Did Roman Catholic Church law ever condone (the contemporary practice of) incest?

At the time Mr Pink (1886—1952, according to Wikipedia) was writing, this was decidedly not the case: not only were all these prohibitions included in canon law, but in fact canon law was a bit more restrictive, prohibiting marriage between first cousins as well.
The Church does currently allow marriage between a person and their sibling-in-law. This freedom is new since 1983, when the code of canon law was revised. Then again, though Leviticus doesn't permit such marriages, Deuteronomy does in at least one instance. None of the other prohibitions given in Leviticus 18 are, or apparently can be, overridden in the Church; nor, it seems, has this ever been possible.
Leviticus 18:7–18, with prohibitions extended to both sexes, forbids intercourse (and thus, in the eyes of the Church, marriage) with:

One's parents and step-parents (vv. 7–8)
Siblings, step-siblings, and half-siblings (vv. 9, 11)
Children and grandchildren (vv. 10, 17)
Aunts and uncles (vv. 12–14)
Children-in-law and siblings-in-law (vv. 15, 16, 18)

How does Church law respond, and how has it responded, to these prohibitions?
Canon law reckons consanguinity (blood relationship) and affinity (legal relationship by marriage) in lines and degrees.
The direct line of relationship is the direct parent-to-child (or parent-in-law to child-in-law) relationship. The collateral line of relationship involves siblings at some point.
The degree of relationship of two people is the sum of the numbers of people in the line to the last common ancestor, not counting the common ancestor. For example, my sister and I are related in the second degree of the collateral line (count 1 for her plus 1 for me; the parents—our common ancestors—aren't counted). My niece and I are related in the third degree (count one for me, one for my niece, and one for her father, my brother). And so on.
The current Code of Canon Law has the following in its discussion of impediments to marriage:

Canon 1091 §1 In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.

This prohibits incestuous marriage between a person and their parents, children, or grandchildren (prohibitions 1 and 3).
Similarly, we have:

Canon 1091 §2 In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.

This prohibits marriage between siblings, including half-, step-, or adopted siblings (prohibition 2); aunt/uncle and nephew/niece (prohibition 4); first cousins; and great-aunt or -uncle and great-nephew or -niece.
Although some of the Church's restrictions on marriage (for example the restriction that you must marry a Catholic) may be overridden, or dispensed, for what is typically called "just cause", the restrictions on marrying parents, children, or siblings may not be dispensed:

Canon 1078 §3. A dispensation is never given from the impediment of consanguinity in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

Canon lawyer Cathy Caridi, in her excellent article "Can Cousins Marry in the Church?", discusses the possibility of first cousins—relatives by consanguinity in the fourth degree—marrying (briefly, it is forbidden by canon law but for very significant reasons the bishop may dispense from the prohibition); she does not address the possibility of aunt/uncle and nephew/niece marrying (these are relatives in the third degree; the marriage is prohibited by canon law but it might be possible that a bishop would be able to dispense from the prohibition; however, I have not been able to find any instances in which this prohibition has been dispensed).
The remaining prohibition is number 5, prohibition from marrying one's children- or siblings-in-law. Importantly, the Old Testament itself makes an exception for marrying one's brother-in-law in certain cases:

When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband's brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her.

(Deuteronomy 25:5)
The older code of canon law, published in 1917 (and based on a reading of the many collections of writings which had constituted Church law until that point) included all the prohibitions discussed above, and did in fact prohibit marriage to either children-in-law or siblings-in-law:

Canon 1077 §1 Affinitas in linea recta dirimit matrimonium in quolibet gradu; in linea collaterali usque ad secundum gradum inclusive.
[Affinity in the direct line invalidates marriage in any degree whatsoever; in the collateral line up to and including the second degree.]

This prohibits marriage to parent- or child-in-law (affinity in the direct line) as well as to sibling-in-law (the collateral line in the second degree).
This code of canon law was completely replaced in 1983, and all canons in it nullified unless they were replaced by equivalent canons in the current code. In the current code, the prohibition of marriage to parent- or child-in-law is still in place:

Canon 1092. Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.

But (especially, it appears, in consideration of the passage from Deuteronomy) the prohibition of marriage to sibling-in-law is not considered an absolute to which one must hold, and thus this sort of marriage is no longer prohibited; but it, and all the other prohibited marriages listed in Leviticus 18, were indeed prohibited at the time of Mr. Pink's sermon.


Are those who have a history of eating disorders excused from obligatory Roman Catholic fasts?

From a Question and answer page from the United States conference of Catholic Bishops:

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

I know of no one that would not consider fasting to be risky for someone with an eating disorder. Those who will jeopardize their mental or physical health by fasting are exempt.


What is the significance of transubstantiation?

Good question! The Transubstantiation is the spiritual AND physical process where the Eucharist changes into Jesus's real Body and real Blood at the hands of the Priest.

Summary

Jesus states at the last supper that "... this IS My Body..." As Catholics, we believe that He is telling us to have faith enough to believe His words. At the first supper and at every Mass held after, the Holy Eucharist has ALL the properties of Jesus's Body, yet has the outward appearance of Bread. By appearances, I mean every physical human observation that it can undergo. Whether that means touch, taste, smell, sight... it will still appear as bread. But, even with these outward properties, the Eucharist IS Jesus's Body. The same goes for the wine. We must have faith that He tells us what is true.

By taking Jesus's Body and Blood into your own being, you take in renewed strength against temptation. It brings closer the fact that Jesus made a sacrifice on the cross so that YOU may strive away from temptation. YOU must accept His sacrifice (the sacrifice of His Body and Blood) by taking Him unto yourself.

Three reasons why Our Lord Jesus Christ gives us His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist are:

    So that his Church on earth may receive Him through the sacrifice of the Mass.
    So that all of His people may remember the cross that he bore for them.
    So that all may remember the love that he has for us, and worship Him accordingly.

Personal Research

Click here for a thoroughly informative article on Transubstantiation by Frank J. Sheed

Click here for the Vatican's own explanation of Transubstantiation

You might also check out the Catholicism TV series which gives many stunning explanations on Catholicism in general (IT'S REALLY GOOD)

More on why we partake in His Body and Blood

I hope this has answered any questions you have had. Feel free to leave a comment below if not!

God Bless!


How many covenants has God established with humanity and are any of them everlasting?

Are any of them everlasting ?
There are thirteen references to the 'everlasting covenant' (KJV Old Testament) and one reference to 'the everlasting testament' (KJV New Testament) that I can find:
Either these are fourteen different covenants referring to a variety of everlasting matters ... or they are fourteen different aspects of the one New Testament, resulting in New Heavens and a New Earth and a New Inheritance in the World to Come ... a New Creation and the Resurrection from the Dead.
But none of these covenants (or, none of these aspects of the New Testament) is a matter of an agreement between God and the first humanity, that of Adam in the flesh.
The everlasting promises here made are established by Divine Promise without dependence on the response of humanity come out of Adam.

Genesis 9:16 Noah/Rainbow
... that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature
Genesis 17:7 Abraham
... between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant
Genesis 17:13 Abraham/Circumcision
.....and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Leviticus 24:8 Bread/Frankincense
....continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
2 Samuel 23:5 David
... with God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure
1 Chronicles 16:17 Covenant and Oath
... And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
Psalm 105:10 Covenant and Oath
And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
Isaiah 24:5 Noah
... transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isaiah 55:3 David the King
I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Isaiah 61:8 A Future Priesthood
I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Jeremiah 32:40 A Future People
And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them,
Ezekiel 16:60 A Future Israel
and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
Ezekiel 37:26 A Future Inheritance
I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them
Hebrews 13:20 The Blood of Christ
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will

The above is extracted from previous work I wrote in 2012. A comment below from @curiousdanni enquires about the 'conclusions to be drawn' from the above. I cannot compress my previous work, so this is the link to the 100 or so pages titled 'The Everlasting Testament' (in PDF form).
The Everlasting Testament


Under what circumstances is disobeying a bad law justified or even obligatory?

One verse that sprang immediately to my mind was 1 Peter2:16.  To provide a context for the verse, I'll start with vs.13:

  "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.  For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.  Act as free men [and women], and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.  Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Peter 2:13-21 NIV).

What strikes me in this passage is that Christians are free.  Ironically, however, we express our freedom as slaves to God!  When we submit to and honor the "powers that be" we are fleshing out our obedience to God, who alone is the One with ultimate power and authority in all the universe.

Notice that Peter was quick to qualify the Christian's freedom.  Never are we to use our freedom in Christ as an excuse or cloak for doing something evil.  Christians are not to be antinomianists who flaunt the law, whether man's or God's.  God, after all, expects His children to fulfill His law's demands as they are led by the Holy Spirit (see Romans 8:4).  While we are perhaps wise to abandon the old adage "Let your conscience be your guide," Christians in particular are to have enlightened, sensitive consciences to which they are to listen.

Having said that, however, just as there are always going to be controversial, "grey areas" of behavior within a given community of Christians today (as there was in the first century with the issue of meat sacrificed to idols--see Romans 8:1-9:15 and 1 Corinthians 9), so also will there be differences of opinion among well-meaning Christians as to whose conscience is correct and whose is not, as well as which secular laws and regulations must be obeyed and which may or must not be obeyed.

Clearly an edict from a government or repressive regime making it illegal to preach the gospel is something we cannot obey in good conscience.  Other laws will not be so clear-cut, however, as the ban on preaching Christ crucified.  (Having said this, I assume the better part of wisdom in countries where "proselytizing" is banned is to limit preaching, teaching, and sharing one's faith either to underground, home churches, or to clandestine gatherings of people, generally, whether in remote locations or any other non-public places.  The same would apply, I feel, to bans on disseminating the written word of God, in any medium.  Years ago an uncle of mine frequently smuggled Bibles into countries where Bibles were prohibited.  Today, an organized effort among Christians in repressive countries to transmit Scripture via email, podcasts, Twitter, or carrier pigeons would be, I believe, sanctioned by God.)

In other less-obvious ways, we must not be dogmatic.  For example, to one Christian the seemingly insignificant act of putting money into an expired parking meter as a "random act of kindness" is clearly wrong (particularly if there is a local ordinance making the act a misdemeanor!), whereas to another Christian, it is quite permissible.  In such situations, I suggest each Christian must listen to his or her conscience.  If the latter believer is doing the good deed deliberately to flaunt the law, then perhaps s/he should re-examine his or her motives!  If the former, seemingly "overly sensitive" believer does not feed the meter, does that therefore mean the latter Christian is right and the former, wrong?  No, before God each one is right.

In conclusion, when God's word is clear about a given action's rightness or wrongness, and the powers that be agree with God's word, Christians have an obligation before God both to obey and not to disobey.  In the few cases in which to obey the government would be to disobey God, we should listen to our enlightened consciences, which are to be informed by God's word, and we should also seek advice from and follow the example of the Christian leaders among us, whether godly elders, deacons, pastors, ministers, priests, mentors, and so on.

If you feel I should bolster my answer with more concrete examples, do let me know and I'll try to come up with a few more.  Don


Why does Paul emphasise that Jesus is the Son of David in 2 Timothy

Because Jesus descended from the family line of David.
As Isaiah says,

  Isaiah 11 English Standard Version (ESV) The Righteous Reign of the
  Branch

  11 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
      and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.

The Branch is Jesus. Jesse is the father of David. In fact many prophecies from Old Testament said the one to redeem Israel is from house of David. Often the Bible would refer Jesus as David.

Also remember the blind man that was calling out to Jesus, he referred to Jesus as "son of David".

  Matthew 9:27 [ Jesus Heals Two Blind Men ] And as Jesus passed on from
  there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us,
  Son of David.”

  Psalm 132:11 The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will
  not turn back: “One of the sons of your body I will set on your
  throne.

  Matthew 1:1 [ The Genealogy of Jesus Christ ] The book of the
  genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.


What verse in the Bible talks about bad people preaching the gospel being a good thing?

From what you've said, i can almost certainly say this is Philippians 1:18

  But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice (Philippians 1:18 NVI)

This passage's context is pretty much like what you've read: bad people preaching isn't bad at all, God can use them to reach a good purpose.

But it is not about greedy people, you read in verse 15 that he is talking about people who preach out of "envy and rivalry". But the essence is quite the same.


Did Christ open the Door of Hell after he preached the Gospel in the realm of the dead?

The answer is NO. Not sure why you skipped CCC633 in your research where you can find the answer.

  Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went
  down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who
  are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for
  all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the
  Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus
  shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received
  into "Abraham's bosom":481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who
  awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord
  delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into
  hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but
  to free the just who had gone before him. CCC633


Why doesn't the Catholic Church give indulgences to everybody, regardless of their works?

The Council of Trent, which condemned Luther's errors and heresies, wrote this on 4 December 1563, in its 25th session, "Decree Concerning Indulgences" (see my emphasized parts):

  Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church, and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power delivered unto her of God, the sacred holy Synod teaches and enjoins that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and it condemns with anathema those who either assert that they are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, it desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesiastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honorable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,—whence, a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,—be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatsoever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they can not conveniently be specially prohibited, it commands all bishops diligently to collect, each in his own Church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that thus the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

Granting indulgences "by excessive facility" makes "ecclesiastical discipline be enervated" (enervetur: weak, unmanly, effeminate). The Church, however, wants strong soldiers for her exultation and God's glory. Her supreme law is the salvation of souls, not the confirmation of the faithful in their sins.


Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary did not have pain giving birth to Jesus come from?

The Catholic "tradition" is just that. It is not an official teaching or doctrine, but rather something one is free to believe. The Church does not take a physiological stance on whether or not Mary experienced pain during child birth. But to understand where this tradition came from, we have to go back to the Garden of Eden.
When Adam and Eve sinned, God said to Eve that because of her sin, women would now experience pain during child birth. The teaching of "Original Sin" is that we have all inherited the sin of Adam and Eve.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was "the ark of the new covenant" and that God prepared her to be the perfect vessel which carried God (Jesus) into the world. That meant that she needed to be free from Original Sin and that she did not commit a sin.
So since she was free from sin, including the sin from Eve, the tradition is that she did not need to experience pain during child birth.
You can read more about the teaching on "the ark of the new covenant" here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant


How can the Pope's recent actions not be viewed as condoning homosexuality?

The article the original poster referenced itself has a link that explains reasons why Pope Francis may have decided to concelebrate Mass with Fr. De Paolis and kiss his hand. For the benefit of readers, here is a summary of the analysis offered by this article:

Possibility #1: Pope Francis did not know about De Paolis’ pro-gay activism
In the first place, it is possible that Pope Francis was himself unaware of De Paolis’ pro-gay activism. As LSN’s [LifeSiteNews'] original report stated, De Paolis officially met with Francis in his capacity as the founder of the Emmaus Community in the southern Italian city of Foggia, an organization that assists the poor and those suffering from AIDS – in other words, a commendable outreach.
[...]
Possibility #2: Pope Francis knew who the priest was, and was reaching out to him in mercy
On the other hand, it is possible that Francis and his handlers knew about De Paolis’ advocacy, but decided to arrange a meeting as an opportunity for the pontiff to reach out to the wayward priest as an act of mercy.
[...]

(The article mentions that St. Francis of Assisi, the pope's namesake, made a similar gesture toward a wayward priest, kissing his hand, and thus moving the priest to repentance.)

Possibility #3: Pope Francis intended the meeting as some kind of an endorsement of De Paolis’ work
The third possibility is that the pope knew of De Paolis’ pro-gay activism, but decided to meet with him anyway as a sign of respect either despite or even because of that activism. However, given the gravity of such an allegation, and how little is known about the meeting, there is clearly insufficient evidence to propose this as the best interpretation.

The third possibility is exceedingly unlikely, because Pope Francis has  reiterated that he believes in the Church's traditional teaching on matters such as homosexuality. (For an excellent analysis of the now famous "who am I to judge" quote and the Pope's answer, see the blog post entitled "Judge Not" by Tim Staples.) Pope Francis, in his interview with Civiltà Cattolica in September, 2013, said clearly:

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

Despite affirming that, for pastoral reasons, he has "not spoken much" about matters such as abortion and homosexuality, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, he opposed homosexual marriage quite forcefully, albeit quietly and indirectly. In his letter to the Carmelites in Buenos Aires, he says,

Do not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle [i.e., the attempt to legalize same-sex marriage]; it is the destructive attempt toward God's plan. It is not a mere legislative project (this is only the instrument) but a ''movement'' of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. Jesus tells us that to defend ourselves against this lying accuser, he will send us the Spirit of Truth.

I think the other questions of the original poster are dealt with very well in the other answers: in short, neither the Bible nor the teaching of the Catholic Church condones homosexual acts or same-sex marriages. Naturally, the outlook of a Christian in the face of persons with same-sex attractions—even those who engage in homosexual behavior—must be one of mercy and understanding, never condemnation.
(Edit, in order to answer the O.P.'s expansion of his question.)
Regarding Hint 1
It is true that the Pope would like to open a discussion regarding the possibility of accepting a certain kind of civil union, providing benefits similar to that of civil marriage, that homosexual couples could take advantage of. Regarding this point, some very important clarifications need to be made:

As the Pope himself mentions in his interview with the Corriere della Sera, such a discussion would never put in doubt the Church's fundamental teaching about marriage: that it can only be between a man and a woman.

The Church would still, therefore, consider a sexual union between persons of the same sex as objectively gravely sinful under all circumstances.

There is, however, nothing intrinsically wrong in allowing two persons (whatever their condition) to enter into a contract that would govern their taxation, inheritance, and other civil effects. The reason that it might be acceptable is to avoid greater injustices. (For example, if someone's homosexual partner dies suddenly, the law in some countries would otherwise not permit the remaining partner to inherit the house; possibly, he may find that he has nowhere to live.)

Nevertheless, this discussion does not represent a retreat, in any way, regarding the Church's view of the immorality of homosexual practices.

Regarding Hint 2
The text reported here is only the temporary working document of the recent synod on the family. Most of what it says is reasonable, but there are a number of questionable passages. For example,

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing [...] them [...] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home.

This is not a false statement, but it does not mention that it is important not to cross the line to endorsing behaviors (i.e., homosexual acts) that are in fact harmful to the very persons involved. The Church does not "endorse" homosexual acts for the same reason that parents do not "endorse" having their children run across the street in heavy traffic.

(50 cont'd.) Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

"Sexual orientation" is a problematic term, because it implies that the two fundamental "orientations" (homosexual and heterosexual) are equivalent. However, in fact, they are not. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexual desires and actions are to be viewed as "objectively disordered" (No. 2358). Official Church documents (which do not include this relatio post disceptationem) avoid that term altogether.

Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.

This statement could be interpreted as meaning that homosexual unions have elements of value to those involved. It neglects to mention that, although there may be some superficial benefits, such unions, in fact, are always gravely harmful to those who take part.
Because of problems such as these, this relatio was essentially tabled by the synod fathers. Therefore, it has no authority whatsoever in the Church.
Much more nuanced and balanced is the Holy Father's final discourse at the end of the synod.
Regarding Hint 3
Those who released the relatio were not held responsible, but then again, neither were those (in the majority) who reacted against its problematic portions. It was not a clear-cut case of dissent against the Magisterium, either, since the language employed is ambiguous.
Number 55 of the final report, which is the only one that regards homosexuality directly, is actually quite balanced (even though it garnered only 118 out of 181 votes):

Some families have members who have a homosexual tendency. In this regard, the synod fathers asked themselves what pastoral attention might be appropriate for them in accordance with the Church’s teaching: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”Nevertheless, men and women with a homosexual tendency ought to be received with respect and sensitivity. “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” [quoting "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," 4, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

No. 56, which did gain a "supermajority," condemns pressuring countries to adopt same-sex marriage by threatening to cut off financial aid:

Exerting pressure in this regard on the Pastors of the Church is totally unacceptable: this is equally so for international organizations who link their financial assistance to poorer countries with the introduction of laws which establish “marriage” between persons of the same sex.


Can a secular government ever be a moral authority?

Normally we require questions like this to specify a particular denomination/tradition that they are asking about, because different Christian groups take different approaches. But in this case Christian groups take a remarkably uniform position.

The government is not and cannot be a higher moral authority than God. No government can declare something to be good that God has decreed to be bad, nor something bad that God has decreed to be good.

However one of the moral goods that God has commanded is to submit to secular authorities - within limits. For example, if the government says that you should not drive faster than 70mph, or consume certain drugs, then Christians should obey those while under the authority of that government. The existence of such a law does not make driving over 70mph bad per se, but nonetheless Christians should refrain from doing it.

Governments are not permitted to declare, for example, that worshipping God is illegal, or that someone else other than God must be worshipped. This principle is demonstrated many times throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, and Christians are expected to ignore those rules.

Governments are also not able to declare anything 'permitted' that is not permitted by God. So your example of a government that decreed murder to be legal would not make it so, and Christians could not for that reason commit murder. This is demonstrated by the governments that have - to an extent - done just that, by permitting abortion or euthanasia. Christian groups that consider those to be murder (of which there are many) have not at all permitted their members to carry out those acts just because the government says it is OK.

There are a small number of Christian groups that consider secular governments to have no authority at all over Christians. They would disagree with the above, but even they would generally expect their members to follow secular laws as a matter of practicality.


Does Christianity claim itself to be the final revelation from God?

Christianity1 doesn't make claims about itself but rather makes claims about Jesus. And those claims are based on the Bible, which records Jesus' own words. So what does Jesus say about being supplanted by a new revelation? He was asked exactly this question - here is His answer:

When the men came to Jesus, they said, ‘John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”’
At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, illnesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind.  So he replied to the messengers, ‘Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.  Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.’

Luke 7:20-23
Furthermore, in another place He specifically says that there is no other way to God than through Him:

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

John 14:6
So He's the First Revelation and The Last. As Peter said2, "There is no one else."
1 And here you'd have to specify which flavour of Christianity you're talking about.
2 My paraphrase.


Is it possible to receive the full effects of the Catholic Spiritual Communion if one is being distanced from the Communion due to being gay?

That will depend on the interior disposition of the individual at that time!

How to benefit from the in the fullest sense from making a Spiritual Communion.

When Catholics are properly disposed to receive Our Lord in the Sacred Host at Mass, but are impeded for one reason or another, they can always make a Spiritual Communion in it’s place. Thus receiving the same graces as going to actual Holy Communion.

Our souls must likewise be prepared as if going to Holy Communion at Mass. We must be in the State of Grace!

Any extramarital sexual activities thus must be confessed to a priest prior to receiving Holy Communion. If one is ill dispensed to receive the Sacrament of the Altar, then one is also ill dispense to receive any graces in a Spiritual Communion.

I am thinking that your quote from Wikipedia is in error as to what the Church clearly teaches on the subject on a Spiritual Communion. Here is what the CDF wrote about this subject matter in 1983:

  Individual faithful or communities who because of persecution or lack of priests are deprived of the holy Eucharist for either a short or longer period of time, do not thereby lack the grace of the Redeemer. If they are intimately animated by a desire for the sacrament and united in prayer with the whole Church, and call upon the Lord and raise their hearts to him, by virtue of the Holy Spirit they live in communion with the whole Church, the living body of Christ, and with the Lord himself. Through their desire for the sacrament in union with the Church, no matter how distant they may be physically, they are intimately and really united to her and therefore receive the fruits of the sacrament; whereas those who would wrongly attempt to take upon themselves the right to confect the Eucharistic Mystery end up by having their community closed in on itself. - Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on Certain Questions concerning the Minister of the Eucharist

Thus it is clear that in order to make a Spiritual Communion effective, Catholics must make it with the same interior dispositions as if going to receive Holy Communion.

Fish eaters explains the notion of Spiritual Communion in a very readable way:

  We are obliged to attend Mass each Sunday and on every other Holy Day of Obligation. Sometimes, though, we just can't be there. One's own sickness or the obligations to care for a sick person, having given birth within the past 6 weeks, dangerous weather (and other safety hazards), not being able to find a way there -- life happens. There is no guilt in missing Mass if the circumstances are out of one's control (mortal sin always requires not only grave matter and knowledge, but consent of the will).

  And sometimes, there is no Mass readily-enough available. The rule of thumb concerning Mass availability is that if one is required to travel more than an hour to reach a Mass, one is not guilty of sin by not attending.

  In all these instances, we are encouraged to make what is known as a "spiritual Communion," an act expressing what was described by St. Thomas Aquinas as "an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament and in lovingly embracing Him." In a spiritual Communion, we, with contrite, humble hearts, ask our Lord to come to us in the same way He would if we were able to receive the Sacrament. This can be done as often as one likes, informally in one's own words or through one of the traditional prayers which appear below.

  What is the value of this practice? The graces received may be as great as -- or greater than -- those received by some people in the actual Sacrament. Though, of course, the Sacrament itself is inherently greater, our disposition toward the Sacrament affect whether and how we receive its fruits. For example, imagine a woman who is unable to be with her husband but who desires him as contrasted with a woman who has her husband's presence but doesn't care for him. Which husband would be more apt to pour out his love for his wiffe?

  How to Receive Spiritual Communion

  St. Leonard of Port-Maurice offers this advice for receiving Spiritual Communion:

    In order to facilitate a practice of such great excellence, ponder what I have to say. When the priest is about to give himself Communion in holy Mass, do you, keeping composed externally and internally, excite in your heart an act of true contrition, and humbly striking your breast, in token that you acknowledge yourself unworthy of so great a grace, make all those acts of love, of self-surrender, of humility, and the rest, which you are accustomed to make when you communicate sacramentally, and then desire with a lively longing to receive your good Jesus, veiled in the sacrament for your benefit. And to kindle your devotion, imagine that most holy Mary, or some saint, your holy advocate, is holding forth to you the sacred particle; figure yourself receiving it, and then, embracing Jesus in your heart, reply to Him, over and over again, with interior words prompted by love: “Come, Jesus, my Beloved, come within this my poor heart; come and satiate my desires; come and sanctify my soul; come, most sweet Jesus, come!” This said, be still; contemplate your good God within you, and, as if you really had communicated, adore Him, thank Him, and perform all those interior acts to which you are accustomed after sacramental Communion.

  Here is a choice of a few different formal prayers to pray while following St. Leonard's advice, though you can pray in your own words, if you prefer:

  Act of Spiritual Communion by St. Alphonsus Liguori (A.D. 1696-1787)

  My Jesus, I believe that Thou art present in the Blessed Sacrament. I love Thee above all things and I desire Thee in my soul. Since I cannot now receive Thee sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. As though thou wert already there, I embrace Thee and unite myself wholly to Thee; permit not that I should ever be separated from Thee.

  Act of Spiritual Communion

  O Immaculate Queen of Heaven and Earth, Mother of God and Mediatrix of every grace: I believe that Thy dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the Most Blessed Sacrament. I love Him above all things and I long to receive Him into my heart. Since I cannot now receive Him sacramentally, be so good as to place Him spiritually in my soul.

  O my Jesus, I embrace Thee as One who has already come, and I unite myself entirely to Thee. Never permit me to be separated from Thee. Amen.

  Act of Spiritual Communion

  As I cannot this day enjoy the happiness of assisting at the holy Mysteries, O my God! I transport myself in spirit at the foot of Thine altar; I unite with the Church, which by the hands of the priest, offers Thee Thine adorable Son in the Holy Sacrifice; I offer myself with Him, by Him, and in His Name. I adore, I praise, and thank Thee, imploring Thy mercy, invoking Thine assistance, and presenting Thee the homage I owe Thee as my Creator, the love due to Thee as my Savior.

  Apply to my soul, I beseech Thee, O merciful Jesus, Thine infinite merits; apply them also to those for whom I particularly wish to pray. I desire to communicate spiritually, that Thy Blood may purify, Thy Flesh strengthen, and Thy Spirit sanctify me. May I never forget that Thou, my divine Redeemer, hast died for me; may I die to all that is not Thee, that hereafter I may live eternally with Thee. Amen.

  Missing Mass & Spiritual Communion

Only mortal sins that have not been sacramentally confessed and absolved in the sacrament of confession can keep one away from receiving Our Savour in Holy Communion. If we are ill disposed in the first, we will be ill disposed in the second.

Being gay does not inherently mean we can not receive Holy Communion; providing that one lives a pure and chaste life. For those who have fallen into serious sexual sin there is always confession. Humility is always the first step in the spiritual life.


James E. Talmage discusses this in his book "Jesus the Christ" (read online here)
An excerpt from this chapter:

To the chosen and devoted followers who came asking the Master why He had changed from direct exposition to parables, He explained that while it was their privilege to receive and understand the deeper truths of the gospel, “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” as He expressed it, with people in general, who were unreceptive and unprepared, such fulness of understanding was impossible. To the disciples who had already gladly accepted the first principles of the gospel of Christ, more should be given; while from those who had rejected the proffered boon, even what they had theretofore possessed should be taken away. “Therefore,” said He, “speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”
...
There is plainly shown an element of mercy in the parabolic mode of instruction adopted by our Lord under the conditions prevailing at the time. Had He always taught in explicit declaration, such as required no interpretation, many among His hearers would have come under condemnation, inasmuch as they were too weak in faith and unprepared in heart to break the bonds of traditionalism and the prejudice engendered by sin, so as to accept and obey the saving word.
Another example of the merciful adaptation of the word of truth to the varied capacities of the people who heard the parables is found in the psychological fact, that the incidents of an impressive though simple story will live, even in minds which for the time being are incapable of comprehending any meaning beyond that of the common-place story itself. … And then, when time and experience, including suffering perhaps, had prepared them for deeper thought, they would find the living kernel of gospel truth within the husk of the simple tale.
(Talmage)

In short, listeners of varying spiritual maturity could be taught that which they needed to hear.


Does Jesus contradict Himself in these verses?

I should preface my answer by saying this is entirely educated guesswork, as is any answer to this question. Don't take it as divine revelation, but as just one of many views on the events of the time.

Some have mentioned that maybe he was being metaphorical, and that the disciples were having one of their (quite frequent) blond moments in taking him literally. You think they would learn... anyway, this is very possible.

If you prefer to take it literally, my guess would be that Jesus wanted them to have swords for a short time. My reasoning is that Jesus has prefaced this with a comparison. Previously, they had gone out, preaching love, repentance and righteousness under the authority of their rabbi, their teacher / mentor / religious authority.

Having a rabbi was quite common. Many rabbis were radical, hard-hitting, slightly nutty and often very wrong (just read some of their recorded theories. One I read recently: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/index.htm). While Jesus was "just another rabbi", they had little to fear.

Yet for the next few weeks, "Jesus" was synonymous with "criminal". People who wanted to get in the good books with the religious leaders might want to present the head of one of his disciples, and people who might have once given them free stuff as a thank you for their wisdom and guidance would now be treating them as scum.

This crowd that came with the temple guards might consider it a good idea to take Jesus' collaborators as well - but when they arrive they are faced with a dillema. They could take an unarmed and willing Jesus without any fuss - which is all they really came for - or they could try and take an armed and unwilling 12 disciples. It's a no-brainer.

P.S: I find it interesting that Jesus doesn't say "You shouldn't have done that", but instead says, "That's enough of that, you won't actually need to draw the sword unless you want to be killed by it" (paraphrased and liberties taken!). I imagine he was secretly glad they cut off the guard's ear, because it showed the crowd that the disciples meant business.

Also, to counter any potential arguments that God could have protected the disciples without resorting to swords, yes, you are correct. But that doesn't mean that the disciples were not more confident knowing that they had swords with them, and it meant that the legacy of focus was solely on Jesus. Remember that "the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53:5


Is a priest's sermon an explanation of bible?

The Short Answer

In the homily the priest proclaims the mysteries of the faith and the standards of the Christian life by way of the scripture readings and the liturgical prayers.  He does this in a way that nourishes the Christian life of the listener.

Part of the priest's job in the homily is to explain the Bible, but he is supposed to be doing more than that.  The homily is an organic part of the liturgy, not some separate, detached sermon.  So the priest is interpreting the Bible in light of the liturgy, the mysteries of the faith, Christian living, and the particular lives of his congregation (cf. Homiletic Directory, 16).  Some days the priest may focus very heavily on the scripture readings.  Other days he may just touch on them while focusing on other matters.

At the end of the day the priest preaches to try to bring you closer to Jesus Christ.  Explaining the scriptures is a central part of that and an essential means, but it is not the only part.

The Long Answer

Here are some quotes from Catholic documents on the topic:

  [The homily] should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 65).

  Through the course of the liturgical year the homily sets forth the
  mysteries of faith and the standards of the Christian life on the
  basis of the sacred text. [...] The purpose of the homily at Mass is
  that the spoken word of God and the liturgy of the Eucharist may
  together become "a proclamation of God’s wonderful works in the
  history of salvation, the mystery of Christ" [SC 35, 2] (Introduction of the Lectionary for Mass, 24).

(Note here that the words 'sacred text' "refer to the biblical passages and the prayers used in a liturgical celebration" [Homiletic Directory, 11].)

  Whether the homily explains the text of the Sacred Scriptures
  proclaimed in the readings or some other text of the Liturgy, it must
  always lead the community of the faithful to celebrate the Eucharist
  actively, "so that they may hold fast in their lives to what they have
  grasped by faith" [SC 10] (Introduction of the Lectionary for Mass, 24).

  In sum, the homily is shaped by a very simple dynamic: it reflects on
  the meaning of the readings and prayers of a given celebration in
  light of the Paschal Mystery; and it leads the assembly to the
  Eucharistic celebration in which they have communion in the Paschal
  Mystery itself (Homiletic Directory, 15).

  Looking at this fundamental pattern of preaching in the Emmaus
  narrative illustrates the essential connection between Scripture, the
  homily, and the Eucharist; for it was in the “breaking of the bread”
  that the disciples ultimately recognized their Risen Lord, and it was
  then they realized that their hearts were burning within them “while
  he spoke to us on the way and opened the Scriptures to us” (Lk 24:32).
  This is why virtually every homily preached during the liturgy should
  make some connection between the Scriptures just heard and the
  Eucharist about to be celebrated (Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday Homily, pg. 20).

  The full scope of Jesus’ preaching reminds us that when we have the
  privilege of preaching the homily to a congregation at the Sunday
  Eucharist, we also have an invaluable opportunity to advance the
  Church’s catechetical ministry.38 This intrinsic relationship between
  preaching, doctrine, and catechesis is also reflected in the ministry
  of Paul the Apostle (Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday
  Homily, pg. 21).


Why does Joseph have a staff in nativity scenes?

In the Luke account, Joseph and Mary had just walked about 60 miles from Nazareth to the Jerusalem suburbs (Bethlehem is about 5 miles away.)  The countryside is hilly, and there are some dangerous places too.

Personally, if I'm walking more than a mile or so, I'm going to take a stick. And, if I've got a pregnant girl I need to protect, I'm doubly sure I'm going to have a stick.  Theology aside, this would be a very practical thing to take on a long walk in a dangerous area.

As an artist, if I'm trying to remind people that Joseph was on a journey, this would b a very simple shorthand for conveying that imagery.


How do Protestants interpret "covers a multitude of sins" (James 5:19)?

In James 5:20, the expression "shall cover a multitude of sins" means that the sins of the person who has strayed will be forgiven by God.  The significance is that if the sinful person listens and repents, eternal punishment will be averted. Linked to this is Jude verse 23:

"Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment." (NLT)

1 Peter 4:7-8 is cross-referenced to Proverbs 10:12 which says:

"Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs."

The emphasis here is on how love promotes forgiveness.
However, because Protestants don't distinguish between "mortal" and "venial" sins, then no reference is made to any explicit sin. All sin is rebellion against God and the Protestant view is that there is only one sin that can't be forgiven by God and that is the sin of rejecting Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
Edit for clarification: The Protestant view is that all sins are mortal sins in that even one sin makes the offender worthy of eternal separation from God.
Here is a summary of the Protestant view of justification and salvation as expressed by John Stott:

I have been saved – in the past – from the penalty of sin – by a crucified Saviour: “For in this hope we were saved" (Romans 8:24).
I am being saved – in the present – from the power of sin – by a living Saviour: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I shall be saved – in the future – from the presence of sin – by a coming Saviour: "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"  (Romans 5:9)


When Jesus speaks to the Church at Sardis through John (in Rev. 3), he says:

  Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life

White is typically a sign of purity, such as when Isaiah says:

  Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

Having a white collar is like having a yoke of purity around your neck. It is a symbol of the obligation that priests have to model God, and the literal stranglehold (yes, they suck!) God has around us, when it comes to modelling purity.


As far as research on this goes, I couldn't find a single source which ascribes this prayer to any particular church father, and I doubt any church father is the author.

I found an interesting article on this prayer and its origins. You can find it here.

It says,

  "Besides the Greek text, ancient versions can be found in Coptic, Syriac, Armenian & Latin.
  In Latin, the version used by the Roman rite has surely been done directly on the Coptic version of the text
  (like in Coptic, it uses the term
  præsidium
   instead of
  misericordia
  ) without going through the Greek. The
  Ambrosian form of the text closer depends on the Byzantine tradition"

It would appear from this that the Greek version is the original, but there are others versions used close to that time.

As to its use in the liturgy at the time of its writing:

  _"The antiphon was used at vespers during Christmas time in the Coptic liturgy. It is also known in Byzantine,
  Roman and Ambrosian rites. In each of these rites, though venerable & ancient, the
  Sub tuum præsidium
   has
  a discreet place, very marginal one might say

  ...

  Historically, the oldest evidence of the use of
  Sub tuum
   in the Roman rite is found in the antiphonal of
  Compiègne (from the IX-Xth century), which provides it among the Benedictus antiphons for the Feast of the
  Assumption (Migne, PL 78, 799)..."_

As to the dating of the papyri itself and thus most likely the prayer itself, it says

  "[it has been dated] from the fourth
  century, thinking it was impossible to find an invocation to the
  Theotokos
   before this century (we’ll see below,
  however, that the expression
  Theotokos
   was in use in Alexandria before 250). But his colleague E. Lobel, with
  whom he collaborated in editing the Oxyrhynchus papyri, based on pure paleographic analysis, said the text
  can not possibly be later than the third century, probably dating between 250 & 280".

Of course you gave the dating in your question but there really are no resources on who actually is the author, especially none showing that a church father was the author.


Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ?

The fish or "Ikthyus" is Greek, is a very ancient symbol.  In addition to the obvious parallels with Jesus commissioning the disciples as "fishers of men," there was another reason for using the fish.

The phrase -

Jesus
Christ
God('s)
Son
Savior

is in Greek

Ίησοῦς
Χριστός,
Θεοῦ
Υἱός,
Σωτήρ

ΊΧΘΥΣ (the first letter of each word, pronounced 'Ikthyus') also means fish.


What is the biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption?

The Covenant of Redemption in the Bible

  Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being
  in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be
  grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a
  servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance
  as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death
  on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave
  him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every
  knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and
  every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
  the Father.

  Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)

Here we see the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption. Jesus humbled himself to "death on a cross" and "therefore God exalted him." We see the same sort of thing in John 17. Jesus brings the Father glory, therefore the Father will bring him glory:

  I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to
  do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had
  with you before the world began.

  John 17:4-5 (NIV)

Jesus says these sorts of things all throughout John. It's also in Isaiah 53:

  Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and
  though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his
  offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper
  in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light
  [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will
  justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give
  him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the
  strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered
  with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made
  intercession for the transgressors.

  Isaiah 53:10-12 (NIV)

Psalm 2* speaks of the glory given to Christ as decreed by the Father:

  I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my
  Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the
  nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You
  will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like
  pottery." Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the
  earth. Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the
  Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath
  can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

  Psalm 2:7-12 (NIV)

Before time began

But when was this agreement made? If it's spoken of by David and Isaiah, it's at least as old as the time of David. But was it made before time began? The reformed say yes. R.C. Sproul articulates the reformed position this way:

  The Bible speaks often of God’s eternal counsel, of His plan of
  salvation and the like. It is a matter of theological urgency that
  Christians not think of God as a ruler who ad libs His dominion of the
  universe. God does not “make it up as He goes along.” Nor must He be
  viewed as a bumbling administrator who is so inept in His planning
  that His blueprint for redemption must be endlessly subject to
  revision according to the actions of men. The God of Scripture has no
  “plan b” or “plan c.” His “plan a” is from everlasting to everlasting.
  It is both perfect and unchangeable as it rests on God’s eternal
  character, which is among other things, holy, omniscient, and
  immutable. God’s eternal plan is not revised because of moral
  imperfections within it that must be purified. His plan was not
  corrected or amended because He gained new knowledge that He lacked at
  the beginning. God’s plan never changes because He never changes and
  because perfection admits to no degrees and cannot be improved upon.

Are there verses to support this idea? Yes. In 2 Timothy, Paul says that God saved us by giving us grace in Christ Jesus "before the beginning of time"**:

  So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his
  prisoner. Rather, join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the
  power of God. He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because
  of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.
  This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
  but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior,
  Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and
  immortality to light through the gospel.

  2 Timothy 1:8-10 (NIV)

Lastly, Ephesians 1 brings together all the themes previously discussed. We see God purposing to reveal the mystery of his will to us "before the creation of the world" by bringing all things together "under Christ."

  Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
  blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in
  Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be
  holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for
  adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his
  pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has
  freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through
  his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of
  God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding,
  he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good
  pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the
  times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven
  and on earth under Christ.

  Ephesians 1:3-10 (NIV)

Additional Resources

Of Christ the Mediator | Westminster Confession***
The Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Redeemer | John Flavel (1627-1691)
What Is the Covenant of Redemption? | Ligonier Ministries
Is there a biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption? | Monergism.com

* Psalm 2 is considered a messianic psalm in the Christian tradition, especially by the reformed, and it seems hard to argue against that given the way it's used in Hebrews 1.

** I almost included Revelation 13:8 at this point. The verse was discussed on BH.SE and this translation was suggested: "All those who live on the earth worshiped it, anyone whose name has not been written in the scroll of life (which belongs to the slain Lamb) since the world's founding." The more traditional "lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" would be a more convincing addition to this post, but I think even the translation given by Mark Edward works to support the point. After all, names were written in the scroll of life since the world's founding, and their being there depends on the lamb being slain. Hence the names must have been written before the foundation of the world with the knowledge of Christ's future sacrifice.

*** B. B. Warfield called covenant theology the "architectronic principle" of the Westminster Confession, but it's not universally agreed that it teaches the Covenant of Redemption. Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator is cited by those who believe it supports the concept. Very few would dispute that it supports the Covenant of Grace or Covenant of Works, however.

Addendum: The Covenant of Redemption is really threefold. The question captured two of its aspects, that of the Son dying and Father glorifying him, but equally important is the Father's promise to send the Spirit. This answer focused on the aspects that the question did, but if you want to understand the Covenant of Redemption, it's important to note the sending of the Spirit.


How does Christianity explain the health benefits of sexual intercourse

It is a misconception that the Bible is anti-sex.

Indeed, the Song of Solomon is an erotic love story.
Even the Catholic Church admits that sex is supposed to be pleasurable. Likewise, the only story about masturbation really doesn't say that masturbation is the reason for punishment.  And, even Southern Baptists are saying that the church needs to be more sex-positive - in the right context

That the church would teach that sex should be reserved for marriage is consistent with it - most sexologists will tell you that sex is better with the same partner.

In Hookups, Inequality Still Reigns - NYTimes.com

  “As far as my ability to climax consistently, that’s something I was able to have in my monogamous relationships that I never had” in less committed circumstances, she said. ... Yet mediocre sex was a small price to pay “for the freedom to be able to enjoy it all.” The physical aspect of a tryst with a relative stranger was gratifying, she said, even if her chances of reaching orgasm were limited. When her partner’s performance was lackluster, she still took pride in her own sexual prowess.

This article was interesting to me in how it keeps justifying the sexual revolution. It flat out admits that casual sex isn't nearly as good as committed - but they continue to say, “Go for it anyways!” By contrast, a committed, monogamous, marriage-based relationship is one that is far more fulfilling to emotional and mental health.


Catholic Equivalent of Systematic Theology Books

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica
The Summa Theologica* of St. Thomas Aquinas (✝1274) is the best "systematic theology†" work, as it summarizes and consolidates  all theology (sacra doctrina, "sacred doctrine") into a coherent whole. The Summa, rejected by Luther and Calvin, has great authority for Catholics and was placed on the altar alongside Holy Scriptures at the Council of Trent. Every pope since St. Thomas's time has endorsed his work, and even today Canon Law (can. 252 §3) requires that seminarians “are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher.” (cf. 1917 can. 1366 §2).
*cf. Thom's answer here†"Systematic theology" (theologia systematica) was coined c. 1635; Catholics use the term "dogmatic theology."
Here are some testimonies of the Summa:

St. Robert Bellarmine similarly speaks of St. Thomas in the introduction of his treatise on the Holy Trinity:

Certainly, if everyone proposes with such order, facility, and brevity to us, as I venture to affirm, that he who diligently studies a few of St. Thomas’s questions finds nothing difficult either in Scriptures, the Councils, or the future Fathers of the Trinity; he will make more all-around progress in two months devoted to the Summa than in several months’ study of the Scriptures and the Fathers.

Pope John XXII also said:

He (St. Thomas) has illuminated the Church more than all the other Doctors; to read his books for a year profits man more than to study the doctrine of others for his whole life.

Theological Manuals
Catholic seminarians use theological manuals based on St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa. Dozens have been published in the 20th century alone with titles like:

De Beatissima Virgine Maria Matre Dei (On the Holy Virgin Mary Mother of God)
De Deo Trino (On the Trinity)
De Deo Uno (On the One God)
De Ecclesia (On the Church)
De Gratia (On Grace)
De Peccato Originali (On Original Sin)
De Revelatione (On Revelation)
De Rubricis Missalis Romanis (On the Rubrics of the Roman Missal / liturgics)
De Sacramentis (On the Sacraments)
De Verbo Incarnato et Redemptore (On the Word Incarnate and Redeemer)
De Virtutibus (On the Virtues)
Jus Canonicum (Canon Law)
Theologia Ascetica et Mystica (Ascetical and Mystical Theology)
Theologia Moralis (Moral Theology)
Theologia Pastoralis (Pastoral Theology)

See the curriculum for this seminary. Many of its works are available online for download. Ludwig Ott's Fundemantals of Catholic Dogma and Pohle-Preuss's dogmatic theology series are some popular ones that have been translated into English.


What power do spirits have that resurrected beings do not?

What an excellent question, as it forced me to really think it through.

I think the disconnect is in the very first lines.  You make two assumptions that Mormons would not agree with.  The first is that without a physical body a spirit is able to be in more than one place at a time.

  Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8
   7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter,
  but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

  8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that
  it is all matter.

the second assumption you made with which Mormons would disagree would be to lump the Holy Ghost in with 'Spirits'.  We do have doctrine that states that He is a personage of Spirit without a body of flesh and bone but we know very little about Him.  We don't know if He is yet to be born into mortality, already passed through a mortal state, or never to be born at all.  We don't know how He accomplishes His divine mission but we don't assume that because the Holy Ghost is capable of it, then all spirits must be equally endowed.

What we do know (what we have doctrines declaring) is that we can become joint heirs with Christ, receiving all that the Father hath.  We can become like Him and part of the process includes being resurrected into a glorified physical body.  We saw an example of such a body in Jesus Christ and we saw that it (His glorified body) was capable of things which ours are not (see John 20:19).

There is no regression in resurrection.


Orthodoxy's "ancestral sin" versus Calvinism's "total depravity"

It's probably important to emphasize here that Calvin, as far as I know (and I think we are in agreement on this point), did not believe "Original Sin" to have been completely absolved by the birth of Christ. Indeed it was also in Romans(9:18-23) that one of the early Calvinists' favorite quotes appears:

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23

That is (for this type of Calvinist), whilst the doorway to absolution had been opened by the death of Christ, this did not mean that many (or even most) of the human race were part of the elect: they were still endowed with an original imperfection. At least one seventeenth century theologian (really wish I could remember where I read it!) argued that the pots "prepared for destruction" served to demonstrate the goodness and the beauty of God, because the apprehension of goodness depended on the presence of its opposite.

This brings us to the next question. There have been many different views on the matter of original sin. My memory of Luther, for instance, is that the best humans strive to be perfect, but it is only through the grace of God that this is ever actually achieved. Redemption, for Luther, seems to be open to those willing to work at it, so long as God is also willing. Absolution from the sin of Adam and his punishments is therefore, in theory, possible for any member of the human race. It is probably clear form this, that doctrines of Orignal Sin have an interdependency with doctrines of Free Will vs Determinism.

There are some other interesting passages relating to this that you may want to consider. Whilst many would argue that the discussion of the Jeremahic Covenant (in particular Jeremiah 31:29) is really a discussion of contemporary Jewish law and the practice of holding children accountable or punishable for the sins of their parents, it can also be read as a discussion of the right of men to a moral existence independent of that of their parents:

As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. 29"In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.' 30"But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge

It is, therefore, also a comment on Original Sin - the sin that was endowed upon the human race by their first father, Adam, and their mother, Eve.

As for the specific doctrinal consequences - to attempt a succinct answer, we are going to have to at least start off with the question "differences for whom (which Protestant theologians, which Orthodox scholars)" and also I think, wonder in passing why the Catholic church seems to be left out of the analysis, since it was within the Catholic church (particularly after waning Constantinople was stormed by the Crusader armies) that the doctrine of Original Sin was most successfully and forcefully promulgated (in my view).


List of old heresies condemned by the Catholic Church now present in Lutheranism and Calvinism

At the outset it should be noted that Lutherans and Calvinists agree with the Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and affirm the early church's consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith which is foundational to Christianity.
The start of the Reformation is attributed to Martin Luther when he posted his 95 Theses on the door of Wittenberg Church on October 31, 1517.  However, 100 years before other Christians had stood up for reform and paid for it with their lives.  John Wycliffe, an English theologian and Oxford professor (who had died in 1384), was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constance on 4 May 1415. His crime was to defy the Pope by translating the New Testament into English.  His writings were banned and his corpse exhumed from consecrated ground and burned.
Jan Hus, a priest from Bohemia, who rejected indulgences and adopted a doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, was condemned by the Catholic Church and executed by burning in 1415 for his opposition to the Church of Rome.
Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican friar, was hanged and burned in 1498.  He had disobeyed and defied the pope by preaching under a ban, highlighting his campaign for reform.
The Council of Trent convened in the mid 1500’s to settle issues regarding the Lutheran Protestant Reformation.  The Protestant Reformation formulated five “solas” or key teachings that defined the biblical basis of Protestant theology:

Sola scriptura: “Scripture alone”
Sola fide: “faith alone”
Sola gratia: “grace alone”
Solo Christo: “Christ alone”
Soli Deo gloria: “to the glory of God alone”

At the heart of the Protestant Reformation are four basic questions: How is a person saved? Where does religious authority lie? What is the church? What is the essence of Christian living?  The “Five Solas” express five essential points of biblical doctrine that clearly separate Protestantism from Roman Catholicism.
Salvation by grace alone through faith alone, one of the Reformers’ rallying cries, was rejected  in favour of sacramental grace and righteousness based on a mixture of grace and works.
The Council of Trent instituted seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, communion, penance, unction, orders, and marriage. The council condemned anyone who said the sacraments were not necessary for salvation or that man can be justified through faith alone without any sacrament.  The council also confirmed the belief in transubstantiation, which is rejected by Protestants.  However, it is the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone that that is the primary heresy, and the rejection of Papal authority is a close second.
Information drawn from a variety of sources:
Protestant beliefs declared to be heretical by the Roman Catholic Church - Luther and the Five Solas condemned by the Council of Trent, held in Trento, Italy from 1545 to 1563:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
Protestant Reformation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
Five solae: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae
Edit for clarification: From the Wiki article in the first link above, which lists the pre-Protestant Reformation heresies, there does not appear to be anything there that can be identified with what followers of Luther or Calvin believe. The heresy of refusing to submit to Papal authority and/or of rejecting apostolic succession from Peter via the Catholic Church could be laid at the door of ALL Protestant denominations.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the doctrine of Transubstantiation in section 1376:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’"
"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit."  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366)

According to paragraph 1367 the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice:

"The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

The passage pointed to most frequently in support of the doctrine of transubstantiation is John 6:32-58 and especially verses 53-57:

“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”

Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Protestants who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically.  They base their rejection of literally eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ Jesus on Hebrews 7:27:

"Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

I found an article from a Christian website that gives the Protestant view of the Catholic Eucharist and Transubstantiation, parts of which have been incorporated in my answer above: https://www.gotquestions.org/Holy-Eucharist.html


Harmony in the pseudepigraphal writings?

tl;dr> Patterson Brown, in particular, has argued the disunity within the Nag Hammadi Corpus.  That's about the best you're going to get without defining a positive corpus, as opposed to the inverse of the canon.

The problem with answering this question is that you are asking a question akin to "Are the books not on the NY Times Best-seller list as unified as the ones that are?"  At a very basic level, of course you can say that the Acts of Thecla doesn't harmonize well with the Gospel of Judas.  One is popular orthodox fiction, the other is Gnostic.

To posit that every other book has some sort of cohesion is problemmatic, because "Gnostics" especially in the time of Paul and the early church, were as diverse as that heterodox entity that became the church. Furthermore, Gnostics weren't the only heterodox "false teachers" out there.  Judaizers, Docetists, Marcionists, and others wrote their own books.  Marcion in particular may or may not have shared Gnostics views - but his existence alone would show there is not unanimity amongst the non-canonical Scriptures.

The real question then, isn't "Do non-canonical books all agree?" but rather are there things present in the canonical ones that aren't in everything else.

There are marks of canonicity that are widely accepted, but the inverse leaves "everything else."  That there should be a presumption of harmony in "everything else" is a hard thesis to make in any endeavour, let alone canonicity.

It is also useful to actually read the supposedly "suppressed" Scriptures.  When you do, the differences become obvious.

To answer your question directly, then, I would invite you to check out one Gnostic "Gospel" - probably the most famous - The Gospel of Thomas. Rather than focusing on its harmony with other Gnostic Gospels (discussed below), it is probably more fruitful to understand the exact nature of its disharmony with canonical Scripture.  By understanding what it does and does not purport to do, anyone should be able to see what message if any is being "Suppressed(TM)" and why.

In reading that Gospel (its short - just 115 verses), a few salient facts will jump out.

Unlike the four canonical Gospels, Thomas does not purport to give any sort of chronology.  It is merely a list of the sayings of Jesus.  To ask "does this line up with the account of the Gospels" is akin to asking if Gen. Custer's shopping list lines up with his battlefield report prior to Little Big Horn.
There is actually substantial overlap between the actual actual sayings that are recorded, and those found in the canonical Gospels.  Rather than showing some kind of conspiracy theory that the early church tried to "Supress(TM)" these, reading it belies the Truth that there isn't anything that is "covered up."  Rather, the wheat is already recorded in the Gospels, and the chaff- those parts peculiar to the Gospel do line up with what the majority of the church did accept.
John - the disciple who most stressed love ("Little Children let us love one another") - actually made the criteria explicit in canonical Scripture. (Again, it's a bit of a chicken and egg, because nobody actually said 'This is good, this isn't quite as good' until much later).  He wrote in 2 John:

  7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son

This would directly contradict Thomas, who records Jesus as "saying":

  "If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a wonder. But if the spirit (came into being) because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders.

This Gnosticism - that Jesus only appeared to flesh directly countered what the majority had "received and been taught."  It wasn't evil, it was just wrong.  There are "churches" that teach that "God hates fags."  The overwhelming majority of Christians have rejected their writings as well.  This was just an error that the majority of the church rejected. One should not be surprised if the corpus of Republican Presidential platforms is not in harmony with those of the Democrats.  This is exactly why the two corpi are distinct.

The church, holding to what it had been taught and received likewise rejected this notion - and equally preserved their false writings to show it.
The traditional marks of canonicity - apostolic authorship, harmony with the received message, fidelity to the person of Jesus (again as understood by the church at the time) are simply missing in everything Gnostic or Apocraphyal.  As such, these were rejected.

The result, one can show the disharmony between everything that wasn't accepted and everything that was canonical. The most famous compilation of Gnostic Scriptures - the Nag Hammadi Library is available online, and oddly enough, was perserved (once found) through the Coptic church. Other collections in the past have been available to scholars who read them.  Reading them is fruitful to understand the heresies and false teachings against which the church contended in the early centuries.

But to presume everybody who disagreed with the church in exactly the same way is unreasonable.  Patterson Brown, in particular, has argued the disunity within the Nag Hammadi.  He posits the three most famous (Thomas, Peter, and "Truth") actually differ from the others in being closer to accepting the incarnation.  He points to his proof in the linked article.

Still, the skeptic needs to define what the criteria for study is.  There are differences to be sure, but finding universally accepted truths in any of the corpora is difficult indeed.


Did the apostles believe that God is unique, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, immutable, "simple", spirit, and personal?

The apostles believed the SAME God revealed in the OT fulfilled his promise by sending Jesus, His Son.  The promise He delivered through the prophets as well as hinted through His inspiration to the writers of the Wisdom books such as the Psalms, Job, etc. so the NT books are replete with OT references.

I think the variety of Jewish schools of thoughts (the primary ones being the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the Essenes, the Zealots) did not differ when it came to characterizing who their God was, possessing the attributes of the LORD (yhwh) in the OT.  Furthermore, when the apostles began to realize how Jesus's essence was actually the same as the God that they have been worshiping in the Temple, it's NOT necessary for them to discard / demote those attributes.

Instead, they were delighted that now they could see God face to face, something that was scary (they could die) or prohibited.  If you place yourself in the apostles's shoes, it's like the far distant King whom you so much revered and longed for His presence in the world suddenly came for a visit to YOUR home and personally called you to be one of the twelve.  It's like Queen Elizabeth visited your home in rural England disguised as a regular person but who later revealed herself to be the Queen AND adopted you as her son.  What an honor!  Did you believe her and accept the adoption?  Or did you refuse to believe she was truly the Queen, like Judas?

After resurrection, the apostles were emboldened and were willing to suffer and die like Jesus for the SAME OT God, like the Maccabean heroes who were martyred less than 200 years earlier.  In their evangelistic ministries (Paul being the most documented in the NT), do we see them relinquishing the attributes you mentioned?  Let's see.  I'm adding an NT verse to your list.  They may not be the best NT verse for the attribute, but close enough.

God is unique: Is 45:18  Acts 14:15
God is infinite and omnipotent: Ps 135:5-6 Rom 11:33-35
God is eternal: Is 40:28  Rev 1:8
God is beyond measurement, He is not limited to space: 1 Kgs 8:27  Acts 17:24 (In fact, I think Paul quoted 1 Kgs 8:27 !)
(you skipped a number :-) )
God is immutable, He does not change...ever: Ps 102:26-28 Heb 6:17
God is utterly simple, pure spirit: Ex 20:4 (a negative statement showing that He cannot be represented)  1 Cor 10 (here Paul warned the Corinthians not to follow the example of the Israelites in the wilderness, worshiping idol)
God is personal: Jer 31:3  John 3:16

I hope I addressed your question.


If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are patriarchs, then what are Adam, Abel, Enoch, and Noah?

The men you name are commonly referred to as antediluvian patriarchs, though Abel is not a patriarch, since Abraham was in Seth, not Abel. Antediluvian means "before (the) flood".


The short answer is that because the early Jewish converts to Christianity (the original Messianic Jews) maintained their Jewish identity after conversion (at least initially, if not for a considerable time), modern Messianic Jews also seek to worship Christ while maintaining a Jewish cultural identity as a continuation of this historical precedent.

Shmuel Wolkenfeld, a Messianic Rabbi, has a much longer essay — “What Are Messianic Jews?”.

Note: As DJClayworth says in the comments, the doctrine of the Trinity is fully accepted by most Messianic Jews.


Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire?

I immediately thought of C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" upon reading this question. In the book, he puts forth the idea that separation from God is what sinners desire, and God gives them what they desire. I did some digging and found this blog (written by Bird) on the topic:

"The idea of Hell being something of a choice for the damned fits hand-in-glove with the idea represented by C. S. Lewis who said that the damned souls are in some sense successful rebels to the end, and, as Lewis' character George MacDonald says in The Great Divorce,

  "There are two types of people in the world. Those who say to God,
  'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will
  be done.'"

I'll end with another Keller quotation from...(The Reason For God):

  "All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want,
  including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?"

Source: "Hope all things about your brethren"


Why does God often permit his children to suffer in this world more than the wicked?

I guess I'd question whether or not God's children really do suffer more than the wicked.  We all suffer in this world, and while some Christians suffer horrific things, so do non-believers.  But assuming the premise is true...

This is one of the great philosophical questions to which there are many answers given.  There are several possible reasons for any given instance of suffering, which all add up to suffering as a whole.  The final answer is "because it serves God's purpose", but since that seems unsatisfying, let's look at a few other things.

The first things to point out is that God never promised that Christians would not suffer.  In fact, He promises the exact opposite.  There's a tract that I like that expands on this concept here.

Small excerpt:

  It is true that God loves you, but you decide if His plan is
  "wonderful." If you have heard that happiness comes through Jesus
  Christ, you may like to think again. The first thing Jesus said of the
  Apostle Paul (who wrote most of the New Testament) was that He would
  show him "how great things he must suffer for (His) name's sake.1
  Three times Paul was beaten with rods, once he was stoned, three times
  he suffered shipwreck, a night and a day he spent in the sea. There
  were times when Paul was so unhappy, he wanted to die.2

  The Bible says, "All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
  persecution."3 It says we enter the Kingdom of God through much
  distress,4 and that we were appointed to afflictions.5

  Jesus said if we followed Him we would be reviled, persecuted, hated,
  and all manner of evil would be said against us falsely, for His sake.
  He warned that we would have to take up our cross daily, deny
  ourselves and follow Him, saying, "In the world you shall have
  tribulation," and even that we may be called to die for our faith.6

So, what purpose could suffering possibly serve?

From many sermons I've heard on the subject, here are a few:

To teach us to rely more fully on God.
To correct wrong behavior.  He loves us and chastens us when necessary.
To test our faith
To prove our faith
To show us how He can overcome obstacles if we rely on him (strongly related to the first point)
To show non-believers that He can overcome all obstacles
To give us an opportunity to witness to others by showing them the peace and joy in Christ that survives through persecution
So that we can more effectively offer comfort to others going through the same thing - to make us better ministers and evangelists.
To refine us

I'm sure there are others, but this will do for a start, and again, remember that God didn't promise an easy life. He promised trials, suffering, and tribulation, and the one thing we can be sure of is that it serves a His perfect purpose, which isn't always apparent to us.

As for why Christians would suffer more than the unsaved, we can look to Hebrews 12:5-11

  5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as
  unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord,
  nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

  6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom
  he receiveth.

  7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what
  son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without
  chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not
  sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected
  us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in
  subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they verily
  for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our
  profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no
  chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous:
  nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of
  righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

Just one final thought on the subject:

  Romans 8:28 (KJV) says

  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

This does not mean that all things by themselves are good.  It means that He causes all things to result in a good end.  Kent Hovind uses an example to illustrate.  (Paraphrasing):

  Suppose you were hungry and I offered you a cup of lard.  No?  O.K.,
  How about a couple of cups of flour.  No?  Some raw eggs?  No?
  Supposed I mix them all together and make pancakes.

Suffering should not be something that destroys our faith in God.  If we are truly His, it will strengthen our faith and relationship with Him.


The way I understand it (and the way I've always seen it taught, whether at my Church, or in various other sermons/articles) is:

We inherit a sinful nature, meaning that we have a predilection for sin.

The evidence is pretty clear from observation.  Nobody has to teach a baby how to be selfish, it's part of our nature.  (Some would call it evolutionary survival instinct).  We don't have to teach our children to lie, to be hurtful, etc.  These traits are all natural, and as parents we spend a great deal of time teaching our children how to behave properly.  Misbehaving, and actions that are considered sinful don't need to be taught, they're simply in us from birth.

This is what is inherited from Adam's original sin.

Because we are born with that sin nature, every one of us has sinned at least once in our lives, and therefore we are guilty of our own sin.  This is what we are held accountable for.

One such article, as mentioned in the introduction can be found here.

There are other interpretations and disagreements on the concept of Original sin, so the way I understand it is not universal. Theopedia covers it from more angles.


What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?

Feminism is an entirely novel concept. As such, it is an intrinsically anti-Christian concept (inasmuch as it positively rejects many fundamental Christian doctrines such as that God made two sexes, with complementary functions in the procreation and furthering of the human race).
Because Christianity was handed on to the church "once and for all" (Jude 1:3).
Every time God uses pronouns of Himself in Scripture, they are masculine (e.g. Isa. 54:5).
The exceptions, where God uses analogies featuring female animals (Mt. 23:37) and people (Isa. 49:15) for rhetorical purpose, do not create an exception or counter-case, since they are analogies ('one thing is comparable to  another, in that...').