Can a Catholic married to an Orthodox in an Orthodox church re-celebrate her wedding in a Catholic church?

According to the Catholic Church, your daughter's marriage to a non-Catholic, without her bishop's permission, is invalid; so she would absolutely need to marry in the Catholic Church.

From the section "Mixed Marriages" of the Code of Canon Law:

  Can.  1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church considers any Eastern Orthodox "not in full communion with the Catholic Church;" they are schismatics.

Your daughter can get permission to marry a non-Catholic from her Catholic bishop. Your daughter would have to

  [Can. 1125 §1] …declare that…she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.

And her fiancé

  [§2] …is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party [your daughter] is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he…is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party [your daughter].

Both your daughter and her fiancé

  [§3] …are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.


Request: Christian demographic statistics at the time of the reformation

This is not exactly what you are looking for, but this Wikipedia page estimates population by country in the year 1000 AD.

Since the Byzantine Empire, Kievan Rus and Volga Bulgaria would have been countries under one of the four eastern Sees, we could estimate the total number of Christians following the eastern Rite to be around 20 million.

Those countries under the See of Rome would have included the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of Arles, the Principality of Hungary, Poland, the Kingdom of England, the Duchy of Brittany, the Kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden, and Scotland, and, finally, Norway and Iceland, which amounts to around 23 million.

This is very rough, since there were some who practiced the eastern rite within the west, and some who practiced the western rite within the east, and we are not counting Christians who lived within the Moslem countries, but a rough estimate seems to suggest that the breakdown was roughly 50-50 at the time of the Great Schism (1054).

Wikipedia provides population estimates by country for 1500 and 1600 as well, so one could extend this exercise for those periods as well.


In Catholicism, what distinguishes a priestly blessing from a lay blessing?

All baptized persons may bless, even non-Catholics. But not all blessings may be given by all people.

As a vague rule, blessings involve things and persons over which one has been granted spiritual authority by God. For this reason, parents can appropriately bless their children, persons their homes, and those with appropriate Holy Orders can bless water, which furthermore serves to consecrate it: it becomes holy water. For a lay person to attempt to give certain blessings would not be in the proper order of things. People have different vocations: some acts are only appropriate to those who have been called by God into the priesthood, and very inappropriate to others.

Specific blessings differ in form in much the same way that specific prayers differ in form. As the solemnity of the act increases, so too does its formality. Very important blessings will have certain strict forms.

So one difference is that priestly blessings tend to be more formalized. The other differences, already mentioned, are that particular priestly blessings are restricted to priests, and that some such blessings serve to consecrate.

From the Catechism:

  1668 Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to man. In accordance with bishops' pastoral decisions, they can also respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism).

  1669 Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

  1670 Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. "For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God."

  1672 Certain blessings have a lasting importance because they consecrate persons to God, or reserve objects and places for liturgical use.

(A blessing is a sacramental. A sacramental is not the same as a sacrament.)

Attempting to perform certain blessings as a lay person is a bad idea. For example, this canon lawyer's blog is emphatically opposed to lay ministers attempting to confer a blessing using the Holy Eucharist:

  Blessing the faithful with the Most August Sacrament is expressly reserved to the ordained. Lay persons may not confer any blessings with the Host (Eucharistic worship outside of Mass nn. 91, 97-99, and 1983 CIC 1168). This practice should therefore be immediately halted wherever it has cropped up.

Generally, things that you see only priests doing are things that only priests should do.

(And if you're unsure, it's best to find out - ask the priest.)

A couple concrete examples of formulaic differences from http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?t=14564 (all from the first post)

  In the blessing of a table or meal: when the blessing prayer is said,
  the classic prayer, "Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts...." the
  layman who does it makes the sign of the Cross on himself, as usual,
  while the deacon or priest makes the sign over the food.

And for the priestly version of blessings:

  In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

  Response: Amen.

  Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus
  Christ.

  Response: And with your spirit (Et cum spiritu tuo.

Versus the lay version:

  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all.

  Response: Amen.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that creation will applaud the damnation of a sinner?

Sometimes we may be quick to judge another brother, not knowing exactly what they mean, so I will not argue for or against this quote, but I will show a way that it is not true, and a way that it could be true.

In contrast, if it is implied that God, or the saints, rejoice in the destruction of sinners, that cannot be true.

  Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
  Ezekiel 18:23 (NIV)

In support, if it is merely implied that creation is nature and has been put into bondage by the sin of Adam and groans to have sinners and sin to be taken out of it, this is a personification of nature that seems to be supported by the Bible and may be true.

  For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope  that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
  Romans 8:20-22 (NIV)


A really interesting question since as a Christian who opposes the use of lethal force by Christians, I have tended to count Leo Tolstoy as an ally of sorts since he also takes Jesus' command to 'love your neighbor as yourself' as foundational to an ethic of sacrificial love. However, upon further research (also here) I realized that you are right on the two counts which you ask:

1). As a thoroughly 'modern man' Tolstoy did not believe Jesus performed miracles.

2). Tolstoy also denied that Jesus was a 'son of God' preferring to interpret Jesus' Resurrection as being symbolic and ultimately rejecting his divinity.

On the first count, most Christians in the protestant tradition are willing to be flexible - denial of miracles was all the rage for many in Tolstoy's era and its influence is still evident within the significant 'cessationist' lobby in evangelicalism today. For example, no reference to miracles is made in the Apostle's Creed - although Mary's virgin conception is. On the second count however, Tolsoty is undeniably a heretic having rejected the tenet at the very heart of the gospel.

As my professor at Moody Bible Institute (an institution generally 'reformed' in its thinking) wrote here quoting what is generally considered a standard text of Evangelical orthodoxy:

  I am in hearty agreement with Affirmation Ten of This We Believe: “We affirm that the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead is essential to the biblical Gospel (1 Cor. 15:14).”...Jews and Greeks could conclude that a crucified Messiah is a contradiction, an absurdity. That is, since Jesus suffered and died, indeed was crucified, he must have been rejected by God. But the opposite is the case; the Resurrected One was not rejected by God.

That is the simple answer to your question: if his affirmation of count 1 did not lead to a denial of count 2 (i.e. if he at least affirmed that God the Father bodily resurrected Jesus Christ) then Tolstoy did not belief the Gospel. If he was merely uncertain about this particular point, for example as the exact meaning of what it meant that Jesus was the Son of God, perhaps there could be more conversation and uncertainty as to his status. But since he actively denied Jesus' divinity and resurrection, he stands starkly against the very essence of what Christians proclaimed in the very first sermons in the book of Acts, and against the bare minimum of what all Christians must believe:

  ...if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9, NRSV)

You close your questions asking about where the 'line' of tolerance is generally drawn, and whether his views can still be viewed as thought-provoking.

In brief, although rejection of miracles is a huge red flag, the last line which all protestant Christians will hold is exactly contention 2 - the bodily resurrection of Jesus - and Romans 10:9 - see also 1 Corinthians 15.

Secondly, although within fundamentalist circles the tendency is never to look beyond the bible for truth, especially in spiritual matters, most Christians of the reformed and protestant traditions are willing to read and learn from a rather wide theological circle. For example, the ethical theme of loving your enemies which so captured Tolstoy and which he identified with the cross has strongly influenced many today, taking Jürgen Moltmann's The Crucified God as just one example.

That Tolstoy looked only at the cross and rejected the resurrection is however, a mark against him that protestants should never forget. It reminds me of the more recent work of open theologian Gregory Boyd's Cross Vision which speaks a lot about looking at Jesus through the lens of the cross at the expense of remembering that the crucified God was raised bodily from the dead.

This raises a final issue relevant to your question, learning from those who reject the resurrection is perfectly acceptable, even recommended for protestants, many of whom work in secular fields, or who find value in reading the work of non-Christian spiritual genius'. However, someone like Tolstoy should not be espoused (from the evangelical perspective) as a 'Christian' teacher or writer, and would never be accepted to pastor or lead within a reformed Church. I think of Jordan Peterson, someone who has recently received praise and attention from American evangelical Christians for his writings about religion (including a 'metaphorical/literary' acceptance of the resurrection) coupled with public calls for him to 'be saved'.


What is the source of the tradition that animals can speak on Christmas Eve?

Further research found this page with interesting highlights:

This is primarily a Northern European/Scandanavian myth, based in the Christmas story

This is a syncretic pagan tradition that melded with the Christmas story

I imagine that the talking animals business is somehow connected to the general "world turned upside down" idea of traditional winter solstice festivals, e.g. Twelfth Night:
In medieval and Tudor England, the Twelfth Night marked the end of a winter festival that started on All Hallows Eve — now more commonly known as Halloween. The Lord of Misrule symbolizes the world turning upside down. On this day the King and all those who were high would become the peasants and vice versa. At the beginning of the Twelfth Night festival, a cake that contained a bean was eaten. The person who found the bean would rule the feast. Midnight signaled the end of his rule and the world would return to normal. The common theme was that the normal order of things was reversed. This Lord of Misrule tradition dates back to pre-Christian European festivals such as the Celtic festival of Samhain and the Ancient Roman festival of Saturnalia.

True to the "magnificat" animals get the upper hand, and humans often do not like what they hear. It is often used as a lesson to be kind to those lesser than themselves.

It apparently works from sunset until midnight, although some variations put it at once every hundred years.


What was done with animals WITH defects?

I think Malachi offers a little more insight into this:

  When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. - Malachi 1:8 ESV

These are animals that would not be eaten or bred due to illness or other problems.  The idea is that it's not really a sacrifice if it has little value to begin with.


Do clerics commit a sin if they do not recite the liturgy of the hours?

The short answer is yes.

  First of all, we must distinguish among those who have an obligation to pray the Divine Office.
  All Latin-rite priests and transitional deacons have the grave obligation, undertaken in the moment of ordination, to pray the entire Liturgy of the Hours: "Are you resolved to maintain and deepen a spirit of prayer appropriate to your way of life and, in keeping with what is required of you, to celebrate faithfully the Liturgy of the Hours for the Church and for the whole world?" (cf. Roman Pontifical, Rite of the Ordination of Deacons)." This is confirmed by No. 29 of the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours and Canon 276, §2.3, of the Code of Canon Law.

  With respect to the extent and possible exceptions to this general rule, the Congregation for Divine Worship offered the following clarifications:

  "Question #1: What is the mind of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments regarding the extension of the obligation of celebration or reciting daily the Liturgy of the Hours?

  "Response: Those who have been ordained are morally bound, in virtue of the same ordination they have received, to the celebration or the entire and daily recitation of the Divine Office such as is canonically established in canon 276, § 2, n. 3 of the CIC, cited previously. This recitation does not have for its part the nature of a private devotion or of a pious exercise realized by the personal will alone of the cleric but rather is an act proper to the sacred ministry and pastoral office.

  "Question #2: Is the obligation sub gravi extended to the entire recitation of the Divine Office?

  "Response: The following must be kept in mind:

  "A serious reason, be it of health, or of pastoral service in ministry, or of an act of charity, or of fatigue, not a simple inconvenience, may excuse the partial recitation and even the entire Divine Office, according to the general principal that establishes that a mere ecclesiastical law does not bind when a serious inconvenience is present;

  "The total or partial omission of the Office due to laziness alone or due to the performance of activities of unnecessary diversion, is not licit, and even more so, constitutes an underestimation, according to the gravity of the matter, of the ministerial office and of the positive law of the Church;

  "To omit the Hours of Morning Prayer (Lauds) and Evening Prayer (Vespers) requires a greater reason still, given that these Hours are the 'double hinge of the daily Office' (SC 89);

  "If a priest must celebrate Mass several times on the same day or hear confessions for several hours or preach several times on the same day, and this causes him fatigue, he may consider, with tranquility of conscience, that he has a legitimate excuse for omitting a proportionate part of the Office;

  "The proper Ordinary of the priest or deacon can, for a just or serious reason, according to the case, dispense him totally or partially from the recitation of the Divine Office, or commute it to another act of piety (as, for example, the Holy Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, a biblical or spiritual reading, a time of mental prayer reasonably prolonged, etc.). - What Should Be Prayed in the Liturgy of the Hours

Canon Law states the following:

  Can. 276 §1. In leading their lives, clerics are bound in a special way to pursue holiness since, having been consecrated to God by a new title in the reception of orders, they are dispensers of the mysteries of God in the service of His people.

  §2. In order to be able to pursue this perfection:

  1º they are first of all to fulfill faithfully and tirelessly the duties of the pastoral ministry;

  2º they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of sacred scripture and the Eucharist; therefore, priests are earnestly invited to offer the eucharistic sacrifice daily and deacons to participate in its offering daily;

  3º priests and deacons aspiring to the presbyterate are obliged to carry out the liturgy of the hours daily according to the proper and approved liturgical books; permanent deacons, however, are to carry out the same to the extent defined by the conference of bishops;

  4º they are equally bound to make time for spiritual retreats according to the prescripts of particular law;

  5º they are urged to engage in mental prayer regularly, to approach the sacrament of penance frequently, to honor the Virgin Mother of God with particular veneration, and to use other common and particular means of sanctification.

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university explains it this way:

  During the development process for the 1983 Code of Canon Law it was decided to remove expressions such as “under pain of mortal sin” with respect to the external prescriptions of Church law.

  In part this was done to distinguish Church law and the moral law. Church law covers the external relationship of individuals in the Christian community. Since sin also involves internal factors, the law, in itself, does not bind under pain of sin.

  This technical distinction does not mean that no sin is committed by transgressing Church law. The fact that the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin does not change the fact that willful and inexcusable absence is mortally sinful. - Obligation of the Liturgy of the Hours


How can common believers in the Roman Catholic Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?

Briefly, not all papal decisions are ex cathedra, or spoken from the chair. When he delivers statements in this mode, they are matter of doctrine and dogma, and this has seldom happened in history. Nothing every stated ex cathedra has ever been reneged, and if you read what these things are, you'd realize there is no possibility of reneging them without essentially contradicting Christianity.

Now does this mean that all other teachings are optional? Certainly not. The difference is that the other teachings are knowable without revelation, and can be known through the use of reason or reason augmented by faith. Because scripture is interpreted with the help of tradition (which was abandoned by Protestants, although the Orthodox situation is unclear), the Church is the best qualified to interpret it. The Church is not settled on all matters of Scripture, which is why theologians still debate certain points, but these don't have any larger effect. You have to be careful to distinguish between canon law, unsettled Scriptural matters, and infallible dogma. If you don't distinguish, you become the kind of Protestant who thinks Catholics worship saints, the pope, relics, and so on.

With respect to condom and contraceptive, the pope has not made their use acceptable. This is a wild misinterpretation that the media has propagated (and the media in Anglo-America is notoriously anti-RCC). The Church has always, does, and always will maintain that contraception is evil. The pope, in a rather insignificant explanation that a depraved media fixated on, is merely saying that if someone is a male prostitute now (which is an evil state of affairs), then a move in the right direction may involve condom use as part of an incremental shift from a greater evil to a lesser evil. By using condoms, he is reducing other evils (the act and everything else remains just as depraved) such as the rate of HIV transmission (assuming effectiveness). He's not saying it's okay. In fact, if one is a male prostitute, one should stop being one immediately. The pope is merely saying that in such limited cases, a condom can be seen as a step in the right direction. Not that it's a very big move, or a noble move, or one to write home about. He's giving a theoretical account of it. But in reality, his position is no change at all. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and are not made less evil themselves through condom use. Condom use may merely reduce an evil side effect of disease transmission.

So be very careful about what the Church is really saying. You make the same mistake with the aforementioned councils. Those who engage in attacks on the papacy are usually unwilling to really learn about the Catholic Church in depth, and prefer to believe a rather erroneous account of it. There are over 40,000 Protestant denominations because every Tom, Dick, and Harry, plus Joe the Plumber decide, with no education in these matters, what Scripture means for them. Not what it really means, but what they want to read into it.


Does extreme use of capital punishment in ANE & Mosaic laws attest to a universal recognition of God's wrath, or God's tolerance of universal cruelty?

Here are some interpretive options that are valid in Catholicism as well as many other, but not all, Christian denominations.

Firstly, we don't need to rule out the possibility that the OT laws in question are perfectly just. But, we also know that God prefers mercy to justice; justice is the bare minimum. And, we can see this concept in Jesus' explanation of the similarly questionable OT divorce law:

  1 He set out from there and went into the district of Judea
  [and] across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was
  his custom, he again taught them. 2 The Pharisees
  approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his
  wife?” They were testing him. 3 He said to them in reply,
  “What did Moses command you?” 4 They replied, “Moses
  permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”
  5 But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your
  hearts he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the
  beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. 7
  For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined
  to his wife], 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So
  they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God
  has joined together, no human being must separate.” 10 In
  the house the disciples again questioned him about this. 11
  He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
  commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her
  husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:1-12)

In brief, God's OT commandments favored justice over mercy to accommodate the spiritual deficiencies of the culture. However, mercy is better than justice. And even in the NT, the OT law is still affirmed and accepted to some extent, but living according to the Holy Spirit, which is governed more by mercy than justice, is strongly preferred.

In the case of particular instances wherein God commands something that is seemingly harsh, wrathful, or less than the NT ideal of mercy, we approach one of two ways.

Option one. Recognizing that God's general commands (Mosaic Law) "meet people where they are" and allows for our hardness of hearts, we can reasonably assume that God's individual commands are likewise. When God speaks, he always meets us at our current spiritual state and will always mandate something better than we'd do on our own, but not so great than we'll think God is a joke and ignore Him. (More or less.)

Option two. We recognize that understanding written scripture requires a contextual lens, a basic understanding that Christ crucified is the heart of scripture, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. With the contextual lens in particular, you don't need to assume a precisely historical read in these cases. And the relation of all scripture to Christ crucified then sheds light on the intended meaning of these types of passages. So you can assume one of a few basic scenarios (two of which I can recall!):

When Person X is recognized to be a sinner and can be rightfully put to death according to the law, God commands their death in that specific case. The literal account may not be, "according to the law" but rather "God said." And while this may seem dishonest to us, it's not necessarily untruthful either. It's simply "connecting the dots" in a sense.
God calls Person or Persons X "abhorrently sinful." God says, "have nothing to do with Person or Persons X on account of their behavior. Remove them from your presence." In OT contemporary literature, this might have been recorded is a more extreme and graphic retelling -- "God said, kill the sinner." And it's important to note, this isn't an infringement on the infallibility of scripture, which is not always, if ever, meant to fit into the genre of history. Rather, when the OT says, "God said kill sinner X," it often doesn't matter whether this is a literal retelling; the point is, the sin of sinner X is extremely terrible, and probably damning if serious action isn't taken.

Option three. We recognize, particularly in a more literal interpretation, that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent. As such, God may sometimes recognize a person's or people's relationship with Himself has become so endangered that he must take or mandate seemingly wrathful or lethal action to communicate the severity of the situation. In such cases, one could assume that God, in his perfect knowledge, knows that such actions are absolutely necessarily to save some or all of those involved without infringing on their free will. (The inspiration for this option is from Mike's answer. And as Mike's answer reminds us, the orientation of Mosaic Law to God makes adherence to Mosaic highly special and important in the "legal" arena.)


Will men be circumcised after the Resurrection?

We won't know until the afterlife; the answer looks to be "no1"

The Fourth Lateran Council rules lean toward "no", as explained by Father Paul A Deffner, O.P.

  THE SAME BODY

  Not only will our body be brought back to be reunited with the soul,
  but it will be the same body to which the soul was united before
  death.  As St. Paul declared (I Cor. 15:33):

  This corruptible body must put on incorruption, and this mortal body
  must put on immortality.

  Speaking on this point, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
  declared:

  All men appear before the judgment seat of Christ with their own bodies, to give an account of their deeds."

  During this life, whatever one has done (good or bad), the whole man (body and soul) has shared.  It is right, therefore, that both body and soul should share in the reward or punishment in the life to come.

  ... When we say that the risen body will be the same body we had in this
  life, we mean this in the same sense as the body I have now is the
  same body I had 20 years ago.

St Thomas Aquinas' on the glorified body

St Thomas Aquinas Summa presents that Christ's glorified body was his own body, glorified.  (Thus, if we are to be "like Him" our own body (glorified) is what we'll have at that point.)

  Christ's body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as the soul which was
  its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to
  be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same body of Christ
  to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the
  body's nature is from its form it follows that Christ's body after His
  Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was before.
  (Summa Theologiae III, 54, 1)
  But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled. (Summa Theologiae III, 54, 2 ad 2)

St. Thomas Aquinas at Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 86 summarized, referring to the glorified body.

  Thus also will his body be raised to the characteristics of heavenly
  bodies — it will be lightsome (clarity), incapable of suffering
  (impassible), without difficulty and labor in movement (agility), and
  most perfectly perfected by its form (subtlety). For this reason, the
  Apostle speaks of the bodies of the risen as heavenly, referring not
  to their nature, but to their glory.”

And scriptural references ...

  Matthew 13:43: “The just shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of
  their Father,”
  Wisdom 3:7: “The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds.”  (Here clarity refers not being “clear” but to being “bright.”)

The four qualities of the glorified body are taught as Impassability, Subtlety, Agility, Clarity.  "Trimmed" and "not trimmed" didn't make the cut for that list.

About Subtlety

How does "most perfectly perfected by its form" address circumcision, if at all?   Will scars be healed?  Maybe, or maybe not.  Depends on if a scar is a "trophy of victory" for a given person.

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Questoin 1, Objection 4, Response 1

  On the contrary, Our Lord said to Thomas (John 20:27):

  Put in thy
  finger hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it
  into My side, and be not faithless but believing.

  I answer that, It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to
  resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own
  glory. For Bede says on Luke 24:40

  that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory."

1 If one was circumcised while alive, one's glorified body would likewise be ... but your question seems to be about a change due to becoming a glorified body as part of the glorification process


In what way was the Law of Moses "a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished"?

The question here really is "what is the purpose of the Torah?" and "what is achieved by God in Christ?" For NT Wright, they are in a sense the same. The key theme, as in much of Wright's work, is that of covenant relationship.

The purpose of the Torah, for Wright, is to mediate the covenant between YHWH and Israel. As Wright writes in Creation and Covenant,

  Torah does in human life what the sun does within creation: it brings the light, power and searching, probing heat of YHWH’s presence into the depths of the human heart. Torah is, of course, the covenant charter of Israel, the Law given to bind Israel to YHWH, to establish the nation as his people. With Torah as its guide, Israel is the unique, chosen people of the one creator God.

So the purpose of the Torah is to bind YHWH and hoods people together, to mark them out as his covenant people. Basically it is to mediate the relationship.

For Wright, one aspect of Jesus' work (perhaps even the central aspect) is again to mediate the relationship between God and his people of the New Covenant. The Torah mediated the Old Covenant, but that purpose has passed away with the coming off Christ into the world, the perfect mediation of the covenant of love between God and his world.


CS Lewis said time would probably continue in Heaven...But how?

As I understand it, he is saying that our future perception may be "expanded", while still being qualitatively the same - in particular, not approaching the very different perception of time that God has. (We experience time as a succession of cause and effect; we can remember the past but can only conjecture about the future. On the other hand, God sees all times at once.)

In the letter, he talks about the thicker line as a suggestion that we could experience a "wider" present than we currently do, by being able to see and understand more  things at once. However, we are still on the line, and so we have the same inability to see the future as we do now. This matches the standard account of angelic knowledge: angels' intellect is like our own, but better, so that they can make more accurate deductions about the future, but still have to deduce rather than perceiving it directly. In the same way, angels are better than us at noticing things and in the general acuity of their senses, but they still fall short of God's ability to see things as they truly are, as opposed to their being mediated by the senses.

Part of Lewis's thought in the letter is that the future "resurrection of the body" implies that we will have bodies (and senses, and minds) that are still basically the same as now. They are perfected, but are still not divine. Scholastic philosophers argued that our perception of time in heaven might be different for several reasons -

We couldn't measure the progression of time from our physiological processes (getting hungry or tired).
With no celestial bodies to look at, we can't use them to measure hours, days, seasons, or years.
The same goes for measuring time by the decay of objects (eg, watching an apple go rotten). That doesn't happen any more.
The "speed of thought" may be different, and in any case is incommensurable with what's going on in the minds of others. You can spend an amount of time thinking about something, but did it "really" take ten minutes or ten years?

This seems to match the Lewis conception of the thicker line. There is still a succession of moments, but we may perceive things differently during those moments.


What is meant by the punishment for Satan in Genesis 3?

I think is important to look at this as a whole, not just "upon thy belly shall thou go". This is symbolic, as a lot is in the Holy Writ. We have the advantage over the devil, and if we desire, we can resist him, and he will flee from us.  He has no more power then we give him.

This is personal interpretation: If something/one is crawling, and I am walking, I immediately have a vantage point and power over that individual.  Satan was not given a body because of his rebellion, so he cannot literally crawl upon his belly.


Biblical basis for claiming Eve was a virgin prior to the Fall

Adam and Eve did not have intercourse before the Fall (although they could have) because Genesis 4:1, which is after the Fall, is the first reported instance that "Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived".

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica I q. 98 a. 2 ("Whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition?") ad 2, summarizes St. Augustine's argument:

  As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ix, 4), our first parents did not come together in paradise, because on account of sin they were ejected from paradise shortly after the creation of the woman; or because, having received the general Divine command relative to generation, they awaited the special command relative to time.

Genesis 2:25 doesn't prove Eve was a virgin before the Fall. As St. Augustine writes in City of God bk. 14 ch. 17, Adam and Eve knew of their nakedness before the Fall, but it did not cause concupiscence and shame in them:

  "They were naked and were not ashamed," Genesis 2:25 — not that their nakedness was unknown to them, but because nakedness was not yet shameful, because not yet did lust move those members without the will's consent


Are there any real statistics on how many people fall away?

Short answer:

It would appear that the answer to your question that is reliable, and applicable across the board, is a resounding "no". Within denominational or individual Church/affiliation boundaries, there are plenty, but the numbers vary

Explanation of the short answer:

I've found several sources that give "fall away rates" with varying degrees of source citations.
From http://www.frontlinemin.org/decisionism.asp

(and I'm not sure if these numbers are trustworthy - a number of them are vague and dont' give the Church, Crusade, denomination, at all.  They could easily be fabricated.)

  Charles E. Hackett, the division of home missions national director for the Assemblies of God in the U.S. said, “A soul at the altar does
  not generate much excitement in some circles because we realize
  approximately ninety-five out of every hundred will not become
  integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for
  a second visit.”
  In his book Today’s Evangelism, Ernest C. Reisinger said of one outreach event, “It lasted eight days, and there were sixty-eight
  supposed conversions.” A month later, not one of the “converts” could
  be found.
  In 1991, organizers of a Salt Lake City concert encouraged follow-up. They said, “Less then 5 percent of those who respond to an
  altar call during a public crusade . . . are living a Christian life
  one year later.” In other words, more than 95 percent proved to be
  false converts.
  A pastor in Boulder, Colorado, sent a team to Russia in 1991 and obtained 2,500 decisions. The next year, the team found only thirty
  continuing in their faith. That’s a retention rate of 1.2 percent.
  In November 1970, a number of churches combined for a convention in Fort Worth, Texas, and secured 30,000 decisions. Six months later, the
  follow-up committee could only find thirty continuing in their faith.
  A mass crusade reported 18,000 decisions—yet, according to Church Growth magazine, 94 percent failed to become incorporated into a local
  church.
  In Sacramento, California, a combined crusade yielded more than 2,000 commitments. One church followed up on fifty-two of those
  decisions and couldn’t find one true convert.
  A leading U.S. denomination reported that during 1995 they secured 384,057 decisions but retained only 22,983 in fellowship. They
  couldn’t account for 361,074 supposed conversions. That’s a 94 percent
  fall-away rate.
  In the March/April 1993 issue of American Horizon, the national director of home missions of a major U.S. denomination disclosed that
  in 1991, 11,500 churches had obtained 294,784 decisions for Christ.
  Unfortunately, they could find only 14,337 in fellowship. That means
  that despite the usual intense follow-up, they couldn’t account for
  approximately 280,000 of their “converts.”

But another source gives different statistics, way off from the ones above.

(and still, I wonder where they get their numbers.)

From http://biblicalinsights.net/Book%20Reviews/Falling%20Away.pdf

  In chapter one, Simmons establishes the reality of falling away.
  Reliable surveys have  been done which show an apostasy rate as high
  as 40% among adult American Christians.  Others show a rate as low as
  10-15%. The average apostasy rate is 25% (3). Catholics have a higher
  apostasy rate than Protestants. In the Church of Christ faith
  tradition, the apostasy rate is 50% for individuals 18 to 25 years old
  (3). It is estimated that over 75% of all Mormons will fall away from
  the faith at some point in their lives (3).

As for the anecdotal evidence supplied from the teaching you linked to in your question, Mr. Comfort gives the source for that particular statistic as a copy of American Horizons Magazine, the official magazine of the Church in question. (Coincidentally, the last one in my first bulleted list...)

From http://internet-churches.com/true-false.htm

  I was reading in the American Horizons magazine, which is the official
  magazine of a very large, or a major, denomination of the United
  States which has 11,500 churches throughout the US - in 1991, their
  first year of what they called “the decade of harvest,” they got
  294,000 decisions for Christ. They found that only 14,000 remained in
  fellowship. That is, they couldn’t account for 279,000 of their
  decisions for Jesus. And this is normal modern evangelical statistics
  when it comes to crusades and local churches.

But as for an official, scientific study, or a survey that follows real methods, I find no evidence.  It would appear that the numbers are based on anecdotal evidence, or as Mr. Comfort states. "Church records" - records shared from Pastors at Churches.   Even in the Hell's Best Kept Secret teaching, he states that the number is based on Church records that he has had access to. He never claims that this is a universally applicable statistic.

This is, at least, feasible.  I know that in our Church, we keep records of those who have prayed the sinner's prayer, and we have records of who is still in attendance, and who has left, and for what reason. (Church discipline, asked to be removed from membership, etc.)  I'm sure if I talked to my Pastor, I could come up with a calculation for our own Church's "fall away rate".

But is that indicative of the fall-away rate for Christianity as a whole?  no.

And given the fractured nature of Christianity, and even the difficulty in defining what "falling away" really means, I'd say it's not feasible to get such results. How would you define "falling away"?  No longer attending Church? What about those that don't attend a Church at all, but are active in prayer, evangelism, and just don't want to go to a local Church?  If not based on active Church membership, then what?


Some background

In order to answer the O.P.’s question, a little background must be given regarding how the Catholic Church views marriage.

For any marriage in which one of the parties is (or was) Catholic, generally for the marriage to exist at all, two conditions must be met*:

The other party must be at least a baptized Christian (Code of Canon Law [CIC] 1086), and
The they are bound to observe the so-called canonical form, which means that the marriage must be witnessed by a person with the necessary faculties: usually a priest or deacon (CIC 1108).

If these conditions are not met, and no other action is taken, the marriage cannot come into existence. The local bishop of the Catholic party, however, can dispense from either or both of these requirements. Such a dispensation is not difficult to obtain, but it must be done in writing. (It is generally written both on the marriage certificate and in the baptismal register.)

In addition, if the non-Catholic party is a baptized Christian, the Catholic party should obtain a license (i.e., permission, not a document like a driver’s license) to marry from his local bishop. This permission is not necessary for the validity of the marriage, but marrying a non-Catholic without it is illicit. (See CIC 1024-1029.)

(There is one exception to all this: if the non-Catholic party is Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, after the Catholic party obtains the license from his local bishop, the marriage may be done before a priest of the non-Catholic party’s church. See CIC 1027)

Regarding a Catholic priest giving a blessing at a civil marriage

Returning to the O.P.’s question, therefore, the Catholic Church by default does not recognize a strictly civil marriage involving a Catholic party.

Therefore, unless the couple has the intention of having the religious ceremony before witnesses as canonical form requires (this is common in countries, like Mexico, in which clergy may not function as justices of the peace), or else the couple has obtained a dispensation from canonical form from the bishop, it would be highly improper for a Catholic priest to be present at a civil marriage and give a blessing. (Speaking plainly, he would basically be blessing a fictitious marriage.)

If the non-Catholic party is non-baptized, and the impediment to marriage is not dispensed, then likewise a priest should not give a blessing to the couple.

However, there are remedies that might accomplish what the O.P. is seeking.

If for some reason having the wedding ceremony in a church before properly delegated witnesses is a difficulty, one solution is for the Catholic party to seek a dispensation from canonical form.

If the party is non-baptized, in addition, a dispensation from the impediment due to disparity of cult is necessary. (It can be asked for at the same time.)

Another solution is to have a very simple wedding ceremony in the Church. Note that the wedding need not take place in a Mass. (In fact, it is recommended that marriages with a non-Catholic party not take place during a Mass, to avoid mortifying the non-Catholic party, who may not receive Communion.) In fact, if the non-Catholic is not baptized, the ceremony need not take place in a church. (See CIC 1118.)

If, for whatever reason, the parties go ahead with their (invalid) civil marriage, but later on wish to regularize their situation, they may either opt for a simple convalidation (that is, a simple exchange of consent according to canonical form) or else—especially if having a simple convalidation would cause anguish for one of the spouses—even a radical sanation (which is a convalidation done in secret that does not require a renewal of consent). The necessary dispensations are dealt with at the same time as one seeks the convalidation.

(It should be noted that entering an invalid union is never a good situation to be in, and it should be avoided at all costs. It is much better to encourage a person to seek one of the solutions mentioned above: either dispensation from the requirement of canonical form, or following the canonical form, albeit in as simple a ceremony as the couple desires.)

* Two conditions in addition to the usual conditions for marriage: namely, that the parties consist of one man and one woman, that they are both free to marry, that their decision to marry not due to fear, that they intend to be married lifelong, that they have not absolutely excluded the possibility of having children, and so on. There are also other impediments (see CIC 1083-1094), but these two are the ones most relevant to the O.P.


It seems that the idea that created beings become timeless in heaven is not one that is widely held.  God, as the Creator of time, space, and matter, is the only Being that exists outside of time, space, and matter.

There is a significant distinction between that which is mortal, that which is immortal, and that which is eternal (outside of time).  That which is mortal has both a beginning and an end.  This includes the earth, our physical bodies and taxes (thank goodness).  That which is immortal has a beginning but no end.  This includes our souls and spirits as well as angels.  God alone is eternal.  Only God has no beginning and no ending.

The eternal life that we have does not mean that all of a sudden our lives go from having a beginning to not having a beginning.  We have eternal life in the sense that it will have no end--not in the sense that it has no beginning.  God is eternal in an entirely different sense.  Perhaps our language is not specific enough in this.

The key point is those beings who have a beginning cannot go through any process where their beginning is eliminated and makes them timeless.

We have been created inside of time, space, and matter, and we will always exist within that.  Only God exists outside of it.


Who believes the incarnation and resurrection wouldn't have happened without Mary's faith?

With or without Mary, God does what he intends to do. God tells us so at Isaiah 55:11

  "So my word that goes out of my mouth will be.
  It will not return to me without results,
  But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight,
  And it will have sure success in what I send it to do."

If Mary had not found favor in gods eyes, she would not have been used for his purpose. God could have picked any women that fit the prophecy. He chose her because of the qualities he found in her.

Regardless of Mary, Jesus did all that his father instructed him to do. We see from further accounts from the bible, that Jesus's purpose was more than the ransom sacrifice. Jesus also instructed us in what we need to do in order to be saved. Jesus of course met all those requirements and was resurrected.

As for the theologians that that website's FAQ is talking about, I cant find any good research on it. that website has absolutely nothing to help me research, besides key terms that I'm looking for on my own.

I found a few articles, but I'm not sure they will answer your question.

Devotion to the sacred Heart of Jesus, [deleted this one as it just reiterates what you said].... ,Beside the Cross of Jesus  <- this site here has the teachings of the catholic church.

It looks like they are inferring that without Mary, Jesus wouldn't have been born in the flesh. I cant find any article that exclusively says that without Mary's faith Jesus would have not been resurrected.

Also I find it very frustrating that none of these sites show where they got all this information, so I can research it.  Vatican is referenced for a few on that site.
CatholicEducation gives some more of the same insight.


Indications that Enoch and Elijah have never gone to Abraham's bosom?

Because John 3:13 says, "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven" (Douay) I am inclined to believe that they went to Abraham's bosom. That is the easiest interpretation of that verse without going through some severe theological hoops.

Additionally, and this is admittedly out of the scope of the question directly, but there is general theological consensus that the death of Christ "opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers." And while this is in the Te Deum, you can also find similar notions in Luther and Matthew Henry's Commentary.


Does 2 Peter 1:10 teach salvation can be gained through faith plus works?

2 Peter 1:10 teaches to make our calling and election sure not make our salvation sure.

calling is not our work- 2 Timothy 1:9

election is not our work-Romans 9:11

Therefore, if calling and election are both not our works then HOW are we to MAKE sure of it?

The answer is found in the Greek word " spoudasate" ( go fast by applying fully one's self with diligence) in the qualities said in v. 5-7.

Peter exhorts and reminds us redeemed persons to be diligent in those qualities because:

1.it is ours( v. 8a),

2.we have it (v. 8b) and

3.we are practicing it( note the present continuous tense of poiountes in v. 10).

By exemplifying those qualities we are making 'sure' not making ourself 'save', that is, that we are indeed called and chosen by God apart from our works.

Just like James 2:26 and Philippians 2:12, we must show forth our faith by our works. Faith alone in Christ saves but works proves real faith.


Why should Christians strive to live long lives? At what lengths should they go to do so?

In Matthew 24, it says:

  42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your
  Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had
  known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept
  watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also
  must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do
  not expect him.

  45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put
  in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at
  the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master
  finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put
  him in charge of all his possessions.

The Lord will either return while a person is alive, or upon their death. So long as we are able to work for him, we should do so. However, we should also consider that a person who endures hardship - such as old age - with faith and hope is doing God's work. Even from a hospital bed, a person may still be about the Lord's business.

Many Christians believe that the Lord set a limit of 120 years as the maximum lifespan of a human in Genesis, a decree that began gradually to take effect after the flood. If this is true, then you need not worry about living for centuries before you leave this world.

Genesis 6:

  6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and
  daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters
  of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3
  Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans
  forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and
  twenty years.”

There are secular accounts of people living beyond 120 years, but all of them also have detractors who claim that the documentation is lacking; e.g. the person's birth certificate was lost in a war or a fire. The Guinness Book of World Records and some other organizations investigate all such claims, and only those with clear documentation are certified. No certified example of a person living over 120 years yet exists. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people which has some footnotes about the disputes. This includes Jeanne Calment, the 122 year-old woman, whose daughter disputed her claim.

A commenter asks: "So is simply keeping the Faith a form of fufilling our calling while on earth?"

I do not want to generalize. God requires much of some and little of others. Remember that the wages for all are the same - the one who endured the heat of the day and the worker who joins the crew an hour before the workday ends (See Matthew 20). A personal anecdote shall suffice.

I visited a woman named Janet in her nursing home many years ago. She suffered rheumatoid arthritis, was confined to her bed and endured great pain. She asked our church to send people to pray with her, and when her unbelieving family visited her, she spoke of her faith in God to them. During my visit, I prayed, read scripture and left her a cassette of Christian music.

After I left the facility, I was overcome by tears and wept more bitterly for her than I had ever cried in my life, but a half hour later I was filled with incredible joy, which lasted for a week. Janet died six months later. At the funeral, another of her friends said something with which we all agreed, "When you were with Janet, it was like the Holy Spirit was pouring out of her." That is what keeping the faith meant for Janet, and what it did for me and others. Though she was dying, she did for me - as her work for God - what I had never been able to do for myself. She set me free from over a decade of depression.


How is it that an unchanging and omniscient God can have "regret" as He did in Gen 6:7?

God is completely unlike us, so any attempts to describe God using human language are very limited. In this case an attempt is made to express the sorrow of God over the evil and pain introduced into the world, even though he knew it would happen, and he knows he will not only put it right, but make things even better than they were. This passage shows that God is not indifferent toward our problems.


According to Catholicism, why was Jesus angry with the money-changers at the Temple?

We know from history and from scripture that there were 3 special "pilgrimage festivals" in the year, when Jews all had to come to Jerusalem. Passover, Pentecost and Feast of Booths/Sukkot, and this is important because it answers your question as to the role of the money changers. Much like the countries in Europe, you can travel a few hours and be in three different countries, with a totally different language, culture and currency. Jews living in another region would have to get their money changed into local currency, as well as the Roman state tax. I never understood the importance of Kantors (money changers) until I lived in Central Europe. In addition to the Jews from other regions, there were also foreigners [Gentiles] and this leads us to the The other, most important reason for Jesus's righteous anger toward the money changers is given to us in 2 places in scripture, but it is often missed.
It wasn't WHAT the money changers did that angered Christ, it was WHERE they did it.
I also agree that these money changers charged extra commissions, and were cheating the people, but that's more like the 1/2 teaspoon of salt in the cake.
The money changers were both legal and necessary.
Remember the Pharisees were experts in finding 'loopholes' in the law, so that they would technically be following the legal letter of the law, but really, in their hearts they were breaking the law.
So we have to look outside the gospels to find the clue we need.
It's found in Isaiah 56:7 and Christ actually quotes part of this passage in one gospel account.  It's so fascinating.  The chapter heading for Isaiah 56 is "Salvation for Foreigners".

I will bring them to my Holy Mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on My altar, for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations." - Isaiah 56:7

The story of Jesus cleansing the temple is in several gospels, but only in the Gospel of Mark, we find the other missing piece that solves the riddle. It's in Mark 11:17. In this passage, Christ actually quotes the passage from Isaiah . "And he was teaching them and saying to them, 'Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations, but you have made it a den of robbers."
The temple in Jerusalem had three main sections [besides the holy place, only for priests]. There was the outer court, which was the court of the Gentiles, the court of women, and the court for Jewish males. The money changers set up their tables like a giant Flea Market in the court of the Gentiles - blocking the nations from worshiping like God intended.
It wasn't WHAT the money changers did that angered Christ, it was WHERE they did it.
The Pharisees didn't even realize it, but this act of cleansing the temple actually fulfilled a prophecy about the Messiah, written hundreds of years before Christ.  Zeal for Your house [his Father's house] will consume Me. Psalm 69:9


Is it impossible to think that after judgment day being thrown into hell and then not existing after that is way worse than being in hell?

Does hell really burn forever?

Ask yourself this, are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning? No they are not.

  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner,
  giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,
  are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

  Jude 1:7

Because they are set as an example of what eternal fire will be like, you can see that they are not burning eternally. The everlasting fire means the fire cannot be quenched. There is no escape. The fire comes from Him who is an All-consuming fire, God Himself.

There are different schools of thought on this, but to me it is evident that hell is not happening right now, and that it is not forever. For many reasons.

1) God is a JUST God.

If a man were to enter a store and steal something, would it be fair for him to receive life in prison? Definitely not. The punishment does not fit the crime. In the same manner, God will not punish those who living a sinful life of 70 or 80 years with millions, billions, or trillions of years of burning. The punishment does not fit the crime.

2) The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable.

The rich man and Lazarus is surrounded by parables. In Luke 15 Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son, a story that is accepted as a parable. In the beginning of Luke 16 He tells the parable of the rich man and his dishonest manager (which as you can see starts the same way as the rich man and Lazarus). Then the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

It would be too lengthy to get into the specifics of why Jesus said that parable and its meaning, but I'll out a resource at the bottom. Just a couple of things. If you take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as reality, then you must accept that people who go to heaven go to Abraham's physical bosom and people who go to hell can be seen by those in heaven and can even speak to them.

3) Pain in the new heavens and the new earth

After the Earth is recreated (new heavens and new earth), there will be no more sorrow, pain or suffering. If you believe in an eternal hell, there will still be sorrow, pain, and suffering.

4) Destroy both body and soul

The eternal suffering in hell is made under the presumption that we 'have an immortal soul'. How can the soul be immortal if it can be killed? These are contradictory and I choose to believe the Bible and the direct words of Jesus when He says,

  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
  soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body
  in hell.

  Matthew 10:28

These are just a few reasons but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that hell is not burning right now, that it will not be eternal, and that the soul is NOT immortal. It you wish to know more about what the Bible says about this visit this website.

Also, if you'd like to watch a short video on this, it can be found on this website, or here.

EDIT: A sermon explaining this topic from the SCRIPTURE ONLY can be found here.


What Biblical basis supports the idea that questions and answers about Christianity could be sinful?

I'm going to start by being slightly off-topic for answering your question and then swing around to tie your question in.  And I'm going to stick to well-known Scriptural principles, so unless someone demands it, I'm going to omit the Scripture quotes that I would normally include, in the interest of keeping this shorter than my usual answer.

A good first question is "Is it sinful to question God?"  Since many questions about Christianity are basically questioning the truthfulness of God's word.

Before I get into the rest: An analogy

Driving a car is not illegal.  Hitting an unexpected patch of ice, and sliding into another vehicle, killing passengers in either car is unfortunate, but not illegal.  (Unless you are drinking, or the accident was caused by breaking other laws like speeding, negligence, cell-phone use while driving, etc.)  However, using a car to intentionally kill someone is.

The point of the example above is that driving the vehicle isn't the crime.  The vehicle is the tool to commit the crime.  Likewise, questions can be tools used to commit sins.

Scripturally, it's quite easy to show that questioning God in and of itself isn't sinful.  Job questioned God repeatedly.  David questioned Him.  Even Jesus questioned God the Father.  "Why have you forsaken me?"

However, there are several things that are undeniably considered sins that are acheived via asking questions:

Justifying your sin, or tempting others to sin by asking "Did God really say that"

Genesis 3:3: 3 "And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Using questions to mock God.  (Your average refute-this atheist question that tries to show us that the whole idea of Christianity is stupid because God is a figment of our imagination, for example."

I'm sure there are more that I could list and think of, but the principle is pretty basic:  Questioning God isn't sinful in and of itself, but if your question is being used to deny, defy, or mock God, it is.

Likewise, an honest question seeking an answer, to clarify a point, or even to clarify a point that you understand, in order to help educate others about the Truth of God wouldn't be sinful.

Applied to Christianity as a whole, it's easy to see, as there are dozens of examples even on this site, it's easy to ask questions about Christianity where the sole purpose is to mock God, or deny/defy Him.  In that context, asking questions and answers about Christianity in general can be sinful.  But questions and answers that are honestly seeking would not be.


How did the tradition of Mothering Sunday arise?

The Free Online Encyclopedia has the following, quoted without the references:

  Mothering Sunday
  March-April; fourth Sunday in Lent
  It was the custom in 17th-century England for Christians to pay their respects on the
  fourth Sunday in Lent to the "Mother Church" where they had been
  baptized. Also known as Misers, or Mid-Lent, Sunday, this
  day usually included a visit to one's parents—to "go a-mothering," as
  it was called back then. It was common practice to bring a cake or
  trinket for the mother of the family. In England the favorite gift was
  the simnel cake, a saffron-flavored fruitcake topped with almond
  paste. In the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, the
  fourth Sunday in Lent is known as Laetare Sunday . The Introit of
  the Mass begins with the word "Rejoice" (laetare in Latin), marking a
  slight respite in the solemn Lenten season, hence the terms Mid-Lent
  Sunday and Refreshment Sunday . Priests may wear rose-colored
  vestments to mass, instead of the usual purple for Lent, so the day is
  also called Rose Sunday. Also on this day the pope blesses the
  Golden Rose, an ornament resembling a spray of roses, symbolizing
  spiritual joy.

Please see also:

Laetare Sunday | New Advent.


For those who don't believe baptism is required for salvation, when, scripturally, does someone die with Christ?

Anyone who says that baptism is required for salvation must therefore be saying that baptism in some way has an essential effect for the person's salvation.
Those who say baptism isn't required for salvation generally say that it is symbolic of the real salvation effects of the death and resurrection of Christ. (Though many churches teach a Sacramental view, in which God does truly act through the sacraments, even though those acts are distinct from Christ's once-for-all mediatorial work accomplished by his death and resurrection.)
There are multiple views of what it means for us to be United to Christ, but the doctrine is most prominent in Reformed Theology, and in Reformed Theology it is the Holy Spirit who unites us to Christ, in faith. So the Westminster Confession says

WCF 11.4: God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

WCF 11.1: Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.


I LOVE THIS TOPIC!!

God is a God of Love. God is also a God of Hate. If you love you must also hate. If you love children then you will hate abortion. God is angry with those enemies of his that practice sin. Here is a verse that describes the anger that God has towards sinners.

  Hebrews 10:26-27 (NIV)

  26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
  knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a
  fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume
  the enemies of God.

In Numbers 25 God is specifically talking to Israel. He tells Israel that he has set them apart from the other nations. I can't find the verse right now, but God also tells the Israelites to follow specific commands regarding separation in order that Israel will remain Holy.

  Leviticus 20:26 (NIV)

  You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set
  you apart from the nations to be my own.

In the New Testament this author is upholding the understanding of of the Old Testament, that we should be a Holy people. But this author tells us to not associate ourselves with unholy people, instead of just killing the unholy people.

  1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (NIV)

  9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
  people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are
  immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you
  would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that
  you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or
  sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer,
  a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

God is unchanging, He does not want wicked people corrupting you. The reason that he commanded these wicked people to be killed in Numbers is because God wanted Israel to be a Holy land, a nation that could not put up with even the smallest Sins.

God does not dwell with us today like he dwelt with the Israelites, in the temple. God is teaching us how to love these days, when before He was forcing the Israelites to be Pure and Holy. Don't get me wrong we still have a responsibility to be Pure and Holy, but the land we live in is not.

In Mathew 5:39 God is talking to His obedient children, He's teaching them to forgive their enemies. A completely different context from the previous situation of holiness.

Edit: to show that God is also a God that Hates.

  Psalm 5:5 (NIV)

  5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence.  You hate all who do
  wrong;

  Psalm 7:11 (NKJV)

  11 God is a just judge,
           And God is angry with the wicked every day.

  Psalm 11:5 (NKJV)

  5 The LORD tests the righteous,
           But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

  Psalm 15:4 (NKJV)

  4 In whose eyes a vile person is despised,
           But he honors those who fear the LORD;
           He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;


Does God cause the punishment or is that the effect of his absence?

The answer is that Adam and Eve necessitated God's presence to live forever, a presence which he especially made manifest in the fruits of the Tree of Life. And so they died because bodies are not indestructible by nature but need to be fed.

Two kinds of death exist, spiritual death and physical death. They died spiritually at that moment they ate of the fruit, because as the text indicates they noticed that they were naked(Gen3:7), which was not normal back then. Having been cut off from God, they did not deserve to be joined back into communion with him and so the Tree of Life was taken away from them. The result being that they naturally started to decay.

The bodies God made were intentionally made in such a way as to make their hosts depend on God. And seemingly all of creation is like that, we always need to reconnect to God in order to live. Now whether this is done out of necessity or purely by will I do not know, but it seems that it is by necessity because God cannot create something eternal if it be not an extension of himself in some way. Therefore we say that the soul is indestructible because God breathed it into us, but that also means the body is destructible because it is not of God's being, metaphorically. That is to say it is not made by God as an image of God.

This same dependancy on the fruit of the Tree of Life is repeated in the Eucharist which is the fruit from the wooden cross for our salvation. And again in Revelations 22:2-3 we read:

  2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river,
  was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and
  yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the
  healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the
  throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall
  serve him.

However this does not mean God made man corruptible, that view is denied by the Church, and by all Christians.

  For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own
  likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into
  the world. And they follow him that are of his side.

  ~ Book of Wisdom 2:23-25

We must therefore distinguish between what I will term ordinary sin and extraordinary sin.

Ordinary sin: To go against the eternal nature of God(ex:lying, theft, murder).

Extraordinary sin: To go against a contingent command of God(ex:honor the Sabbath).

Being incorruptible only covers ordinary sin, but not extraordinary. Placing ourselves in the context, this would be the only way God could have tested us without violating his own goodness to make us in a state of goodness. So for the test, he simply put forth a contingent request that being to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Whether that tree had power in it of itself is besides the point, because regardless of it having power or not Adam and Eve disobeyed a direct command of God. Since God is life, to go against him inevitably results in death. Thus the dilemma is solved.

Now when it comes to punishment, God can use and does use both the withdrawal of his presence as well as the exercise of his wrath to punish us. It depends on the situation, as the withdrawal of his presence will allow demons to wreck havok, but he himself can also  and does choose to wreck havok as for example the Book of Revelation testifies that when Jesus will personally come down from Heaven and eliminate the armies of the Earth, and finally call upon all the animals in proximity to come and eat the corpses(Rev19).

You don't hear about that side of Jesus too often do you, but so be it, as the Ecclesiastes notes, there is a time for grace, a time for justice, a time for wrath, a time for all things. And the constant is love.


What is the biblical basis for Christians quitting their jobs?

Diligence and not worshiping money

There is much Scriptural basis both for being diligent in work:

  1 Cor. 4:12 And we labour, working with our own hands.

and not worshiping mammon (money):

  Matttew 6:24 No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Voluntary poverty

Voluntary poverty is one of the three evangelical counsels ("Good actions that are not prescribed by any law"); the two other evangelical counsels being chastity and obedience. The evangelical counsels are what brothers and nuns solemnly vow to practice their entire lives.

  St. Matthew 19:21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Work as an excuse not to follow Jesus

The parable of the great supper (St. Luke 14:15-24) illustrates those using work as an excuse not the follow Jesus; when the supper was ready, the invited guests

  began all at once to make excuse. The first said to him: I have bought a farm and I must needs go out and see it. I pray thee, hold me excused. And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen and I go to try them. I pray thee, hold me excused. [vv. 18-19]

Also, that video insinuates, @4:33 ff., that Catholic priests should quit their divine duty of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; thus, these "Jesus Christians" appear to be an anti-Catholic sect.


Can I believe in evolution and still be a Christian?

You certainly can, and some percentage of believers do believe in some form of (usually theistic) evolution in an effort to reconcile the findings of science with the revelation of God in his word.

The essential breakdown for creation systems is (with lots of co-mingling and blurring):

Naturalism: Old universe with evolution and no God at all, for which evolution is the only game in town to explain the "how" of it. (NE)
Theistic Evolution: Old universe with divine inception and left largely to run itself, with varying though usually quite minor subsequent involvement by God. (TE)
Old Creation: Old universe in which a creator specifically and miraculously creates. (OEC)
Young Creation:  Young universe in which a creator specifically and miraculously creates. (YEC)

(where "young" means a few thousand to a few tens of thousand earth years, and "old" means anywhere from 9 to 14 billion earth years).

But in my opinion, and it's just my opinion, the scientific evidence seems to have much more to say about the age of the universe and the fact that time and space has a beginning than whether or not macro evolution occurs.

This is an extensive subject, and I have arrived at my current position (which is that of old-earth creation) after many years of believing differently and after a lot of research and mulling on the matter. If you would like a lot of material on such a model, I strongly recommend Reasons to Believe.  Also worth reading is material from Jewish theologian and scientist Gerald Schroeder.  Another good source looks to be the Evidence for God website (though I am not as well versed with their material as I am RTB).

I have found old-earth creation to be, on balance, the best interpretation so far of both scientific evidence and Biblical revelation when the anticipation is for both to be true and accurate and in harmony.

For me, the most compelling arguments on the matter are those from scripture along the vein of Romans 1:20, NIV:

  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

and Psalm 19:1, NIV:

  The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

This, to me, says we can and should expect that the revelation of God through creation is consistent with the revelation of God through scripture.  If the two seem to be in conflict then we are misunderstanding one or the other (or both).

Furthermore, if what we can discover of God from observing his creation is deliberately misleading (or even downright deceptive), then that seems to put Romans 1:20 in a very bad light in terms of what it says about God's attributes.  Consideration of this principle (that we can know God by his creation), which appears to be quite Biblical, seems to render arguments that God created the universe with apparent age (and such arguments as light from distance stars being created in-transit) dubious - and certainly such arguments would not be seem to be the best explanation of the entire body of evidence we currently have.

Keep in mind that the Genesis account is not the only part of Scripture that deals with creation, and therefore your understanding of the mechanics of creation needs to consider the other relevant verses as well as the scientific evidence available.

EDIT: 2011-08-26

Some theological/doctrinal problems that occur with evolution (theistic or otherwise):

Humanity is no longer uniquely created in the image of God, which means we no longer have innate dignity and value as distinct from the rest of creation.
Humanity is no longer created to reign over the rest of creation.
Adam and Eve are no longer historical people.  Therefore the doctrine of man's sinful nature inherited from Adam is abolished, since there was no single progenitor from which to inherit a sin-nature.  Were Jesus and the apostles mistaken when they spoke of Adam and Eve as real historical individuals - esp. Paul who bases his entire thesis of salvation on Adam's fault in Romans 5?
Genesis must be considered mythological or semi-mythological rather than being regarded as a historical narrative.
Theistic evolution generally limits or eliminates God's providential intervention in the creation that he "set in motion".
Genesis 2:7 in describing the creation of Adam seems to require an intellectual stretch to understand as describing simpler species evolving into humans.


Do any Protestants teach that everyone really knows God according to Romans 1:21?

Yes, many Christian's do teach this verse. Because it is in the Bible. One example of a such a teaching i will include as a link. It is a sermon by Pastor John MacArthur ( A well known protestant teacher).

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/45-11/reasons-for-the-wrath-of-god-part-2

This verse is often taught in the sense that everyone has an inner knowledge that there is A GOD. Not that everyone personally "knows God", in the sense which we can come to know the Lord Jesus Christ.

An example can be seen when we think of mankind's natural instinct to create and worship Gods. Even though men usually come up with the wrong idea about God (idolatry). This can be seen clearly in Pauls encounter with the Athenians. (Acts 17:22-31 included) (maybe someone can edit this and help me format the bible quote. I have forgotten how to do new lines.)

    22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the [i]Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
    TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
    Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
     25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one [j]blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

In light of this portion of Romans, Paul is also teaching that the rejection or this inner knowledge of God, is enough that every man will be held accountable when God judges the world, with no one being able to say "But i didn't know there was a God!"

Hope this is a helpful introduction to a very interesting portion of scripture!


What does the Catholic Church mean by "beatific vision"?

The doctrine of the beatific vision stems from the scholastic movement of the 14th century, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas defined the beatific vision as the human being's "final end" in which one attains to a perfect happiness. Thomas reasons that one is perfectly happy only when all one's desires are perfectly satisfied, to the degree that happiness could not increase and could not be lost.

Man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to
desire and seek. (STh I–II)

In AD 1336, Pope Benedict XII set in stone the definition of eternal face to face worship (a.k.a. Beatific Vision):

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to
the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other
faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they
were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did
need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after
death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the
general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the
heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the
company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord
Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with
an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any
creature.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines in paragraph 1028 the Beatific Vision as:

Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he
himself opens up his mystery to man's immediate contemplation and
gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God
in his heavenly glory "the beatific vision":
How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God,
to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with
Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the
Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God's friends.  (St.
Cyprian)


Can a practicing Catholic who joined a Protestant church still receive communion in the Catholic church?

Attendance at a Protestant church, even on a regular basis, does not detract from a baptized Catholic's Catholic identity in the eyes of the Church, and they are still obligated to follow the laws of the Church and the directives of their bishop and pastor:

  Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 11)

  The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

(canon 209, sec. 1)

  Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

(canon 212, sec. 1)

It is therefore not up to the person, nor up to their adopted ecclesial community, to determine whether reception of the Eucharist in a Catholic church is acceptable.

Now, in another answer, Geremia rightly points out that canon 1365 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states

  A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

However, as his source (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, published in 2000 by the Canon Law Society of America) indicates, exactly what constitutes "prohibited participation" is not clarified. The Church does absolutely prohibit concelebration of the Eucharist with ministers of a religious group not in communion with the Church:

  Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.

(canon 908)

as well as celebrating a marriage with such ministers:

  there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic who is assisting and a non-Catholic minister together, using their own rites, ask for the consent of the parties.

(canon 1127, section 3)

But there appear to be no other specific prohibitions. (I should note that Catholics are under certain restricted circumstances allowed to receive some of the sacraments from non-Catholics; but this permission doesn't apply to Protestant churches, the validity of whose sacraments the Church doesn't recognize.)

Thus, it's not quite clear when a particular level of participation in the rites of a Protestant church is "prohibited"; but for ecumenical reasons, some level of participation may be considered acceptable for particular purposes. As an example, if a person baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a minister in a non-denominational Protestant church, their commitment to, and perhaps their understanding of, the teachings of the Church is clearly questionable; whereas a Catholic who at the invitation of some Anglican friends attends a single Anglo-Catholic Compline service may be in a different position altogether.

The pastor of this person's parish is the one who has immediate responsibility for this person's spiritual care, subject to the the authority of the bishop (or other local ordinary). It is up to these two, ultimately, to decide whether a given Catholic in a given situation has violated the law of the Church or not, and whether in any case they are in a suitable condition for reception of the Eucharist.

The decision of whether a penalty such as that anticipated in canon 1365 is to be exacted will take into account a number of considerations, most of which are articulated in canons 1321–1330 of the Code of Canon Law. Importantly, canon 1321, section 1, states:

  No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

Canon 1323 states:

  The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: ...  a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance.

Finally, canon 1317 states:

  Penalties are to be established only insofar as they are truly necessary to provide more suitably for ecclesiastical discipline.

Thus it is most probable, in most situations (unless, for example, the person has been repeatedly warned about this sort of behavior before), that no actual penalty will be assessed. What then will need to be done, to ensure that this person is in a fit state to receive the Eucharist?

The Eucharist is the actual physical reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; as such, it's (as an understatement) something very special. Geremia is quite right to quote St. Paul's statement:

  As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

(1 Corinthians 11:26–28)

In order to receive the Eucharist in general, one must be free of any mortal sin:

  A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 916)

It is likely that the person's pastor will want to discuss with them the reasons they had for beginning regular attendance at a Protestant service, and also their reasons for wanting to return to the sacraments of the Catholic Church; there will likely be explanation required for the person to fully understand what it meant in the eyes of the Church for them to leave off practice of Catholicism, and what it means for them to receive the Eucharist, and why the Church teaches that they have gotten something wrong somewhere.

Once the priest is satisfied that they understand these things, and has led them to be able to make a good confession, there is no further obstacle to their receiving the Eucharist. Indeed, they may not be forbidden it: Canon 912 states: "Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion." (emphasis added)


How is the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus interpreted?

First off I'd like to state that this is, in my opinion, clearly not a parable because the Bible does not state it as one like it does in these many citations:

Matthew 13:18
Luke 6:39
Luke 12:16
Luke 15:3
Luke 18:1
Luke 18:9
Luke 19:11

  If Jesus was speaking of reality then 'The End' had technically already come. Is this correct?

So, to answer this question, Jesus was in fact not only speaking of reality but also of a real happening. Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable, it was real. However, The End has not yet come. In fact, Hell is going to be destroyed as well and is simply a holding place for the souls that are lost. Revelation speaks of it in Revelation 20:14:

  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Note that both death (the fact that man must die for his sins) and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Furthermore, that is where the devil will end up according to Revelation 20:10:

  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

So, the end has not yet come, but it's on its way.

  From Hell it would appear we can see Heaven and speak to people in Heaven as they can see us.

This now makes more sense now that we have revealed that hell is a holding place for souls, but let's concrete this a bit more and see clearly that heaven is a holding place for souls as well. So, let's look at Revelation 21:1:

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Here we see that heaven, which is the holding place that Lazarus ascended to, is also destroyed and a new heaven and a new earth is built. So yes, those souls in hell can see those souls in heaven until both are destroyed.

  It also states that there are gates to Heaven which again have people outside them. Can I assume then that Hell is basically everything outside of Heavens gates.

I would say you don't assume that everything outside the gates of heaven is hell, the earth is outside the gates of heaven but is clearly defined as the earth in Genesis 1:1:

  In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

So hell is a different creation all by itself.