What is Holy Water in Catholicism? I noticed that Catholics dip their fingers in Holy Water kept mostly at the entrance to the Church and apply it on their forehead.

What is Holy Water?

Is there any specific liquid/water for it?

What are the uses of Holy Water?

Holy water is water which is blessed. It is used as a reminder of our baptism.

It is blessed with salt using the following formula (although an older formula is available), which also explains the purpose:

  All make the sign of the cross

  Priest: May God who has given us a new birth in Christ by water and the Holy Spirit be with you all.
  Response: And with your spirit.

  P: By this blessing of water, we recall the sacrament of baptism in which by water and the Holy Spirit we were reborn. Everytime we are sprinkled with this water or we use it in making the sign of the cross upon entering the church and in our prayer at home, we give thanks to God for his gifts beyond human telling and we implore his help so that we may live up to the sacrament which we have received by faith.

  Reading from the Gospel according to John (7:37-39)

  Prayer of Blessing

  P: Let us pray. Lord, holy Father, look upon us who were redeemed though your Son and were reborn at the baptismal font and grant that those who would be sprinkled by this water may be renewed in body and mind and may offer you pure service through Christ our Lord together with the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.

  If salt is added, the priest blesses the salt using the following prayer:

  P: Almighty God, we ask you to bless + this salt as once you blessed the salt scattered over the water by the prophet Elisha1. Wherever this salt and water are sprinkled, drive away the power of evil and protect us always by the presence of your Holy Spirit. Grant this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

  He adds the salt to the water.

  He sprinkles the water over the people as he says:

  P: Let this water call to mind our baptism into Christ, who by his death and resurrection has redeemed us. Amen.

Salt is added because salt is a purifying agent against evil2 (as indicated in the prayer) and it may help to stop the water going off.

1: See II Kings 2, Elisha healing the waters of Jericho.
2: Hence the custom of throwing salt over one's left shoulder, into the face of the devil sitting there.


Absolution without confession is valid or not? Being a Syrian Orthodox, I have a doubt...
Will my sind be forgiven if I get HUSOYO/(absolution prayer only with no confession) instead of confession of sins?
I usually confess once in a month but the weeks in between, if I get HUSOYO will it forgive my sins?

You are already forgiven if your a believer and Love God with all your might, heart, soul, spirit, pinky toe. Lol Your confession doesn't have to be to the masses it can be to one believer and or from what i've experienced from the Spirit, while your in prayer and communion with God.


Are the gospels enough to convince one of the divinity of Christ? This is a follow-up to my previous question.
Thomas had received the message from his fellow disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. Being the skeptic that he is, he then rejected their testimony saying that he would not believe until he had seen Jesus for himself. (John 20:25)
This puts us, modern day readers of the gospel, in an awkward situation. Thomas' evidence was vastly superior to ours. Not only did he have evidence from direct eye-witness accounts, he could even interact with these witnesses and ask them questions about their testimony. On top of that, Thomas had previously met Jesus personally and had witnessed other miracles of his doing.
Everything taken into account, Thomas did not hold this as vindication of the resurrection, and Jesus being considerate of that decided to live up to Thomas' standards by manifesting himself directly.
Our sources on the other hand are accounts written after the time of Jesus, none written by eye-witness accounts (unless you consider Matthew and John traditions to be reliable, which most scholars believe to be anonymous) and most of the gospels, the synoptic gospels, are thought to have been based on a common written source rather than be independent testimonies of Jesus' ministry.)
Regarding Paul, we read that he was a Pharisee and a persecuter of the early disciples, whom he deemed as blasphemers. Paul came to believe in Jesus only after his revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus directly manifested himself to him.
So if Thomas would not put up with evidence that is infinitely more valuable to what we have today, if Paul would not accept the testimony preached by the early disciples, why should we accept the resurrection, as related in the gospels? The common denominator of both is that they set their senses as their standard for truth, either by their sight, hearing, or touch. Can such a person who does not receive a revelation of this sort be faulted for disbelieving?

The answers to your previous question establish that even Jesus considered Thomas' standards too high. But what's the right standard?
John actually answers this question for us in his gospel. He provides the incident with Thomas, presumably to raise exactly the questions you have raised. However, there is an extra sentence missing from the account you presented in your question.

Then Jesus told [Thomas], “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:29-31 (emphasis mine)

John shows us that Thomas was demanding too much evidence, but John believes he has provided just the right amount of evidence to enable belief. In fact, so much so, that he didn't include many miracles that he could have done.
Luke says much the same thing in his gospel.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4 (emphasis mine)

Often in a scientific paper, the author will comment "further research is needed" to show that they, the expert, believe their evidence is not sufficient. A doctor may call for a second opinion. The gospel writers make no such claim, and believe that they, the experts, have recorded exactly what they need to in order to allow for genuine belief.


Why are we Christians if Jesus was Jew? I know for you may be a dummy question but I've never understood why are we Christians if Jesus, the God's son, was of Jewish descent?

The genealogy of Jesus Christ, documented both by Matthew and Luke in their gospel accounts shows that he was born of Mary and was descended from both Abraham, the father of all the Hebrews, and descended from David the principal King of Israel.

The whole history of the Old Testament records God's dealings with Israel and his unfolding purpose which was initially demonstrated by him within the confines of one people - Israel - but was always intended to reach farther and to encompass the whole world in due time.

Jesus Christ came of Israel, was born of an Israelite, Mary, was counted as the son of David by being adopted by Joseph, but God's purpose in sending his Son is evidently a purpose that reaches to every one on earth.

Those who believe on Jesus Christ do not revert to that which was, initially, a more restricted situation as God's purposes were intimated and exampled in Jewish rituals and ceremonies. What is now revealed is the reality of a spiritual revelation that far transcends the earthly figures and patterns.


Is there a denomination/sect of Christianity that believes that Jesus was the son of an angel? Rabbi Yosef Massas (1892–1974) writes in responsa Mayim Chaim vol. 2 (Yoreh Deah §108:2) that he spoke to a Christian (possibly Catholic) priest who claimed that they only worship the One God and that when they say that Jesus was a son of Elohim this means "angel" not "God". Accordingly, this sect believed that Jesus was a son of an angel, not son of God.

Does anybody know of a Christian denomination/sect which fits this description?

(Rabbi Massas lived in Morocco and in Algeria if that helps)

Latter Day Saints refer to God the Eternal Father as Elohim, meaning God or gods, and to his Son Jesus Christ as Jehovah (YHWH of the Hebrew Bible): "Elohim is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race."  They believe the premortal Jesus was born as a spirit son of Elohim before coming to earth.  Source: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/God_the_Father
Elohim is nowhere described as an angel, but Latter Day Saints believe that Michael the Archangel (who is a created angel) became the man, Adam: “In his premortal and postmortal roles, he is known as Michael and as the archangel (D&C 29:26)... Latter-day scriptures attest that Adam is a son of God, that his physical body was created by the Gods in their own image and placed in the Garden of Eden.”  Source: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Adam
There may be a connection between Michael (a created archangel) who is supposed to have been given a human body and is Adam (the father of all humans) in that Jesus was born of a woman, Mary: “Centuries before her birth, Book of Mormon prophets referred to Mary by name in prophecies of her vital mission (Mosiah 3:8). Describing her as "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins" (1 Ne. 11:13-20) and a "precious and chosen vessel" (Alma 7:10), they prophesied that Mary would bear the Son of God and was therefore blessed above all other women. "We cannot but think that the Father would choose the greatest female spirit to be the mother of his Son, even as he chose the male spirit like unto him to be the Savior" (McConkie, p. 327).” Source: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mary,_Mother_of_Jesus
From what I have read, the following is a summary (as best I am able to understand):

Elohim is God the Eternal Father, Father in Heaven
Elohim is the literal Parent of Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race
Father in Heaven is the director of creation and Father of the spirits of all mankind
God the Eternal Father is Elohim, meaning God or gods, and to his Son Jesus Christ as Jehovah
LDS identify Jehovah of the Old Testament (YHWH) as Jesus Christ
LDS identify Michael (the archangel) as Adam, who came to earth
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was once a spirit daughter of Elohim

The teachings of Joseph Smith and the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (to give them their full and official title) would have been available to scholars in Morocco and Algeria during the 1900’s.  I am not a member of this Church, and if I have inadvertently misrepresented their beliefs, I will apologise.
To my knowledge, no Christian denomination claims that Jesus was the son of an angel, although some claim Jesus is known in heaven as Michael the Archangel.


What is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Purgatory? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the idea of Purgatory, which is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

  Purgatory is, according to Catholic teaching, the state or place of
  purification or temporary punishment by which those who die in a state
  of grace are believed to be made ready for the Beatific Vision in
  Heaven. Only one who dies in a state of grace can be in Purgatory, and
  therefore no one who is in Purgatory will remain there forever or go
  to Hell.  Wikipedia

However, Protestant theology typically rejects the idea of Purgatory entirely.

What, then, is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Purgatory?

Protestants would consistently reject certain things connected to the doctrine of Purgatory. Regarding justification by faith alone: the fate of the dead should not be affected by their own suffering (Christ's atonement being sufficient) nor by the prayers and other works of the living. Moreover, Protestants would not believe in a role for the Church here - in granting indulgences and so forth. All of this comes from the "usual" Biblical basis for those Protestant doctrines, without specifically addressing Purgatory.

If Purgatory is seen only as a place where post-mortem sanctification happens, things are a bit murkier. That is, if we imagine it as merely a necessary cleansing step before dead people can enter heaven, then is there any Biblical argument against it? (Other than the lack of an explicit argument in favour, of course, as the Articles of Religion say: "a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture.")

Protestant thinkers have tended to argue that sanctification is completed or consummated by the moment of death. John Wesley, for example, taught that the perfection we seek in life is completed at "the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body" (Brief thoughts on Christian perfection, 1767). If this is so, then there may be a "very brief transition from death to paradise" (The Last Things, Donald Bloesch, 2004) but not a prolonged period of transformation.

This is backed up by such Biblical references as 1 Corinthians 15, where the raising of the dead in their already-perfected bodies is essentially instantaneous, and Jesus' words to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). N T Wright points to Romans 6:6 as indicating that the death of the body entails the death of sin (For all the saints? Remembering the Christian departed, 2004), and, more importantly, to Romans 8:38-39 for the vivid statement that nothing, even death, "can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord". Surely, he says, there is no separation for the saved after death.

However, these Biblical texts are not absolutely decisive about timescale. Perhaps time is not even a sensible concept here, as in more recent Catholic thought where specific periods of time are not mentioned (Indulgentiarum Doctrina, 1967). But the objections to Purgatory as a place of punishment, and to indulgences remitting punishment, remain even if some kind of post-mortem transformative sanctification process is accepted.


What is the reason and meaning of the symbols on the garments worn by Temple-worthy LDS members? I understand that the sacred garments worn by temple-worthy LDS members include symbols of 1) the square, 2) the compass, and 3) the navel mark, and 4) the knee mark.  I know that some of the symbols are also prominent in Freemasonry and that Joseph Smith had become a Mason early on, so perhaps the meaning of the symbols are similar.

Regardless, my question is why were these particular symbols chosen to be incorporated in the sacred garments and not anything else?  What do these particular symbols mean and is there any significance to the locations where they appear?

I have no problem discussing this, because the promises made in a temple to not reveal certain things do not involve the Garment.
The language used in the Temple to explain the marks is this:

[The mark of the square] is placed in the garment over the right breast, suggesting to the mind exactness and honor in keeping the covenants entered into this day.
[The mark of the compass] is placed in the garment over the left breast, suggesting to the mind an undeviating course leading to eternal life; a constant reminder that desires, appetites, and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set; and that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole.
[The navel mark] is placed in the garment over the navel, suggesting to the mind the need of constant nourishment to body and spirit.
[The knee mark] is placed in the right leg of the garment so as to be over the kneecap, suggesting that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ.

Source: http://ldsendowment.org
However, this interpretation of the marks was added by David O. McKay in the late 1920s. There's no documentation (that I'm aware of) that indicates whether this is his personal interpretation or was divinely revealed. Personally, I believe it's the former, because there was a slightly different interpretation that was given in the late 1880s:

According to a description by LDS Church President John Taylor in 1883, the "Square" represents "the justice and fairness of our Heavenly Father, that we will receive all the good that is coming to us or all that we earn, on a square deal", and the "Compasses" represents "the North Star". In addition to the Square and Compasses, Taylor described the other symbols as follows: the collar represented the idea that the Lord's "yoke is easy and [his] burden is light", or the "Crown of the Priesthood"; the double-knotted strings represented "the Trinity" and "the marriage covenant"; the navel mark represents "strength in the navel and marrow in the bones"; and the knee mark represents "that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ".

Source: http://wikipedia.org
Since these are symbols, their meaning is infinitely deep and subject to personal interpretation. When I think of the Compass and Square, I think of the geometer's tools and God's use of them in designing and constructing the universe. As for the navel and knee marks, I have no idea.


Would the bible draw parallels between the spies returning from Canaan and modern biblical criticism? When the spies returned from Canaan, to verify the kind of land God was going to gives them, all but two said, among other problems, that there was 'big strong men' there. Therefore, if they tried to take the land they would be killed.

Not only did these spies doubt but the whole camp wanted to stone the two spies that had faith, as they hated their blind confidence on being able to destroy those 'big men'.

God himself says:

  “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them? (NIV Numbers 14:11)

In light of all this, I am wondering whether we can draw the similarity that many who are exposed to Christianity and feel certain 'doubts' they have are 'too big' to kill are really no different then these faithless explorers (assuming these doubts keep them from faith. ) Is it fair to say biblically that such cases are just modern intellectual honesty, or would it be reasonable to say biblically it is contempt of God, as in the case of the spies? Where does intellectual honesty turn into wicked contempt from a biblical perspective?

I am only looking for answers that are made from the scriptures. Is this a fair biblical comparison, or would the Bible not draw these parallels?

I am answering the question you asked in bold, not the one in the title. However, I recommend against equating modern biblical criticism with wicked contempt or intellectual honesty.

@DJClayworth: This question is totally about Christianity.

There is an deliberate parallel between the ancient Israelites' obstinance and today's encounter with Jesus. The parallel is this: a person who has seen God and does not believe accuses God of not being who he claims. In other words, the boundary between intellectual honesty and wicked contempt is when God reveals himself to you.

In the context of Numbers, God had revealed himself to the Israelites several times; at Mount Sinai for example (Exodus 19). These signs are referred to in the verse you quoted. In spite of the them, the Israelites denied God out of their fear of the Nephilim (the "big strong men"). Their fear produced an accusation that God was not able as He claimed to bring them into the land promised.

Fast forward to the NT. We find similar examples of unbelief. In a parallel to Exodus 19, the disciples encounter God on a mountain:

  After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led
  them up on a high mountain by themselves. He was transformed in
  front of them, and His face shone like the sun. Even His clothes
  became as white as the light. (HCSB Matthew 17:1-2)

Yet in the following story they don't have the faith to heal a demon-possessed boy:

  Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and
  from that moment the boy was healed. Then the disciples approached
  Jesus privately and said, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” “Because of
  your little faith,” He told them. (HCSB Matthew 17:18-20)

Fast forward to a few years ago. When I was considering who Jesus is, I first looked into intellectual matters: How can I reconcile science and faith? Are the Gospel accounts trustworthy? Eventually I had those answers, but the intense question remained: Is Jesus who he says he is? It was no longer an intellectual matter; to answer affirmatively required God to reveal himself in the way he did to Simon Peter:

  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living
  God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed
  because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in
  heaven. (HCSB Matthew 16:16-17)

I had this kind of experience, after which I could not deny Jesus being who he claims while keeping an honest conscience. After that point I would have been in contempt of God.


What is a Catholic's response to advice contained in Laudatio Si? Pope Francis' Laudatio Si is a treasure trove of practical advice for living simply or at least moderately.  He seems to want people do use less air conditioning and facebook.  I've already used "The Pope says if you don't eat all your meat your robbing poor people" on my kids.

But, in a letter that is addressed not just to Catholics, but to the whole world (or at least Matt Damon),  what sort of submission does Joe Catholic have to give to the popes words (especially the practical advice, not the 2nd part where he goes in to the theological aspects of everything).

And by sort of submission I mean in terms of specific Latin words like Obsequium.

Since you distinguish "practical advice" from "theological aspects of everything", the latter by which I think you mean "faith & morals" [the competency of the pope], then by CCC 891 & 892, this does not require adherence to with the obedience of faith or religious assent.

Since the Pope is Father, good children listen with profound respect to even the simplest advice of the common Father and try sincerely to put it into practice. [cf. In Conversation with God, 68.3, Francis Fernandez, Fourth Sunday of Easter, THE GOOD SHEPHERD. LOVE FOR THE POPE.]

Assuming of course, just as in the case of an earthly father, that the practical advice is good.

The Pope is also Pastor, and provided he speaks in the name of the Good Shepherd, the sheep will hear his voice, if not, the sheep will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers. [Cf. Jn 10:1-6]

Cf. Encyclical Ghostwriter: Pope Francis 'Did Not Intend to Canonize' Scientific Theories, by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D..


how does the bible WORD FOR WORD say that homosexuality is wrong? I'm just really curious and trying to put down some speculations my friends and I have.

Here  are some references for homosexuality and treating it to be against the nature of God and his design. There are though some translation variations, but whatever translation one take they portray basically same point.
1 Corinthians 6:9

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,(ESV)
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,(NRSV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals(NASB)

1 Timothy 1:10

the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,(ESV)
fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (NRSV)
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,(NASB)

Romans 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.(ESV)
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.(NRSV)
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [a]unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [b]their own persons the due penalty of their error(NASB)

Jude 1:7

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.(ESV)
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.(NRSV)
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after [a]strange flesh, are exhibited as an[b]example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.(NASB)

Homosexuality is definitely against the nature and contrary to God’s design. Even when there is a loud clamour for justification of homosexuality in a liberal world (where good is projected as bad and vice versa)  on the basis emotional factor involved between these individuals, they fail to justify the very physical act of homosexuality minus this emotional factor. Emotionally they may feel attracted towards one another yet physically they cannot accommodate one another and that itself is the testimony that it is an emotional sickness/disorder which needs to be corrected.
And in that sense these people cannot be treated as outcasts but like any other disabled person needing corrective treatment.


How do Christians make sense of exorcisms in other religions? Jesus in Matthew 12 appears to give a compelling argument against the possibility of demons casting out other demons:

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
[Matthew 12:22-28, NIV]

In other words, demons are cast out by the power of the Spirit of God, and in the case of Christians, in the name of Jesus. That said, according to the Wikipedia article on Exorcism, exorcisms have been practiced since antiquity in other religions. And I find this problematic, because if we think about it, non-Christians do not have the power of the Spirit nor the name of Jesus to drive out demons during an exorcism. And they can't be using the power of Satan either, as per Jesus' argumentation in Matthew 12:22-28. So there appear to be no other options left, and we are faced with a dilemma.
Question: How do Christians make sense of exorcisms in other religions? Are exorcisms in other religions compatible with a Christian worldview?

Note: I'm not sure if I should request answers from a specific denomination or Christian group for this one. I would imagine that most Christians believe that demons exist and can be cast out, and I'm not sure if there is a specific denomination with an official position regarding exorcisms in other religions. But in any case, if this question needs editing, feel free to let me know or go ahead and edit it yourself.

I think I would be very careful if trusting a non-christian supposedly casting out demons but Jesus himself says that any may cast them out in his name...
Mark 9: 38-40
38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is for us.
However it's not something I'd like to mess around with.


Why are some words in the King James Bible written in italics? When reading the King James Bible, I've noticed that some words are marked with italics. I have yet to discover any pattern, but it seems that all of the marked words are short common English words.

Why is this?

This is a sign of honesty on the translators' part.  The italicized words are interpolations, words that were not in the original documents but were added to the English text.  Many of them are there to make things make better grammatical sense in English, but a few of them can actually change the meanings of the passages, so they ought to be examined critically when you run across them.


From a Catholic perspective what does it mean for all creatures to fulfill God's will whether they know and want to or not? In the Diary of Saint Faustina, entry (586), Our Lord says---

And know this, too, My daughter: all creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill My will.

I have gone through all 1828 entries of St. Faustina's Diary on multiple occasions and have found no contradictions (save one insignificant date). Therefore, I am convinced of its truth, albeit I am having difficulty understanding what the above quote means.
From a Catholic perspective, what might this mean? For clearly, God does not will the sinner's sin, but rather, permits it (for a greater good, I believe, known to Him. Perhaps this is an answer.)

God is omnipotent. Nothing can hinder the fulfillment of His holy will.
St. Thomas Aquinas answers the question "Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?" (Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 6 co.) by saying:

The will of God must needs always be fulfilled. In proof of which we must consider that since an effect is conformed to the agent according to its form, the rule is the same with active causes as with formal causes. The rule in forms is this: that although a thing may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of the universal form. For though a thing may fail to be, for example, a man or a living being, yet it cannot fail to be a being. Hence the same must happen in active causes. Something may fall outside the order of any particular active cause, but not outside the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and if any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the hindrance of some other particular cause, which is included in the order of the universal cause. Therefore an effect cannot possibly escape the order of the universal cause. Even in corporeal things this is clearly seen. For it may happen that a star is hindered from producing its effects; yet whatever effect does result, in corporeal things, from this hindrance of a corporeal cause, must be referred through intermediate causes to the universal influence of the first heaven. Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its effect. Hence that which seems to depart from the divine will in one order, returns into it in another order; as does the sinner, who by sin falls away from the divine will as much as lies in him, yet falls back into the order of that will, when by its justice he is punished.


What is the Old Testament basis for the position that God is a God of love, compassion, and mercy? Love, compassion and mercy are typically associated with the God of the New Testament, while the God of the Old Testament is typically associated with judgment and vengeance.  However, the Bible also presents God as unchanging.

What, then, is the Old Testament basis for the idea that God is a God of love, compassion, and mercy?

This question is seeking an answer based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.

There are a host of verses to which one could look throughout all of the Old Testament, with the first being in Genesis 3:8-21, God could've brought complete destruction on Adam and Eve, but instead showed mercy by allowing them to live and gave them a promise of a redeemer who would eventually come to destroy the serpent.

Genesis 4:6-7 shows God having compassion on Cain before he killed his brother:

  Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

Jump ahead to the conquest of Canaan, and see the mercy and love shown to Rahab and her entire family (she is so important for having been saved in Jericho that she is in the human line of Christ):

  "Now therefore, please swear to me by the LORD, since I have dealt kindly with you, that you also will deal kindly with my father's household, and give me a pledge of truth, and spare my father and my mother and my brothers and my sisters, with all who belong to them, and deliver our lives from death.? So the men said to her, "Our life for yours if you do not tell this business of ours; and it shall come about when the LORD gives us the land that we will deal kindly and faithfully with you."

She's even celebrated in the New Testament, "By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace."

In Daniel 3:28-30, we see God's deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as having a profound impact on the king:

  Nebuchadnezzar responded and said, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who has sent His angel and delivered His servants who put their trust in Him, violating the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies so as not to serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation or tongue that speaks anything offensive against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego shall be torn limb from limb and their houses reduced to a rubbish heap, inasmuch as there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way." Then the king caused Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego to prosper in the province of Babylon.

In Esther we see God strategically putting one of His people into a position of extreme influence to the King whereby He saves His people from the maniacal plans of Haman who wanted to exterminate the Jews.

In II Kings 5, we see God having mercy on the captain of the Assyrian army, Naaman via the instrument of a Hebrew maid girl in his house.

In short, the Old Testament is as replete with God's mercy, love, and compassion as the New Testament.


Why should Christians strive to live long lives? At what lengths should they go to do so? I understand that we are called to spread the gospel, but why should we (or should we at all) cling to physical life with white knuckles? I have known believers to go to extreme lengths to prolong their lives in the face of a terminal illness.
During such an unfortunate occurrence would it not be a better witness to our faith to peacefully get your affairs together, spend time with loved ones while expressing your joy in your hope to be with Christ soon?
Also, as medical tech advances at an amazing pace will there ever be a point in which it is imperative for a Christian to turn down life extending technology if it makes death a rare occurrence? (Think all genetic disease cured, cancer cured, worn out organs replaced with organs grown from your own stem cells. All of which might not be so far fetched in the next few decades.)

In Matthew 24, it says:

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

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

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

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

Genesis 6:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Is there a Biblical ban on gambling? Most churches and many Christians I know are strongly against gambling, but I can't recall any passage in the Bible that declares that we shouldn't gamble. Does such a passage exist?

To clarify I'm not asking about whether it's wise to gamble, but whether it's a sin to gamble according to the Bible.

The Bible does not mention the word Gamble or Gambling. It does however, have a lot to say about money and the love of money. While I'm not a fan of posting a link and saying, "Hey, just go read this", the article below is well written and I believe it does a much better job of answering this question than I can.

http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/f/isgamblingasin.htm

Here is a small quote from the article:

  Does the Bible Mention Gambling?

  Although the words "gambling" and "gamble" do not appear in the Bible,
  we cannot assume that an activity is not a sin simply because it is
  not mentioned. Looking at pornography on the Internet and using
  illegal drugs are not mentioned either, but both violate God's laws.

  While casinos and lotteries promise thrills and excitement, obviously
  people gamble to try to win money. Scripture gives very specific
  instructions about what our attitude should be toward money:

  Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is
  never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.
  (Ecclesiastes 5:10, NIV)

  "No servant can serve two masters. [Jesus said.] Either he will hate
  the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and
  despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Luke 16:13,
  NIV)

  For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people,
  eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves
  with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:10, NIV)

  Gambling is a way to bypass work, but the Bible counsels us to
  persevere and work hard:

  Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. (Proverbs
  10:4, NIV)

*EDIT

About casting lots

The Bible does mention "Casting Lots" but I wouldn't define this as gambling. Proverbs 16:33 says: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. Also, in Acts, the disciples prayed and then cast lots: And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24-26).

I've always understood that when lots were cast among believers, it was as if they were asking God a question. I believe that it's important to note that lots were cast by the disciples before Pentecost. After Pentecost, casting lots was not mentioned again.

Once you have the Spirit, who needs to cast lots?

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16:13


Why do some people consider Jeshurun to be an end-times figure? I realize that the prevailing interpretation is that Jeshurun is another name for Israel. However some people think that Jeshurun refers to some type of end-times figure. What reason do they have to think that?

  Deu 32:15  But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked. You grew fat, thick, and satisfied. Then he forsook God who made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

The Nation of Israel is an end-times figure in certain end-times teachings... So if Jeshrun is another name for Israel, that makes Jeshrun an end-times figure.

The short version is as follows:

This is tied to Dispensationalism, and certain premillennial views. The short version is that we are currently living in the "Church Age" which is a brief respite in the Seventy weeks of Daniel. This is a time period here God's dealings with Israel is suspended. In the pre-tribulation rapture view, the Church will be raptured, which will signl the start of the seven year Great Tribulation, in which God will again be dealing directly with Israel. Those seven years represent the final "week" in the seventy weeks of Daniel.

References for further study:

Why do some people consider Jeshurun to be an end-times figure?

http://gracethrufaith.com/ikvot-hamashiach/the-70-weeks-of-daniel/

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-pre-trib-rapture.html

The usual disclaimer, I'm just outlining the beliefs. Not everyone agrees with these views.


What is the difference between the Edomites and the Amalekites? Esau is considered the ancestor of the Edomites. He is also the grandfather of Amalek. According to the Book of Genesis, Amalek was the son of Eliphaz and his concubine Timna. Eliphaz was the first-born son of Esau by his wife Adah. Amalek is considered the ancestor of Amalekites. Are the Amalekites and Edomites different names for the same tribe? Or are the Edomites a different tribe with a separate lineage to Esau?

I think you've mostly answered your own question. Esau is the father of the Edomites and Amalek (grandson of Esau) is the father of the Amalekites.

Genesis 36:9 ESV These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir.
Genesis 36:12 ESV Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, Esau's son; she bore Amalek to Eliphaz.

Furthermore, they are each described as doing different things to Israel following Israel's time at Meribah. This adds proof to the argument that they're distinct tribes.

Exodus 17:7,8,13 And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim. ... And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword.
Numbers 20:13,14,21 ESV These are the waters of Meribah, where the people of Israel quarreled with the Lord, and through them he showed himself holy. Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: " ... Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from a well. We will go along the King's Highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.” ... Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him.


How is Lent observance reconciled with Matthew 6:16-18? Jesus says in Matthew 6:

  16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

In my experience, Lent observance is a very public exercise. Maybe this is just personal experience, but for everyone I know who observes Lent, they are always very forthright, not only about their observance, but about what thing they are giving up for Lent. It seems to me that, based on Jesus instruction in Matthew 6, Lent ought be a very private practice.

Does Roman Catholicism (or anyone else observing Lent) reconcile the public nature of Lent observance with these verses?

There is nothing about Lent observance that requires it to be public.

My experience is very different from yours, and most people keep their Lent observances very private. I don't know what anyone is doing for Lent except for my immediate family (I have deduced one person's Lent observance, but even then it was something they kept as private as possible.)

I've been part of Lent in several churches, and in no case was there any encouragement to share your observances with others. I would go so far as to suggest that if the people you are with are making it public they may be doing it wrong.

(Note: None of the churches I've been involved with were Catholic, so it's possible there may be a difference in practice there. I will leave it to a Catholic here to write another answer if appropriate.)


Was the Assumption of Mary a belief in the early church? Was the Assumption of Mary a belief in the early church? If so, where's the evidence?

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church. On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII, exercising papal infallibility, declared in Munificentissimus Deus that it is a dogma of the Church "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." As a dogma, the Assumption is a required belief of all Catholics; anyone who publicly dissents from the dogma, Pope Pius declared, "has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

The question is asked because the Bible is silent about this matter.

Pope Pius XII's 1 Nov. 1950 Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother, Munificentissimus Deus, says "that, since ancient times, there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege." He then mentions the Roman liturgy, Gallican sacramentary, and the Byzantine liturgy of the Dormition and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother.

Pope Pius XII also mentions or quotes St. Anthony of Padua, St. Damascene, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Peter Canisius, and Suarez, all of whom supported the Assumption (or at least did not deny it).

St. John Damascene (675-749), Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.:

  It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.

St. Germanus of Constantinople (8th century), In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem, Sermo I.:

  You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.

St. Anthony of Padua (b. 1195), explaining "I will glorify the place of my feet" (Is 61:13.), said (Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus, In Assumptione S. Mariae Virginis Sermo.):

  you have here a clear statement that the Blessed Virgin has been assumed in her body, where was the place of the Lord's feet. Hence it is that the holy Psalmist writes: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified."

And that she

  has risen up, since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken up to her heavenly dwelling.

There are more quotes like these in Munificentissimus Deus.

See also this quote and Shoemaker's Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption.


Which group adhears to the idea of heavenly amnesia? Ok related to this questions Will people in hell be able to remember people in heaven? , either some individuals or indeed whole groups believe in some form of (for lack of a better term) "heavenly amnesia" where you have no memory of your life once you get into Heaven. Where did this idea come from? Is there any group that officially holds this position to be true, or is it some folklore. (I only say this because the first time I heard about it was from the old folk tale where death is trapped in a bag)
As was expressed in the other question scripture refutes this, but there are groups out their that believe things other than the scripture and use them to explain away plenty of other things.
How widespread is this idea?

The Bible says that there is no sadness in Heaven, e.g. Revelation 21:4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

So a common argument goes: There is no sadness in Heaven. If I knew that this person I loved was in Hell that would certainly make me very sad. Therefore it must be that I won't remember them.

To the best of my knowledge there is no more specific Scriptural basis for this theory. And thus I think it's weak. I can easily think of other alternatives.

To take a personal example: My wife left me years ago. In my opinion, she made a real mess of her life, can't hold a job, gone through a series of men, etc. The kids and I feel sorry for her, but for the most part we basically say, "She did this to herself. This is the life she wanted." Okay, some of that is resentment for personal hurts. But if I was a perfect human being, would I being crying for her every day and being miserable because of what she's done to herself? Or at some point is it reasonable and normal to say, "I tried to help you, but you made your choices." This appears to be God's attitude toward sinners. Of course he went way further than I have ever gone for anybody, allowing himself to be tortured to death to save anyone who would accept his offer. But those that don't, eventually he says, "So be it." I think it is plausible that in Heaven we will have a perfect understanding of justice. People are in Hell because of choices they made.

That said, there is one scenario that does really disturb me. My mother once said, what happens if she gets to Heaven, she stands before the judgment seat of Christ and he says yes, you are among the saved. Then the next person comes up and Christ says, No, you are condemned. And then this person turns to her and says, You knew how to be saved, but you never told me?


Did God create the serpent in the Garden of Eden? If God created everything in the world then did he also create the serpent who tempted Eve?

Why would he do this? Why would he create something to contended with himself and tempt others to disobey God?

If not how did the serpent get there?

Unequivocally YES.

One does not need to delve into the garden account or unravel whether it was a talking snake or a manifestation of Satan or any of that in order to say for certain that God created it. Everything outside the person of God himself was created by him. This includes every physical object and creature in the universe, the universe itself, angels, and any other spiritual beings that exist. If it exists and is not God, God created it.

if ( THING && THING !== GOD ) { Assert(THING.creator == GOD) }

  Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

So did God make the snake? Yes he did.

Why would he create something that would contend with himself?

Remember that Satan himself is nothing but a fallen angel, originally created by God but as an angel of light. It is in this sense that Martin Luther is quoted as having said:

  Satan is God's satan.

I think this is a good reminder not to give credit for any power or authority he does not have. Nothing he is or does is done outside the sphere of God's sovereignty and in due time God will reign him in and show his works for the lies that they are.

Why God would create some being and give it free will (man) or the power/choice to rebel against him (angels) is an intricate topic. Perhaps he knew the best way to demonstrate his authority and power was to have some stage on which it could be demonstrated. Perhaps because having creatures that serve you as robots that have no other option does not satisfy an intrinsic need to be honored.

See also: Does God need our praise and glory?


What do immersionists believe it means to be buried with Christ through Baptism? Romans 6:1-4 (NIV)

  What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may
  increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we
  live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were
  baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that,
  just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
  Father, we too may live a new life.

How do immersionists/Baptists understand the meaning of being buried with Christ? What significant role does being buried with Christ have on the baptized person's spiritual life?

Do immersionists use this verse as support for Immersion Baptism?

I can only answer for my denomination (Baptist), but it was used as a supporting scripture for Immersion. During baptism, pastors would often say

  Buried in the likeness of His death, raised in the likeness of His resurrection

or

  ...raised to walk in newness of life

The idea is that baptism is a the believer's public confession of faith. And the immersion itself is a symbol of Christ's burial and resurrection.


How does a full preterist interpret the 'Thousand-years reign' in Revelation 20 A full preterist is someone who believes that all the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled.

Then in Revelation 20:4 (RSV-2CE):

  Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgement was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

How does a full preterist interpret the Thousand-year reign of Christ?

I take a more scientific approach to this. I believe this is simply a period of exponential growth of Christianity.
In order to explain this, I need to establish the beginning and the end given the context. I like to start with the end, because I am weird like that.
Christianity had a reign of 1000 years before heaven and earth are made anew in Rev 21:1, where "Heaven and earth" is used poetically to mean "everywhere". This speaks of complete desolation, a barren land, as is the case after war. We know this because of the previous chapter, where it talks about Gog and Magog ending the 1000 year reign and then getting fire from heaven thrown down on them. The Turks conquered Jerusalem in 1073 AD and were hit with fire from heaven.
SOURCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsiz_ibn_Uwaq
https://books.google.com/books?id=sIJlMsv8gVIC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219#v=onepage&q&f=false

The prior chapters to Revelation 20 deal with a very specific instance, an event that was fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. A preterist takes the stance that John was writing this prior to the Temple's destruction.
SOURCE:

https://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/firstcenturyjerusalem_destruction_of_jerusalem_in_70_a_d_.html

However, Jerusalem isn't 100% ruled by Christians between 70 AD and 1073 AD. In fact, it was under Muslim rule for some time after the Byzantine empire. Thus, it isn't a political interpretation but one of religious interpretation.
The percentage of the Christian world population was on the rise during this time. Christianity absolutely exploded. The science I talk about in the beginning is one of social science and statistics.  Exponential growth always follows a pattern as it reaches maturaity, an S-Curve or Sigmoid curve. This is well known in business marketing as a company reaches market saturation. You have slow growth, it picks up speed, then slows back down, and reaches a plateau or crest as the market or population becomes saturated.

This is quite common in populations, because once a thing like religion spreads, it can only go so far - the maximum population. You can only convert the maximum of 100% of people. The threshold for Christianity is probably a lot lower than 100% as given by the analogies Jesus gives for choosing the narrow path. If it is greater than the widest path, it is therefore not the correct path.
The thousand years I interpret as a period of exponential growth as a % of the population. This growth actually looks more linear according to my sources, though these are estimates. You will notice, the exponential growth seems to stop around 1100 AD (closest to 1073 AD) and experiences a slowing down of growth  where it reaches a peal in present day of around 31.7%.

Here is the Google Doc version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mLY2VEJSzTe65XTHFT2DMrX5xJdOJjnp/view?usp=sharing
Thus, the 1000 year reign is one of exponential Christian growth between the Jerusalem's conquest in 70 AD in the Jewish-Roman war to 1073 AD when the Turks conquered Jerusalem. It's not exactly 1000 years, but I'm sure you could make a case for corresponding millennial events.
That puts us in the new heaven and earth age. God's systems are pretty much set up. Christianity continues to bless the world by association (salt of the earth) at 31.7% and the dead are continuously judged as Revelation 20 dictates. Some may even say that is the reason for the plethora of near-death experiences seeming a lot like the New Jerusalem. I'll leave that up to the parapsychologists.


What is LDS church view of a baptized member owning machine guns? This other question mentions a harm threshold above which an offender's participation counts as "serious". The examples given include

defacing more than 10 postage stamps in a 48 hour period
possessing more than 2 unregistered machine guns

Actually both of these are sort of interesting to me, but for different reasons.

(Note: commenters brought out that these are hypothetical examples, not to be taken as representative of actual rules.)

The question I would like to ask though is about owning guns that are not used for hunting or for protecting against wild animals, such as is the case with machine guns.

What is the LDS Church viewpoint about a baptized member owning machine guns? Does that affect the members standing in the congregation?

As far as I know, there is no moral objection to Church members owning weapons of any type. Self defense and the defense of one's family and freedom of religion are explicitly approved, and on occasion mandated, in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.
However, members are also instructed to obey the law of the land, so if there are legal restrictions on the number or types of weapons that may be privately owned, the members should observe them.* Unless their conduct becomes a criminal offense, it would not affect their church standing.

*This article for example talks about what one must do to legally own a machine gun in the USA.


For what human reason was Christ crucified? I know that from God the Father's perspective, Christ had to die for the sins of the elect.

However, from a secular perspective, why was Christ crucified?

I know that the Jews were unhappy with Christ claiming to be God -- but secularly, that only makes him insane, not worthy of the death penalty.

There was the time that he over turned a bunch of tables in the temple; but that too seems like a misdemeanor / felony, not death by crucifixion.

Given that he was crucified with "King of the Jews" was the reason that he was guilty of "trying to overthrow Rome" ?

It was the chief priests and pharisees that wanted Jesus arrested. Matthew 26:47 :

  While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people

"that only makes him insane, not worthy of the death penalty"

Torah, Leveticus 24:16 makes it clear that blasphemy carries a death sentence (although via stoning). More likely, though, he was simply seen as a rebel and a risk, potentially a flash-point for a more visible and popular uprising. That would be plenty of reason for the religious and political leaders to see... economy in a prompt but final action.

I don't know about a secular reason, but: perhaps a political reason that Pilate may have acquiesced to the demands of the Jewish priests; supposedly there is evidence to support some previous hoo-hah involving a row between Pilate and the locals relating to some pagan shields - Pilate refused to remove them, the locals complained to the emperor, the emperor expressed his anger at Pilate's approach. This could lead us to suspect that maybe Pilate didn't want a re-run that could put his position (and likely: life) in jeopardy, so was willing to yield a bit to the locals. Especially if it looked like a riot was likely otherwise.


What statistics are there on the age of conversions? By age group, what percentage of converts to Christianity are there after age 70?
By age group, what percentage of converts to evangelical Christianity after 70?

By conversion to Christianity, I take that to mean when a person turns to Christ after repenting before God of their sins.  I do not take that to mean baptism.  The difficulty here is that although Christian denominations (including Evangelical denominations) record baptisms, I am unaware that they record the age of the baptismal candidate.  As for when a person converted to Christianity, I am unaware of any Christian denomination recording statistics on the age of conversion.
In my own experience, although I know the date of my conversion and my age then (47), that statistic has never been recorded anywhere.  The only source of information on the age of conversion would probably come from polls.  I found one conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals (in spring 2015) on the age of conversion:
63% up to age 14
34% 15-29
2% 30 plus
There was no specific information on the sample size of the poll or anything to confirm its authenticity.
Although the American Pew Research Center conducts numerous surveys and studies into Christian statistics/demographics, the one below says absolutely nothing about the age of people when they converted to Christianity.  However, is does mention factors that affect the age of conversion:

Size of youth population. “In 2010, more than a quarter of the world’s total population (27%) was under the age of 15.” Christian youth under 15 were the same as the 27% global average. But an even higher percentage of Muslims (34%) were younger than 15. This higher youth population is one of the reasons that from 2010-2050 Muslims are projected to grow faster than Christians.
Size of old population. In 2010, “11% of the world’s population was at least 60 years old,” 14% of the Christian population was over 60 years old, but only 7% of Muslims were over 60. This is another reason that Muslims are projected to grow faster than Christians.
Switching. A loss of 66 million Christians is projected to come through switching. Most of the loss is projected to come from Christians “joining the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated.”

Religious Self-Identification of the U.S. Adult Population: 1990, 2001, 2008  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth#Conversion
The World Christian Encyclopedia suggests that approximately 2.7 million people convert to Christianity annually from another religion, with Christianity ranking first in net gains through religious conversion.  However, it does not mention the age of converts.
The older a person becomes, the less likely it is that they would convert from one religion to another.  I doubt there are any statistics on how many people age 70 plus convert.
Edit: Here is the link to the National Association of Evangelicals (thanks to disciple): https://www.nae.net/when-americans-become-christians/


What core, common beliefs are held by all (or most) Christians? Are there any core beliefs that all Christian traditions agree on? Are there any that most (>90% of) Christian traditions agree on?

If a list can be made for either, are there any caveats?

Like Narnian commented, per the definition given by this site, nothing. However, historically most denominations have agreed upon several things.

The first thing that comes to mind is the existence of both God and Jesus. Also, many agree Jesus is God.

Historically, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed have been generally accepted lists of agreed upon Christian doctrine. They basically say

I believe in God
God created the world
Jesus is his son
Jesus was born to the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit
He was put to death by Pilate on a cross
He was buried, but he rose again on the third day
he ascended to heaven
he'll come again one day
The Holy Spirit exists
the church are God's people
God forgives our sins
We'll be ressurected one day and have eternal life

Again, I say historically - these documents have existed for practically two thousand years with general assent by 97% of Christians (the Chalcedonians).

But again, I stress, precious few doctrine are agreed upon by everyone. There's always someone who may call himself a Christian who disagrees with anything you say. For example, some people call themselves (I say that will all due respect, I'm not saying their not) Christians because they like Jesus's teaching, but don't even believe in a God.

Since "Christian" comes from "Christ" (Jesus), I think the only thing you can safely assume is that all "Christians" have some level of respect for Jesus.


In RC doctrine, when is pop culture, like Bernstein's Mass, appropriate to tell sacred messages? Background and lead up to question

Most people reading this weren't old enough when it was released, if they were around at all, to remember it, although it has been performed fairly frequently since its original release.

  MASS (formally, "MASS: A Theatre Piece for Singers, Players, and
  Dancers") is a musical theatre work composed by Leonard Bernstein with
  text by Bernstein and additional text and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz.
  Commissioned by Jacqueline Kennedy, it premiered on September 8, 1971,
  conducted by Maurice Peress. The performance was part of the opening
  of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington,
  D.C. . . .    Originally, Bernstein had intended to compose a
  traditional Mass, but instead decided on a more innovative form. The
  work is based on the Tridentine Mass of the Roman Catholic Church.
  Although the liturgical passages are sung in Latin, Mass also includes
  additional texts in English written by Bernstein, Broadway composer
  Stephen Schwartz, and Paul Simon (who wrote the first quatrain of the
  trope "Half of the People").

Bernstein's Mass, which was composed by a Jewish composer in honor of a Roman Catholic President, turned 45 years old last month. It is not a true liturgical piece, but not a secular musical theater piece either, received bad reviews as a piece of theater at the time it was released, and triggered a wide spectrum of reactions from Christians - not infrequently nearly opposite ones even from people who shared essentially identical religious beliefs.

Somewhat frantically, it hit a lot of doctrinal issues from how it is appropriate to respond to the promise of forgiveness of sins in your life, to the role of Christianity in the lives of troubled very masculine men, to the tension between showmanship and deeper meaning in worship, to doubts about one's own faith, to how to respond to undeniable miracles.

What is the import of the fact that this expressly Roman Catholic religious work is composed by a Jewish man? Does he pull it off well, or does his lack of insider perception lead him to present his subject matter in a way that seems off key?

Some people felt it mocked religion. The FBI feared that it advanced an anti-war agenda. Others felt it did a great service to Christianity by making it relatable and introducing them to the faith.

Is it a work that excites strong feelings among Christians today? If so, among whom and why? If not, why not?

Has it aged well? Or is it, like bell bottoms and disco, yet another embarrassment from an era not known for its good taste?

Question

I recognize that the questions above are too open ended a question as a whole although I left them in to capture the sense and sensibility with which I come at the final actual question, so while considering the lead in to this question as background, especially if you are not very familiar with this work, please focus on this actual question:

What does Roman Catholic doctrine have to say about how one should use popular culture to tell sacred messages, and how does Bernstein's Mass, in particular, comport with that guidance?

What the Bible says

For starters, the Bible says in (Psalm 100: 1,2)

  1 Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
  2 Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.

RC Doctrine and reaction

Doctrine will be addressed later on, I'll start with reaction to the piece since its release.

Whatever reservations or objections the Holy See and the bishops had when Bernstein's Mass was first performed, it eventually got modest support from Pope John Paul II.1

  Mass came full circle when, in 2000, Pope John Paul II requested a
  performance at the Vatican.

The performance in the Vatican City was released on DVD in 2004. This performance was staged at the Vatican as part of the Jubilee 2000 celebrations of the Roman Catholic Church.

Bernstein's Mass is not liturgical music

That piece will not be performed at a Catholic Mass, since the Vatican has rules (Musicam Sacram) for the use of music in the liturgy.  The Current Catechism (RC Doctrine) has five references to music (CCC 1155-1158), one of which (CCC 1192) is a summary of the other four.  Put succinctly:

  1158 The harmony of signs (song, music, words, and actions) is all the
  more expressive and fruitful when expressed in the cultural richness
  of the People of God who celebrate.  Hence "religious singing by the
  faithful is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and
  sacred exercises as well as in liturgical services," in conformity
  with the Church's norms, "the voices of the faithful may be heard."
  But "the texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with
  Catholic doctrine. Indeed they should be drawn chiefly from the Sacred
  Scripture and from liturgical sources."

The article and its source material, (Sacrosanctum Concilium(SC), 1963, Pope Paul VI) address music for both the mass and "devotions and sacred exercises" (Such as during Adoration ...)  It does not address popular musical forms beyond music within the Church's context.

Objections to Bernstein's Mass

From SC, 121, you can derive an objection to Bernstein's Mass because it presents both an imitation and an interruption of a Mass celebration (while obviously not being one).

  Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of
  treasures.

  Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper to
  genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to works which can be
  sung only by large choirs, but providing also for the needs of small
  choirs and for the active participation of the entire assembly of the
  faithful.

  The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from holy scripture and from liturgical sources.

An objection is that this musical piece does a disservice to the sacred nature of the Mass by (1) creating a secular spectacle while (2) associating itself (by using the name Mass) with the most sacred sacrament of the Faith.   Cultural appropriation?  Yeah.  Giving offense?  For sure.  In the past 10 years, I've seen great public outrage over far lesser offenses. (intended or otherwise).

  CCC 1211 ... This order, while not the only one possible, does
  allow one to see that the sacraments form an organic whole in which
  each particular sacrament has its own vital place. In this organic
  whole, the Eucharist occupies a unique place as the "Sacrament of
  sacraments": "all the other sacraments are ordered to it as to their
  end."

While the composer, Bernstein, could not be excommunicated for profaning something sacred (he was not Roman Catholic) it is a fair criticism from the Catholic point of view that his treatment of this sacrament is a profaning of the sacred for the purpose of profit (his intentions, however sincere they may have been to offer up a tribute to belief and faith, etc, are not obvious if one simply listens to or experiences the performance).

Can popular music handle sacred subjects?  Yes!

Handel's oratorio Messiah and Bernstein's Mass differ significantly.  (Beyond the fact that the former was originally written for smaller vocal groups and only grew into grand orchestral performances over time).

Handel (actually, the author of his libretto, Charles Jennens) stuck to scriptural and liturgical sources.  Bernstein and his collaborators interspersed their piece with secular and even skeptical passages and themes, to include addressing crises in faith.  The Roman Catholic mass is a grand celebration of faith, an affirmation of faith, not a session of self doubt, not an examination of the loss of faith in God.  By using the title Mass for the piece, and recognizing that the Catholic Mass is a celebration of the most sacred sacrament of the Catholic Church, Bernstein is open to fair criticism of the piece going beyond matters of taste  -- the criticisms of profaning the sacred.  Those criticisms can still be fairly made, even if tempered by Pope John Paul II's inclusion in the Jubilee celebration in 2000. (A sedevacantist can argue that since Vatican II's shake up of the church, his endorsement or tolerance is null and void as pontiff, or further evidence that there's still no real pope in St Peter's chair, but that's a separate topic).

Sacred music, and music about that sacred

Since Vatican II, there has been an ongoing dialogue within the Church on the appropriateness of various forms of liturgical music, and devotional music, as well as continued disagreement between the more traditional Catholics and charismatic Catholics on what is or is not appropriate music for the liturgy itself.  (The Q&A linked only covers part of it).  Many traditional Catholics object to what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops(USCCB) has approved, recently: charismatic versions of the Gloria(for example) and the Agnus Dei.

If Bernstein's Mass finally passed Pope John Paul II's muster for a public performance, that partly answers the question in terms of the reactions changing.  Whether it has aged well is a matter of personal taste.

Music in popular forms and sacred subjects

The USCCB has provided guidance (doctrine) for American Catholics regarding other uses of music in support of worship/prayer/praise, as well as guidance on music with the proclamation of God's word.

  The works of Handel and other composers who have set biblical texts to
  music are marvelous examples of music’s power to evangelize. Music can
  open ears and hearts to the Good News of God’s presence, action, and
  love for the human race. Even today many composers are creating
  musical settings of scriptural texts through which listeners can meet
  the living God in fresh expressions of the Word.

Contemporary Christian musician Matt Maher has performed at World Youth Day with the Pope present on multiple occasions (most recently in 2014).  Like Handel with Messiah, his approach (while using popular musical style) conform to Catholic belief and liturgical references.  Does that please all Catholics?  No.  From a doctrinal point of view, he's staying within bounds, and certainly is within the guidance of the USCCB.  Each council of Bishops will provide guidance for their territory/country. (For example, Bishops in Canada will not necessarily agree with the USCCB.)  Provided that the guidance from the Holy See is complied with, some local variation is tolerated.

From SC again:

  In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a
  great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due
  importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is
  to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion,
  but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in
  Art. 39 and 40.

Full disclosure: having been raised by two agnostic parents, the first time I ever heard the Lord's Prayer was on my 9v-battery-powered Sony transistor radio, in 1974, as sung by Sister Janet Meade.  I started singing it around the house.  My mom, who was baptized Presbyterian, asked me why I was singing that song.  I explained.  She pulled down the old (dusty) KJV my dad had on the shelf and we had an interesting conversation about the Lord's prayer.  Singing as evangelism: it reached me.  Bernstein's Mass, which my father has a copy of, was a bit much for me as a teenager when he played it on his Hi Fi system.  I have not heard it in years, so I can't comment on it's aging well or not.

1 {Another popular-form-styled song did not get such support from the Vatican.  }


How should the Mass be explained to a first time visitor? I know a Japanese person who is interested in the Catholic faith who plans to attend Mass despite not knowing anything about it. I think this person would greatly benefit from a summary explaining what it is and why it is done before attending. What should be said?

Please keep in mind that, generally speaking, the Japanese know nothing about Christianity.

Here is the answer I gave to the Japanese person interested in Christianity who said she would be attending Mass tomorrow. Please pray for us.

~~~

There is one being who created our reality. We call this being 'God': Because we think there is no limitation to this being, there is only one god, not multiple gods. Lacking any limitation, God is perfectly happy, but chose to create us so that we could be happy, too.

私たちの現実を作り出した者がいます。私たちはこれを「神様」と呼んでいます。この存在に制限はないと思うので、複数の神ではなく、ただ一つの神があります。どんな限界もなく、神様は完全に幸せですが、私たちも私たちが幸せになれるように創造することを選んだのです。

Mankind is comprised of multiple individuals but all share one human nature, which includes a body and a spirit. This nature became corrupted when the first humans chose to rebel against God. Consequently humans became mortal, suffer, and die. God chose to save them by restoring human nature in the following way: God became a man named Jesus in Israel about 2000 years ago. Jesus has both a human nature (Jesus is human) and a divine nature (Jesus is God). Jesus lived a life without any rebellion against God; he lived a life without any corruption.

人類は複数の人で構成されていますが、すべてが体と精神を含む人間の本質を共有しています。最初の人間が神に反抗することを選んだとき、この性質は崩壊しました。その結果、人間は死に至り、苦しみ、死にました。神は約2000年前にイスラエルでイエスという名の人になったのです。イエスは人間的性質（イエスは人間です）と神の性質（イエスは神様です）の両方を持っています。イエスは神様に対して反逆することなく生きていました。彼は腐敗のない人生を生きました。

Heaven, i.e. life with God, is a far better and more powerful place than Earth. It is both a reward and a privilege. Therefore we must be tested to ensure that we are able to take on the greater responsibility and delight of life there. For this reason we are tested with suffering. Jesus was also tested by suffering innocently, and demonstrated His obedience to God and union with God by choosing to allow Himself to suffer a death sentence from the Roman Empire.

天国、すなわち神との生活は、地球よりはるかに優れた強力な場所です。これは報酬でも特権でもあります。したがって、私たちは、そこでのより大きな責任と喜びを味わうことができるようにするために、テストを受けなければなりません。このため、私たちは苦しんでテストされています。イエスはまた、無邪気に苦しんで試験を受け、ローマ帝国から死刑判決を受けられるように選択することによって、神様への従順と神との結合を実証しました。

There are multiple reasons why Jesus died. Here are two reasons. Because this death sentence was suffered innocently by God Himself, the spiritual consequence of evil being death was overcome. Hence through Jesus we can live in heaven even after we have done evil. Secondly, Jesus chose to suffer this death to encourage us in our suffering. He shows us that although we don't always understand why we suffer, the end result will be worth it.

イエスが死んだ理由はいくつかあります。ここには2つの理由があります。この死刑は神様自身によって無邪気に苦しんでいたので、邪悪な死の霊的帰結は克服されました。それゆえ、イエスを通して、わたしたちが悪を行ったのに、私たちは天に住むことができます。第二に、イエス様はこの苦しみに苦しんで、私たちの苦しみの中で私たちを励まします。彼は、私たちがなぜ苦しんでいるのかを必ずしも理解しているわけではありませんが、最終的な結果は価値があると私たちに示しています。

Consequently, if we stop rebelling against God and unite ourselves to Jesus and partake of his natures, we may share in the benefits of a pure human nature and our spirits and bodies will survive death and live with God in perfect happiness. This life in heaven will be far better than our life on Earth because we will be united to God.

したがって、私たちが神様に反抗して自分自身をイエスに結びつけ、自分の性質を味わうならば、私たちは純粋な人間性の恩恵を分かち合い、私たちの精神と体は死から生き残り、完璧な幸福で神様と共に生きます。この天の人生は、私たちが神様に結合されるので、地球上の私たちの人生よりはるかに良いでしょう。

To unite ourselves with Jesus' pure human nature and God's perfect divine nature, we must stop doing evil and instead do good and be Baptized so that God will live with our spirit. We must also eat Jesus' Body under the appearance of bread so that our body may be included in life in heaven. We also unite our suffering with Jesus' suffering so that God may work good out of the evil we experience.

イエスの純粋な人間性と神様の完全な神性とを結びつけるためには、悪をやめることをやめ、代わりに良いことをして、バプテスマを受け、神様が私たちの霊で生きるようにしなければなりません。また、私たちの体が天の人生に含まれるように、パンの形でイエスの身体を食べなければなりません。私たちはまた、苦しみをイエスの苦しみに結びつけ、神様が経験する悪から良い働きをするようにします。

The Mass enables us to do all this: At the Mass we hear from the messages God gave to us over time (collected in the Bible) to encourage us to stop doing evil and do good. The priest also lectures us to show us how to apply these messages to our daily lives. At the second part of the Mass God makes Jesus' death present to us this day so that we may combine our suffering with Jesus' so that God may do good with it. We eat Jesus' body as He commanded so that our bodies will be included later in heaven. At the Mass we also ask God and previous Christians in heaven to help us solve our problems here on Earth. We also thank God for all the good we experienced the past week. We praise God because it is the respect due to Him, singing is fun, and praising God improves our mental health.

このミサは私たちにこのすべてをすることを可能にします：ミサの時に、悪をやって停止し、善を行うために、神様が私たちに与えたメッセージ（聖書で収集された）を聴きます。司祭はまた、これらのメッセージを私たちの日常生活に適用する方法を教えて下さいます。ミサの第二部では、神様がこの善を行うために、私たちの苦しみをイエスと組み合わせることができるように、イエスの死が今日私たちに提示します。私たちは、私たちの体が後で天に含まれるように、彼が命じたようにイエスの体を食べます。 ミサでは、地球上の私たちの問題を解決するのを手助けするために、神様と以前のキリスト教徒にも尋ねます。 私たちはまた、過去1週間に経験したすべての良いことに神に感謝します。 神様が敬意を表し、歌が楽しく、神様を賛美することが私たちの精神的健康を向上させるので、私たちは神様を賛美します。


What explanation did the Catholic Church give regarding the incorruptible bodies? We all have heard about the incorruptible bodies within the Catholic Church tradition.

Was there any scientific explanation given to the Roman Catholic Church or did the Church give a scientific explanation for why we have found incorruptible bodies of some saints or people?
How was it classified by the Church? Was it classified miraculous and if yes why the Catholic Church doesn't use this to prove the authenticity of faith in God and doesn't challenge the scientific community?

Not every saint is expected to have an incorruptible corpse. Although incorruptibility is recognized as supernatural, it is no longer counted as a miracle in the recognition of a saint (The Incorruptibles).
Embalmed bodies were not recognized as incorruptibles. For example, although the body of Pope John XXIII remained in a remarkably intact state after its exhumation, Church officials remarked that the body had been embalmed (Christianity Today) and additionally there was a lack of oxygen in his sealed triple coffin.
Incorruptibility is seen as distinct from the good preservation of a body, or from mummification. Incorruptible bodies are often said to have the odour of sanctity, exuding a sweet or floral, pleasant aroma.
Incorruptibilty is not reserved to the Catholic Church alone. There are a number of Orthodox Saints who have incorrupt bodies.
Nowadays the Catholic Church is striving to better understand why some Saints are preserved from corruption, thus seeing if the preservation is indeed miraculous or not. "These saints are in a class by themselves. Even though incorruptibility does not automatically confer sainthood upon the subject, it is still properly appreciated by the Church as a supernatural occurrences. The Church thus seeks the help of scientists and other professional to understand this question in a more modern light!

The lack of formal explanations on this subject seems to stem from the fact that this is an area of expertise for the scientific (professional) community and not the Church to investigate.
"Over the last 15 years, however, a new view of the Incorruptibles has begun to emerge. At the Vatican's request, Italian pathologists, chemists, and radiologists have been poring over the bodies of the ancient men and women interred in church reliquaries. Charged with gleaning new information about the lives of the saints and assisting in the conservation of sacred remains, they have also brought science to the altars of Europe's cathedrals. Already, they have examined more than two dozen saints and beati, shedding light on the mystery of their preservation. While some saints were clearly mummified by their devout followers, others were protected from decay by environmental conditions, raising new questions about incorruptibility. "What is a miracle?" asks Ezio Fulcheri, a pathologist at the University of Genoa and one of the leading researchers on the Incorruptibles. "It's something unexplainable, a special event that may occur in different ways." The causes may seem mysterious "but don't exclude [rare] natural processes that are different from the normal course of things." - The Incorruptibles.


What's the name of this setting for the Angelus? Here's a YouTube video of an English-language setting of the Angelus that appears to be popular among Anglo-Catholics (it's used at Pusey House)...I've not been able to find the name of the hymn tune.
Link: The Angelus
And here's the specific wording of this variant:

The angel  of the Lord brought tidings to Mary: And she conceived by
the Holy Ghost.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee;
blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb
Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the
hour of our death. Amen.
Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it unto me according to thy word.
Hail Mary, &c.
And the Word was made flesh: And dwelt among us.
Hail Mary, &c.
Pray for us, holy Mother of God. That we may be made worthy
of the promises of Christ. Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy
grace into our hearts; that as we have known the incarnation of thy
Son Jesus Christ by the message of an angel, so by his cross and
passion we may be brought to the glory of his resurrection. Through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

It may not have a name. The melodies of the tune are rather standard chant formulae used in Anglo Catholic circles, but not necessarily specifically for the Angelus, so it may not be a formal, named hymn tune, or if it is a named tune, it may be in very limited distribution. You might try to contact the organist of the congregtion mentioned in the comments on the video, if all else fails.


Do any sects permit consensual open marriages? 1 Corinthians 7:4 says:

  The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

If a man sleeps with another woman without his wife's knowledge or consent, that would be adultery. But what if he does so at the behest of his wife, with her knowledge and consent, even instigation, as Abraham did with Hagar at Sarah's suggestion? Is he then relinquishing "authority" over his own body but yielding it to his wife?

I'm interested in an overview of the views of various Christian denominations on this, or other forms of consensual (on the part of both/all parties) open marriages - are there any that consider them to be okay?

I am unable to find reference to any official sects or doctrines which permit open-relationships (as distinct from polygamy and various forms of plural marriage).  However, there certainly are a minority of Christians who practice various forms of open-relationships. The Liberated Christians web site* has a section about various forms of open relationships within a Christian context.  As far as I know, it's a completely amateur site, run by volunteers, and without the backing of any official church organization, denomination, or sect.
An overview of their beliefs is explained here, and says, in part:

The ancient Hebrews, as portrayed in the Old Testament, clearly believed in multiple partnerships and this practice is nowhere condemned by God.
When the New Testament scriptures are viewed as a whole, taking into account the cultural context in which they were written, it is clear that neither Jesus nor the writers of the New Testament condemned such practice, although it appears that polygamy had, for non-religious reasons, substantially declined within Jewish culture by the time of Christ.
Despite this biblical evidence, the Christian church has persistently opposed polygamous relationships and has, at times, actively persecuted families which chose to practice this lifestyle. The church has also used twisted interpretations of various scriptures in defense of its opposition to this lifestyle.

And they describe those who agree with them as:

Many of them are mainstream, evangelical Christians, including pastors and their wives, church elders and Sunday school teachers. Some are seminary-trained theologians. Others are lay men and women from many different church backgrounds or no organized Christian background at all. They come from all walks of life, including college students, doctors, ministry professionals, housewives and blue-collar workers. They may be your neighbors, co-workers or even your relatives. (Scary, isn't it?!) They are ordinary people who have simply acknowledged that they have polyamorous desires, as do most other people who are unable to admit it to themselves, their partners, their church or their God.

So not really a sect, per-se, but there are a number of Christians purported to share their views.
*Warning: ancient web site, with poor taste in animated gifs, and many broken links!


Are our consciences trustworthy? In Romans there are a couple verses that indicate that the law has not only been given in written form through the ten commandments, but written "on our hearts." It also says that this law will bear witness against us.

  Romans 2:14-16 (ESV)
  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

First, is this our conscience? Secondly, is this "law written on our hearts" corrupted by our sin natures or pure and trustworthy? In the next chapter goes on to say that there is no one who does right or understands. Particularly in light of those verses and the doctrines of original sin and total depravity, what does should Christians believe about the purity and trustworthiness of our consciences?

Yes
The word conscience comes from the Latin conscire, a compound of con (with) and
scire (to know), meaning “to know together with,” “joint knowledge with another.”
Your conscience is your ability to know right and wrong in connection with the laws of God that have been written upon your heart at your new birth of the Holy Spirit. Heb. 8:10-11
Your conscience is the result of God's breath and life within you.

Genesis 2:7 (NIV)
7 Then the LORD God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
living being.
Job 32:8 (NIV)
8 But it is the spirit in a person,     the breath of the Almighty,
that gives them understanding.
Proverbs 20:27  (NIV)
27 The human spirit is the lamp of the LORD     that sheds light on
one’s inmost being.

The prophets relied on their consciences

Romans 2:14-15  (NIV)
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature
things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though
they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the
law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing
witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times
even defending them.)
Romans 9:1 NIV
I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it
through the Holy Spirit—
2 Corinthians 1:12
Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted
ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with
integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly
wisdom but on God’s grace.

Weak consciences
Your conscience can become weak and defiled if you do not keep it clean.

1 Corinthians 8:7
But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so
accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of
it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is
weak, it is defiled.
Titus 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and
do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and
consciences are corrupted.

Here's a great article if you want to get into some really deep reading regarding your conscience.