or message at each meeting. And they'd have social activities. Mostly they were intended to give Christian students an opportunity to meet with other Christians, learn a little about spiritual things, and have some refuge from secular culture.

None of the groups I was involved with was particularly evangelistic. I'm sure that a non-Christian who came seeking answers to spiritual questions would have been welcomed. I don't recall any activities specifically aimed to convert non-Christians. There are probably campus Christian groups out there that are seriously working to bring in converts, but that wasn't really the primary purpose of the groups I was with.

I recall the Newmans bringing in a priest to conduct a mass on at least one occasion. I don't recall if that was a regular thing or a special case. So I guess they had some respect for the clergy; there was certainly no indication that they saw their own leaders as an alternative to the clergy. Protestants don't have the same view of the clergy that Catholics do, so I don't recall anyone even talking about it in Protestant groups.

AS to converting Catholics to Protestantism ... I'm sure any Protestant group would welcome a Catholic who wanted to convert. And they'd see that as a good and positive thing. I mean, doesn't everybody figure that his group is better than any competing group? If he thought some other group was better, he'd join them. But I never ran into any campus Protestant group that saw it as their mission to convert Catholics.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that God likes or feels affection toward us?

John 3:16:

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 8:16-17:

  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

There are also many, many instances of angelic messengers and servants of God being sent to serve, protect, and teach people, identified as individuals, and not just as groups or important leaders. See Genesis 31; 1 Kings 17; and Daniel 3 for a few.

Aside from the examples above, the New Testament is also replete with examples of God's love for us as His children. The recorded miracles performed by Jesus Christ were almost always done for individuals of apparently little or no great fame or reputation. The Messiah, sent to save all mankind, frequently spent His precious, limited time ministering to individuals.

Your question is specifically about the Bible, but I'd also like to add that the Book of Mormon has many plain, beautiful examples and explanations of the love of God. 2 Nephi 2-4, Enos 1, and Mosiah 27 contain a few of my favorites.


According to the Eastern Orthodox, in what sense did the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) give birth to Christ's divinity?

You answered your question that Mary gave birth to Christ, full stop. This same Christ who walked the earth and was the child of Mary is the God-man.  Mary gave birth to the one cohesive person who is Jesus Christ. The second hypostasis of the Trinity entered her womb and took flesh of her and made it his own. This is called the hypostatic union.
Nestorianism believes that Christ is a duality of persons. The human person born of Mary and second person of the Trinity who occupied this mere man Jesus as a temporary receptacle.
The canonical epistles of Cyril to Nestorius presented at Ephesus 431 AD explain the Orthodox understanding:

For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man....Because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ.
Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ: we do not divide the God from the man, nor separate him into parts, as though the two natures were mutually united in him only through a sharing of dignity and authority (for that is a novelty and nothing else), neither do we give separately to the Word of God the name Christ and the same name separately to a different one born of a woman; but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own Flesh....
Besides, what the Gospels say our Saviour said of himself, we do not divide between two hypostases or persons. For neither is he, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as double, although of two (natures) and they diverse, yet he has joined them in an indivisible union, just as everyone knows a man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and the divine to the same person....And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.