1) Does human-like or superhuman intelligence automatically denote an ability to distinguish between right and wrong? Or could superintelligent aliens, despite being so smart, not be able to comprehend true morally?

Not all humans, much less aliens, have the intellegence to distinguish between right and wrong.  Never the less smart people can be evil and stupid people are often harmless.

2) Would God give such intelligent aliens an immortal soul and moral responsibilities? Or would they be nothing more than something like 'smart animals' which simply cease to exist when they die?

The word of God is preached to all living things.

3) If such aliens did have an immortal soul and moral responsibilities, would Jesus need to come in their form and die for their sins too? Or would his death on the cross on Earth be sufficient for all intelligent life in the Universe? Would aliens go to the same Heaven as humans, or a different Heaven?

If they are not human they are not in original sin.  If they are, Jesus may suffice, we would need the Word of God through the Counselor and some actual aliens to know the answer to this.

[Once Saved Always Saved???]

4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

To the point Once Saved Always Saved??? it would seem as though perhaps not by this passage.  If anything it does point the the perfect sacrifice as being all sufficient.  You cannot stand against God and in that you cannot stand against those who are "saved" as in persecution.

 

If anything can be gleaned from the book of revelations it is that some people are judged in this world, "saints", and those who are judged later, at the second coming.  It could be said that the "saints" are saved; they are not in contempt of God and if they are they are dealt with.  Everyone else might be as deserving of sainthood or being saved but they have not been judged yet.  That may be a good thing, it may be a bad thing.  It is through Miracles, signs and wonders that saints, disciples, are known and they are given to further the word of God (ie everything after the Gospels).

Peter, Cephas, after the Crucifixion became the head of the Church.  He was put in jail.  You cannot put the Church in jail and be saved.  The guards did not know that Peter was a man of God.  He did miracles and they then knew that he was.  Likewise there are believers who proclaim their belief.  These people cannot be persecuted.  To do so is to hold Christ in contempt.

Personally, I believe that there is no time to make amends when the kingdom of God has come up someone who is in contempt.  I say that I believe this because there is no way of truly knowing what Judgment Day will be like and what ruler we will be held to.  If you think that it will be the Bible alone then you obviously didn't read it in the first place.

There is the notion that any sin is heinous to God and he see us all as wicked.  Christ suffers hell for us as punishment redeeming us of our sins.  This is not typically a disputed concept.  What is in dispute is what it takes to be someone of Christ.  John 3:16 says anyone who believes in his name.  On the surface is seems like a one time thing like registering to vote.  The name Jesus is an English word.  The belief is something more then a verbal or internalized affirmation.  Who he was, who he is and what he died for and why he died bring us closer to him.  Part of that is that you do not hijack the true and go around doing un-Christ-like things in his name, etc.  These people who pervert Christianity will suffer the deepest depths of Hell.

I like your writting structure but I've never read "The Da Vinci Code" before so I am lost pretty quickly.  Your professor will probably be even more lost if he is not a fan of religion.

I think from what I have heard anyways that it is a sensationalized collection of skepticism sold under the merits and virtues of Da Vinci.  Da Vinci, an artistic master and scientific genius is not a authority on Scripture and certainly not on historical trivia.  The attempt is to find esoteric truth in things that cannot contain esoteric truth.  Da Vinci being an artist and a professional incorporated universal truths into all of his works.  These universal concepts can be found and identified in many other schools of thought, be it religion, science, architecture, literature, philosophy, etc.  If they are not overtly contrary to Scripture, and I believe the catholic church is singled out, then they are only coincidental similarities or dissimilarities, if you like.  The Gospels are woefully openended.  Nothing is expounded upon.  And while this leaves us with some longing to know more about Jesus, it is to allow the church to be a living organization that changes and adapts as generations come and go.  Perhaps the author saw the failure of the Gnostic's and felt that a profoundly disproving end was more believable than a profoundly proving one.  It is a discredit to both  Da Vinci, whose intention was nothing other than illustrating the glory of Christ, and all Christian sects.  Little real evidence of anything at all is provided by the author who could have done better by simply glorifying God as all the masters and modern thinkers.

Yes, bang!  There it is>
It's not even really religious in the simplest sense.  It's just foobar texmeximus amish al-quedistador debraining camp.
How much  did Haggard have to cop for #2 anywho?