Since when has white wine been used in the Catholic mass?

Since when has white wine been used in Catholic Mass?

There this a reasonable possibility that white wine at Mass was used in the Early Church since day one.

Our Lord never said anything about the colour of wine at the last supper. And Rome has never published a decretal concerning the colour of wine. It seems plausible that white wine did become more popular in the 16th century when the use of a purificator was introduced at Mass.

  In the Early Church both clergy and laity received the consecrated wine by drinking from the chalice, after receiving a portion of the consecrated bread. Due to many factors, including the difficulty of obtaining wine in Northern European countries (where the climate was unsuitable for viniculture), drinking from the chalice became largely restricted in the West to the celebrating priest, while others received communion only in the form of bread. This also reduced the symbolic importance of choosing wine of red colour. - Altar wine (Wikipedia)

In antiquity, wines were of various colours.

First of let us deal with Greek wine.

  Ancient Greece and wine

  The most common style of wine in ancient Greece was sweet and aromatic, though drier wines were also produced. Color ranged from dark, inky black to tawny to nearly clear. Oxidation was difficult to control, a common wine fault that meant many wines did not retain their quality beyond the next vintage. However, wines that were stored well and aged were highly prized: Hermippus described the best mature wines as having a bouquet of "violets, roses and hyacinth." Comedic poets noted that Greek women liked "old wine but young men."

And now for ancient Roman wines.

  As in much of the ancient world, sweet white wine was the most highly regarded style. Wines were often very alcoholic, with Pliny noting that a cup of Falernian would catch fire from a candle flame drawn too close. Wine was often diluted with warm water, occasionally seawater.

  The term "wine" spanned a broad spectrum of wine-based beverages, the quality of which depended on the amount of pure grape juice used and how diluted the wine was when served. The finest wine was reserved for the upper classes of Rome. Below that was posca, a mixture of water and sour wine that had not yet turned into vinegar. Less acidic than vinegar, it still retained some of the aromas and texture of wine and was the preferred wine for the rations of Roman soldiers due to its low alcohol levels. Posca's use as soldiers' rations was codified in the Corpus Juris Civilis and amounted to around a liter per day. Still lower in quality was lora (modern-day piquette), which was made by soaking in water for a day the pomace of grape skins already pressed twice, and then pressing a third time. Cato and Varro recommended lora for their slaves. Both posca and lora were the most commonly available wine for the general Roman populace and probably would have been for the most part red wines, since white wine grapes would have been reserved for the upper class.

The wines of ancient Palestine are a different matter all together.

  Palestinian wine has been in production since ancient times. In Palestine, the use of wine was not only an important factor in religious ritual, but also a necessity for social interaction, general dietary consumption and medicinal purposes.

  Vines were among the three major crops cultivated in Roman and Byzantine Palestine and there are numerous remains of ancient winery installations. Wine was produced throughout the region, from the fertile plains in the north, to the arid areas of the Negev. In Akhziv, an enormous press with the capacity for 59,000 litres was dated to the 4th century. Archaeology suggests that there was a substantial increase in production in the early Byzantine period and most the large-scale presses date to this era.5 The rabbis of the Talmudic era devoted much attention to wine production and commerce and instituted many laws religious pertaining to it. Although the Talmud states that "the wine of Tyre was cheaper than Palestinian wine," nowhere does it mention that wine was ever exported abroad. Various other sources from the Byzantine period reveal that this indeed occurred. Around the mid-fourth century, the anonymous writer of Expositio totius mundi et gentium states: "Ashkelon and Gaza…export the best wine to all Syria and Egypt." Transport jars or amphorae have been found in large quantities at various Mediterranean sites, at harbours and as parts of shipwrecked cargos off the shores of Cyprus, Greece and Asia Minor. Significant international trade in Palestinian wine started in the early 5th century, and lasted another 250 years. The deposits of Palestinian amphorae in foreign regions is substantial. They show that Palestinian wines were exported as far as Spain, Gaul and even Wales. In this period, they accounted for 45% of amphorae found in Carthage, 20% at 6th-century Argos and Marseille and 16% at Naples in the 7th century. It is assumed that the Palestinian Bag Jar, one of the most common forms of pottery to be found in the southern Levant, carried white Palestinian wine when exported. John the Almsgiver (7th-cent.) is said to have admired the aromatic bouquet of the expensive Palestinian wine he was offered in Alexandria. Coming from the land of the Bible, Palestinian wine appealed to Christian priests for use during the Eucharist.

This begs the question of what kind of wine did Our Lord used at the Last Supper?

Is there a modern wine that is designed to resemble an ancient Hebrew (Palestinian) wine?

  Marawi Wine from the Recanati Winery in Israel.

  The new crisp, acidic and mineral white from a high-end Israeli winery was aged for eight months — or, depending on how you look at it, at least 1,800 years.

  The wine, called Marawi and released last month by Recanati Winery, is the first commercially produced by Israel’s growing modern industry from indigenous grapes. It grew out of a groundbreaking project at Ariel University in the occupied West Bank that aims to use DNA testing to identify — and recreate — ancient wines drunk by the likes of King David and Jesus Christ. - Israel Aims to Recreate Wine That Jesus and King David Drank

Although a little speculative, it is not impossible that Our Lord, himself, used white wine at the Last Supper. It would be interesting to see what tradition has to say on this subject also.

  Where does the practice of using amber wine for communion come from, and why is it done? Do we not lose the symbolism of red wine?

  It is thought that amber wine was introduced [(became more popular)] in the Western Church during the post-Tridentine era. J. A. Jungmann gave his opinion that "when . . . the use of the purificator became general, that is since the sixteenth century, white wine has become commonly preferred because it leaves fewer traces in the linen" (The Mass of the Roman Rite, 1959). In the same way, Peter Elliott reckoned that amber or white wine had been favoured in the Western Rites because of this convenience of washing altar linens (Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, second edition, 2004).

  Unlike the acute controversy over the use of leavened or unleavened bread, at the time of the Great Schism between East and West in the 11th century, the exact colour of altar wine has not been a contentious issue, and at no time has there been any canonical regulation to make wine of a particular colour universally obligatory. It has been acknowledged that obviously red wine is a better Eucharistic symbol than amber or white; as such it has sometimes been referred to as "the blood of the grape", as well as "the fruit of the vine". This symbolic value, however, true as it is, weighs far less with those who maintain a strong realist view of the sacramental presence: the visual appearance of consecrated wine of whatever shade is independent of the res sacramenti - that of Christ's real presence in the Blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood in holy communion. - Amber communion wine?

Although red wine is more symbolic in colour with blood, white is to say the more commonly used wine at Mass. White wine has a more symbolic aspect of demonstrating the Mass as a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.”  Possibly because of availability. A lot would depend on the availability of the Altar wine offered in a particular area, as well to the personal choice or the priest saying Mass.

Both red and white wines were used in ancient times for Mass.


What do "Templar" and "Soldiers of Christ" mean?

The official name of the Knights Templar is "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon".  So the "Soldiers of Christ" you mention is probably just another name for the same group.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on the Knights Templar.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

A biblical reference to us being soldiers of Christ is in 2 Timothy 2.  I believe here we are being told to try to please Christ rather than others.

  2 Timothy 2:3-4 NIV (emphasis mine)
  3 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No
  one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but
  rather tries to please his commanding officer.


According to Catholicism, if there is human dignity is there also an angelic dignity?

If there is human dignity is there also an angelic dignity?

First of all, what is a Catholic definition of dignity

  The excellence that deserves recognition and praise in a person or thing. Highest in dignity is God, whose superiority over all creation is the basis for adoration. (Etym. Latin dignitas, dignity, worthiness, worth.)

St. Thomas Aquinas responds in the affirmative: Yes the angels possess an angelic dignity.

  From what has been said above (I:108:6), it may be shown that some angels are sent in ministry by God. For, as we have already stated (I:43:1, in treating of the mission of the Divine Persons, he is said to be sent who in any way proceeds from another so as to begin to be where he was not, or to be in another way, where he already was. Thus the Son, or the Holy Ghost is said to be sent as proceeding from the Father by origin; and begins to be in a new way, by grace or by the nature assumed, where He was before by the presence of His Godhead; for it belongs to God to be present everywhere, because, since He is the universal agent, His power reaches to all being, and hence He exists in all things (I:8:1). An angel's power, however, as a particular agent, does not reach to the whole universe, but reaches to one thing in such a way as not to reach another; and so he is "here" in such a manner as not to be "there." But it is clear from what was above stated (I:110:1), that the corporeal creature is governed by the angels. Hence, whenever an angel has to perform any work concerning a corporeal creature, the angel applies himself anew to that body by his power; and in that way begins to be there afresh. Now all this takes place by Divine command. Hence it follows that an angel is sent by God.

  The empyrean heaven belongs to the angelic dignity by way of congruity; forasmuch as it is congruous that the higher body should be attributed to that nature which occupies a rank above bodies. Yet an angel does not derive his dignity from the empyrean heaven; so when he is not actually in the empyrean heaven, nothing of his dignity is lost, as neither does a king lessen his dignity when not actually sitting on his regal throne, which suits his dignity.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, man should respect the angels as being created spiritual creatures that aid us here on earth.

  In Brief

  350 Angels are spiritual creatures who glorify God without ceasing and who serve his saving plans for other creatures: "The angels work together for the benefit of us all" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 114, 3, ad 3).

  351 The angels surround Christ their Lord. They serve him especially in the accomplishment of his saving mission to men.

  352 The Church venerates the angels who help her on her earthly pilgrimage and protect every human being.

  353 God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.

  354 Respect for laws inscribed in creation and the relations which derive from the nature of things is a principle of wisdom and a foundation for morality.

An interesting note is that St. Gregory of Nazianzen teaches us that the sacerdotal dignity of ordained Catholic priests surpasses the dignity of the angels, who have a high esteem and reverence for the priesthood.


Is there a name for the low wall that is often in front of a choir?

The low wall that separates the first row of the choir from the chancel is called a "choir rail."

The low wall that goes in front of the first pew is called a "pew screen," and also a "modesty screen" or "frontal," as seen in this church furniture page (scroll down for pictures of sample pew screens).

And to round things out: The low wall that separates the chancel from the rest of the church is called an "altar rail" or "communion rail."


What is the role of human judgement given God's omnipotence and his plans

Actually this is a very good question.
The first thing to realize is that relationship is a two-way street.

When someone became a Christian, he or she began with accepting Christ. That's no work on our part, we just receive the Gift of Salvation.

Afterwards, the Holy Spirit is now living inside of this believer, preparing him or her to become God's temple. This is the critical point when the relationship between this believer and God began.  Two outcomes can result:

If the believer undergoes discipleship (as the Lord commanded in Matthew 28:19) that points him in the direction of submission to the authority of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit and he took the time to consume the Bible regularly without being critical, he will grow closer to God as the result. Which makes his judgement no longer relies on his own wisdom or intellects, but rather it will be more and more influenced by God's will in this person's life.
If the believer got stuck or distracted in the various ways (lack of discipleship, "instant-sunday-school"-recruitment, extreme dependence on liturgies, doctrinal debates, guilt-driven social works, became a celebrity, you name it). He remains distant from God and never acquire that growing relationship, because he is too busy doing his Christian actions rather than immerse himself in the Scriptures. Or he is so critical in his Bible reading.  In this case, his judgement is not Godly, is still of himself, and not only being useless for himself, but can also mislead others.

Therefore you see, our (human or self) judgement does not propel us closer to God by itself, only the Holy Spirit can do that.
Only when we submit to His authority, we can start reading the Bible with the right attitude, which will cause our judgement to be more God-powered, and less self-powered.

Last thought: God's plan is designed to be executed by God-powered Christians. It was not meant to be shouldered by self-powered individuals.

Hope this helps. And thank you for the excellent question.


According to the Catholic Church, can having ideations to sin ever be mortally sinful?

"Ideations" in the question "Can having 'ideations' to sin ever be mortally sinful?" could mean "passions of the soul," which are causes of sin.

Now, can a sin committed through passion ever be mortal? St. Thomas Aquinas explains (Summa Theologica I-II q. 77 a. 8 c.):

  Mortal sin, as stated above (q. 72, a. 5), consists in turning away from our last end which is God, which aversion pertains to the deliberating reason, whose function it is also to direct towards the end. Therefore that which is contrary to the last end can happen not to be a mortal sin, only when the deliberating reason is unable to come to the rescue, which is the case in sudden movements. Now when anyone proceeds from passion to a sinful act, or to a deliberate consent, this does not happen suddenly: and so the deliberating reason can come to the rescue here, since it can drive the passion away, or at least prevent it from having its effect, as stated above: wherefore if it does not come to the rescue, there is a mortal sin; and it is thus, as we see, that many murders and adulteries are committed through passion.

So, if your reason tells you committing a mortal sin is bad, yet you consent to it or actually commit it anyways, this itself is a mortal sin.


Why didn't Protestants argue for traditional marriage by natural reason?

"Protestant" means a believer in sola fide and sola Scriptura. As such, not only is it possible for a Protestant to use natural law arguments, many have. Although most of the reformers were Divine Command theorists (Luther and Calvin, although Calvin is weird), not all were (natural law was influential among both the Catholic and Protestant American Founders, although with a clear Lockean (Divine Command) influence as well). Many Protestants today are natural law theorists, although not all are.

For information on the Founding Fathers: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=5&article=1001&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional

For an article on Protestants and Catholics regarding Natural Law: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/01/002-protestants-and-natural-law

Christi pax.


What is the difference between "infallible" and "inerrant"?

This is a really good site that discusses the two topics. Follow the links at the bottom to find the corresponding article on Infallibility.

In short summary inerrant means "without error" and infallible means "incapable of error. The reason why those seem very similar is that, with respect to the Bible, they are. The word infallible is normally applied to the church, and is a key part of Roman Catholic theology. It means that the church has not only promulgated no errors in the past, but will not do so in the future.

Protestants (who mostly do not recognize the infallibility of the church) have tended to apply the word to the Bible, which they take as their source of ultimate authority. However the word is not nearly as applicable to the Bible, as the Bible is a closed canon, and cannot make any statements "in the future".

The Wikipedia article on Biblical infallibility quotes a theological as saying that 'infallibility' is used by some theologians to refer to the doctrine that the Bible is correct in matters of faith and practice only.

So in short, when applied to the Bible, the two words are virtually synonymous. When applied to other authorities, like the church, they can mean very different things.


Safe answer: John 20 is the only passage of scripture that discusses this event, so the short answer is - we can't say for sure.  In general, we need to be cautious about "reasoning from an absence of scripture."

My guess: Thomas made a statement to the effect of "I refuse to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and the only thing that could change my mind would be if He Himself appeared and proved it to me".  He is pretty "over the top" with his demand, because not only did he say Jesus had to appear, but that Thomas would have to actually stick his fingers in each of Jesus' wounds!  I think he was trying to make it very clear where he stood on the matter!

Jesus responded by appearing to him and offering to grant his request.  Thomas appears to have been shocked and humbled by this, and seems very repentant, judging by his statement, "My Lord and my God!"  I have a very hard time believing that Thomas proceeded to probe each of His wounds with his fingers, but that's just a guess.


The land of bread and honey or just a diversion?

The question seems to be based on a false premise.  Most of Israel is not a desert.

The Institute for Creation Research has an article discussing the ideal climate that exists in Jerusalem.

A few excerpts:

  An Ideal Combination of Sun and Rain

  Most people think of Israel as a desert. They have seen pictures and
  drawings of caravans of camels tramping through the sand of the Sahara
  Desert and translate that image to Israel. They have read Bible
  stories about Jesus and His disciples walking across Israel in their
  sandals and the need for foot washing, the lack of water, and famine.
  They have seen Hollywood movies depicting the time of Moses and the
  Exodus in the deserts of Egypt and the lower Sinai. All these images
  give an impression of extremely hot, sunny conditions and very little,
  if any, rain.

  It is true that very dry conditions exist in southern Israel in the
  Negev and eastward of the Jordan River Valley. However, along the
  central and northern coast in northern Israel near the Sea of Galilee,
  and along the highlands on which Jerusalem sits, temperatures are much
  cooler and bountiful rainfall occurs. The average annual rainfall in
  northern Israel and along the highlands typically exceeds 15 inches.
  These portions of Israel produce plentiful crops of citrus, olives,
  figs, and grain. Far from being a desert, this part of Israel is
  highly productive.

In addition, there is Scriptural evidence that the climate was different then.

  And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that
  it was well watered everywhere, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and
  Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as
  thou comest unto Zoar (Genesis 13:10).

The linked article goes into more depth than I will here, discussing the fact that a similar change occurred in the climate in Northern Africa.

The idea of a more lush historical Israel, describable as a land flowing with milk and honey, is not that far-fetched.  Based on that, and in the tradition of not second-guessing God,  I'm going to say that He put them in exactly the land He promised and intended.


The Blessing of Herbs on the Feast of the Assumption?

It's currently celebrated as a holiday in Bavaria and Saarsland in Germany

There are special traditions about trees and plants on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. The first ripe walnuts or hazelnuts are called Mary's nuts (Mariennuesse) and are given to children. People may go out into the fields and meadows to collect herbs with medicinal and culinary properties.

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/germany/assumption

The Vatican registry acknowledges the tradition as a legitimate Christianization of a pagan tradition.

In the Germanic countries, the custom of blessing herbs is associated with 15 August. This custom, received into the Rituale Romanum(200), represents a clear example of the genuine evangelization of pre-Christian rites and beliefs: one must turn to God, through whose word "the earth produced vegetation: plants bearing seeds in their several kinds, and trees bearing fruit with their seed inside in their several kinds"(Gen 1, 12) in order to obtain what was formerly obtained by magic rites; to stem the damages deriving from poisonous herbs, and benefit from the efficacy of curative herbs.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html

And it appears to be cataloged in some German almanac of superstitions (or maybe pious belief, I don't speak German much) in 1534

“an unser frawen himmelfart da tregt alle welt obs / büschel allerley kreuter / in die kirchen zu weihen / für alle sucht und plag uberlegt / bewert. Mit disen kreutern geschicht seer vil zauberey“

https://www.brauchtum.de/de/sommer/mariae-himmelfahrt.html
Which seems to mean that everyone would come to Churches on Our Lady of the Assumption's day and bring their herbs to ward of plagues and consecrate the churches.


What is the process within the Catholic Church to get a clarification on Church teaching?

Write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). That commission addresses doctrinal questions.

From the profile page of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

  E-mail: cdf@cfaith.va

For an example, which is relevant to the current discussions in the Church, please see this CDF October 22, 2014 response to the Question of a French Priest: "Can a confessor grant absolution to a penitent who, having been religiously married, has contracted a second union following divorce?"


In Moses' time, would freeing a slave be harmful to the slave?

I am not an expert, but the way I understand it, Hebrews were permitted to take slaves as prisoners of war, or as indentured servants, however they were required to take good care of them and free them in the seventh year, sending them off with gifts. Generally speaking, if the Hebrews were rich enough to own the land and the slaves to work it, he was expected to be able to afford to send them with some livestock and food. Many of the workers in those days were day-laborers, travelling from farm to farm during the harvest seasons and working for the day, as the ones did in later centuries in Jesus'parable of the Prodigal son and the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard and the Generous Employer. Thus, a freed slave, set with some livestock and food to last a few days could continue to work, for money, for his old master or a new master, rather than sell himself back into slavery.


What is the meaning of the phrase "Entertaining Angels"?

It's a phrase from Hebrews 13:2:

  Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. (ESV)

Most commentators do think that it refers to the Abraham story, as well as Lot, Gideon, and Samson's parents. See this BH question for more.


Did John Calvin teach that souls 'pre-existed'?

Here is an answer in two parts.  The first part deals with information extracted from Book 1 of Calvin’s ‘Institutes’.  The link given opens up at Book 3 so you have to navigate back to Book 1.  https://reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/books/indxbk3.html
CALVIN INSTITUTES - BOOK I. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR.  Discussion of Human Nature as Created, of the Faculties of the Soul, of the Image of God, of Free Will, and of the Original Integrity of Man's Nature: Section 15: STATE IN WHICH MAN WAS CREATED. THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL - THE IMAGE OF GOD - FREE WILL - ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Manichaean error of the soul's emanation: It must, therefore, be held as certain, that souls, notwithstanding of their having the divine image engraven on them, are created just as angels are. Creation, however, is not a transfusion of essence, but a commencement of it out of nothing. Nor, though the spirit is given by God, and when it quits the flesh again returns to him (cf. Eccl 12:7), does it follow that it is a portion withdrawn from his essence.

Opinions of the philosophers on the soul criticized in view of the fall of Adam - The soul and its faculties: It were vain to seek a definition of the soul from philosophers, not one of whom, with the exception of Plato, distinctly maintained its immortality. Others of the school of Socrates, indeed, lean the same way, but still without teaching distinctly a doctrine of which they were not fully persuaded. Plato, however, advanced still further, and regarded the soul as an image of God. Others so attach its powers and faculties to the present life that they leave nothing external to the body.

Free choice and Adam's responsibility: At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint.

NOTE: Immortality of the soul does not mean the soul existed from eternity.  Immortal means it does not die, not that it always existed.
Nowhere does Calvin suggest that human souls pre-existed.  On the contrary, he declares that souls are created and have their commencement “out of nothing”.  Souls are created in time, not before God created time, space, matter and all life as we know it.
The second part to this answer has more to do with Calvin’s view of the soul separating from the body at death and how Scripture shows that the soul is immortal, that it continues to exist after death.  Source: http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_105_3_Hallett.pdf

When, in Inst. 1:15:2, Calvin talks of the soul being the ‘nobler part’, he does so arguing from Scriptures which clearly distinguish the soul from the body and emphasize the immortality of the soul. It is in this sense that Calvin then concludes that the soul is the ‘principal part’...
When we consider for example, that in Institutes 1:15:2 Calvin refers to no less than sixteen passages in Scripture which talk of the soul and body separating at death, and that he only uses the word ‘flesh’ when the New Testament uses it, then it is harder to accept that Calvin is Platonic in this area, rather than Biblical.  [p 5]
It is perhaps impossible to ascertain exactly the Platonist influence on Calvin. He was certainly well versed in both Plato and Plotinus and, of course, in Augustine and this may well have resulted in certain tensions in his thinking, reflected, perhaps, in the Platonist language and terminology he frequently used. But, having said that, it appears that his overriding concern was to allow his theology to be shaped by Scripture. [p 6]
The soul, then, is something essential apart from the body and is, argues Calvin from Scripture, ‘the principal part.’  It is the soul which survives when freed from the prison house of the body and it is the soul which bears the image of God. Calvin puts it this way: ‘For although God’s glory shines forth in the outer man, yet there is no doubt that the proper seat of his image is in the soul.’ [p 7]

It is worth repeating that the biblical doctrine of the immortality of the soul does not mean the soul existed from eternity.  Immortal means it does not die, not that it always existed.  There is no attribution of ‘deity’ to the human soul, even though the first man and the first woman were created “in the image of God.”  Neither does Calvin suggest that human souls pre-existed in some heavenly or spiritual realm and were then “transferred” into human bodies at some later point in time.
(NOTE: Emphasis in quotations added by me)


What is the Biblical basis for "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

I think "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a very Christian concept.

God hates sin, and in fact he hates sinners.

Romans 9:10-18

  10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

  14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

  “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
     and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

  16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

We see here that God chose to hate Esau before he was even born. He chose to harden Pharaoh in Egypt for his own purposes.

However, we do not know who God has elected to save and so we should treat everyone with the love and respect that he has given to us.

Matt 22:37-40 (NIV)

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

We are to love our neighbors (a pretty expansive group, potentially all we come into contact with) as we wish to be loved. This is a huge command. We are to love everyone in our lives as much as we love ourselves (be honest its a lot).

Loving others is our greatest command at this point

Romans 13:8 (NIV)

  8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

God's perfection cannot tolerate sinners. However, we are by no means perfect creatures and have little to no right to render judgement upon a creature god has created. Thus we should live as if each action we take and word we speak are towards each other and those outside of our circles are towards a brother in Christ, because we can not see who God has chosen and who he has not.


What are the biblical reasons for why a Christian should not participate in an election process

Your referring to the "not-insignificant number" of 8 million  Jehovah's Witnesses?

John 18:36

  Jesus answered, My kingdom (kingship, royal power) belongs not to this
  world. If My kingdom were of this world, My followers would have been
  fighting to keep Me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is,
  My kingdom is not from here (this world); [it has no such origin or
  source]

Jehovah's Witnesses support God's Kingdom and consider voting for wordly leaders a compromise of faith.

Another supporting scripture:

Psalm 146:3

  Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no
  help.

There are other supporting arguments, but this is the main train of thought. Ultimately JW's understand God's Kingdom to be the solution for all of man's problems, and do not take a share in working out man's issues through wordly kingdoms.

Consider this lofty claim from the UN (JWs believe this to be the foremost manifestation of the "Wild Beast" of modern day).

  "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into
  pruning hooks.  Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will
  they learn war anymore."

Obviously this is not of their origin, but they are claiming to aspire to achieve what God himself has promised through the book of Isaiah, where this is taken from. Isaiah 2:4

One might argue that such a goal is a commendable one, in line with God's "plan". Notice, though, the habit of "anti-God" nations, and how they make such claims:

2 kings 18:31

  Hearken not to Hezekiah, for thus says the king of Assyria: Make your
  peace with me and come out to me, and eat every man from his own vine
  and fig tree and drink every man the waters of his own cistern,

This is a very significant event, because this loud-mouth was representing the king who claimed that no God could stand against him, and he was claiming to be able to give what God himself had promised:

Original source:

Micah 4:4

  But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree,
  and none shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of hosts
  has spoken it.

Support of the nations in general by allying with their agendas and seeking out solutions through them (ie, voting) is what JW's consider to be a violation of faith in God and his Kingdom.


For most Catholic questions there are two places to start:

Summa Theologica, by Thomas Aquinas
Catechism of the Catholic Church

So for this question I will use this from the CCC (#2)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

And from Summa Theologica this:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2111.htm

So there are two types of graces that come from God through Christ and the Holy Spirit, to help heal our sin, to sanctify us:

Sanctifying grace is a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural
disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with
God, to act by his love.
Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping
with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to
God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in
the course of the work of sanctification.

There are two other types of graces that are given by the Holy Spirit to help us to do God's will, which are a subdividing of the habitual grace from above:

There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different
sacraments.
There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the
Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift,"
"benefit." Whatever their character - sometimes it is
extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms
are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the
common good of the Church.

There are two types of grace, the first is a sanctifying grace which helps to unite us with God (#1 in the first group) and the second is a gratuitous grace, which allows someone to lead others to God (the second group).  This is gratuitous because, much as when Moses was told to lead, he suggested his brother (a better speaker) instead, but, because of God Moses was able to lead, to do more than he expected to do.

So, we look at the cross as an example, where there is a grace that goes between us and God (the vertical part) and the horizontal bar is where we are tied to each other, as we help each others to be with God, so the gift of God has two distinct part, and the RCC differentiates between them.

This leads to a discussion on the RCC's view on justification, but that is beyond the scope of this question, so I will end it here.


In the Lord's Prayer, to what does "daily bread" refer?

Martin Luther once participated in a debate with Ulrich Zwingli’s over whether the Lords Supper was actually the body of Christ or simply a remembrance of it.  It is reported that Martin Luther walked into the debate, went up to the board and took a piece of chalk and wrote “This Is my Body” then left the debate without looking back.

The translation of the Lords supper is a curious one, first off Christ says,  “Give us each day, our Daily bread” this is strange in itself as he could of said if what he meant was our substance to survive.  “Give us each day our bread” It would have been enough, but he did not just say that, in fact, he said something almost unexplainable.

To fully understand this we have to go to the Greek text and look at the actual translation by the inspired authors.   The word translated to “Daily Bread” Is the Greek word  “επιούσιος  “ or more easily read “Epiousios” The word epiousios is only found in the two versions of the Lord’s Prayer in Mathew and Luke, not appearing anywhere else in known classical ‘Greek Literature.  It is as if when translating Christ words from Aramaic to Greek,  the inspired Authors had to make up a word to explain what was being said.

The term is a Hapax Legomanon, a Greek phrase meaning a word only used once.

In the Lutheran Church the term “Consubstantiation” is used to describe what happens to the bread and wine when the mass is celebrated.  The ideas are that all of a sudden Christ is present with the bread and the wine together.   This however is not what the lord stated while initiating the New Covenant.  He said, “This is my Body” as Luther so boldly wrote on the board during his debate, he did not say,  “This contains my body”.

The Catholic Church however has a different term, that being “Transubstantiation” in Greek “μετουσίωσις” again more easily “metousiosis”.  The term with out getting to technical refers to the fact that the bread and wine ceases to be and becomes only the body and blood of our lord.

When you break down the word “Epiousios” you end up with two separate words in Greek  “Epi” meaning “Super” and “ousios” meaning “substance”.  It is the tradition of the Church that these words refer not specifically to food for our stomachs but to the bread, which came down from heaven, the Manna, which was provided by the father to the people in the wilderness before crossing the Jordon.

The Church takes the word “Epiousios” used in the Lords Prayer and alters it but not changes it to explain the process by which the bread and wine do in fact change during the consecration of the mass.  “This is my Body”,  “This is the bread that came down from heaven” “This is the Manna of the New Covenant”  “This is the New Covenant, do this in memory of me”  "this is the supersubstantion (transubstantial) bread"

"Give us each day our super substantial bread" or "Give us the Eucharist, give us the true manna that came down from heaven, give us you Lord Jesus Christ"

IN Response:

“am I to believe that the bread in the Lord's Prayer is food (etc.), and not Jesus Himself?”

By no means Should you believe such a thing, it is in every way Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, Body Blood Soul and Divinity.  This is The Second Person in the trinity, present and real, worthy of worship and adoration.   To believe this is to believe the Gospel, to believe this is to be part of the body of Christ and to Share table with Abraham Isaac and Jacob.   This is the bread that is our super substance while in this vale of tears, before we cross the river Jordon into the promises revealed by Christ.


Greek- what's the difference between Ιησοῖ, Ιησούς, and Ιησού?

This is really a rather elemental question about language, there is nothing special about this name. I would caution you not to make too much of what you find in the Greek manuscripts without actually learning Greek. Learning another language is more than just substituting vocabulary words. There are grammar patterns, ranges of semantic meaning, idioms, and even different logic that you will miss just looking at words. Worse yet, you won't know what you're missing and might easily come to totally false results. You are far more likely to come to wrong conclusions by applying your English language assumptions to a language that does not play by the same rules than if you'd just used a translation in the language you know.

Greek words use different endings depending on how they are used in a sentence. This is just the way the grammar works, indicating person, tense, voice, mood, case, number, gender, or degree. In this case Ἰησοῦς is the lexical form (or root word) and all the other forms are contextual variations based on it's use in a sentence.


How do practicing Catholics keep track of all the sins they commit before going to Confession?

They don't keep track of sins. Before going to confession they do something called examination of conscience. This is in layman term trying to recall all the sin one has committed.

  An examination of conscience is a “prayerful self-reflection on our words and deeds in the light of the Gospel to determine how we may have sinned against God” - Glossary, CCC

There are many ways to examine one's conscience. Some of them are listed in USCCB website.

Do they have to confess all of them or as many as they can remember?

They have to confess as many as they can remember. They have to say all mortal sins that they are aware of, and the number of times they’ve committed them, if they know that number. Venial sins do not have to be named, but can also be said.

Is contrition the sign of having committed a sin?

No, contrition is not a sign of having committed a sin. Contrition is a sign of good conscience but not a necessary one to know that you have committed a sin. Feeling bad or guilty is not a necessity for confession. But will to be sorry is. that is, even if you don't "feel" sorry, you should want to be sorry with your will.

  There is an enormous difference between regret and repentance. Regret is simply rooted in emotion. I “feel” bad. This can be a good first step, but it cannot be the only step. And it is not even a necessary step. While there is something very healthy about “feeling bad” for “doing bad” (it shows that your soul is a bit more sensitive to the reality of sin), it alone is not a return to God. That’s what repentance is. In fact, this is what “repentance” means: it simply means “turning”. Repentance is the choice to return to God. You do not need to regret what you’ve done (believe me, that will come with time), but you do need to make the decision that you will no longer continue on in this particular sin.src

stuffing the whole chocolate cake slice into one's mouth and leaving none for brothers and sisters, would that be counted as something to confess to the priest the next time that person goes to Confession?

One can't be a judge to the actions of others. Only God will know. Assuming generic conditions, eating food that is excessive in quantity and eating too eagerly or too soon looks like gluttony (mortal sin), and not sharing with siblings looks like greed (mortal sin). So these have to be confessed.


According to Catholicism, if we can thank God for our fortunes why can we not blame him for our misfortunes?

Actually, it's an apostolic concept to see misfortune as the stuff of sanctification, and thankworthy—"all joy:"

  James 1:2-4 (DRB) My brethren, count it all joy, when you shall fall into divers [trials]; 3 Knowing that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4 And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.

You probably don't see people thanking God for bad things often because, more often than not, people are oblivious to this theology.

In Catholicism moreso perhaps than any other 'denomination' there exists a rich theology of penance, meaning that an understanding is more prevalent that penance is God's gift for sanctification—that He would allow things we are owed for our sins and much more anyway to actually serve to restore us and sanctify us.

The kind of thanks, though, is different between receiving goods and receiving trials, quite obviously; God wants directly to give all people good things, but He wants only indirectly, to solve a problem He'd rather didn't exist, that is, to give them trials.


According to Catholicism, why does the Creed mention only the role of Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus?

On your first question: the text (Luke 1:35) says that the pregnancy of Mary is by the power of the Holy Spirit, but that behind his work ("overshadowing") is the work of God the Father. So I would suggest that this means the initiative is from God the Father, but the Holy Spirit is the one who accomplishes the work. (Who can explain the inner workings of the Trinity?)
Compare with what the angel says to Joseph in Matthew 1:20:

"Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

No mention in this verse of God the Father - yet of course that does not mean he was absent.
Saying, as the creeds do, that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, does not in any way diminish the role of the Father. I think they are just affirming that Jesus was conceived not by a human Father but by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
On your second question - I do not have expertise in Catholicism, so perhaps someone else could answer from that angle.


Is there any evidence that Romans viewed Christian teachings on sexual restraint as a liberating influence?

"Are there patristic sources that suggest the introduction of sexual restraint was positively received by Rome?"

This question is a little too broad I think - what do you mean by received "by Rome"?

Clearly it WAS well received by many; since there were lots of converts.

Clearly it WAS NOT well received by many others, even to the days of Charlemagne who had multiple wives and concubines, and teaching it was ridiculed by pagan contemporaries.

A few things are clear - the teaching was revolutionary. Concubinage was well accepted as a perfectly good alternative to marriage when marriage was not possible (perhaps due to class). Sexual rights to one's slave was considered natural. The man of the house had life and death over the entire household.

Certainly the teaching was more appealing to women, than to powerful men.

It is hard to know how a "common man" reacted, but again, there were many converts.

So although I am not at the moment recalling any specific sources commenting on the issue, I am sure that the claim is historically defensible even without direct commentary.

NOTE - Rome was not a "morally decadent society" to the extent as described by some. We have lots of evidence of pagan "moral philosophers" that taught many "Christian" values. To claim otherwise would be to claim that God completely abandoned pagans.


According to Biblical Unitarianism does belief in the Trinity disqualify one from salvation?

No, but here's why.
Biblical Unitarianism is Christian - they believe in a God, creator of all things, His son Jesus and the holy spirit.
They believe in the salvation plan the bible outlines and that it is only possible in and through the name of Jesus and trusting in his sacrifice for all sin.
This arrangement is offered by God through His grace. There is no salvation that men can earn or expect to receive by any 'good works' or law keeping.
God knows the broken and corrupted nature of all men. He knows the cause of it (the devil) and has provided the remedy for it in Jesus.
When we die in this life, we will all die with many wrong understandings and false beliefs - we can never be 100% correct. The deception that has been foisted onto the world includes religious confusion resulting in myriad religions and Christian denominations.
God is well aware of all this and it is entirely covered by the bold paragraph.
If a believer (in God) dies believing a 3in1 God, they have two possible futures.

God has deemed them a 'saint' and will be raised to meet Christ at his return. This is regardless of their 3in1 understanding/belief, but of their faithful living according to the calling God has placed on their life.
They will be raised in the second resurrection with all others to finally know the true God and the salvation offering in Christ.

The very concept of whether a man's teaching/biblical interpretation has any bearing on the salvation God offers through grace via His son is abhorrent. Man has nothing to do with this core process by which God desires for 'all men to be saved'.
For a general overview of salvation as outlined above: Becoming a Christian: Why? What? How? (Biblical Unitarian)


In light of the fact that Donatism is heresy, why do most churches require a priest to bless the elements?

As far as the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England are concerned, it certainly is Canon Law.

900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.
907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.
[CLC]

B 12 Of the ministry of the Holy Communion

No person shall consecrate and administer the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless he shall have been ordained priest by episcopal ordination in accordance with the provisions of Canon C 1.

[Canons of the Church of England]

That the Eucharist is not affected by the worthiness of the minister is also enshrined in a number of church documents (Article 26 in the Church of England, for example).
However, an unworthy minister is still a minister. The ontological change wrought by the Spirit at ordination is what makes a man able to effect the sacrament. Whether he is worthy or not is of no consequence. A layman has not undergone that ontological change, and so is unable to celebrate the Eucharist. He can say the words and do all the right actions, but it is simply not effective.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this:

1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that . . . they may offer spiritual sacrifices."9 This "common priesthood" is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:10

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people," have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism.11

1142 But "the members do not all have the same function."12 Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church.13 The ordained minister is, as it were, an "icon" of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop's ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.
9 Lumen Gentium 10; cf. ⇒ 1 Pet 2:4-5.
10 Cf. LG 10; 34; Presbyteriorum ordinis 2.
11 Sacrosanctum Consilium 14; Cf. ⇒ 1 Pet 2:9; ⇒ 2:4-5.
12 ⇒ Rom 12:4.
13 Cf. PO 2; 15.


Are natural disasters the result of evil being allowed into our world?

I see ALL destruction as God breathed.
All destruction and decay is because sin entered the world, before sin, this world was perfect. So how did all of this decay, destruction, evil get into the world and where does it come from?
Well, to some extent it is true that without God these things will happen, the problem you have with that theology, is that EVERYTHING was/is created by God and EVERYTHING is sustained by Him. Literally nothing that is, exists outside of God.

Colossians 1:17 (NIV)
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

God is set against the wicked every day. He is constantly set against His enemies, He promises to never give them rest.

Romans 1:18  (NKJV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness,

Israel's History
Look back at Israel and you'll see that every time the people were disobedient God sent destruction upon them in many fashions: plagues, famine, disease, war, earthly disaster and even miracles of disaster.
Man is the source of unjust Evil
In the last section I mentioned evil for two purposes, one for just purposes, which is the evil from God and the other for unjust purposes, which is not from God. Men on the other hand are continuously creating evil for the sake of being evil. This is what the gospel is all about. We are a wicked and filthy people, literally enemies of God.
Luke 6:45 NIV

A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,
and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his
heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Matthew 13:41 NIV

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his
kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

God is the source of Wrath/Evil for a just cause
Let's not discount God's ability to bring wrath and destruction onto/into the world. See in these next verses where God has actually promised to bring evil/destruction upon sinners.
Isaiah 45:7 KJV

"I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."

Amos 3:6 KJV

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?
shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Joshua 23:15 NIV

But just as all the good things the LORD your God has promised you
have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has
threatened, until the LORD your God has destroyed you from this good
land he has given you.

1 Samuel 16:15 NIV

Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is
tormenting you.

Understand that God does these evil acts as acts of Justice. He tells us that all of His ways are Just and He does these things because of the wickedness of the people.
Job 34:10

“So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do
evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.

In Job it is referring to God doing evil for the sake of doing evil and not for a just purpose.
Disasters are from God as a form of His justice.


Do we Give our life to Christ or receive Christ's Life?

I'm going to explain these two terms as they are normally used in Christian circles.

When someone talks about "giving their life to Christ" they mainly mean it in the sense of being a completely dedicated follower of Jesus. This is in the same sense that we might say of a dedicated doctor that "she gave her life to curing diseases" - meaning that she spent all her time doing it, made it her number one priority etc. With Jesus, saying that "we give our life to Jesus" is meant in that sense, but also in the sense that we trust Jesus with our life - we hand it over to him for safekeeping, in the same way that a child might "give" a large amount of money to his parents for safekeeping. In both of those senses we can and should "give our lives to Jesus", and there is Biblical support for both.

There is another sense of giving something in which we mean "to make a gift of something to someone for their benefit" - for example to give a car to someone who needs it. In that sense your friend is right, in that we cannot give anything to Jesus that he needs - not even our lives. He is God and has everything he needs.

It is also true that we receive new life from Jesus. This is fundamental to Christian doctrine, and well-attested in the Bible - for example Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30 and 1 Timothy 1:16.

TLDR: Your friend is right about us receiving life from Jesus, but we do also give our lives to Jesus in some ways.


Is all the land in the universe called Earth?

The only good answer to this is "We don't know". And we don't know because the people writing the book had no concept of 'land outside of our planet'. For them there were only three parts to creation: Heavens, Earth and the Underworld, floating on a cosmic ocean. It is completely impossible to definitively state whether their words were intended to include parts of creation they had no idea existed.

People have attempted to deduce more about the writer's intentions, but the deductions are all subject to interpretation. You can choose somebody's interpretation if you wish.


Why did heaven need to be purified by Christ's blood?

In Moses' time, the sanctuary was cleansed once a year on the Day of Atonement.

  (Leviticus 16:30 KJV) For on that day shall the priest make an atonement
  for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins
  before the Lord.

On this day, two goats are chosen. One is sacrificed on behalf of the congregation for their sins, and the blood is sprinkled inside in the holy place inside the veil, on the mercy seat (Leviticus 16:15). Sin is transferred from the sinner, through the blood of the sacrifice, into the Sanctuary.

Once the High Priest has made an end to reconciliation, he walks in the courtyard to the other goat (the live goat) (Leviticus 16:20):

  (Leviticus 16:21) And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,
  and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and
  all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head
  of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the
  wilderness: 22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

By this act the sanctuary is fully cleansed, with sin removed from the sanctuary by the merits of the spotless sacrifice, and resting ultimately on the Scapegoat (or Azazel in Hebrew).

Now, through Hebrew 8, we know that the earthly sanctuary is merely a copy of the true Sanctuary in Heaven. All patterns and ceremonies are merely an enactment of the true services in Heaven.

In the Heavenly sanctuary, Jesus is both the spotless sacrifice and our High Priest. In fact, the true mercy seat exists in the Heavenly Sanctuary, on the ark of covenant in heaven; "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament." (Revelation 11:19). Thus in the heavenly sanctuary, services are performed to address sin that were represented by the services on earth.

When we sin and are forgiven, our sins are removed through the blood of the sinless sacrifice. However, they do not disappear, but are transferred by the blood into the Heavenly Sanctuary. The book of remembrance keeps a record of all our sins until the Judgement. The Day of Atonement represents a period in heaven when the Sanctuary is cleansed. Sins are blotted out from the book of remembrance through the merits of Jesus, and will be placed ultimately unto the Scapegoat. By this, justice is served.

  (Daniel 8:14) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred
  days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


Did God ever talk about his other creations?

This is not an answer but a scientific clarification, please delete if inappropriate. But since the OP asked

  (correct me if I'm wrong)

Lights on earth are only visible from space if you are very close.
The only planets we can actually "see" are the ones in our solar system. As far as we know these don't carry any life at all
With the aid of Kepler telescope, NASA has recently discovered three "earth like" planets that are not too far away http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177774505/kepler-telescope-spots-three-new-planets-in-the-goldilocks-zone
If these planets had lights we would not be able to see them from that distance. It's just too far away.
Visible light for humans only covers a small part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Even on earth there are animals that use
different frequencies for vision. We have no reason to believe that
life on other planets would "see" the same way
However, we would expect some sort of electromagnetic radiation from a technological advanced civilization. We sure produce a heck of it.
Then again, the planets that Kepler has found (and there are most likely lots more out there) are about 1000 light years or so away. That means it takes about 1000 years for any type of radiation to get here and we'd only hear/see/detect what happened there 1000 years ago. So far we've come up empty.
If today there would be an alien at a Kepler planet pointing their radio-telescope at earth they would detect absolutely nothing. 1000 years ago, earth didn't radiate any electromagnetic waves.
The whole definition of "Life" is a tricky problem in itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions. For example it's not entirely clear whether a virus is a living thing or not (according to most, but not all, definitions it's not)
We don't have very credible idea of how life on other planets may look like or express itself and how we would recognize it as such if we came across it.


Do JWs have books besides the Bible that they view as "sacred" or "inspired"?

No, it's only the Bible. A full description of how Jehovah's Witnesses determine whether a book is canonical can be found in the entry for "Canon" in the book, "Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1."

The only books accepted as inspired by God are the 66 books of the Bible commonly accepted by Protestants.


In Theistic Evolution when do the genealogies in Genesis become real?

Traditionally, many liberal theologians (e.g. Walter Bruggeman) have separated Genesis into two parts - Genesis 1 - 11 and Genesis 12 - 50.  The dividing point begins with Abraham, and the tone of Genesis does change significantly at that point.

In the first 11 chapters, Adam through Noah and Babel represent nearly 2000 years of human history.  A broad sweep of characters, tied by chronology of "kings" that closely corresponds with Sumerian and Babylonian myth, places Genesis in a worldwide perspective. Beginning with Abraham, however, the narrative slows down dramatically and focuses on just one guy - Abraham, and three generations of his descendants.

It is thus, for this reason that liberal scholars, having divided the book in two, tend to mythologize the first - the table of nations included - but lend more credence to the geneologies beginning with Abraham.  The link summarizes Unger's conclusion that Abraham fits well with what we "know" of the Middle Bronze Age

Interestingly, Matthew's genealogy of Jesus also begins not with Adam, but with Abraham. While Matthew may have simply been trying to show Jesus' Jewish identity, it is also possible that he believed Abraham was simply far enough.

Due to the widespread popularity of Abraham (Muslims, Christians, and Jews all claim lineage), most scholars do not doubt that there was "an Abraham," although there is nothing extra-biblical to pinpoint him to a specific date.

Moses, likewise, is such a revered figure that very few scholars doubt there was "a Moses" but again, pinning him down to an exact date is still an inexact science.  Primarily scholars tend to settle on one of two dates - either 1440BC (more closely matching the traditional genealogy) or 1290BC, which tends to be preferred by secular historians. Between Moses and the Kingdom of Israel, however, genealogies would still be expected to be more problematic, as there was no one 'leading authority' at the time.  (In any event, neither Aaron nor Moses was in Jesus' line, so for Christians, the point would be a little bit moot.)

The earliest recorded person attested to by name in extra-bibilical authority, however, is David - roughly 1000BC.  Beginning with the Tel Dan Stele, mentioning his name, theistic evolutionists become sufficiently convinced to pronounce dates with something approaching "certainty" - although even David's historicity was questioned until the end of the 20th Century.


Are there souls in hell who contributed to other soul's salvation?
The short answer is probably, but seeing to the fact that the Church does not know who is in hell, it remains an impossible question to answer with absolute certainty.
The Catholic Church can declare a person a saint, thus in heaven, but has never declared another damned!

The Popes as successors of St. Peter hold the keys to bind and loosen things on earth as well as in heaven (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18). The Popes have not even pronounced on the question as to the demise of the apostle Judas Iscariot and we all know the grave words that Jesus spoke about him shortly before the Passion: "Better for this man that he had never been born" (Mark 14:21).
Michelangelo (1475-1564) in his Last Judgment placed the Papal Master of Ceremonies, Baigio da Cesene (1463-1544) in hell. When he complained about his image being in hell, it is widely believed that Pope Paul III (1534-1549) responded: "That his jurisdiction did not extend to hell and the portrait would remain" as it is! - Why can the Catholic Church declare one person a saint but has never declared another damned?

Even St. Paul explicitly admits that this is a real possibility in life:

But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. - 1 Corinthians 9:27

Impossible it is to answer I say. But perhaps not so sure, at least not until the general judgement day!
Dietrich Richard Alfred von Hildebrand (12 October 1889 – 26 January 1977) was a German Roman Catholic philosopher and religious writer.
He was converted to the Catholic Church by Max Scheler, through whose influence (and through his depiction of St. Francis of Assisi) in 1914. Max Scheler died excommunicated by the Catholic Church for his divorce and remarriage with Märit Furtwängler in 1912. Is he in hell or heaven, no one knows, but he did influence Dietrich von Hildebrand‘s conversion to Catholicism. Max Scheler was actually given a Catholic burial by a priest who unaware of his state of excommunication.
Pope St. Gregory the Great writes about a curious story in his Dialogue, of how a Jews was converted by an apparition of Demons appeared to a Jew on a voyage and the Chief Demon said to the group: "Alas, alas, here is an empty vessel, but yet it is signed.” The Jew fearful of his life had blessed himself, making the sign of the Cross and afterwards went and got baptized.

But as I am thus busied in telling the acts of holy men, there cometh to my mind what God of his great mercy did for Andrew, Bishop of the city of Funda : which notable story I wish all so to read, that they which have dedicated themselves to continency, pre- sume not in any wise to dwell amongst women : lest in time of temptation their soul perish the sooner, by having that at hand which is unlawfully desired.
Neither is the story which I report either doubtful or uncertain: for so many witnesses to justify the truth thereof may be produced, as there be almost inhabitants in that city. When, therefore, this venerable man Andrew lived virtuously, and with diligent care, answer- able to his priestly function, led a continent and chaste life: he kept I n in his house a certain Nun, which also had remained with him before he was preferred to that dignity; for assuring himself of his own continency, and nothing doubting of hers, content he was to let her remain still in his house : which thing the devil took as an occasion to assault him with temptation : and so he began to present before the eyes of his mind the form of that woman, that by such allurements he might have his heart wholly possessed with ungodly thoughts. In the meantime it so fell out, that a Jew was travelling from Campania to Rome, who drawing nigh to the city of Funda, was so overtaken with night, that he knew not where to lodge, and therefore, not finding any better commodity, he retired himself into a temple of the god Apollo, which was not far off, meaning there to repose himself : but much afraid he was, to lie in so wicked and sacrilegious a place : for which cause, though he believed not what we teach of the cross, yet he thought good to arm himself with that sign. About midnight, as he lay waking for very fear of that forlorn and desert temple, and looked suddenly about him, he espied a troop of wicked spirits walking before another or greater authority: who coming in took up his place, and sat down in the body of the temple : where he began diligently to inquire of those his servants, how they had bestowed their time, and what villany they had done in the world. And when each one told what he had done against God's servants, out stepped a companion, and made solemn relation, with a notable temptation of carnality he had put into the mind of Bishop Andrew, concerning that Nun which he kept in his palace : where unto whiles the master devil gave attentive ear, considering with himself what a notable gain it would be, to undo the soul of so holy a man the former devil went on with his tale, and said that the very evening before he assaulted him so mightily, that he drew him so far forth, that he did merrily strike the said Nun upon the back. The wicked serpent and old enemy of mankind hearing this joyful news, exhorted his agent with very fair words, diligently to labour about the effecting of that thing which he had already so well begun, that for so notable a piece of service, as the contriving the spiritual ruin of that virtuous Prelate, he might have a singular reward above all his fellows. The Jew who all this while lay waking, and heard all that which they said, was wonderfully afraid : at length the master devil sent some of his followers to see who he was, and how he durst presume to lodge in their temple. When they were come, and had narrowly viewed him, they found that he was marked with the mystical sign of the cross : whereat they marvelled and said : "Alas, alas, here is an empty vessel, but yet it is signed": which news the rest of those hell-hounds hearing, suddenly vanished away. The Jew, who had seen all that which then passed among them, presently rose up, and in aU haste sped himself to the Bishop, whom he found in the church: and taking him side he demanded with what temptation he was troubled : but shame so prevailed, that by no means he would confess the truth. Then the Jew replied and told him, that he had cast his eyes wickedly upon such a one of God's servants ; but the Bishop would not acknowledge that there was any suchthing. "Why do you deny it,” quoth the Jew, "for is it not so true that yesternight you were brought so far by sinful temptation, that you did strike her on the back.'"' When the Bishop, by these particulars, perceived that the matter was broken forth, he humbly confessed what be fore he obstinately denied. Then the Jew, moved with compassion to his soul, and tendering his credit, told him by what means he came to the knowledge thereof, and what he heard of him in that assembly of wicked spirits. The Bishop, hearing this, fell prostrate upon the earth, and betook himself to his prayers : and straight after he discharged out of his house, not only that Nun, but all other women that attended upon her. And not long after, he converted the temple of Apollo into an oratory of the blessed Apostle, St. Andrew : and never after was he troubled with that carnal temptation : and the Jew, by whose means he was so mercifully preserved, he brought to everlasting salvation : for he baptized him, and made him a member of Holy Church. And thus,by God's providence, the Jew having care of the spiritual health of another, attained also himself the singular benefit of the same : and almighty God by the same means brought one to embrace piety and virtue, by which he preserved another in an holy and godly life. - Chapter Seven: Of Andrew Bishop of Funda (Page 113).

I imagine if the Demons can provoke a conversion which they obviously would not want, then a Soul in hell could have contributed to another’s salvation.
Others sources of interest may be perused at one’s own leisure:

The Letter from Hell


If Mark's gospel presents Jesus as servant, why does John say he's unworthy to loose his shoes?

There is a difference between someone's worth, or nature, and their actions.

Jesus, in himself, is the Most High God* and worthy of our worship, praise and adoration. Nothing can change that. John is quite correct to say that  he is not worthy to untie his shoes.

In his incarnation Jesus takes on the role of a servant. It's a job he does, and it doesn't in any way diminish his nature.

You might consider the analogy of Prince William, who fulfilled the role of a (relatively junior) officer in the Royal Air Force. While fulfilling that role he accepted the orders of his senior officers, and interacted with other officers as an equal; despite the fact that in reality he outranked every one of them.

*According to most branches of Christianity.


What did Clement mean when he said: "Fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both"?

I believe this is the full quote:

So, then, brethren, having received no small occasion to repent, while we have opportunity, let us turn to God who called us, while yet we have One to receive us. For if we renounce these indulgences and conquer the soul by not fulfilling its wicked desires, we shall be partakers of the mercy of Jesus. Know that the day of judgment draws near like a burning oven, and certain of the heavens and all the earth will melt, like lead melting in fire; and then will appear the hidden and manifest deeds of men. Good, then, is alms as repentance from sin; better is fasting than prayer, and alms than both; "charity covers a multitude of sins", and prayer out of a good conscience delivers from death. Blessed is every one that shall be found complete in these; for alms lightens the burden of sin.
2nd letter of Clement to the Cornthians

In the letter, "charity covers a multitude of sins" is quoted and that is a reference to the first letter of St. Peter

Charity covers a multitude of sins
1 Peter 4:4

There's a similar passage in Sirach that goes

Store up almsgiving in your treasury, and it will save you from every evil.
Sir 29:12

But, even though Ben Sirach was seemingly referring to temporal salvation (i.e. in time of distress or need), there's a clear anagogical reading of that which echos Jesus saying to store up your treasures in Heaven where neither moth nor worm can eat them.
There's an even clearer mandate in the Book of Tobit

For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.
Tobit 12:9

Combined, it doesn't make the quote from Clements letter (which is a spurious attribution, according to New Advent), contrary to scripture.  It is interesting that both of the scripture passages I quoth are deuterocanonical, and maybe all the more interesting if you came from a Sola Fide background and were thinking that Clement was off his rocker because you never saw this kind of talk in your Bible.

That fasting is better than prayer, should be no surprise, when the disciples attempts to drive out demons failed Jesus said

He said to them, "This kind can only come out through prayer."
Mark 9:29 NAB

Well what were they doing?  So some manuscripts also tack on "And fasting" (without saying who is doing the fasting)
Anyway, it's semi-clear that fasting + prayer is better than prayer alone. And in a way, almsgiving is better than both.  But it's the combination of them that sets you on the right path.


What's the Protestants' view on the purpose of sacraments?

Asking "What do Protestants think about the sacraments?" is a bit misleading. There are a large variety of Protestant views, some of them are more traditional than others. The question as to whether Protestant groups are wholly divorced from the Apostolic succession is also not 100% correct. There are a few clearly Protestant groups who have at least some claim to succession (Certain Anglicans, the Old Catholic Church, etc.).

This is a statement from the Presbyterian Church of the USA (PCUSA):

  In the words of John Calvin, sacraments are "a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward [God]." A sacrament is a testimony of God's favor toward the church, confirmed by an outward sign, with a mutual testifying of our godliness toward God. It is a primal, physical act that signifies a spiritual relationship between personal beings.

Here's the Lutheran perspective (ELCA):

  Contemporary theologians, especially Edward Schillebeeckx, have said that Christ is the "primordial sacrament." The grace that is received in the sacraments is the grace of Christ. In the two sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist Jesus Christ is the content of the sacrament as well as the minister of the sacrament. In both sacraments it is the whole Christ who encounters us. The sacraments are wonderful ways in which Christ is present to us. This is not to deny that Christ is present to us in other ways as well, but if we look at Christ’s command and Christ’s promise it is obvious that two actions are central.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) has similar thoughts:

  Like baptism, Holy Communion is regarded by Protestants as a sacrament. That is, it’s an act of worship ordained by Christ and is a means of grace. This does not mean that we become any more worthy of God’s grace by taking part in Communion. Rather, we open ourselves to the divine love that’s already there; we become more ready to receive that love and to respond to it.


Is there an English translation of the Bible that is accepted by most Christians?

The main problem with the NRSV is its attempt at using gender inclusive language when possible, although it is more conservative in this regard than some versions. Otherwise, it is a very scholarly translation that is more literal than some, but still has a good English style. It is available in Catholic editions with all 72 books in the traditional order, as well as Protestant editions, with or without the Apocrypha.

The original RSV also comes in Protestant and Catholic editions, and does not have the issue of gender inclusive language. It does use "thee" and "thou" etc. in prayers, which some people like, and others hate.

My impression in dealings with some Eastern Orthodox is that there is no English translation that entirely lives up to their standards. They would like a translation of the Old Testament taken from the Greek Septuagint, which they consider the Christian version of the OT since it was the most common version used in the early Church. All English Bibles that I know of that are in use today come primarily from the Hebrew OT. The Orthodox Study Bible is based on the New King James Version, with an attempt to change the Old Testament where it contradicted the Septuagint. Also, the Septuagint books that are missing from the Protestant Bible were also added. My understanding is that some Orthodox are not satisfied with the results.

Twelve years ago I attended a Bible study led by the Orthodox Bishop of Dallas, Abp Dmitri, and he used the RSV. This was before the Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament was available.


Why no specific names of false apostles and false brothers in Acts and epistles?

Here are some suggestions, none of which I am claiming as necessarily the answer:

Naming people draws attention to them. The writers probably didn't want their readers going to find out what these people were writing
Naming people makes them exclusive. If the writer says "don't listen to Marcus and Suetonius" that leaves Octavius free to spread his teaching. This is especially true since the letters were circulated widely, and the authors may well have understood that they were also writing for a later generation.


Why when all are separated by mans sin was Noah chosen?

Genesis 6:5-6 describes God’s view of the people who lived prior to the flood:

  “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on
  the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human
  heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made
  human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.”

God determined to wipe out the evil deeds of men and put an end to their wickedness.

  “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:7, 8).

All the people on earth died except Noah and his family who were found righteous in the eyes of God. The people who perished in the flood died because they refused to acknowledge God or seek His forgiveness. Noah, on the other hand, is described as righteous, blameless, and obedient in that he

  “walked with God” (Genesis 6:9).

Noah and his family were not spared because they were without sin, but because Noah was obedient and without blame.  God had a plan and that plan involved Noah and his family. The polluted, unrighteous population of the world of Noah disappeared from the earth. Mankind was salvaged, and from the line of righteous Noah came the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, who died to atone for the sins of the world. [1]

Hebrews chapter 11 gives examples of other imperfect people who were used by God in the outworking of his divine purpose.  They were all sinners, but God enabled them to overcome and to do incredible things to his glory.

God, in his sovereignty, has the undisputed right to bless and to give, to show mercy and dispense his grace on those whom he favors.  God blessed Abraham (Genesis 12:3) because Abraham believed God, and his faith was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).  Noah was righteous and blameless “and he walked with God” (Genesis 6:9). God showed mercy to Noah because he was obedient and his faith in God never wavered.

[1]Source: The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, 50th Anniversary Edition.  (Dr. John C. Whitcomb, Dr. Henry M. Morris


How does societal consecration to Mary differ from individual consecration?

My best understanding on the matter:

The word consecration can mean a number of things. In the most basic sense, it's a setting apart of something for a purpose. The significance and meaning of a particular consecration is dictated by the consecrator, the consecrated thing, the consecrated purpose.

In any and all cases of consecration, it is my belief that the consecrating entity holds the primary responsibility for ensuring the consecrated object or person remains properly dedicated to the consecrated purpose. In addition, when a person is the consecrated entity, the person takes on a significant amount of responsibility. In the consecration of a group, the group is also largely responsible; but, only to the extent they were aware of and accepted such a consecration!

For me, it's a toss-up as to wether a self-consecration is more serious and binding than the Church consecrating someone (like a priest). I might lean towards the Church's consecration of a willing individual being the most binding and significant.

And in all cases, consecration "simply" sets the person or object apart to be "used" for a particular purpose. Thus, the consecrating entity is always responsible for overseeing it's "use" or handing off responsibility properly.

In the case of consecrating a large community, including secular individuals, as well as the world, I would understand that to mean, we, the Catholic Church are responsible for guiding the community to serve the intended purpose. I would also posit the effects of reconsecration, can -- but do not always, overwrite previous consecrations.


Acts 28:27  (Matt 13:15 is almost identical)

  For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull
  of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with
  their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
  and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Romans 11:8

  (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of
  slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not
  hear;) unto this day.

Isaiah 6:9

  And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand
  not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Deut. 29:4

  Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see,
  and ears to hear, unto this day.


LDS Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:12 when they supported polygamy

There does not seem to be any LDS view on 1 Timothy 3 requirements during the time they practiced polygamy (searched LDS website and Joseph Smith Papers).

The LDS believe in modern prophets who receive revelation.

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures.

Related to this is that the Bible is not the only scripture or wholey translated correctly (doesn't apply to this verse). Article of Faith 8:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

See this Answer on the purpose of Polygamy or from the LDS website:

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise.
...
Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30). Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. ...


Biblical era gesture signifying peace between two parties?

Typically in the Old Testament, they would send emissaries to negotiate covenants with their enemies.

  Luke 14:31-32 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

Other references:  Josh 9:6, 2 Samuel 3:12-13, 1 Kings 15:19, 2 Kings 18:23, Genesis 23:8-9, and others.


Why should we pray if God knows everything?

Philippians 4:6 tells us

  "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God."

In Acts 1:13-14, after Jesus ascends, we see

  "And when they (the Apostles) had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers."

Acts 2:42, Acts 3:1, Acts 6:4 and Acts 12:5 all mirror this - the need and dependency on prayer.

So, why do we pray?
For a number of reasons. We pray because it is a form of serving the Lord (Luke 2:36-38). We pray in preparation for major decisions (Luke 6:12-13); to overcome demonic barriers (Matthew 17:14-21); to gather workers for the spiritual harvest (Luke 10:2); to gain strength to overcome temptation (Matthew 26:41); and to obtain the means of strengthening others spiritually (Ephesians 6:18-19).

Does God know your father is in the hospital in need of help?
Absolutely. His eyes are everywhere (Proverbs 15:3), and He knows all things (1 John 3:19-20).

Do your prayers prompt God to action?
Yes and no. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), and all things are in accordance to His will and if you ask as such, He will hear you (1 John 5:14). By praying to the Lord, you are showing Him you need Him. A perfect analogy would be like this - are you yourself more likely to help someone asking in the heat of the moment, or someone asking out of true sincerity?

If you don't prompt God for action, will he help your dad anyway?
Absolutely. God does not need to wait for you, or anyone else, to take action. He is above all things, and everything moves in accordance to His will. He does not want you or your father to suffer, and the odds are with you that He will help you and your family through this tough time.


Israel without spears and the value of a shekel

The Philistines had disarmed the Israelites to prevent rebellion.
Gill's Exposition on 1 Sam. 13:19,

"Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel,.... The Philistines, when they ruled over them, having removed them into their own country, and forbid any to learn or exercise that trade in Israel:
for the Philistines said, lest the Hebrews make swords or spears: this they did to prevent their having arms, and the use of them, that they might not rebel against them, and fight with them, and overcome them; it was a piece of policy to keep them subject to them; so Nebuchadnezzar, when he conquered the Jews and carried them captive, took care particularly to carry away their smiths, and left none but the poorest sort of people in the land, 2 Kings 24:14 and Porsena, king of the Etrusci, when he made a covenant with the Romans, upon the expulsion of their kings, made this a condition of peace with them, that they should use no iron but in husbandry (h). When this course was taken by the Philistines with the Israelites, and how long it had continued is not certain; it is probable it might be in the space of forty years they ruled over Israel, in which Samson was born, for we never read of any sword or spear that he made use of; and though there were two battles in the times of Eli, in both which Israel were beaten, they might make use only of bows and arrows, slings, and stones, clubs, &c, as also in the battle of Saul with the Ammonites; and as for the defeat of the Philistines in the time of Samuel, it was by thunder; and though the Philistines were then subdued, yet, as Samuel grew old, they regained their power in a good measure, and the Israelites had not spirit enough to oppose them, nor diligence and industry to learn and revive the trade of smiths among them; not even for what was necessary to husbandry, as the following verse shows.

(h) Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. c. 14. "   Source: here
A shekel was a weight.  There are three different shekels mentioned in scripture: silver shekels of Gen. 23:16 ; the shekel of the sanctuary in Ex. 30:13, which was 20 gerahs; and shekels measured by the king's weight in 2 Sam 14:26.  These may have varied.  An article discussing weights and measures can be found here.
Another source identifies the gerah as being 1/50th of an ounce, or 0.6 grams.  Then, the sanctuary shekel would have been 0.4 ounces, or 12 grams.  See here.
But, 1 Sam. 13:21 is not translated the same in the English versions.
Verse 21 In Young's reads:

"and there hath been the file for mattocks, and for coulters, and for three-pronged rakes, and for the axes, and to set up the goads."

The KJV reads:

" Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads."

Excerpt from Gill's Exposition on vs. 21:

"(The word for "file" in the verse is "pim", and occurs only here in the Hebrew scriptures. It is not used elsewhere in other Hebrew writings. Therefore the translators of the 1611 Authorised Version had only the root derivation to deduce what the word meant. Literally, it means "a file with mouths". However, recently archaeologists have found a stone inscribed with this word. Also they found a stone inscribed with the word "shekel". Hence they deduced that the word was really a weight of measure equal to about one third of a shekel. Newer translations usually translate this as "the charge was a third of a shekel ...", hence removing the obvious contradiction between this verse and the preceding one. Editor.) "  Source: here

Ellicott's Commentary offers:

"The LXX. read this 21st verse with considerable changes: “And the vintage was ready to be gathered, and the tools were three shekels to the tooth to sharpen], and to the axe and to the scythe there was the same rate” (or, as the Greek has been rendered,” tools cost three shekels apiece [to sharpen]”)."  Same source as above.

There appears to be differences in the amount the Philistines charged.  But, Interlinear has it as "a shekel" for all of the tools.


What does it mean that Satan is "god of this world"?

You know, this is a good question.  Even though I understand the concept instinctively, I wasn't able to put it into words myself.

The closest I can come in my own words is to give a bullet list of concepts that tie together to answer the question.

The Bible speaks of several "gods", none of whom are the true God
A god (idol) is anything (a being, a concept) who is worshiped and obeyed instead of the one true God.

In this sense, your god could be your money, the television, the Internet - anything you count to be more important than God.

"This world" is largely anti-God. We are more concerned with earthly pleasures than we are in God and what He wants from us.
When we disobey God, we are obeying and following Satan, wittingly or unwittingly.  We are, in effect, worshiping him.

However, that looks completely unsatisfying when I look at it on the screen, so I cheated. I found a better answer elsewhere.

How is Satan god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)? | GotQuestions.org

This article says everything I was trying to articulate but couldn't.

Here are two excerpts that say it MUCH better than I did:

  The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age” [NKJV]) indicates
  that Satan is the major influence on the mind-set expressed by the
  ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people.
  His areas of influence also encompass the world’s philosophies,
  education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false
  religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his
  lies and deceptions.

...

  So, when the Bible says that Satan is the "god of this world," it is
  not saying that he has ultimate authority. It is conveying the idea
  that Satan rules over the unbelieving world in a specific way. In the
  case of 2 Corinthians 4:4, the unbeliever follows Satan's agenda.
  According to 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "god of this world has blinded the
  minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel
  of the glory of Christ." Satan's agenda includes pushing a false
  philosophy onto the unbelieving world—a false philosophy that blinds
  the unbeliever from the truth of the Gospel. Satan’s philosophies are
  the fortresses in which people are imprisoned, needing to be set free
  and brought captive to Christ in obedience to the truth.