How do Mormon missionaries learn foreign languages so quickly?

I served as an LDS missionary for two years and I think it can be predominantly attributed to a few simple things.

8-12 weeks in the Missionary Training Center where you study the language for at least 6-8 hours of the day have a big effect. We had experienced teachers that also went through the learning process. After a few weeks of study, we were asked to communicate only in the mission language we were studying, which greatly accelerated the learning process.
Total immersion in the language. I was sent from Salt Lake City straight to a city in Mexico, where I was assigned to work with a companion that was experienced and also knew no English at all. The need to communicate was a necessity, and created a total immersion in the language. The way it is typically set up, you cannot fully function until you learn the language.
This may be an extension of point 2, but you are encouraged to pray, read, and even think in the mission language from your first weeks of training. The program and method is designed to push you.
After leaving the Missionary Training Center, each missionary takes at least one hour out of every day (for two years) to specifically study a foreign language (the mission language if you are not native to the location, and English if you do not already know it).

It also helps when you have full faith that if you're trying your best, God can give you the gift of tongues. When you have complete faith that God will help you learn the language, you tend to have some fairly accelerated learning.

The LDS church provides counsel to missionaries trying to learn a language in their missionary handbook, Preach My Gospel.


What is the Catholic Church's position on the drug DMT?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on drugs:

The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

(paragraph 2291)
However, the Church doesn't necessarily have a position on whether any particular substance is or is not a drug. In 2001, the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care produced a document titled Church: Drugs and Drug Addiction, the preface and table of contents of which are available on the Vatican website. According to the table of contents, the section titled "The Products" covers glue and other solvents, cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, and heroin. Clearly, these are not the only available substances that might be classified as "drugs"; but at the time the Council obviously considered them the most important to deal with directly. Since this is a pastoral document, it's obviously not intended to give a comprehensive list of how to deal with all drugs, but how to deal with the most important, or most commonly encountered, or most harmful ones.
How then might the Church approach the question of whether a given substance constitutes a "drug"? One consideration is whether the civil authorities consider it to be a drug:

Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.... Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God." [1 Peter 2:13, 16]

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2238)
The civil authorities are to be obeyed unless "they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel." It is not clear that classifying a particular substance as a drug, or a non-drug, meets this criterion.
Further, one can look again at the Catechism's paragraph 2291 cited above. This is placed in the Catechism's discussion of the fifth commandment: You shall not kill. From this commandment, we can deduce the importance not only of human life but of health which supports life; it is for this reason that the use of drugs in a non-therapeutic manner is a grave evil. And this, finally, may be a reason for considering it a drug: there appear to be no non-therapeutic uses for it.
With respect to its supposed positive spiritual effects, the Church is very clear that the way to approach spiritual life—to come closer to God—is through prayer.

Christian prayer is a covenant relationship between God and man in Christ. It is the action of God and of man, springing forth from both the Holy Spirit and ourselves, wholly directed to the Father, in union with the human will of the Son of God made man.
In the New Covenant, prayer is the living relationship of the children of God with their Father who is good beyond measure, with his Son Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit.

(paragraph 2564–65)
For this reason, it would not be surprising if the Church were to formally condemn the use of DMT and similar psychedelic drugs, independent of civil authority; however, it appears that no such statement is forthcoming, nor likely to be.


What is an open atheist's fate in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe?

You would have been excommunicated by the church and shunned by the community. But then again, for some individuals, the solace that comes from "having the courage of your convictions" and "being right" may have made that option more palatable (see de Tocquville below).

People would have thought you odd, and possibly a public health hazard. (After all, God could punish the village for your unbelief.) But, if you were willing to move, you'd probably have been ok.

There were all sorts of dissenters - Waldensians, Hussians, Huguenots. When they became large enough to threaten the local potentate, sure, you'd be dealt with- but the fact that these groups could begin to number in the tens of thousands shows how tolerant the High Middle Ages could be.

Sociologically speaking, the community simply cared about other things far more - surviving the Plague (1347 - 1350), resisting invasions (When Genghis Khan invaded Poland in the 1240s, people thought the world was coming to an end!), ignoring the Papal politics of your time.  Heck, for at the least the latter half of the 14th Century, you had three Popes to choose from. They were so busy fighting amongst themselves, they would have had little time for you. And, if you were a peasant, you were either so busy trying to make a living (before the Black Death) or choosing which of several jobs you wanted (after the Black Death), religious conformity would have been low on your list.

Duns Scotus, for example, was able to get away with chipping away at the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope pretty signficantly - and he prospered.

It is unlikely that you would have been publicly "executed" - you just would have been so weird that nobody else would have wanted anything to do with you.

In other words, while you may have been anti-Christ, you certainly weren't "the Anti-ChristTM". You were just a nut!

Incidentally, as Alexis De Tocqueville (Democracy In America) points out that your persecution at the hands of a despot would have entitled you to take solace in your martyrdom. In contrast, simple ostracism may seem a greater punishment, if only because you would have realized how different and alone you truly were.  All that said, if you were truly an atheist, your love of reason should have been sufficient solace for you not to care.


Are there any credible arguments that Jesus may have been gay or tending homosexual?

From canonical Scripture alone, I don't think that argument could be made.

The mosaic law clearly forbids homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, making it a sin in God's eyes.  If Jeus came, and fulfilled the law, which he said he did, in Matthew 5:17-18, then that would have to mean that he followed the entirety of the law to the letter, including the commandments forbidding homosexuality.

If New Testament writings are to be taken as truth then, for Jesus to have been perfect (Hebrews 4:15) and thus the only acceptable sacrifice for sin (1 Peter 1:19), he could not have been gay.

If Jesus was gay, then according to Scripture, the entirety of the Gospel would cave in on itself.  Jesus would have been guilty of transgressing the mosaic law, and therefore, owing death as the penalty for his own sin. (Romans 6:23). If he was gay, then, the death he died would have been bearing the weight of his own sin, and the entirety of the Christian worldview would come crashing to the ground.

In short, Christianity depends on Jesus not being gay.

That said, there's nothing that would have prevented the temptation to sin, indeed, Scripture says he was tempted, but he could not have followed through with it and simultaneously maintain the innocence he would have needed to endure the cross, carrying the sins of the world on his back.

Gay Jesus, then, by definition, cannot coexist with Christianity.


Why was the Angel Michael fighting the Devil for Moses' body?

It appears that the author of Jude was quoting from an apocryphal Jewish scroll known as the Assumption of Moses.

Origen stated in De principiis, III,2,1:

  "We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how
  the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human
  race, inciting and instigating men to sin.  And in the first place, in
  the book of Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced
  Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses
  (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his
  Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil
  regarding the body of Moses, says ..."

A fragment of the Assumption of Moses has been discovered, but it does not include the account of Michael and the devil disputing over the body of Moses, which means that we can not say how this account played out, or why the author of Jude chose to mention it, apart from its apparent support for Jude's theology.


Is there any ancient or modern connection between the word "sin" and the sport of archery?

Idioms are notoriously difficult to translate, since they are specific to the language of origin and may cause confusion when translated literally. One example is the expression “to miss the mark” (from the meaning of the Greek word hamartia in Luke 1:77; John 1:29; 1 John 3:4). It is worth noting what 1 John 3:4 says about sin:  “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness” (NIV).  True, the Greek word ‘hamartia’ has been linked to the expression “to miss the mark”:

Strong's Concordance: hamartia: a sin, failure:
Original Word: ἁμαρτία, ας, ἡ
Definition: a sin, failure
Usage: prop: missing the mark; hence: (a) guilt, sin, (b) a fault, failure (in an ethical sense), sinful deed.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon: STRONGS NT 266: ἁμαρτία: ἁμαρτία, (ας, ἡ (from 2 aorist ἁμαρτεῖν, as ἀποτυχία from ἀποτύχειν), a failing to hit the mark (see ἁμαρτάνω. In Greek writings (from Aeschylus and Thucydides down). 1st, an error of the understanding (cf. Ackermann, Das Christl. im Plato, p. 59 Anm. 3 (English translation (S. R. Asbury, 1861), p. 57 n. 99)). 2nd, a bad action, evil deed. In the N. T. always in an ethical sense   https://biblehub.com/greek/266.htm

However, we do well to go further back in time and take a quick look at the Hebrew meaning of sin.  During the Greek Mycenean Period Moses was attributed as being the author/compiler of the Pentateuch, which includes the book of Genesis where the first mention of sin as a noun is recorded:

The first mention of sin as a noun is a zoomorphism, with sin (hattath) crouching at Cain's door (Genesis 4:7). The first as a verb is Abimelech being prevented from sinning (khata) against God in a dream.
Hebrew has several other words for sin beyond hata, each with its own specific meaning. The word pesha, or "trespass", means a sin done out of rebelliousness. The word aveira means "transgression". And the word avone, or "iniquity", means a sin done out of moral failing. The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", hata, literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha, provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_sin

The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is ‘avera’ which literally means “transgression.”  The article goes on to describe the three levels of sin and is well worth reading.
I mention this to emphasise the point that biblical sin means a transgression against the law of God.  The Greek idiom not only “misses the mark” but it doesn’t even get close to the target!  As a description of biblical sin, it is wholly inept.
Back to your question asking if the Greek word ‘hamartia’ can be linked to archery.  You have discovered that “Hamartia as it pertains to dramatic literature was first used by Aristotle in his Poetics.”   I have to agree with your conclusion that “it seems that sin is not actually an archery term.”  The Greek word may lend itself to “missing the mark” but not so with the Hebrew.  Interesting word search, though.


Since you question specifically states Catholicism, I will give you a quote from a Catholic source:

  For centuries people have been embracing the evangelical counsels and
      binding themselves to observe them by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
      The most common example we have of persons making these vows are the men and women
      who make their profession of vows as religious.  These religious make what is known
      as public vows.   Not all people, however, are called to make public vows, but
      instead elect to follow the evangelical counsels through private vows.

  There is one primary difference between a public vow of poverty, chastity, or
      obedience and a private vow of poverty, chastity, or obedience.  Public vows are
      made in a religious profession, or profession in the hands of the bishop of a
      diocesan hermit and have the effect of placing the individual in the consecrated
      state in the Church.  Private vows are made outside of this context of
      Ecclesiastical acceptance and they do not change the canonical status of the
      individual making them within the Church.

I do  not know if only those three fall into what can be a private vow or not.


Judas, of course, hung himself after betraying Jesus

James is the only other Apostle whose death is recorded in Scripture, in Acts 12:1-2

  It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to
  the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother
  of John, put to death with the sword.

The rest of the Apostles deaths are recorded outside of Scripture, and there is some uncertainty and discrepancy.

Andrew - The details are unclear, but the Catholic Encyclopedia lists this.

  It is generally agreed that he was crucified by order of the Roman
  Governor, Aegeas or Aegeates, at Patrae in Achaia, and that he was
  bound, not nailed, to the cross, in order to prolong his sufferings.
  The cross on which he suffered is commonly held to have been the
  decussate cross, now known as St. Andrew's, though the evidence for
  this view seems to be no older than the fourteenth century. His
  martyrdom took place during the reign of Nero, on 30 November, A.D.
  60); and both the Latin and Greek Churches keep 30 November as his
  feast.

Bartholomew  - Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia

  The manner of his death, said to have occurred at Albanopolis in
  Armenia, is equally uncertain; according to some, he was beheaded,
  according to others, flayed alive and crucified, head downward, by
  order of Astyages, for having converted his brother, Polymius, King of
  Armenia. On account of this latter legend, he is often represented in
  art (e.g. in Michelangelo's Last Judgment) as flayed and holding in
  his hand his own skin. His relics are thought by some to be preserved
  in the church of St. Bartholomew-in-the-Island, at Rome. His feast is
  celebrated on 24 August. An apocryphal gospel of Bartholomew existed
  in the early ages.

James, the son of Alpheus is listed in the Orthodox Wiki with the following:

  St James finished his apostolic work in the Egyptian city of
  Ostrachina, where he was crucified by the pagans.

while Foxes Book of Martyrs says this:

  At the age of ninety-four he was beat and stoned by the Jews; and
  finally had his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club.

Peter - from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter
  laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended
  his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic
  activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his
  residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the
  chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are
  uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less
  well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this
  constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of
  Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

followed by several accounts, too numerous to list here.

Thomas - from the Orthodox Wiki

  Preaching the Gospel earned the holy Apostle Thomas a martyr's death.
  For having converted the wife and son of the prefect of the Indian
  city of Meliapur (Melipur), the holy apostle was locked up in prison,
  suffered torture, and finally, pierced with five spears, he departed
  to the Lord. Part of the relics of the holy Apostle Thomas are in
  India, in Hungary and on Mt. Athos.

The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't so sure...

  On the other hand, though the tradition that St. Thomas preached in
  "India" was widely spread in both East and West and is to be found in
  such writers as Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, Jerome, and, later
  Gregory of Tours and others, still it is difficult to discover any
  adequate support for the long-accepted belief that St. Thomas pushed
  his missionary journeys as far south as Mylapore, not far from Madras,
  and there suffered martyrdom.

Philip  - Not much information exists on his death. What is given is always prefaced as "rumors".  Some accounts say hostile Jews had him tortured and then crucified upside down. Some sources have him being stoned.  The honest answer is "we just don't know".

Simon - From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The Abyssinians accordingly relate that he suffered crucifixion as the
  Bishop of Jerusalem, after he had preached the Gospel in Samaria.
  Where he actually preached the Gospel is uncertain. Almost all the
  lands of the then known world, even as far as Britain, have been
  mentioned; according to the Greeks, he preached on the Black Sea, in
  Egypt, Northern Africa, and Britain, while, according to the Latin
  "Passio Simonis et Judae" — the author of which was (Lipsius
  maintains) sufficiently familiar with the history of the Parthian
  Empire in the first century — Simon laboured in Persia, and was there
  martyred at Suanir. However, Suanir is probably to be sought in
  Colchis. According to Moses of Chorene, Simon met his death in
  Weriosphora in Iberia; according to the Georgians, he preached in
  Colchis. His place of burial is unknown.

Judas Thaddeus - From the orthodox Wiki:

  He was one of the Twelve Apostles (not to be confused with the
  Thaddeus of the Seventy Apostles) and after the Ascension he preached
  the Gospel in Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Idumea, Syria, Arabia,
  Mesopotamia, and Armenia. While preaching in the area around Ararat he
  was captured by pagans, crucified and killed by being shot with
  arrows.

John was spared a violent death.

Matthias was sentenced to death and stoned.

Paul According to the Orthodox Wiki, Paul was martyred with the Apostle Peter under Nero by beheading.


What were the views of the Church Fathers on Jews and Judaism during the Patristic Era?

Here is a small excerpt (108.2.3) of "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew", a writing by Justin Martyr in approximately 160 C.E.:
You also accuse Him [Jesus] of having taught the same godless, wicked, and criminal teachings which you bring up in condemnation of all those who everywhere confess Christ to be their teacher and the son of God.  Moreover, not even now, after your city has been conquered and your country laid waste, do you repent, but dare to curse Jesus and all who believe in Him.


Why is our physical world so different from spiritual?

Natural vs. Supernatural Orders

A human is composed of a body and a soul. Since the human soul is virtually infinite—just think of all that man desires, can know, and can do etc.—, it is not fulfilled by finite creation. Man was created for a higher, supernatural end, which he can attain by God's grace.

Your question is essentially asking about the distinction between the natural and supernatural orders—a distinction that is very frequently denied today, especially in the heresy of Modernism (the "synthesis of all heresies"), which Pope St. Pius X condemned in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis §10:

  There is no question now of the old error, by which a sort of right to the supernatural order was claimed for the human nature. We have gone far beyond that: we have reached the point when it is affirmed [by the Modernists] that our most holy religion, in the man Christ as in us, emanated from nature spontaneously and entirely. Than this there is surely nothing more destructive of the whole supernatural order. Wherefore the [First] Vatican Council most justly decreed: "If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature, but that he can and should, by his own efforts and by a constant development, attain finally to the possession of all truth and good, let him be anathema" (De Revel., can. 3).[Those who believe that condemned statement are Pelagians.]

An Analogy

It's true that God is infinitely different and distinct from the created world, but we can certainly know God from the created world (cf. Rom. 1:20). Just as we can know an unseen cause (e.g., magnetism) by studying its effects (e.g., magnetic bodies attracting each together), so we can know God (creation's First Cause) by studying His effects (creation itself).

Think of a stop sign. It is octagonal, red, has some black markings that make sense to those who can see and read. A stop sign is infinitely different than the concept or action of stopping, yet the sign still signifies it.* Analogously, creation signifies or points to God, like smoke signifies a fire,** even though He and creation are infinitely distinct.*This is just an analogy because creation does not signify God by some conventional sign like a stop sign. **This is also an analogy because smoke and fire aren't infinitely distinct like creation and God are.

But there are some truths, necessary for his salvation, that man cannot know from nature alone—e.g., the Trinity. Hence, supernatural grace is required to raise man to the supernatural order.

The Natural & Supernatural Ends of Man

Man has a twofold end or purpose, which St. Thomas Aquinas describes in Summa Theologica I q. 23 a. 1 c.:

  The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above (Question [12], Article [4] ["Whether any created intellect by its natural powers can see the Divine essence?"]). The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature.

Man's earthly life is a prelude to life everlasting.* Thus, there is a continuity between this life and the next, just as there is a unity between the body and soul in a person.*cf. Life Everlasting by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (ebook; video of famous quote from it)


As to your question regarding origins, we do not know the author or the means of revelation of the book of Job.

What we do know is that there is an ancient tradition including the book in Hebrew scripture. The book makes no reference to the patriarchs or the law or the prophets but it is consistent with teachings therein and is commonly considered to predate those writings in scripture.

As to your point that none of the characters are Israelites, I would point out that the language and ideas used are very consistent with Hebrew scripture. e.g. the names of God: Yahweh, Adonai, Elohim, El, Eloha, Shadai, Creator; angels, Satan, priestly functions, atonement, integrity, iniquity etc. The idea of self righteousness vs the Righteousness (graciousness) of God; spiritual warfare etc. The writer does not define any of these terms or ideas. He presumes that the reader is familiar and that implies that there was a common tradition, perhaps written, perhaps oral, that predated the writing of the book. The book of Job is a grand introduction, an overture to the revelations that follow in scripture.

As to your question of theorizing about the revelation and preservation of the book of Job, or scripture in general, I would point out that there are many similar questions concerning other scripture. e.g. how did Melchizedek, a contemporary of Abraham, come to know and practice the same priestly functions that Job practiced? And the patriarch, Abraham, honored him; and the New Testament approves them. It appears that A & M & J had a common tradition. Joshua chapter 10:13, and 2 Sam 1:18 references the book of Jasher, which is lost to us. What was Jasher? Where did it come from? Where has it gone?

Your question about 'theorizing' really involves the bigger idea of unanswered questions in scripture. God's answer to Job's numerous questions about 'how...' and 'why...' is not a detailed explanation. God's answer to all of Job's questions is, simply: 'I am Creator! Look around you! You don't think I know what I am doing...?' Implicit is (theory): God's eternal plan, God's faithfulness to Bless his covenant/plan to you, and man's ability to faithfully bless God back; man's ability to 'know that I am LORD...' (numerous references throughout scripture. Search it...e.g. Ezekiel 60 times) Proverbs 25:2 says: 'It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.' Job's place in scripture is a tremendous harmony... It's necessary for each of us to connect the dots in our own attitude of faithfulness and reverence... (...blessed be the name of the LORD... 1:21)


Is there any place in the Bible that Jesus Himself claims that all believers are members of His Body?

Unless you do not consider Paul's testimony of his conversion as Jesus's direct claim, then no, as the disciples are not ready yet to receive such revelation.

When Saul was persecuting the church, on his way to Damascus, the Lord Jesus asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:4). The Lord’s word was quite strange. He did not say, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting My disciples," but "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" He did not say, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting My church,” but “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"

This showed and impressed Paul that the church and Christ are one. Christ is saying "When you [Paul] persecuted My followers, you persecuted My Body. To persecute My Body is to persecute Me." Therefore, the "Me" in 9:4 is corporate, comprising the Lord Jesus and all His believers.

Saul's experience of the corporate Me, Christ and the Body, must have made a deep impression on him and affected his future ministry regarding Christ and the church. That experience laid the foundation for his ministry.

EDIT: WE can and should infer from John 15 and 12:24 that there is a perichoretic union between Christ and the believers. Which is similar to the reality of Christ's relationship with His member of His Body.

George E. Ladd comments:

  The idiom of abiding is usually called mysticism, but it is difficult
  to define. There is a mutual abiding of the believer in Christ (16:56;
  14:20, 21; 15:5; 17:21) and Christ in the believer (6:56; 14:20, 23;
  15:5; 17:23, 26). This is analogous to the Son abiding in the Father
  (10:38, 14:10, 11, 20, 21; 17:21) and the Father abiding in the Son
  (10:38, 14:10, 11, 21; 17:21, 23). Once it is said that believers are in both
  the Father and the Son (17:21); and once it is said that both Father
  and Son will come to make their abode in believers (Theology of the New Testament)

G.B. Verify boldly says the meaning of "abide" is "coninherence", the synonyms for "perichoresis" (Life in Christ).


In the history of the Catholic Church, has the Sunday obligation to go to Mass ever been dispensed of due to some serious communicable disease?

The bishops of Mexico suspended public worship in all of Mexico beginning July 31, 1926, during the Cristero war.

Also, commenting on 1917 Code's Canon 1245 §2 (cf. 1983 can. 1245), canonist Dom Charles Augustine, O.S.B., cites Benedict XIV's Constitution Libentissime, which permitted dispensation from Lenten fasting due to a diocese-wide influenza outbreak. Dispensation from Sunday obligation could be done for similar reasons.


First, it doesn't necessarily say that Cain was the first born, only the first who did anything significant enough to be included in the record.

Second, even if Cain was the first son, that doesn't preclude Adam being the one to hypothetically take vengeance.  For example, The Law of Moses included a passage requiring parents of incorrigible adult children to be the ones to bring the accusation before the elders of the city.  (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21.  And as shocking as this may sound, consider the psychological effect: it makes an amazing motivator for parents to make sure their kids turn out well!)

Also, when you consider that Genesis tells of people living for centuries, there's no reason why someone born after Cain wouldn't have grown to adulthood, then run across him, recognized or found out who he was, and tried to take vengeance into their own hands.


Why did Jesus never address God by the name "Jehovah"?

The word Jehovah is a Latin version of the Tetragrammaton, usually considered the Hebrew name of God. Most scholars consider Jehovah "a hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai", and not to have been used before 1100AD. Obviously Jesus would not have used a word invented 1100 years after his earthly life.

It is widely thought that Jesus DID use the Hebrew name of God, in John 8:58:

  “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

The reaction of the hearers was such that they clearly believed he was using the name of God.

It was the practice of the Jews not to use the name of God at that time, so he may simply have wished to not muddy the waters by giving offence. Technically the name YHWH applies just as much to him as it does the Father, so that may have accounted for it.


What are the consequences of suicide according to the Roman Catholic church?

Since the soul is in a state of mortal sin at the time of death for someone who commits suicide, it would seem that the consequence must necessarily be damnation.

However here is what the catechism says:

  Suicide

  2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it
  to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are
  obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and
  the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life
  God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

  2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to
  preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just
  love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly
  breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human
  societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is
  contrary to love for the living God.

  2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example,
  especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
  Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

  Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship,
  suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one
  committing suicide.

  2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who
  have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can
  provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for
  persons who have taken their own lives.


According to Catholicism, did Moses believe in the Trinity?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains this in his question on "Whether it is necessary for salvation to believe explicitly in the Trinity?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 2 a. 8):

  …before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity.

Moses was certainly among "the learned".

My Catholic scriptural scholar friend wrote me:

  Moses was indeed instructed in the mystical science and (literally) hieroglyphic [ἱερός = sacred, holy] sign-ification of the tetragrammatic but Trinitarian Name of the only true God, יהוה (Y-H-W-H).

  The inspired description of the divine essence as relationality was given him to know in the properly heard revelation recorded in Exodus 3:14: “I’m being/I’m/I shall be who I’m being/I’m/I shall be” → an a-temporal ACTIVE present: אֶהְיֶה.

  Thus, St. Moses did know, albeit in the mystical darkness of the cloud on Mount Sinai, that Y-H-W-H is He whose essence is to be itself (ipsum esse) as relation; He, that is, whose essence is to be relation to Himself—i.e. of knowing and loving Himself. Verse 14 tells us who this God is in terms of His essence, which is ‘to be’ itself as r-e-l-a-t-i-o-n → which the specific Hebraic relative pronoun is clearly intended to emphasize, אֲשֶׁר, as it connects (and thereby also differentiates) the mirroring/symmetrical clauses אֶהְיֶה (“I’m being/I’m/I shall be”) grammatically designating God’s indivisible esse:

  “I’m being/I’m/I shall be [אֶהְיֶה] who [אֲשֶׁר] I’m being/I’m/I shall be [אֶהְיֶה].”

  St. Abraham knew the triune God under a certain mystical mode of His blessed revelation (a true visitation and vision, see Gen 18:2), as he was visited by “three men” (אֲנָשִׁים), i.e. three subsisting personalities who are the One divine essence, whom he unmistakably addressed as: “My Lord…” (Gen 18:3).

  He was the recipient of other revelations of the triune God (as were Moses and other holy Patriarchs), having seen and rejoiced in the day of the Only-Begotten Son (John 8:56) → in other words (dixit St. Thomas in the section and § you referenced to [above]), in mysterio Christi.

Also (ibid.):

  In the Old Testament the Trinity of Persons is expressed in many ways; thus at the very outset of Genesis it is written in manifestation of the Trinity: "Let us* make man to Our* image and likeness" (Gn. 1:26).

*"Us" and "our" are first-person plural; ∴, there are multiple Divine Persons.


Did Rome prefer that Catholic clergy not work for national governments?

The short answer is historically possibly yes and no, but in modern times it is a definitely yes.

Things have changed over the centuries and Rome has become more explicit and demanding as to what or what not a Catholic priest may or may not do.

The political situation in past centuries is no where near what it is today.

Prior to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, these would have been decided on an individual basis.

  The corresponding canons in the 1917 code made the same general assertions about the need for Catholic clerics to avoid activities that are considered unsuitable for them, and even provided some detailed examples. They specified that clergy should not go hunting, or even enter a tavern without a just cause, practise medicine without their superior’s approval or work as lawyers in civil courts. As for holding public office, the former code noted that as a rule, the clergy were not to seek or accept such a role without the permission of their own bishop (or in the case of clerics who were members of religious institutions, their religious superior), and the bishop of the territory in which the election is being held.

  Keep in mind that the world was different place back 1917, and the Church back at that time foresaw instances in which a priest might reasonably be allowed to work as an elected official in some countries. Back then, numerous countries had laws declaring Catholicism the official state religion, and so the relationship between the civil government and the Catholic Church in these nations was very different from the one that we Americans are accustomed to today. - Can Priests Hold Public Office?

In modern days, priest are no longer be allowed to hold any public office at all. Pope John Paul II made this very clear in the new code of Canon Law (1982) with the following statement:

  Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.

  §2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.

  §3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

Since the new code was promulgated, the Vatican has taken this subject matter very serious. I can still remember see Father Fernando Cardenal kneeling down to receive the blessing of Pope John Paul II in 1984 and seeing the Roman  Pontiff refuse to bless him. In fact, Pope John Paul II waged his finger at him saying something like “when you will obey!”

  During his visit to Nicaragua in 1983, Pope John Paul II publicly reprimanded Fr Ernesto Cardenal as the priest knelt to welcome the pope at Managua airport.

  Pope John Paul suspended Fr Cardenal along with a number of other priests – Maryknoll priest Fr Miguel D’Escoto and Fr Cardenal’s brother, Jesuit Fr Fernando Cardenal. A fourth priest, Fr Edgar Parrales, who was ambassador to the Organization of American States, requested laicization. - John Paul II’s sanction on Nicaraguan priest–poet lifted

More information may be found in the following article(s):

What is the basis for priests being told to stay out of politics?
Catholic priests in public office (Wikipedia)
Fernando Cardenal, Catholic priest who defied church to serve in Sandinista government, dies at 82


What topic in Theology does Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone" fit under?

Tozer often preaches very insightfully about sanctification by discarding many superficial views that causes us to make Christianity fake and hypocritical.  A man who is truly vexed by the sin of the world, and truly despised by it, can't help but feel lonely.

Jesus was a man of sorrow:

  He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces
  he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. (NIV Isaiah 53:3)

Paul had sorrows from his faith:

  I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. (NIV Romans 9:1-2)

Jesus said that those who enter into mourning for sin, theirs and the world's would be blessed (in a happy state)

  Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. (NIV Matthew 5:4)

These any many similar subjects about picking up our cross, counting the cost, suffering persecution, being lonely on account of it, mourning for sin, striving in prayer, etc. These can  probably all be classified under sanctification and practical Christian practice or experience.

 Tozer almost exclusively preaches and writes on this subject.


Are there any other books, divined by God, regarding Christianity?

Prerequisite: Before giving a straight answer, we need to deal with the canonization of the Bible which is a subject of endless debate. Therefore, let us assume that the Bible in this context means the complete Bible including the Apocryphal Books as well.

Are there other books equivalent or nearly equal to the bible in regards to Christianity?

Answer: Yes!.

There are some books nearly equivalent to the books in New Testament Canon but not equal.

Epistles of Clement:
This epistle was included in many of the oldest surviving copies of NT.

Epistle of Barnabas:
Very important epistle written by Barnabas who was a companion of Saint Paul.

The Shepherd of Hermas: Less important but found in many old codices.

Dialogue with Trypho:
A good book which defends the early Christian Faith and theology. Trinity concept is well explained here.

Didache:
A book which explains the ordinances of the early Christian church. Method of Baptism is well described.

Still there are some authentic books which are of far less importance, written by the Church Fathers, but I don't think they are worth mentioning.

Conclusion: As mentioned, these books are not equivalent to the NT Canons but are very close. There is no need of reading them because they speak the same thing what the Canons are saying. They are useful only to defend the authenticity of the NT Canons and to know the early Christian Faith.

Note: Only the NT Canons are regarded as Divinely Inspired by God. Other books like the ones mentioned here may or may not be inspired by God. Even, how the Book of Revelation was selected instead of The Apocalypse of Peter in the NT Canon is also something which we don't really understand.


Why do we explicitly need to ask for help through prayer?

We ask for help and for what we need in prayer because God delights in it.

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior 1 Tim 2:1-3

We also pray so that our thoughts become aligned with God's. The Lord's prayer makes it a point to specifically say that God's will be done on Earth.

7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’ Matt 6:7-13

Jesus, to fully align His thoughts with the Father's, prayed the night He was betrayed.

“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” Matt 26:39.

John lays it out more plainly for us.

14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. 1 John 5:14-15

When our thoughts are aligned with God's we will ask for what He is to do, anyway. And since our thoughts are aligned with God's we will delight and rejoice in His righteous ways.
So when we are suffering, we pray to the Omniscient God because he likes to hear from us, and He wants us to think like Him, which is always holy and righteous. Then from that perspective, our suffering will seem different than that.


Did God promise to appoint prophets in each generation?

Introduction

A prophet is?

  A delegate or mouthpiece of God - cf. PROPHETS AND PROPHECY |  Jewish
  Encyclopedia.

From the said Jewish Encyclopedia above, 'prophecy was not regarded as confined to Israel.'

And from this selected answer | Mi Yodeya

  Once the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi -- died, the
  prophetic spirit ceased in Israel.

Therefore, at least from this answer, Israel who had Moses, have not had the prophetic spirit in the generations after the last three prophets mentioned above.

In the New Testament St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus gifts his Church with prophets for building up the body of Christ which is the Church

  Eph 4:11-14 (RSVCE) 11 And his gifts were that some should be
  apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
  12 for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the
  unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature
  manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;
  14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by
  their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

And the Catholic Church teaches that all the baptized share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission

  CCC 1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be
  "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."1
  By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic
  and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy
  nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds
  of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous
  light."2 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of
  all believers.

  1. 1 Pet 2:5.
  2. 1 Pet 2:9.

One can safely conclude that the baptized here on C.SE are prophets (mouthpieces of God) provided their contributions are faithful to the Church's Teaching.


Why was God so upset with Moses for striking the rock the second time in the desert?

Like the forefathers of those who eventually ended up in the Promised Land, Moses's problem was that he failed to trust in God. In chapter 12 of Numbers, Aaron and Miriam oppose Moses as  God's messenger and their leader. As a result, they also are refused entry to the land (by death, like Moses).

Moses' problem wasn't that he misinterpreted God or thought that since he'd hit the rock before that it was okay to do it again. Rather, Moses was utterly rejecting God and trying to take control.

Moses was violent. He struck the rock twice when God just said to speak to it.
Moses was usurping God's place. He said to the people, "hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" The emphasis is technically mine, but it was already there. Moses didn't say "God will bring water out of this rock for you." He (with Aaron, evidently) took God's place and assured them that he would do it for them.

Verse 12 is pretty revealing as to the nature of Moses's crime:

  "Because you did not believe in me," (emphasis mine)

Moses totally failed to trust God for the life-supplying water. He tried to take matters into his own hands. He was supposed the be the leader, but also the servant of God. He tried to usurp God's place.

Additionally, I think there might be some symbolism to the rock. Back in Exodus 17, God tells Moses

  "Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you
  shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people
  will drink" Ex. 17:6

To quote my study bible notes on this, "An astonishing statement. In this trial God takes the place of the accused, standing in the dock."

1 Corinthians 10:4 explains that "the Rock was Christ." In striking the Rock, Moses was striking God for the people. Christ was punished for the nourishment of his people.

Back to Numbers, it seems that maybe the situation is similar here. God has provided a rock (Christ) that will bring forth water (salvation) for his people.  This is somewhat speculative, but it seems that this time, Moses is in the position of the people. He's supposed to ask God for salvation, to request the water from the rock. But instead, he takes up his previous position as judge, and strikes the rock (Christ). Before, he was commanded to. This time, he willingly strikes his Savior.

It's interesting to note, in support of that theory, that the Hebrew word used for "strike"  is the same in both cases (link), and the words for rock are quite similar (Numbers word & Exodus. word)

Ultimately of course, it's because Moses did not believe that God could bring the water out of the rock, and hit it himself. (perhaps he was trying to knock loose rocks to open up a stream, or he thought that his staff held some special Mosaic power - either way, he thought he was the key to the equation)

I used my study bible a good deal on this one, the ESV Reformation Study Bible by Ligonier


According to Catholicism, does the last judgement include a last chance to reconcile?

Per current teaching in the Catechism, each person earns a particular judgment:

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, or immediate and everlasting damnation.

As posted here, the non doctrinal term "second judgment" looks like it addresses those who have not yet received particular judgment in the last days.

  (Catholic Answers) At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).

For those who have been purified, they are in sufficient state of grace to be included in those who are "with God" rather than those who are not.

  III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
  the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
  damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory
  especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the
  Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a
  cleansing fire

Note: As I read the text, the Council of Trent revised a previously held dogma from Benedict XII (ca. 1336, Benedictus Deus) on the impact of dying with the stain of mortal sin on one's soul.

With the above considered, it is pretty difficult to get into hell in that it requires a complete unwillingness to "turn towards God" at all. (Repentance has a meaning from the original term in Hebrew that we could read as "turn toward" or "turn again" with a positive connotation).

  1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

This indicates that not only is mortal sin a requirement to be consigned to Hell, but also the stubborn refusal to repent/atone for said mortal sin has to be maintained.  That state looks to be a criterion used during particular judgment.


What is Deuteronomy 15 saying about the poor?

Verse 5 is a continuation of 4 which ends with a comma.

  , 5 if only you listen obediently to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all this commandment which I am commanding you today.

So it is saying if you were to do these things then you will have no poor. Verse 11 is pretty much saying that we either cannot or are will not do these things so we will always have the poor with us.


How do liberal Protestants reconcile support for transgenderism with scripture?

Define "Support"...

Within the spectrum of "supporting" things there are those who believe the practice should be allowable, though it is not necessarily moral. For example, with the issue of homosexuality, there is some discussion about whether gay marriage should be legal or not independent of what the Bible says (or the moral judgement) about the issue.

The same is true of transgenderism. There are those who support the ability of people to undergo gender transition, but do not necessarily advocate this practice for Christians. The arguments for this are rather generic and beyond the scope of the discussion here, but generally boil down to whether we should pursue theocratic nations and whether we should be legislating morality.

Or in the words of Paul, this is the idea that

  Everything is permissible, but not everything is helpful. Everything is permissible, but not everything builds up. (1 Cor. 10:23, ISV)

While we are defining things...

While it is one thing to believe that transsexualism should be permissible, there are those Christians who take this to the next level of support. In order to understand why these Christians do not believe Deuteronomy 22:5 applies you first need to begin with a sound understanding of trans culture. Most notably that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not a prohibition of Transgenderism or Gender Dysphoria but instead of Transvestism, or cross-dressing. It may help to define these terms which will hopefully help to make the distinction clear:

  Transgender

  Transgender people are people who have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.

  Transsexual

  Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with, or not culturally associated with, their assigned sex, and desire to permanently transition to the gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance (including hormone replacement therapy and other sex reassignment therapies) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender. Transsexual is generally considered a subset of transgender.

  Gender Dysphoria

  Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In these cases, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender. There is evidence suggesting that twins who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not only due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics or exposure to hormones before birth.

  Transvestite

  Transvestism (also called transvestitism) is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex.

  Cisgender

  Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.

So, for a trans person, their brain and identity was created as a woman, but their body has male parts (for example.) While God intended this person to be a woman, something has gone awry with their body. In Duet 22:5 however, the abomination is dressing as the opposite of their gender. In fact, one could argue that by dressing according to their sex instead of their gender, the trans person is being "an abomination" for failing to be true to the person that God created them to be because they are denying their identity in Christ. Instead of dressing contrary to their gender, trans people are instead expressing their true god-given gender.

It is important to remember that trans people may frequently have good medical cause and need to undergo gender reassignment. For Cisgendered people life is very easy and they enjoy the privileged of never having to deal with the internal struggle of identity, never have to fear the call of nature and don't have to fear lynchings simply because of a birth defect. For trans people, this is not the case.

Gender is not straightforward, binary, or cut and dry

In fact, a large portion of trans people may be demonstrably and measurably intersexed.

  Intersexed

  Intersex people possess any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.

While God may have created people as male or female according to Genesis 1:27, clearly for some people who are intersexed they have been created as male and female and do not fit neatly into either category.

For example, some people born with Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, born with male chromosomes are completely immune to the effects of the testosterone in their bodies and in utero and are born with the appearance of being female and may even live their entire lives as women without knowing they actually have male chromosomes and DNA. Other people however may find that they have a dysphoria and despite appearing as a women, feel that their true identity is as a man.

And there are dozens of similar disorders which lead to intersexual expression

There is some evidence to suggest that the causes of transsexuality are similar to the above conditions and that many, most, or all cases fall into this category.

Conclusion

While there is a temptation to think of transgender people as choosing to go against the way God created them, we have to remember that when sin entered the world, there are many people with birth defects who are not born the way that God created or intended mankind to be - missing hands, arms, legs, fingers or toes, having cleft palates, or missing genitalia or having a surplus of genitalia - and that those with Gender Dysphoria may simply be among these others.

For many years, there was a belief that those with infirmities faced these  handicaps due to sins they or their parents committed. One of the radical and transformative aspects of Jesus healing ministry was to manifest "forgivess" of "sins" through healing, but also to send a message that these handicaps and illnesses are not the fault of the victims of these handicaps and diseases.

Just as it would be wrong to call someone sinner because of the way they were born; black, without legs or similar, you need to consider that this is what you are doing to those with Gender Dysphoria.

In fact, it was Jesus himself who held up Eunuchs as people the divorced should emulate in Matthew 19:12 (NIV)

  For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Progressive Christians would appeal to the above facts in order to support the view that transsexualism should be supported within the church.

Notes:

Most of these thoughts come from a lecture given by postgraduate student presenting her Masters Thesis in Gender Studies at The Gathering in Salem, MA - a self-defined Emergent Church, a denomination many consider progressive/liberal
This posting is not intended to suggest that people who are trans are "defective" or that all intersexed people are types of trans people or should undergo gender reassignment to select one of two genders. Many would take umbrage at these suggestions. These communities are diverse and while some people would find these ideas comforting, others would take offense.

Helpful Resources:

transchristians.org


Has any Christian (group) attempted to compile a list of personages, which are Biblically stated to be (eventually) in heaven?

I think you're reading far too much into the scriptures you quoted.
"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" could be translated "a whirlwind into the sky", and whirlwinds are an atmospheric phenomenon, having nothing to do with God's spiritual abode. Elijah was even seen alive here on Earth after that incident.
"kingdom of heaven" is Matthew's euphemism for "Kingdom of God" (his target audience was Jews, and he wanted to avoid direct references to God).
The Kingdom will be here on Earth during the Millennium.
None of the other quoted verses even mention heaven.

To answer the Title question, yes, but those lists contain only one name.
I remember in the 1960s hearing a late night radio preacher offering $1000 reward to anyone that could show where the Bible says that any of us will go to God's heaven.
Here's one of his early instances of that offer.

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13)
Only Christ who came from heaven has ever ascended to heaven of all human
men, all human beings on the earth. No man has ascended up to heaven.
Now I want to take you through a few scriptures. How do you know? I
didn't know at one time, and I began to see something in the
scriptures that at that time I didn't agree with. And I began to find
I was wrong, and I found God was right. And you know, I had to give up
what I believed. And if you'll blow the dust off your Bible and look
into your Bible awhile you'll begin to find the same thing.
Now you hear people talk about going to heaven; I heard a minister say on the
air before millions of people; "The Bible says, 'when we all get to
heaven'." I'll give that man a thousand dollars if he'll show me where
the Bible says that, because it doesn't say anything of the kind. Not
anywhere in your Bible - it teaches just the opposite. What does God
say? Will you agree with God? Or do you think God is wrong, and all of
the people are right?
—Not In Heaven - The World Tomorrow Radio Broadcast


Mary,

One of the biggest helps I have had in this area comes from a book by John Piper called God is the Gospel.  In one of the chapters, I believe its Chapter 5 Delighting in God Delighting in Us, he discusses the idea that our pleasures don't compete with God but should draw us to God.  If a spouse gives you a wonderful & thoughtful gift, the gift is nice, but the purpose of the gift is really to draw your heart to your spouse and vice versa.  In the same way, God wants us to enjoy all his gifts, and as we enjoy them, we should be appreciating the God who gave us such wonderful things to enjoy.

The reason this helps me is because I used to sit down to a bowl of chocolate ice cream and feel guilty about how much I like the ice cream.  Now, I realize that when I sit down to the bowl of chocolate ice cream, God wants me to enjoy it.  So I enjoy it and I try to marvel at God and the grace involved both in my ability to taste and in someone's ability to craft such a wonderful dessert.

So we don't have to be either/or.  You can be mindful of God even in the midst of busyness.  So if you are having a hard (or very good) day at the office or with the kids, talk to God about your day.  Remind yourself of the promises he gave you which apply right in those situations.  Look for things to thank him for.  Recognize all the blessings he has given you and wants you to enjoy.  Another very good book which addresses this idea of communing with God in all we do is a A Praying Life by Paul Miller.


What are the divisions between Vatican I and Vatican II Catholics?

I think you're misunderstanding a few of the issues; so let's get some background out of the way.

The First Vatican Council was an ecumenical council of bishops of the Catholic Church held at the Vatican in 1870. A number of important issues were discussed, and some Church doctrine was formalized; perhaps the most important of these issues was papal infallibility. (Not all Catholics agreed with what the Church had stated about the Pope being, in certain circumstances, infallible; many of these broke away and established what's now called the Old Catholic Church.)

The Second Vatican Council, another ecumenical council, was likewise held at the Vatican between 1962 and 1965. A number of things were discussed here, largely relating to the Church in its relationship to the modern world. Several documents came out of the Council: many appeared, at least at first sight, to contradict things which had been accepted for years in the Church, even stated as dogma. Answers to this question offer an overview of what the disagreements were and why they arose.

Unfortunately, neither those who accept not those who reject the teachings promulgated by Vatican II regard those on the other side as part of the true Catholic Church. It is reasonable to say, however, that far fewer than half a billion people (that is, half the number of people calling themselves Catholic) do in fact reject the Council and its teachings.


To which cleric(s) does a lay Catholic have to obtain Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur?

To obtain an "Imprimi Potest," an "Nihil Obstat," or an "Imprimatur" one has to go through one's ordinary (local bishop).

The “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur"

  The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

  The procedure works like this: when a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."

  If the Catholic writing the book is a member of a religious order, the manuscript is first sent to his religious superior before it is sent to the Censor and Bishop. If the religious superior finds no impediment to publication, he will give the book his stamp of "Imprimi Potest," which means "it can be printed."

  Nowadays, after the Imprimatur, you might see these words:

  The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

 Religious Superior's stamp:   IMPRIMI POTEST   "it can be printed"

             Censor's stamp:   NIHIL OBSTAT     "nothing stands in the way"

             Bishop's stamp:   IMPRIMATUR       "let it be printed"

Addendum: The author of a book or owner of the copyright/patent must approach the local bishop for publishing Catholic doctrinal books or apps and so on before going to a publisher or company.


Has a notable militant non-Christian ever converted to Christianity due to a "Road to Damascus" experience?

I don’t know if anyone would describe Paul Jones (lead singer with U.K. band Manfred Mann 1962-1966) as a notable militant atheist, but he was asked to represent the atheist side in a televised debate against Cliff Richard, a well-known U.K. Christian pop star.

"Basically, I argued against Christianity. I mean I was a rabid atheist at the time. I'd got very angry with Christians because of one Christian who behaved badly when I was about 15. It seems absolutely absurd now, I mean it wasn't even anything particularly serious. Although everything's serious when you're 15, isn't it? Anyway, I just thought if that's a Christian, I'm never going to be one. It was my hobby to argue with Christians and I thought what fun to argue with Cliff Richard and on television as well. So I just went for it. I think I was a bit of a Rottweiler that day. Cliff's response to the whole thing was to pray for me."

Paul and his girlfriend Fiona began to explore Christianity.  Paul’s former debate opponent, Cliff Richards, invited them along with a large group of other show-business celebrities to see evangelist Luis Palau.  It was at this show that the two of them decided to give their lives to Christ, and also to marry one another.  After his conversion, Paul changed many of his life-habits that he felt were contrary to his new position as a Christian.
Rather than having a “Road to Damascus” experience, this was more of a gradual awakening.  As Paul himself admitted,

"God is amazing - he deals with you where you are. He met me at my level. I started talking to myself about spiritual things."
Source: https://thementionables.org/conversion/2020/6/22/paul-jones-media-superstar-and-militant-atheist-converts-to-christianity

This article lists some interesting people who were converted to Christianity from non-theism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism#Converted_to_Protestantism
A few notables are:

Francis Collins – physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes; director of the National Human Genome Research Institute; former atheist

Jonny Lang – blues and rock singer who professed to once "hating" Christianity, before later claiming to have a supernatural encounter with Jesus Christ which led to his conversion

Lee Strobel – former avowed atheist and journalist for the Chicago Tribune; was converted by his own journalistic research intended to test the veracity of scriptural claims concerning Jesus; author of such apologetic books as The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ

David Wood – Christian Apologist and critic of Islam who was brought up as an atheist

You might find what you are looking for amongst the examples from that Wikipedia list.


God created male and female.... What about those who do not fit in the box?

As with many of these questions, some of the answer is already in the question. You've termed occurrences like this "conditions" - in other words, deviations from the general norm. As with other medical conditions they are a result of The Fall. So the line you quote is correct, God created male and female, very clearly and distinctly.

So, how do people affected by these conditions fit into the "normal Christian scenarios" of male and female? Well firstly there's nothing explicitly Christian about recognising that the norm is to be male or female. Secondly, as we both have already pointed out, these are medical conditions, so I would suggest they warrant expert medical attention. Thirdly my understanding is that in most cases there is a "leaning" towards one gender or the other that can help to establish which gender a person really is.

Finally, your last question, "do they [Christians] have room for them [people with these type of conditions]?" Of course. Anyone and everyone has the potential to become a Christian and should be welcome in Church. There should be a note of caution taken here though. Many people, inside and outside the church, find these issues very confusing and may struggle to react in the way they perhaps should. Some may be overly curious, others may find such a condition distasteful and not want to confront it. Nobody is unwelcome but not everyone will necessarily be able to express that. And that's ok, the church is made up of all kinds of people, not all of whom will see eye to eye all the time.


What is the significance of a church being "consecrated"?

Consecration establishes a valid place of Catholic divine worship as confirmed by the local ordinary (Bishop)

  Can.  1214 By the term church is understood a sacred building
  designated for divine worship to which the faithful have the right of
  entry for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine
  worship.

  Can.  1215 §1. No church is to be built without the express written
  consent of the diocesan bishop.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

  Consecration, in general, is an act by which a thing is separated from
  a common and profane to a sacred use, or by which a person or thing is
  dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and
  ceremonies.

Definitions

  CONSECRATED GROUND Any place or space that has been liturgically
  blessed, or where some sacred object such as a church is built or
  has stood. {snipped burial grounds explanation}.

Significance (truth in advertising)

The laws, rites, and processes that go into consecration1 of a place of divine worship ensure that when you arrive, for example, at a place called St Paul's Catholic Church, you are in a place that conforms to the standards for valid divine worship, to include the sacraments.

The Code of Canon Law 1214 through 1222 addresses the requirements.

  Can.  1217 §1. After construction has been completed properly, a new
  church is to be dedicated or at least blessed as soon as possible; the
  laws of the sacred liturgy are to be observed.

  §2. Churches, especially cathedrals and parish churches, are to be
  dedicated by the solemn rite.

The Roman Ritual (Sancta Missa, 1964) describes in detail the rite.  (See section 2 at the link, there is a detailed liturgical rite in establishing a church).  See also the dedication of a church and altar.

Addressing further elements of your question.

If a church is consecrated, does that mean that it has been sanctified?  (i.e. has it become a holy site?)

If you were using a generic definition for sanctification, yes.

  The generic meaning of sanctification is "the state of proper functioning." To sanctify someone or something is to set that person or thing apart for the use intended by its designer.  Key Concepts.  God's usual modus operandi is to sanctify common things for his redemptive purposes, rather than to employ perfect heavenly things

Using a Catholic definition, sanctification normally applies to people, so it applies to the Church in the sense that the faithful are the mystical body of Christ.

  From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on sanctity
   The object of the Passion was the redemption and sanctification of the
  Church:

  "Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for
  it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in
  the word of life" (Ephesians 5:25, 26).

  Again the Church is the body of Christ. He is the head of the mystical body: and supernatural life — the life of Christ Himself — is communicated through the
  sacraments to all His members.

For another Catholic definition ...

  SANCTIFICATION
  Being made holy. The first sanctification takes place at baptism, by
  which the love of God is infused by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5).
  Newly baptized persons are holy because the Holy Trinity begins to
  dwell in their souls and they are pleasing to God. The second
  sanctification is a lifelong process in which a person alredy in the
  state of grace grows in the possession of grace and in likeness to God
  by faithfully corresponding with divine inspirations. The third
  sanctification takes place when a person enters heaven and becomes
  totally and irrevocably united with God in the beatific vision. (Etym.
  Latin sanctificare, to make holy.)

I'd recommend against using the term "sanctification" as a synonym for consecration in this case.  The setting aside for the special purpose of divine worship and administering the sacraments is the purpose of the blessings, etc.   It is worth noting that of the 38 times that the term sanctification comes up in the Catechism, in all 38 it applies to people not things.
Does it mean that God dwells inside the church in some special sense
(Aside from the Eucharistic presence in the tabernacle)?

Catholic churches are not a "put God in a box" places.  They are places where people (as the Catholic Church sees it, God's people, DE POPULO DEI) come for divine worship of God and to receive the sacraments.  The tabernacle in a Catholic church is a special place to store the consecrated host.
Perhaps it is invalid or illicit to celebrate mass in a church that
has not been consecrated, and therefore the consecration is essential?

Per the Code of Canon Law cited above, it would be illicit to assert that one is at "St Paul's Catholic Church" unless the process described above had been properly completed.

  Perhaps the consecration is optional and is more like a "good luck blessing" which is just a nice-to-have.

No. See all of the above.  It is not "just nice to have," it's Canon Law, and a liturgical blessing is not "a good luck blessing."
Does anything about the building actually change (on a spiritual
level or otherwise)?

It becomes an officially sanctioned place where Catholic divine worship and liturgy are done, which includes administration of the sacraments.

1 The current Code of Canon law uses the term dedication, but the process takes on the character of consecration -- equivalent terms.


What explanations are given for the apparent exaggeration of the number of Israelites in the Exodus account?

At the time of Nero Egypt had 7.5 million men:

  This country is extended as far as the Ethiopians, and Arabia the Happy, and borders upon India; it hath seven million five hundred thousand men, besides the inhabitants of Alexandria, as may be learned from the revenue of the poll tax; yet it is not ashamed to submit to the Roman government, although it hath Alexandria as a grand temptation to a revolt, by reason it is so full of people and of riches, and is besides exceeding large (Works of Josephus, Wars of the Jews 2.385)

As far as I know there is not any historical record of any census done in Egypt at the time of Thutmose II (around 1500 B.C.), which is the time we are probably speaking about.  Those who do try to 'guess' at ancient Egyptian populations do so based on “estimates of cultivated area and yields” of the land (a).  In other words how much land did they seem to occupy and how well would that land have supported a population.  Different people make different guesses with a range of around four million variance.

Now as we have a record of 600,000 men leaving Egypt and just for the sake of argument we estimate the 7.5 million Egyptian men were ¼ of its size at that time (for this is really only guess work anyway) we would have around 2 million men. For the sake of skepticism we reduced this some more to around 1.5 million men 1500 years before Nero, then still the Egyptians would still outnumber Israel.

In any case it would seem that Egypt had more men than Israel at any time in the guesses and when we consider what the scripture says as to why the Pharaoh began to deal cruelly with the Jews, it seems that the number 600,000 makes a lot of sense:

  Then Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. 7 But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them. 8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. (Exodus 1:6-9)

It seems that the men of Israel were starting to compete with the numbers of Egyptians so that Pharaoh was worried they would overtake them.  Therefore the number 600,000 seems realistic and there is no apparent exaggeration from my point of view.

If I were trying to reconstruct the population of Egypt at the time of Moses I would not bother with supposed "land yields" (this is a sketchy science at best) but just start with a reliable figure like 600,000 Jews. Then I would make a rough guess on the biblical description that the Egyptians were 1.5 to 3.0 times that (900,000 - 1,800,000). Then we would be saying from 1500 B.C. to 30 A.D. the population grew from around (1.5 - 2.4) million to 7.5 million.  There is nothing surprising or unrealistic about this sort of growth at all. If there is supposedly someone who thinks they can with confidence calculate different numbers, I would like to see the calculation and review the assumption they have made.  I am confident anybody could easily find huge holes in them.

(a) Life of the Ancient Egyptians by Eugen Strouhal, Deryck Viney, Werner Forman and Geoffrey T. Martin (Nov 15, 1992) Page 134.


If Jesus is "God's Only Son" then how can we all be God's children?

The Latin text of the Apostle’s Creed (Symbolum Apostolicum) states,

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem cæli et terræ, et in Iesum Christum, Fílium Eius unicum, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spíritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus, et sepúltus, descéndit ad ínferos, tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis, ascéndit ad cælos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis, inde ventúrus est iudicáre vivos et mórtuos.

While the Latin word unicum (lemma unicus) can certainly be translated into English by the word “only,”1 St. Jerome also used it in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Greek word μονογενὴς,2 meaning “only-begotten.”
For example, in Luke 7:12, it is written,

ΙΒʹ ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἰδού, ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς υἱὸς μονογενὴς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα καὶ ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανὸς σὺν αὐτῇ TR, 1550
XII cum autem adpropinquaret portae civitatis et ecce defunctus efferebatur filius unicus matri suae et haec vidua erat et turba civitatis multa cum illa Vul

Other times, he translated μονογενὴς by the Latin word unigenitus,3 which is the Latin equivalent of “only-begotten.”4
Therefore, we could properly translate the Latin word unicum in the Apostles’ Creed as “only-begotten” (rather than “only”) without causing a contradiction, since Christians are also children (sons and daughters) of God,5 just as angels are sons of God.6
The important point to emphasize is the Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten (or, only-born) son of God the Father, by an eternal generation. The Lord Jesus Christ said, “I came out of God and have arrived.”7 This is the only instance where the Lord Jesus Christ says ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. In the LXX, this phrase, the lemma ἐξέρχομαι + the preposition ἐκ, is used in reference to the generation of offspring.8
On the other hand, Christians are sons of God by regeneration, i.e. being born again.9

References
Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. A New Latin Dictionary. New York: Harper, 1891.
Footnotes
1 Lewis & Short, unicus, p. 1932
2 Luke 7:12: unicus; Luke 8:42: unica; Luke 9:38: unicus
3 Jdg. 11:34: unigenita; John 1:14: unigeniti; John 1:18: unigenitus; John 3:16: unigenitum; John 3:18: unigeniti; Heb. 11:17: unigenitum; 1 John 4:9: unigenitum
4 Lewis & Short, unigenitus, p. 1932
5 cp. John 1:12: τέκνα θεοῦ
6 cp. Job 1:6. The LXX translates the Hebrew בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים into Greek as οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ.
7 John 8:42
8 cp. Gen. 15:4, 35:11


What is the significance of Ehud being left-handed?

Ehud was a Benjamite and the phrase translated "left handed man" is a very interesting Hebrew idiom. It literally reads "a man bound/restricted in his right hand." The same phrase is used in Judges 20:16 to describe 700 slingers (also of the tribe of Benjamin). These two verses are the only places where this idiom is used.

  Judges 20:16 Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men bound in the right hand; every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss. [KJV with the left handed idiom shown more literally]

There is another phrase used much more frequently to describe being left handed or turning to the left. It appears 54 times in the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 13:9; 14:15).

Noting that both instances of this idiom refer to Benjamites, the translators' notes on the NET state:

  Perhaps the Benjaminites purposely trained several of their young men to be left-handed warriors by restricting the use of the right hand from an early age so the left hand would become dominant. Left-handed men would have a distinct military advantage, especially when attacking city gates. See B. Halpern, “The Assassination of Eglon: The First Locked-Room Murder Mystery,” BRev 4 (1988): 35.

1 Chronicles 12:2 also mentions a squad of ambidextrous soldiers who were also Benjamites. David's general Joab is also shown to be either left handed or ambidextrous in 2 Samuel 20:8-10. He grabs his opponents beard with his right hand while holding a sword in his left. The opponent takes no heed of the sword in his left and is undefended when Joab strikes. (See also the Iliad, 21.161-68, where Asteropaios, being ambidextrous, throws two spears at once at Achilles.)

When Ehud approached the room to see Eglon, he would have been inspected by the guards. As being right handed was more common then (just as it is now), they would have searched his left side for a concealed weapon more carefully than the right. A right handed person draws a long blade from the left side. Apparently, upon seeing the left side was clear, they didn't search the right for hidden weapons. After all, it was unlikely that he could draw and use a blade from that side.

Aside

The military advantage to being left handed are such as the enemy expects to be fighting a right handed man. The lefty has the element of surprise which even for a few seconds can determine the outcome. This holds only for individual combat. Units fighting together would want all to be using the same hand. Then, if you have a whole unit of lefties against a unit of righties, you have the left advantages again. They are trained to fight righties (and are attacking the unshielded side), while the righties have to rethink and mirror every offensive move they make while trying to stay alive.

In the Lincoln Cathedral, the spiral staircases are wrong handed and were defended by men from a Scottish clan almost exclusively left handed. The reversed direction caused invaders to be holding their weapons and shields on the wrongs sides as they tried to climb, but the defenders would fight unhindered.


According to Catholicism can you be saved without being baptised?

Is faith through Jesus Christ without baptism enough for salvation?
Regarding baptism of desire, let the Catechism of the Catholic Church speak for itself:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"68 member of Christ and coheir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Thus infant who are baptized have been free from original sin and have become a new creature in the eyes of the Church and of God.
Babies that die after baptism are in heaven and their salvation in not in question:

1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.
1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624).
1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).
1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.
1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.
1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."


According to Jewish Law, is Jesus entitled to the throne of David?

Jesus of Nazareth inherits the right to the throne through Joseph, the husband of his mother and his adoptive father. No-one else claimed the child.
The genealogy stated in Matthew's gospel follows the royal line and the crown rights.
No-one else could claim the crown rights by natural generation due to God's prohibition - the curse on Jeconiah (see Jeremiah 22:28-30).
All of this is documented in the public domain. None of it is secret.
The Matthew genealogy shows the crown rights not necessarily passing from father to son and not necessarily the firstborn.
The genealogy in Luke is the direct line straight from Jesus, via Joseph (his adoptive father) back to Adam.
But the royal line, for administrative reasons, does not necessarily follow the direct line. This can be seen, for example, in the Kings and Queens of England and even today there will be discussions about the throne (perhaps) missing a generation and passing directly to the grandson, rather than the firstborn son. This is quite normal.
And, constitutionally, this is not, primarily (in England) a matter only for the Royal family to decide. Constitutionally, others have a say in this. Again, this is quite normal and was so, also, in Israel and, more particularly, in Judah.
Thus Luke's genealogy is the direct line. Matthew's is taken from Jewish records and is the royal line, with the missing generations as required by Jewish law.

Due to religious arguments these simple facts are disputed.
But to the unprejudiced mind they will be seen to be thoroughly logical.


According to Catholicism, is the blessing of food by a lay person different from that of a priest?

If I understood your question correctly, you are asking what the difference between a priests and a normal persons blessings are, right? Well, you almost found the right spot in the Encyclopedia, since, in the very same article we find:

The inquiry will be confined to the Blessings approved of by the Church. As has been said, the value of a blessing given by a private person in his own name will be commensurate with his acceptableness before God by reason of his individual merits and sanctity. A blessing, on the other hand, imparted with the sanction of the Church has all the weight of authority that reaches to the voice of her who is the well-beloved spouse of Christ, pleading on behalf of her children. The whole efficacy, therefore, of these benedictions, in so far as they are liturgical and ecclesiastical, is derived from the prayers and invocations of the Church made in her name by her ministers. (emphasis mine)

So, a blessing from a priest does have a special meaning, although your food usually is not thanked for in mass or some other sacramental rite(this is possible at home, but I do not think a priest would call thanking for food sacramental).
Should this - for whatever circumstance - be the case, however, the Encyclopedia has the following benefits that may come from such a blessing and states that they are more likely to happen due to the authority of the church which is far larger then that of men:

1.Excitation of pious emotions and affections of the heart and, by means of these, remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to it;
2.freedom from power of evil spirits;
3.preservation and restoration of bodily health.
4.various other benefits, temporal or spiritual.


Why did Lot's daughters seduce their father?

There is no denomination or teaching that I'm aware of that approves of this.  Your question shows a lack of understanding of the basic nature of that the Bible is.

It is not a collection of stories, showing heroes in a positive light.

It is a collection of books including teachings, but also, largely in the Old Testament in the Pentateuch and the Books of History, a book of history.  In a historical book, at least one that is honest and accurate, the failures, frailties, and sins of the people chronicled are not covered up.

Lot's daughters are not the  only ones whose sin is shown.  Adam and Eve eating the apple, David's sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's pride, lust, and disobedience, and hundreds of others.  The Bible includes these sins because they happened, not because they are somehow approved of.

Far from it, in most of the cases, there are repercussions.  Perhaps not immediate, but they happen.  This is in line with God's nature.  He often gives people the chance to repent of their sins.

  2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)

  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
  slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any
  should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Are other religions treated differently by any major branch of Christianity?

General orthodox Christianity believes that there is an exclusivity with Christians.  This is because their interpretation of:

John 14:6 NIV

  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me.

However because of:

Mark 12:30-31 NIV

  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
  with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is
  this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment
  greater than these.”

They are to have compassion for all people regardless of their belief system.  While other religions are generally considered "Pagan" or worshiping a "false" god(s).  This sometimes gets confusing when some Christians claim that another religion's main god is really Satan in disguise - which is mentioned as an enemy of God in the bible.

Judaism has a different type of the relationship with Christianity.  However its definition is not universally agreed upon.  So, is the relationship special, "yes".  Can I define it?  "No, unless you want to read a book."


Why do Christians seek to convert everyone?

This answer presupposes that the claims of Christianity are true.  Since Christians believe this, and this site is meant to give a "Christian" view of things, that's the presupposition required to properly answer this.  I realize that many people don't believe the claims of Christianity, but the Truth of the claims isn't what's being asked or what's relevant here.  Why Christians act as they do is, and the presupposition is what drives us to act as we do.

This also is geared toward answering from the perspective of the strongly evangelistic among us. Not all denominations, and not all Christians are aggressively evangelistic.  From the question, I am assuming that you are looking for what drives that type, since that type is the ones that are "out to convert everyone".  The motivation of those that aren't aggressively evangelistic are going to be absent from my answer because it wouldn't apply to the question asked.  But for those of us who are, this is the reason:

That's simple. The idea of anyone in Hell terrifies us.  We believe that we've all fallen short of the standard God uses to judge us, and are all guilty, and therefore doomed to Hell.

http://bible.cc/romans/3-23.htm

  John 14:6 New International Version

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Since Christ claimed to be the only way to avoid that fate, naturally, we want everyone to turn to Christ and avoid that fate.

  John 14:6 New International Version

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me.

Many Christians feel uncomfortable with aggressive evangelism, stating that they're afraid to scare people away. Ray Comfort replied to this with "where are you going to scare them to, Hell #2?"

The non-believer may not agree that Christ is the only way, but belief isn't what determines truth, and if Christ is who He said He is, the only way to prevent someone from an eternity of torture is to tell them.

Put another way, if someone were standing in the road, and you saw a vehicle rushing toward them, how would you react? By saying, "Please move out of the road!  Try it, you'll like it!" Or would you tell them of the danger, and if they ignored it, try to aggressively push them out of the way, and to safety?

Put simply, the point is not to make the world a better place. This world and our present lives are, if Christianity is true, only temporary. The point is to save those around us from eternal suffering.