When the host is digested and it no longer has the appearance of bread, it is no longer the body of Christ. The Lord is only present as long as the appearance of bread is present.

  The sacramental body of Jesus remains with us for about 15 minutes,
  until the external species are digested. But that does not mean Jesus
  leaves us when the species are digested. He remains with us but not
  sacramentally. Fr. Bob levis  EWTN

Another quote:

  They are only there in order to point out "Here is Christ!" So, when
  we see what would commonly be called bread or bread crumbs, the
  visible signs tells us "Here is Christ". When we can no longer say
  this is bread or this is bread crumbs, then, that is no longer true.
  Source

From Fr. Ripperger:

  it teaches man that things of the senses are there for us to come to
  knowledge of spiritual realities when we see the accidents of the
  bread by the supernatural virtue of faith we know that God is present.
  This helps man to direct his life of the senses to God by looking
  beyond the life of the senses to something deeper. On another level God
  knows that man has a natural desire for physical closeness to things
  which he loves and this is due to the nature of his body soul
  composite. This is why it is not enough for someone to merely hear the
  beloved's voice but he actually wants to see and to touch the beloved. -
  source


What is the meaning of: “a sword will pierce your soul”?

The fourth Joyful Mystery of the Holy Rosary is the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, where the holy man Simeon prophesied that (Luke 2:35) her

  own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.

The Prophesy of Simeon is the first of the seven sorrows meditated upon in the devotion to the Sorrowful Mother.

In fact, Mary's name in Hebrew, מַרְיָם (Mariam), means "bitter sea".

From Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother:

  The martyrdom of Mary was lifelong, for according to Simeon’s prophecy, she was enlightened with regard to the intense sufferings of her Divine Son. Her entire being was steeped in bitterness. The swords which pierced her soul penetrated also every nerve and fiber of her tender, sinless body. To her was wanting that great support which the martyrs enjoyed in their sufferings. During their torments, they directed their inward gaze toward Jesus, the Crucified, by whose grace and love they were strengthened and consoled. The flames of the love of Jesus cooled the fires of torture, softened the strokes of the scourges, and blunted the sharpness of the sword.


Does Joseph Smith fail the test of a prophet?

Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years

Per the History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189, he said

  ...and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.

That was in 1891.
Prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri within Smith's Generation

_Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.

  For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

All Nations would be involved in the American Civil War war

_Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3

  For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

That short list came from here.

Some more include:

the prophecy that David Patten would go on a mission (he died before he could)
that the US government would be overthrown if it didn't apologize (it didn't apologize and was never overthrown)
that Congress would dissolve if it didn't hear Joseph Smiths petition (it never heard it and it's still around)

etc.  That list is here.

A note to all would-be prophets... don't use exact dates.


In what different ways is the word "cult" used as a label inside Christianity?

Cult is not an easy word to define.

In popular culture usage, it is often used to refer to any "group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre"1. This easily explains the bulk of the general usage, particularly by media. It is an easy label to slap on any group small enough if their practices are abnormal or bizarre enough to attract attention.

However I would argue that this definition is roughly meaningless in the context of Christianity.

During the period the term was first established in English, it often carried the connotation of being "new". Any new religious movement, whatever their beliefs were, could be labeled as a cult. This partially explains why faiths new to the world scene (such as Mormonism) were easily qualified as Cults at first, but that label is disputed today. In popular usage, there seems to be some expectation that cults would eventually self-destruct (e.g. Waco, Jonestown, Heaven's Gate) whereas any set of beliefs that survived the second generation should be considered a religion (or sect of a religion as appropriate) as opposed to a cult.

In the context of established religions it can have a much more specific and meaningful connotation. This definition is based on the relationship of the Cult to some other religion. The term is used this way to describe cults of other religions as well. The definition I'd suggest as most meaningful goes something like this:

  A group of people who claim identity/membership with an established religion but who, because of their beliefs, are rejected by the members of that religion as being unorthodox.2

In this sense, the term is only useful when combined in reference to what religion they were originally related to. An Islamic Cult would be a group that claimed affiliation with Islam (or even claimed to be true Islam) who's views are divergent enough that are rejected by the larger main body of Islamic teaching. The same would be true for a Buddhist Cult.

Applied to Christianity, this definition would encompass any group of any size smaller than the whole who claimed to be "Christian" but were identified by more established or larger bodies as being divergent on enough core beliefs to actually make them a different religion. What beliefs qualify as core does vary depending on who you talk to, but not so much as to make it impossible to use this label in a general and meaningful way. The standard issues would be the nature of God, particularly in relation to the Trinity, and the fundamental nature of man and how salvation is accomplished.

Using this definition, it is usually accepted that the major branches that comprise mainline Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) each share enough common ground to be called sects or traditions (even if we massively disagree on important issues) while many other groups get labeled as cults by having divergent views such as:

denying the trinity (e.g. Oneness Pentecostals)
having a radically different view of heaven and hell where a limited number of human souls have eternal existence (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses)
or ascribing to God a physical body and making Jesus and Satan out to be brothers (e.g. Mormons)

In this definition, it is also necessary to distinguish between a full blown Cult of another religion and just a "cult" in a generic sense. For example, Heaven's Gate mixed some aspects of Christian doctrine in the formulation of their beliefs, but they did not claim to be Christian and therefore are not properly a "Christian cult", just a "cult". On the other hand, Westboro Baptist Church could easily qualify as a Christian Cult.

Using this definition, it is also possible to note that other religions are not "cults", they are other religions. For example, even if Islam borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity, today it makes no claims of belonging to those religions. Instead it claims to be a true religion in it's own right and should be identified as such. On the other hand, even very large groups (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) that could easily claim independence as a unique religions choose not to do so and continue to be labeled as Christian Cults because they continue to claim affiliation but are rejected because of their beliefs. In fact some of these cults have cults of there own. There are several LDS Cults that claim to be the true LDS church but are rejected by it because of errant beliefs.

Interestingly, Christianity was originally considered to be a cult of Judaism by the Roman Empire. The earliest people to bear the name "Christian" were a sect or subset of Jews whose beliefs were rejected as being unorthodox by the Jewish religious leaders. In time, as the movement grew and the disparity between the beliefs became more pronounced as Jews rejected the more and more established Christian beliefs, Christianity came to be recognized as an independent religion.

There are of course alternate definitions. It is not uncommon to see Christians (particularly Fundamentalists) who use the term Cult to describe any and every religion apart from their own sect. There are reams of articles on the web expounding on how Islam is a cult, Protestantism is a cult, etc. Other definitions provide long lists of attributes, suggesting that you might be a cult if you match enough of them. These list usually include things like dominating leadership, strict adherence to rules, abuse of dropouts, pressure on members to conform, the existence of secret rituals, etc. While many of these are helpful things to understand about cults they are really not a good way to identify them. Everybody has a different list and these are really more of common factors than defining factors.

TL;DR: While it is possible to be used in a meaningful way, the variety of uses mean you should always check what the speakers definition is. The usage of the term will often tell you more about the beliefs of the person using it than those being described by it.

It might be worth mentioning that the scope of this particular site is Christianity and all its heresies, so heterodox teaching is just as much on topic as orthodox, meaning Christian Cults have just as much place here as Christianity itself. Generic cults that do not identify as primarily Christian or other religions maybe off topic.

Footnotes:

See Wikipedia on Cults.
I got this from student handout notes from an Apologetics class by a seminary professor, which I think he in turn had based on The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin.


Do not Judge others, or do we Judge others?

Yes, you can judge others... once you're perfect. There's more to that passage than just that.

  Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. -- Matthew 7:1-2

The idea here is that we're going to be held accountable to keep the same standard as we measure others against. When you think about being judged by the standard you hold for others, it makes you want to put that standard very, very low, just in case you mess up for a while.

The rest of the passage goes on:

  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. -- Matthew 7:3-5

Meaning that before you even begin to look at someone else's life, you need to make sure you're ALREADY measuring up to the standard you're holding for others. Since we can never attain perfection here on earth, I think it's pretty safe to say that we won't ever be able to say, "I've taken care of everything in my life now, and so I'm ready to start pointing out the flaws in yours."


What specific good does Catholicism attribute to play and entertainment?

The Magisterium has not specifically addressed any of the O.P.'s specific question, but the Church would indeed affirm the fundamental goodness of play activities.
The need for play and rest is rooted in the natural law itself, and that idea is the basis of Sabbath rest, as expressed in the Third Commandment of the Decalogue:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work [...] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Ex. 20:8-11).

The parallel passage from Deuteronomy adds,

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, [...] You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt (Deut. 5:13-15).

The Sabbath rest, which for Christians is transferred to the Day of the Resurrection (Sunday), is a fundamental right for all human beings. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

2184. Just as God “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,” human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord’s Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.
2185. On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body....

Regarding the specific activities brought up by the O.P., it should be noted that evil is not just any absence of good; it is the deprivation of a due good. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

Malum enim est defectus boni quod natum est et debet haberi.
For evil is a defect of the good that is fitting to a thing’s nature [literally “that is born” with that thing] and ought to be there (Summa theologiae, I. q. 49, a. 1., responsum).

It follows that, absent any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that a given activity (even a play or rest activity) must be good, at least in and of itself. Indeed, as the Biblical texts suggest, rest and play are necessary for man’s happiness.
Hence, in the case of the activities given by the O.P., all of them are good in and of themselves. There are some that pose particular risks (e.g., video games, either due to objectively offensive content, or because of the danger of immoderate use), but in general, the Church has no problem whatsoever with people taking part in them.
Such activities do not need a practical purpose: in fact, they are ends in themselves (as suggested by the priority of the Sabbath rest over work), and it would diminish their goodness if they were attached to practical ends—e.g., if we did them for money.


Is there a book that details what the popes said against reformation leaders?

Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum) collects most of the major dogmatic definitions; it "traces the development of doctrine and Dogma in the Catholic Church from its earliest times."


Did Ellen G White say Israel will never become a nation

I went to this official, accredited SDA web-site for this information, where SDA officials respond to more difficult questions about their founder, Mrs. Ellen G. White, that are not generally tackled in other official web-sites. https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-faq-unus-html/#unusual-section-d2 There was a question, “Jerusalem Never to be Rebuilt?” that seemed a potential source of information, and so it was.  This is, indeed, directly related to whether she said Israel would never become a nation. She wrote in 1851 that

  “old Jerusalem never would be built up.” [1]

The site responded to this by saying:

  “…we find Mrs. White counseling the growing Adventist group that both
  time-setting [2] and the "age-to-come" notion [3] were incompatible
  with Biblical truth. She emphasized that the Old Testament prophecies
  regarding the establishment of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine were
  conditional on obedience and forfeited by disobedience. Unfulfilled
  prophecies would be fulfilled to "true Israel" as unfolded in the New
  Testament text. Thus the popular movement of the 1840s and 1850s to
  promote a Zionist state in Palestine was not a fulfillment of Biblical
  prophecy and not a quest in which Adventists should become involved.
  Her warnings and instruction were designed to turn the interest away
  from Palestine and toward the work God had opened up before them. In a
  September 1850 vision she saw that it was a "great error" to believe
  that "it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a
  work to do there before the Lord comes. . . ; for those who think that
  they are yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds there, and their
  means will be withheld from the cause of present truth to get
  themselves and others there." [4] Less than a year later, August 1851,
  she wrote with greater emphasis "that Old Jerusalem never would be
  built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the
  children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to
  keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of
  the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for
  the day of the Lord." [5]

  [1] Early Writings, p. 75. This sentence appears in the chapter, "The
  Gathering Time," which combined two visions and some additional lines.
  The first vision, Sept. 23, 1850,  dealt with the "gathering time" of
  "Israel," the dates on the Millerite 1843 chart, the "daily,"
  timesetting, and the error of going to Old Jerusalem. The second
  vision, June 21, 1851, focused on the third angel's message,
  time-setting, and Old Jerusalem's not being built up.

  [2] Many former Millerites were setting various dates for the return
  of Jesus, with 1850 and 1851 being the latest dates for the end of the
  2300-day/year prophecy. Although Sabbatarian Adventists generally were
  immune from time-setting, Hiram Edson and Joseph Bates advocated 1850
  and 1851, respectively. James White kept their views out of Present
  Truth, the Advent Review, and the Review and Herald.

  [3] With several variations, age-to-come exponents, led by Joseph
  Marsh, O. R. L. Crosier, and George Storrs, believed that the Second
  Advent would usher in the millennial kingdom on earth during which
  time the world would be converted under the reign of Christ, with the
  Jews playing a leading role. This group closely related to the
  Literalists (British Adventists) who had believed that in the 1840s
  the literal Jews would welcome their Messiah (Christ) in Palestine,
  thus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies with Jerusalem becoming
  Christ's capital during the millennium. The majority of the Millerites
  had rejected this aspect of their Adventist theology, calling it
  Judaism. (See Josiah Litch, "The Rise and Progress of Adventism," The
  Advent Shield and Review, May 1844, p. 92, cited in Seventh-day
  Adventist Bible Students' Source Book, p. 513. The first defectors
  from early Seventh-day Adventists were H. S. Case and C. P. Russell
  who had, among other concepts, embraced the "age-to-come" theory. See
  The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v. "Messenger Party."

  [4] Early Writings, p. 75. [5] Early Writings, pp. 75, 76

(I have included the footnotes as they are important for a full understanding.)

From this it can be seen that SDA “Restorationist” doctrine accounts for the view that God was now dealing with ‘spiritual Israel’ (the Christian Church – themselves) and all the prophecies would be fulfilled in them, not literal Israel, which had forfeited its right to be established in the land. It appears that, due to these two visions of Mrs White, she discouraged SDAs from looking for a re-establishment of Israel because God was now dealing with them. Thus, “old Jerusalem never would be built up”, the SDAs claiming to be “new Jerusalem”. This equates with the idea that old Israel was not going to figure in God’s future plans for a nation like it had been before. The SDAs were the “new Israel” now.


Once we attain heaven, we will be given a new nature, purged of our old sinful nature.

2 Peter 1:4 (NIV)

  Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Once we escape this corruption, we will gain the sinless state of Jesus.

1 John 3:5-6 (NIV)

  5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him

2 Corinthians 3:18 (NASB)

  But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Now, while Jesus was free from sin, he also had free will:

John 10:17-18 (NIV)

  17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

So, there will be no sin in heaven.  This isn't because we don't have free will, but rather because we simply won't sin.  It won't be in our nature.  Just like now, it's not in our nature to fly.  So then, it won't be in our nature to sin.

However, there will be freedom in heaven:

2 Corinthians 3:17 (NASB)

  Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Clearly, there is freedom in the Lord.  We don't loose our freedom simply because we're in heaven.

One final note is a simple call to logic:  How can heaven be paradise if we lose our freedom and free will?

One way to think about this is a world where sin isn't an option.  Partially because it's not in our nature and partially because it's not available to us.  Imagine, for example, life in the Garden of Eden, but without the snake.

There is no reason to sin.  There is no need to sin.  There is no desire to sin.  Yet there is complete free will.

(Note that I give this as a simple way to reconcile this in our minds, not as an actual answer.  Because in truth, free will allows for sin.  But, in heaven there will not be any sin--per my answer above.)


What is the basis for the LDS belief that religious truth is confirmed by what you feel?

Elder Ballard is talking about the fruit of the Spirit - the "fruit" being a manifestation, consequence, or result of the presence of the Holy Ghost.
This teaching is founded on a few scriptures, mainly Galatians 5:22-23 which says:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

and Ephesians 5:9 which says:

9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Spiritual truths are confirmed by spiritual means. (I recommend perusing the answer at that link for an explanation.) Confirming feelings come by revelation from God and cannot be coerced or forced upon another to prove things to them.
However, when someone speaks what the Holy Ghost inspires (a testimony), the Spirit can manifest truth of it to those receiving it:
2 Nephi 33:1

... when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

The Book of Mormon promises revelation to those who seek truth in several instances, for example:
2 Nephi 32:5

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

In more modern times, Joseph Smith received a revelation about conducting church meetings:
D&C 46:7

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart

The ultimate promise of revelation in the Book of Mormon is found in its closing verses as Moroni prepares to bury the record. It is probably the most-quoted passage by Latter-day Saints about how to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon:
Moroni 10

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.


Psalm 144:5 Bow Your heavens, O LORD, and come down; Touch the mountains, that they may smoke

The Catholic New American Bible says that Psalm 144:5-7 is adapted in large part from Psalm 18:10, 15, 17; 104:32. Parallel passages:

  Psalm 144:5-7: LORD, incline your heavens and come; touch the mountains and make them smoke. Flash forth lightning and scatter my foes; shoot your arrows and rout them. Reach out your hand from on high; deliver me from the many waters; rescue me from the hands of foreign foes.

  Psalm 18:10: He parted the heavens and came down, a dark cloud under his feet.
  Psalm 18:15: He let fly his arrows and scattered them; shot his lightning bolts and dispersed them.
  Psalm 18:17: He reached down from on high and seized me; drew me out of the deep waters.
  Psalm 104:32: If God glares at the earth, it trembles; if God touches the mountains, they smoke!

We can see that the mountains in Psalm 104  are figurative, to portray the absolute power of God. No doubt the psalmist was aware of volcanoes and attributed the eruptions to the fury of God.  And so in Psalm 144, the mountains are not particular mountains but, once again, figurative. The psalmist want God to cause awe and fear in the minds of his enemies.


What is the Biblical view of "the spiritual gift of leadership"?

As with many gifts of the Spirit, the gift of 'leadership' is not described in the Bible directly. The first conclusion I draw from that is the unique operations of The Holy Spirit do not require a user guide.

For example, at Pentecost the Bible says,

  Acts 2:4
  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

There is no mention of 'preparation' for this unusual miraculous gift of speaking in foreign languages without any training. Peter did not say something like, 'Brothers the Spirit is about to come, when he does you will feel a burning and an urge to waggle your tongue. Do not be shy, give in to the waggle.' No the gifts do not need a user guide. The Spirit was powerful enough to produce the effect without any preparation.

There is a general guide for all gifts in the Bible, such as 'love' 'building up the body', etc. (1 Cor 12)  Also these gifts (whichever of them are in operation today) are part of the 'ministry of the Spirit'. That is they are not just natural gifts sanctified by the Spirit, but are things given by the Spirit. They might not be in operation if we are living in sin. Just as Samson was not strong when his hair was cut, a natural born leader cannot lead without faith strengthened by the Spirit.

With regard to 'leadership' specifically, notice the scripture describes the gifts more by recording those who had them, than by doctrine. For example, we need not doubt that Paul had a gift of teaching.

Some in the Bible that were obvious spiritual leaders are: Joseph, David, Joshua, Jesus, Peter, Paul, Barnabas. Every church also has leaders, these are those people who others 'follow'.  After the scripture we see great leaders in Church history as well, someone like Luther for instance.

As a final description let me just propose something. A leader is someone aware of the Spirit and burdened with God's love to lead people.  They have an ability from the Holy Spirit to influence others towards Christ. People respect them and follow them, without necessarily realizing it. Leaders, who lead in the Spirit help the ministry of a local church strengthen. They see how others feel and express burdens of their brothers and sisters is a way that helps the church avoid sin. People follow their cue, even without words spoken. These are just random observations, but I think you can see what I mean, as manifest in the leaders I listed.

Having said this let me add, many leaders are in the making, and many leaders are only recognized by a few. Nobody recognized Noah's lead.

For an expert analysis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit I recommend, John Owen's Works Volume 4, his second volume on the subject.


When and by whom was the Exsultet written?

According to Zenit and the Catholic Encyclopedia, the solemn rite originated no later than the late fourth century, with the current text of the Exultet likely dating back to the fifth century.  The earliest extant manuscript is found in the Bobbio Missal, dating from the seventh century.  Its author is unknown.


What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Orthodox/Greek/Eastern View)

Salvation (σωτηρία)

Like non-Orthodox, Orthodox believe that salvation culminates in the attainment of eternal life in God.  The path to this attainment in the Orthodox view, is one of purification and ascetical effort on the believer's behalf, cooperating with the grace of God (synergia), keeping in mind that nothing unclean can enter the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 5:5, Revelation 21:27).  Entrance into the Kingdom "necessarily requires purity of soul, a garment of holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14)"1.  This is in contrast to what Orthodox see as an overly juridical understanding of salvation in the west, which - Orthodox hold - is contrary to the beliefs held by the Church Fathers.

A more concise definition is offered by Monk Damascene, Abbot of the American Orthodox Monastery of St. Herman in Platina, California:  "The Orthodox Church takes a maximalist approach to salvation, seeing it as a process which ends in deification (theosis)"2.  Quoting a contemporary at St. Tikhon's Seminary, Harry Boosalis, Fr. Damascene writes:

  For the Orthodox Church, salvation is more than the pardon of sins and
  transgressions.  It is more than being justified or acquitted for
  offenses committed against God.  According to Orthodox teaching,
  salvation certainly includes forgiveness and justification, but is by
  no means limited to them.  For the Fathers of the Church salvation is
  the acquisition of the Grace of the Holy Spirit. To be saved is to be
  sanctified and to participate in the life of God - indeed to become
  partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4)3

There are quite a few criticisms leveled at these views.  Some will maintain that Orthodox are confusing salvation with sanctification.  Others have basically accused the Orthodox Church of pelagianism - a 5th century heresy (fought viciously by Augustine) that minimized the role of God's grace in one's salvation.  I think, however, that the root of almost all disagreements with Orthodox soteriology come from having a completely different understanding of grace, free will, and the consequences of man's fall.

Grace, in the Orthodox understanding, is not something that is created or dispensed by God, but is essentially the energy of God - to borrow a term used by Gregory Palamas.  It is not, again in the Orthodox understanding, something that is turned on and off or given and withdrawn by God, but is something that is always present.  The degree to which man experiences God's grace depends on his spiritual state and how disposed he is or is not to cooperate with it.  Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matthew 5:3) comes close to summarizing this view in a single Bible verse.

The above puts the fall of man in the Garden in a distinct light.  Whereas western Christianity (Roman Catholicism and most Protestant confessions) hold to a doctrine of "original sin" as a guilt that was inherited for Adam's offense, the east understands this sin not in terms of guilt but of illness.  Western confessions generally hold that the effect of Adam's fall was the withdrawal of God's grace, whereas Orthodoxy holds that the effect of Adam's fall was serious impairment to his ability to experience God's grace.  These are perhaps subtle distinctions, but when extrapolated lead (I think) to understanding salvation either in terms of restitution or in terms of rehabilitation.

It is interesting to note in this context that the root of the Greek word for "salvation" (sōtēria) is the verb σωζω (sōzō), which is usually translated as "save", but is also the word meaning "heal" (e.g. If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be healed - Mark 5:28).

Justification (δικαιοσύνη)

"Justification" and "righteousness" are signified by the same word in Greek - δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē).  The verb form (e.g. Luke 18:14) can mean "to justify" or "to make righteous".  This can be interpreted in a legal sense, as is favored in most western exegesis (e.g. someone is "made right with the law", "justice", etc.), but it can also refer to an existential change.

This distinction was pointed out by the recently reposed Orthodox writer, (Bishop) Dmitry Royster of Dallas:

  The terms "just" (Greek dikaios) and "justified" (dikaioō) are
  obviously related terms, the first usually being translated as
  "righteous" and sometimes as "just", and the second as "justify"; a
  third related word dikaiosynē is most often translated as
  "righteousness".  There exists a problem among interpreters,
  especially our contemporaries, concerning the relationship among these
  three: most reject the possibility of translating the verb dikaioō
  as "to make righteous", using rather "to justify", and doing so in a
  juridical sense, that is, as of being acquitted of guilt before God's
  tribunal.4

Bishop Dmitry goes on to explain well (I think) the difference between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox understanding of "justification":

  It is a fundamental tenet of the faith that any righteousness or
  justification of a man is the fruit of God's grace poured out on him
  by the work of Jesus Christ, which culminates in the sacrifice of the
  Cross and Resurrection (2 Corinthians 1:9-10; Philippians 3:9-10).
  This granting of grace is the work of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:9).
  Misunderstanding seems to arise from opposing God's act of justifying
  or "rendering a man righteous" to the attainment of righteousness (1
  John 3:7) by the man of faith.  A man or a woman is not a passive
  recipient of God's grace; his or her response to God's gift is the
  "doing" of good works.  As the Apostle points out to the Ephesians
  (2:8), we have been saved (His part) by faith (our part); we have
  become a new creation (2:10) specifically for good works.5

This is not to say that a juridical interpretation of "justify" is not entirely warranted, but the Orthodox understanding is not that one is declared righteous, but rather that one becomes righteous by the grace of God.  There is nonetheless a tie-in to the juridical interpretation, in that we (according to Orthodox belief) will be judged according to our works.  This seems clear in the Orthodox understanding of such Scriptures as the Last Judgement description by Christ (Matthew 25:36-41), as well as Scriptures such as found in Revelation (20:12):

  And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

(See also Psalm 62:12, Job 34:11, Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6, Revelation 22:12)

Some of the above makes Orthodoxy a hard sell for other Christians.  The constant awareness of one's sinfulness and the compulsion to continually "do" something about it does not sit well with other Christian faiths.  What is misunderstood about Orthodoxy is that this asceticism is not for God's benefit - i.e. it is not a "work" to earn salvation. But it is, rather, a work for one's own benefit - something intended to instill humility and spiritual poverty (cf Matthew 5:3) that forces one to abandon the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 3:9) and turn toward God, eventually relying on His grace and not one's own strength.  That turning - and perhaps repeated re-turning - toward God is understood within Orthodoxy to be the true meaning of μετάνοια, or repentance.

1. Michael Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.199
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p.199n
4. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: A Pastoral Commentary, p.58
5. Ibid.


Why would people make themselves eunuchs "for the Kingdom of heavens sake"?

It seems that Christ is simply saying that some servants of the Lord remain single so that they might be totally devoted to the Lord and not diverted by being married. Paul seems to make the same point when discussing marriage when speaking to the Corinthians.


What is the SBC's stance on what/how salvation is/works?

Straight from the source, at http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv
This is challenged by followers of liberal theology, who deride the leaders of the SBC as fundamentalists.

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.
B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.
C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.
D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.


How does a Roman Catholic reconcile a preference for purely procreative sex with the Song of Solomon?

According to the Catholic Church, the marital act has two effects: procreative and unitive.

  Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

CCC 2351

That Catechism reference is in relation to the sin of Lust, which Jesus equates with adultery.

It's lust that is the problem, and the Church does not teach that man and women are somehow freed from an inclination to lust by virtue of their marriage.  Nor is it even logical, St. Paul says that marriage is better for those who whose inclination to fornicate burns within them he doesn't say that the passion will be put out by marriage.

I've heard that The Song of Solomon is the most commented on book in the entire Bible by Christians throughout the history of the Church and what St. Jerome makes of it is very interesting.

  In the Song of Songs the precept is given as a hard one: "Regulate your love towards me." And so we plead that, if we err, we do so not from ignorance but from feeling.

St. Jerome - Letter 46

I'm not sure what verse he translated to be "Regulate your love towards me" but if it's the overall feeling he had in the translation it ought to have some effect.  It's true that other commentaries use the Song of Songs to describe God's love for His church or just the whole Trinitarian dynamic of love.  But that's just the necessary and fruitful anagogical understanding of the book.  The literal interpretation is just that, make love to your beloved.

We even use scripture from the Song of Songs in scriptural rosaries to meditate on the 5th Glorious mystery, the Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth.  It doesn't mean we believe she was not a virgin, even though in some metaphor we see her as the woman in the song who everyone said, "Who is she?"

Love and Responsibility is the best and most dense way to gain a full understanding of the purpose of sex and marriage as put forth by the Catholic Church.


No, Psalm 51:5 does not claim that an unborn child is sinless, quite the opposite, it says (in every translation I checked except the CEV) that they were either "conceived in sin" or "sinful since conception" which I would take to be equivalent in any case.

We are tainted by Adam's curse at conception; at no point are we without sin until we are washed of it by the blood of Christ. Therefore unborn children are as much destined to hell as any unrepentant sinner outside of the womb.

That said, there is the doctrine of the "age of accountability" that many Christians hold to, which while not strictly part of this question may be relevant to the overall answer.


He most likely was crucified naked - this is consistent with the biblical narrative of the guards casting lots for his garment and with standard historical practice.

In the paintings, the artists wanted to preserve some of the dignity and not turn the Lord's body into something that puerile youngsters might be titilated by. It is a condescension to the viewer, intentionally not in accord with the scriptures.

He was naked on the cross - that was part of the shame of crucifixion.

As J. Vernon McGee (Thru the Bible) says:

  He was crucified naked. It is difficult for us in this age of nudity and pornography to comprehend the great humiliation He suffered by hanging nude on the cross. They had taken His garments and gambled for ownership. My friend, He went through it all, crucified naked, that you might be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and so be able to stand before God throughout the endless ages of eternity.


In the canon of scripture the answer is not stated, but in the book of Jasher it is. I suppose most would not consider it doctrine since it is not in the current Bible, but in the book of Jasher it states:

  And Cain hastened and rose up, and took the iron part of his ploughing instrument, with which he suddenly smote his brother and he slew him, and Cain spilt the blood of his brother Abel upon the earth, and the blood of Abel streamed upon the earth before the flock. (Jasher 1:25)

This is the only reference I have found that may actually mean something besides just guessing at it.


What is the difference between Presbyterianism and Evangelicalism?

As you mention, evangelicalism refers to a movement that typically emphasizes salvation through faith in Christ, the authority of the Bible, evangelism, and a conversion experience.

On the other hand, presbyterianism refers primarily to a form of church government.  In this system, elders rule the church – a session of elders is responsible for leading individual congregations, and send elders to regional presbyteries that oversee the churches in their respective areas.  Presbyteries send representatives to the general assembly, which oversees and serves as the highest court of the denomination.

It should be clear, then, that evangelicalism and presbyterianism are, at root, independent of each other.  That is, only some evangelicals are presbyterians, and only some presbyterians are evangelicals.

Historically, presbyterianism is closely associated with Reformed theology, but this link is not absolute.  The Puritans, for example, preferred congregational church governance, though they shared beliefs in Reformed theology with their presbyterian friends.  The same is true of many evangelical "Reformed Baptists" today.

Within Presbyterianism, not all would be considered evangelical.  Though the borders of evangelicalism can be blurry, the more liberal members of the PCUSA, the mainline presbyterian denomination in the US, would usually be excluded from it due to their views on salvation and the Word of God.  US denominations like the PCA, EPC, OPC, and RPCNA, being more conservative, would often be considered evangelical.  Outside the US, many countries have "Evangelical Presbyterian" churches, such as Chile, Ghana, and the UK.


Is Mary's virginity evidence that sex is always sinful?

No no, it's not a sin. It could easily become a sin if we pervert that which was intended for good.

I believe that Mary's virgin Birth was a testification to the Truth of Christ. Could you imagine what the Catholic church would have done with the Husband? "Father of God" I'm sure that would have been completely chaotic. Who's really the father of God?

Well, we know through the virgin birth that only God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ.


Did Christ's original twelve apostles have families?

Eusebius of Caesarea's Church History talks a bit about this.

He says St. Philip, at least, had 4 daughters and Sts. Peter and Paul had wives.

  Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

Church History Book III

Regarding St. Paul (although not one of the 12):

  Paul was obviously unmarried when he wrote this verse. Some interpreters believe that he had previously been married and widowed; there is no clear evidence either for or against this view, which was expressed already at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria.

NABRE - Commentary on 1 Cor 7:8


Was the Scapegoat of Leviticus an allusion to Barabbas?

I suspect not.

For two reasons:

The "goat upon which the Lord's lot fell" was still used as an offering. Barabbas was simply released.
It makes more sense that Jesus is the type both of the sin offering and the scapegoat -- especially given how repetitively the sacrificial system prefigured the Messiah in many other aspects. This repeating imagery amounts at last to layers of nuanced meaning which resolve into a fuller picture of the Messiah than any one (or select few) of the metaphors could have provided.


Are there any universally accepted or non-Abrahamic based records in history that have mentions of longevity of prophets?

You might be interested in the Sumerian King List. These kings lived for centuries before a flood.

  When kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was [first] in Eridu. [In] Eridu, A-lulim [became] king and ruled 28,800 years. Alagar ruled 36,000 years. Two kings [thus] ruled it for 64,800 years. I drop [the topic] Eridu [because] its kingship was brought to Bad-tibira. [In] Bad-tibira, En-men-lu Ana ruled 43,200 years. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Pritchard, p. 265)


What is the basis for seeing Christ's words in the Gospels as part of the New Covenant?

The following is adapted from this book (of which I happen to be the rights-holder).  For anyone interested, the full text of the book is available both online in Google Books, as well as for download as PDF from the same site (simply hover over the EBOOK link on the left and click PDF to download).

  So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

  John 8:31-32, NASB, emphasis added

The "Words in Red" are Jesus' instructions for all believers.  While some would claim otherwise, perhaps out of preference for the 'Pauline Revelation', scripture is actually quite clear about this topic.

Faulty Premise

The argument otherwise is first of all built on a faulty premise.  It is assumed by some that the Gospels are merely a history book, and not teaching.  However, one need only look to the end of the Gospel of Matthew to find otherwise.

  Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

  Matthew 28:18-20, NIV, emphasis added.

Jesus' instructions were to make disciples by teaching all of His commands.  Further, in the beginning of the book of Acts, immediately after Pentecost in chapter 2, we read,

  They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

  Acts 2:42, NIV, emphasis added

Of the four things that was the focus of the first church, the first of them was the apostle's teaching.  As this was the first months and years after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, the disciples would have had nothing to teach except what Jesus had taught them.  The gist of this, what they deemed most important, is what we have recorded in the four Gospels by way of their recording.

Further evidence that this was the intent of the writing of the Gospels can be found in the beginning of Luke's Gospel.

  Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

  Luke 1:1-4, NASB, emphasis added

What is contained within the Gospels, then, was for the instruction of new disciples.  The writing and subsequent learning, teaching, and reading of the Gospels is the fulfillment of the command in Matthew 28:20, to teach what Jesus had commanded them.

Confirmation of Jesus' Words in the Epistles

Paul, of course, was not one of the original apostles.  Being a devout Jew, he most likely heard of Christ, but was not a believer.  However, after his salvation experience, he clearly learned more of Him.  While some claim that the 'Pauline Revelation' supercedes the Gospels Words, Paul wrote differently.

  If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; ...

  1 Timothy 6:3-4, NASB, portion, emphasis added

If this was Paul's views of the teachings of Christ, those who claim a 'Pauline Revelation' should agree with his assessment of Jesus' Words.  But, Paul was not alone in this conclusion.  John wrote the same in his second Epistle.

  Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

  2 John 1:9-11 NIV

The witness from the epistles agrees.  But, what of Jesus Himself?

The Words of Christ

  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

  Matthew 24:35 NIV

Jesus was the Truth (John 14:6).  Jesus pointed to His own words time and again, indicating their importance and immutability.  Indeed, at one point, Jesus said it was His Words themselves that would judge those hearing them (John 12:48).

  Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

  Matthew 7:24-27 NIV, emphasis added

What does it mean to be someone's disciple? It means you do what they say. If Jesus' words were not binding on the church today, it would follow that we would not Christ's disciple--we would be the disciples of the one we did obey.

  Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

  Mark 13:31 KJV

Here, and above, Jesus Himself said His Words would never pass away.

  Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

  John 5:24 KJV

Jesus linked salvation to two things.  The first was hearing His Words, and the second was believing on the Father.  As hearing His Word is held as part of salvation, it seem highly unlikely that they would no longer be relevant to the world.

  Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

  John 10:7-10 KJV

Consider what it means to come in through Christ. Yes, it is salvation, through faith alone. Yet, He was what He taught— He was The Word Incarnate! You cannot “enter through Christ” without obeying what He said. All who try to enter another way are thieves and robbers.

  If ye love me, keep my commandments.

  John 14:15 NIV

Being observed, that it is impossible to keep something you don't have.

  He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

  John 3:36 NASB, emphasis added

Here, belief is contrasted with obedience. Who is this Christ, the one John calls The Word? He is what He taught. If you want a portrait of Christ, study the Sermon on the Mount. If you love Him, you love it, and vice versa.

  Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.

  John 14:21 NIV

What are the “my commands” of this verse? It is what He was going around teaching, of course. This is the one that loves Him, the one who has and keeps these commands. Thinking in retrospect, if we come up with explanations of why the rest of His Words do not apply to us, shouldn't we come up with an explanation of why we think this one still should?

  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

  John 15:7 KJV, emphasis added

The key to answered prayer is keeping the Words of Jesus within you. If you keep them, meditate on them, abide in them, you will have your prayers answered, whatever you ask.

  If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

  John 15:10 NASB, emphasis added

Again, if we keep His commands, we abide continually in His love, even as He abode in His Father's love. This is the great key, that we hear His Words, not words of the old letter of the law, but the Words of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, living by a new law, the law of His Spirit. But, these are His Words, which are Spirit, and which are Life (John 6:63).

  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

  John 6:68 KJV, emphasis added

Simon Peter recognized the Words of Jesus. As He said, they are the words of "Eternal Life". Certainly, if another had been intended, we should follow them, but there isn't any.

  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

  Colossians 3:16 KJV

Paul here again exhorts that the Word of Christ dwell in us, meaning His teachings as represented by what is recorded in the four Gospels. It is not the words of another, but particularly those of Christ. Even as Paul quoted a saying of Jesus in Acts 20:35 a statement that is not found in the Gospels, and as the Apostle John wrote that Jesus did and said many other things than those recorded for us (John 20:30). Paul was very clearly aware of what the Lord Jesus had done and said, and, being commissioned of the Lord to instruct us, exhorted us to obey Christ's teachings.

By Paul's own letters we understand that he understood that his exposition was secondary to the Word of Christ, the living Word.  Belief in Jesus, in His Kingdom, in His Way. As depicted in who He was, how He lived, and what He spoke.

  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

  1 Timothy 6:3 KJV

Quoted above, as well. Paul, even in his letters, exhorts Timothy to the words of Christ, which are the wholesome words. This is the doctrine of the church. Paul merely expounded upon them, even as Jesus said, teachers of the Law instructed in the Kingdom would bring out of their storehouses old treasures as well as new (Matthew 13:52).

  And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

  1 John 2:3-6 KJV

Over and over, belief, obedience, and love are all connected to God's commands. If anyone says that obedience does not matter, the “apostle of love” differs with him in this verse.  And, you cannot obey His Words if you throw them out.

  Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

  2 John 1:9 NASB

This was one of Christ's twelve apostles, speaking of the Words of Christ. Are they binding on the church? They are according to the one who leaned upon His breast. Whoever does not abide in them does not have God.

His Words and His Heart are inseparable. Belief and Obedience are two sides of the same cloth. His Words are the Words of the Kingdom, His Words were the Words of Life.


What is the difference between the Amish and Mennonites?

According to Wikipedia, the Amish (aka Amish Mennonites) are a group that broke off from the Mennonites in Switzerland in 1693, led by Jakob Ammann, from which the name comes.1

While Amish reject many modern technological advancements, Mennonites have a broader range of acceptance of such things.  Some Mennonites are quite similar to the Amish, while others accept all modern technology.  I had a friend in college who was Mennonite, and he drove a car, used computers and did everything else.

Amish reference


The evidence of Matthew and Luke could perhaps suggest that Jesus indulged in parody. For example, the parable of the mustard seed in Luke 13:19 and Matthew 13:31-32:

Luke 13:19: It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

Middle eastern mustard (s. hirta) does not grow into great trees, but is for farmers a noxious weed. Rex Wyler, in The Jesus Sayings, page 111, believes the parable of the mustard seed is a parody of a common Jewish reference from the books of Ezekiel and Daniel, about a tiny sprig growing to become a giant "noble cedar” with roots that spread across the earth, branches reaching to heaven, fruit for all, and shelter for animals and birds. Wyler says the parable of the leaven in the flour, in the following verses (Luke 13:20-21; Matthew 13:33), appears to satirise a story (Genesis 18:6) about Sarah, who used three measures of choice flour to bake cakes for heavenly messengers visiting Abraham. The coincidence of two successive parables that seem to parody Jewish beliefs makes it quite likely that either Jesus or the source who reported his sayings had a subtle sense of humour.
In John's Gospel, Jesus sometimes tricked those who opposed him, by using double meanings that left his opponents confused. A well-known example is when John has Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be born 'anothen', a Greek word with two meanings, enabling John to make Nicodemus look foolish. In Jesus' meeting with the Pharisee Nicodemus, he told him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born anothen, he can not see the kingdom of heaven". Nicodemus understood this Greek word to mean 'again'. This is one meaning it can have, but it can also mean 'from above', a fact that John's Greek-speaking readers would have understood. In this case, Jesus was enjoying himself at the expense of Nicodemus. This does not work in English, so translators have to choose whether to use 'again' or 'from above':

John 3:3 (KJV): Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:3 (NAB): Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.


What do mormons believe about eschatology?

It is based on obedience and what is in the heart. One scripture that brings this out is:

  "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also
  our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for
  we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
  (2 Nephi 25:23)

It has been stressed that it is not "we are saved because of what we do" but rather "after all we can do" ("The Gift of Grace", President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 2015 April Conference, Sunday morning session). What can "we do"? We can love God with all our heart, mind, and soul (Matthew 22:26-40). We can then show that love through obedience to the commandments (John 14:15). We can repent of our sins ("After All We Can Do", Elder Claudio D. Zivic of the Seventy, 2007 October General Conference). What it really boils down is to strive to measure up to the stature of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:11-13) by overcoming the "natural man":

  "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of
  Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings
  of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a
  saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a
  child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to
  submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him,
  even as a child doth submit to his father." (Mosiah 3:19)

The LDS beliefs align with Universalism such as is expressed in these Articles of Faith:

  11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the
  dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege,
  let them worship how, where, or what they may.

  12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
  magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

  13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and
  in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the
  admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have
  endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If
  there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy,
  we seek after these things.

One point that may differ slightly from Universalism may be that the church itself remains politically neutral and will not allow the buildings to be used for political purposes. However members are strongly encouraged to be active in the political process.

There is no doctrine on Annihilationism that I am aware of though some opinions have been tossed about regarding it. As far as the final judgment goes there will be those that are sent to the Lake of Fire:

  "30 And we saw a vision of the sufferings of those with whom he made
  war and overcame, for thus came the voice of the Lord unto us:

  31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and
  have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the
  power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my
  power—

  32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it
  had been better for them never to have been born;

  33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God,
  with the devil and his angels in eternity;

  34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world
  nor in the world to come—

  35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having
  denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto
  themselves and put him to an open shame.

  36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and
  brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

  37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

  38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due
  time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath." (D&C 76:30-38)

The Eternal-Conscious-Torment belief is held by some based on the following verse while others hold to the previous verse in D&C 76.

  "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy
  to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a
  lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the
  presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain,
  and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth
  up forever and ever." (Mosiah 2:38)

The Bible Dictionary defines "hell" this way:

  An English translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, hell signifies an
  abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In
  common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the
  wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the
  Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all
  departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the
  abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. Gehenna, or
  Gehenna of fire, is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a
  deep glen of Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their
  children to Moloch (2 Chr. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:2–6). It was
  afterwards used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs.
  23:10) and in that way became symbolic of the place of torment (Matt.
  5:22, 29–30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5;
  James 3:6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the
  impression produced on men’s minds by the sight of this ceaseless
  burning and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully
  disobey God.

  In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One
  is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were
  disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the
  Resurrection, and persons who receive the telestial glory will abide
  there until the last resurrection (D&C 76:84–85, 106), at which time
  they will go to the telestial glory. In this sense the Book of Mormon
  speaks of spiritual death as hell (2 Ne. 9:10–12). Hell, as thus
  defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the
  price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their
  resurrection. Statements about an everlasting hell (Hel. 6:28; Moro.
  8:13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C
  19:4–12, which defines eternal and endless punishment.

  On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of
  perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a
  figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in
  the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4; D&C 29:38; 88:113). This kind of hell,
  which is after the Resurrection and Judgment, is exclusively for the
  devil and his angels and is not the same as that consisting only of
  the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed
  from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no
  glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of
  hell remain. [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/hell?lang=eng&letter=H]


Can English people go to Greek Orthodox churches in England?

First of all, please note that Greek Orthodoxy is one ethnicity/jurisdiction within Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox Christians speak many languages and there are generally Orthodox churches in the native language of many countries in the world.

So to answer your question: Yes.

The Greek Orthodox Church has even published the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in English due to the increasing number of non-Greek-speaking people in the Church.

For Eastern Orthodox churches in general, here's a list of English-speaking Orthodox churches in the UK. If you are only interested in Greek Orthodox churches, then check this out. Each Greek Orthodox church will have its own preferences on the language of the Divine Liturgy, with many being blended between English and other languages. You will need to visit to determine what each parish's practice/preferences are.


Husbands are not called to submit to their wives.  That doesn't mean he uses his authority over her in a domineering way.  In fact, Paul goes on to describe how a husband should love his wife, which would include how he uses his authority.  That is, he should love her like Christ loves the church.

Paul relates the submission of wives to the way the church submits to Christ:

  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24).

Note the key word "For" at the beginning of verse 23.  Its a grounding word and indicates that what comes next is the purpose for what is before it.  That is, wives should submit to their husbands because the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.  If the husband is the head, the wife cannot also be the head.  Someone has to lead the marriage and God calls men especially to that role.

If you are going to say that husbands should submit to their wives, then using Paul's logic in the above verse (and therefore God's), you would also have to be saying that Christ should submit to the church.  Is anyone willing to make that argument?  Then you should be careful when arguing that husbands should submit to their wives.

The main problem with the mutual submission argument is an incorrect reading of the text, missing the intention of the original Greek word and context:

  So what reason can people give to argue for the "mutual submission"
  interpretation in Ephesians 5:21? Their argument is based on the
  expression, "one another" (the Greek pronoun allelous). Here
  interpreters say that the pronoun must mean "everyone to everyone"
  (that is, that it must be "exhaustively reciprocal," which means that
  it refers to something that every single person does to every single
  other person). To support this view, they quote a number of verses
  where allelous does take that sense: we are all to "love one another"
  (John 13:34) and "be servants of one another" (Gal. 5:13).

  But here is the crucial mistake: interpreters assume that because
  allelous means "everyone to everyone" in some verses, it must mean
  that in all verses. When they assume that, they simply have not done
  their homework-they have not checked out the way the word is used in
  many other contexts, where it doesn't mean "everyone to everyone," but
  "some to others."

That quote comes from Wayne Grudem: http://www.rockvalleybiblechurch.org/ResourceLibrary/MythOfMutualSubmission.htm  See that article for a more thorough explanation and discussion of this topic.

I understand men have often abused their authority and their wives under the pretext of the authority given them in this text. There is no excuse for their behavior and they will have to give an account for their actions.  But, nothing is made better by gutting the meaning of this text.  The meaning is clear, wives should submit to their husbands, and not the other way around.  If you don't like that, ok, let's discuss that.  But let's not try to make the text say what it doesn't say or prevent it from saying what it does say.


God's emotions in contrast to his transcendence? (Catholic position)

The O.P. asks about the Catholic position regarding the “emotions” of God, especially as found in the Old Testament.

Based both on Scripture and sound philosophical principles, the Church holds that strictly speaking God (in His Divine Nature) does not have emotions in the same sense that human beings do, for the simple reason that He is not a human being. Indeed, He is not (evidently) a creature, and so He does not undergo any kind of change whatsoever, much less the kind of change—such as emotions—that require having a body.

The Old-Testament depiction of God’s emotions, therefore, is to be regarded as metaphorical: as expressing in human language a truth about God that cannot be adequately formulated in human words.

Scriptural references to God’s unchangeability

The Scriptures affirm that God is unchanging, even in the Old Testament. For example, there is a frequent image of God as the unchanging rock or shield:

  The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold (Ps. 18: 2).

  My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge, my savior; you save me from violence (2 Sam. 22:3).

In these passages (only two selected from numerous such passages), the unchangeability of God is seen as an advantage, because that we He can defend His people from their enemies. There are also explicit references to God’s unchangeable character:

  For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed (Malachi 3:16).

  God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (Num. 23:19).

  Of old you [the LORD] laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end (Ps. 102:25-27).

Moreover, His decrees are unchanging; He does not “change His mind”:

  And also the Glory of Israel [i.e., God] will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret (1 Sam. 15:29).

  The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever (Is. 40:8).

  The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4).

The New Testament, which has the advantage of the definitive Revelation by Jesus Christ, is even more clear on this matter:

  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17).

Even the Incarnation does not change God in His Divine Nature. Consider the following passage from the letter of St. Paul to the Philippians:

  Though he was in the form of God, [Jesus] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:6-7).

It is impossible that St. Paul, a Greek-speaking Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia (Asia Minor), should not have understood the affinity of such terms as form (morphé) and likeness (homoíoma) to the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato. By becoming man (“taking the form of a servant” and “being born in the likeness of men”), Jesus did not shed his Divine Nature (the “form” of God) or diminish it in any way. Rather, he humbled or emptied himself by assuming a human nature, thereby veiling his Divinity and making it less manifest than it could have been. It is precisely by assuming a human nature that Jesus was able to suffer and die for us on the Cross, whereas before, it was impossible:

  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8).

It is in the light of Jesus’ Divine Nature that we can interpret the following passage from the Letter to the Hebrews:

  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb. 13:8).

Or the following from Revelation:

  I [Jesus] am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev. 22:13).

All of these passage (of which this is only a sample) are, of course, in tension with numerous passages that speak of God as if He possessed human emotions: anger, grief, compassion, joy, or passages in which He seems to change His mind. (I took these passages from http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-have-emotions.html.)

Arguments based on sound philosophy

Note that although the Church does not take “sides” in strictly philosophical debates, the arguments dealt with here have effectively become part of the Church’s patrimony, and are implicit in the Church’s dogmas regarding the nature of God.

Some anthropological background

Human emotions, of course, entail an interior change of state or mood that a person has no control over, and so if God is truly unchanging, then He could not, properly speaking, experience them in His Divine Nature.

We are not speaking here of Jesus Christ in his human nature. Naturally, Jesus does, and did, experience human emotions in his human nature: that is part and parcel of being fully human. Because the Person of Jesus is the very Divine Son, we can correctly say that God experiences human emotion in Jesus’ human nature. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church 467-469.) The question, however, is whether God can experience emotions in His Divine Nature, and the answer must be “no,” because we can demonstrate that the Divine Nature is unchanging.

Argument that God is unchanging

If the reader would like a fuller treatment of this topic, he should read the Summa theolgiae, I, qq. 2, 3, and 9, which is where these arguments are drawn from. St. Thomas Aquinas’ treatise is not, of course, a document of the Magisterium, but it does represent sound philosophical speculation intended to be fully in line with what the Church teaches about God.

God is the Creator of all things, and He Himself, of course, is not created. In order for something to be able to change from one state to another, it must be brought into its new state by something distinct from itself. One cannot heat a tea kettle without a stove, nor boil an egg without hot water, nor shoot an arrow without a bow (not to mention an archer). (Although it is true that living things, in a way, move themselves, it is always a part of that living thing that moves a different part. For example, my leg moves because my muscles contract, and I stand up because my legs lift my torso, head, and so on.) (See the first paragraph of the responsum to I, q. 2, a. 3.)

There is nothing, however, that can bring God into being, because He exists before all things: not only “in time” (actually, God is completely outside of time), but in the sense that He must maintain all of His creatures in existence, lest they cease to exist entirely. (See I, q. 104, a. 1.)

For this reason, God must be unique (for there would have to be something outside of God that could produce another “god”), perfectly simple (without the slightest composition), and unchanging.

We are not to construe this to mean that God is “passive” or “uncaring,” because in fact God is exactly the opposite: He is so active and powerful that He does not need to change His state in order to care for or be concerned about His creation. To use an image, God is not unchanging in the way a stone is unchanging (cold and passive), but the way a fire is unchanging (always giving out intense heat). He is unchanging by excess of power, not by defect.

Possessing human emotions would entail a change in God

If God in His Divine Nature were to experience human emotions, in the same way that man experiences them, He would suffer a change.

In man, an emotion is a type of “passion.” What that means is that some type of external stimulus or situation produces those emotions in us, and we do not full have control over them. We are “passive” with respect to our emotions; more often than not, they “happen” to us, whether we like it or not. (See Ia-IIae, q. 22, a. 1.)

Hence, that external agent (whatever it is: another person, a situation, even the weather) is acting upon the person who experiences it, effectively changing his emotional state.

It is possible for us to change our emotional state to some degree, but even that entails a change from one state to another.

God, however, Who is the Creator of all things (even of our emotions) cannot possibly be “influenced” by an external agent like that. Whatever is external to Him has been created by Him. Moreover, since God is fully “active” (as we saw above), He cannot even change His own internal state. God does not, in any way, have “parts,” which would be necessary for God to cause a change in Himself.

(Again, this is not a weakness on God’s part: rather, He is so powerful that He does not need to change His interior state, as we would.)

It follows that God does not experiences emotions, at least not in the same sense that human beings do. However, we can say that His Essence contains, in a pre-eminent way, and in a single act, all of the richness that is contained in our emotions.

How to square the unchangeability of God with His apparent emotions in the Bible

There remains the question of how to square God’s simplicity and immutability with the apparent emotions that He displays in the Bible, especially (but not exclusively) in the Old Testament.

In essence, these are to be taken metaphorically. (This answer is suggested, regarding a slightly different problem, in the answer to objection 3 of I, q. 9, a. 1.) When the Bible makes an metaphorical affirmation regarding God, it is revealing an aspect of God’s unfathomable richness that cannot be fully or adequately expressed in human language.

For example, the Bible (even the Old Testament) refers God as our Father. For example, consider Deut. 32:6:

  Do you thus repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?

Here, the text is not considering the Trinitarian Fatherhood of God the Father, but the relationship that we have to God. God is clearly not our literal, human father. Nevertheless, what the Bible is trying to show is that God has all the best characteristics of a human father: providence, kindness, steadfast love, and so on.

In a similar way, when the Bible speaks of the “wrath” of God, it is expressing in human language how much our own actions can offend God, and that when we commit such actions, we invariably experience some kind of suffering. It is that consequence of our sinful actions that the Bible interprets as the “wrath” of God: not that He is ever literally angry, but that sometimes He must allows us to experience the consequences of our actions in order to teach us not to disobey Him.

We must also keep in mind that the Old Testament in particular shows only an imperfect understanding of God. It took a long time for the ancient Israelites to develop a truly filial relationship with God; at first their relationship with Him was largely one of fear. (See, for instance, Exodus 20:19, among many examples.)

This type of imperfect understanding is evident in the passage in which God rescues the People of Israel from Egypt. Consider what God is said to have done to the Pharaoh:

  I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them [the Israelites, in the Red Sea], and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord (Ex. 14:4).

It seems as though God is inducing the Pharaoh to be obstinate, so as make a show of him. In this passage there are two things to be kept in mind: first of all, in ancient language, it was common to attribute to God things that, in fact, were done by man. It was a sort of acknowledgement of His majesty. In reality, the Pharaoh hardened his own heart—the Lord merely permitted him, but did not compel him, to do so—but the language and idiom of the time was such as to attribute the hardening to God. Second, there is a some admixture of human weakness here on the author’s part. It does not occur to the hagiographer that God also cares for the Egyptians, just as much as He cares for the Israelites—something that we know, now that Jesus Christ has revealed it fully to us.

The passages that show the emotions of God, therefore, are to be taken metaphorically. They attempt to express in human language the inexpressible richness of God, and the only way to do that is through metaphor. Moreover, especially in the Old Testament, some of the “cruder” things attributed to God (wrath, vengeance, and so on) must be interpreted in the light of the fact that the Old Testament represents only an incomplete revelation of God, that is completed in Jesus Christ.


Virgin birth in other religions and relevance to Christianity

On other "virgin births" predating the concept of a virgin birth in Christianity:

The notion of the virgin birth in Christianity predates the actual birth of Christ too; it was prophesied explicitly some centuries earlier. Certainly in Isaiah, we have:

Isaiah 7:14 (MSG):

  So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A
  girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son
  and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us)

In addition, the fact that this verse in Genesis (known as the Protoevangelium*) talks of "her offspring" when it was/is more usual to refer to the offspring of a couple as being of the father rather than the mother, is interpreted by some theologians as a prophecy, or at the very least a hint, of a virgin birth:

Genesis 3:15 (MSG):

  God told the serpent:     "Because you've done this, you're cursed,
        cursed beyond all cattle and wild animals,     Cursed to slink on your belly
        and eat dirt all your life.     I'm declaring war between you and the Woman,
        between your offspring and hers.     He'll wound your head,
        you'll wound his heel."

Because this happens right at the beginning of the human race, arguably this reference to virgin birth predates all others (although it is of course less explicit in meaning than the Isaiah prophecy).

Relevance of other virgin birth stories to Christianity

Because there is that hint of a virgin birth right at the beginning of things, the comparison you draw to flood legends is a good one. It is logical that any culture with a collective recollection of the Flood may also have a collective recollection of the events before it; the Creation and the Fall, in which we find the Protoevangelium. In that respect the relevance of legends of virgin births to Christianity is similar to the relevance of flood legends to Christianity.

*Not to be confused with the Protoevangelium of James


What is the story behind a monk’s tonsure?

[...] MONASTIC STYLES
Both men and women traditionally had their hair cut or removed in specific ways when they entered a monastery or convent. These haircuts symbolized religious devotion, group identity, and humility as well as the renunciation of worldly things and personal vanity. The practice may relate to ancient rites in which people in various cultures offered their hair as a religious sacrifice. Monks and nuns also take a vow of celibacy, and hair has historically been associated with eroticism and sexuality and as a means to attract the opposite sex.
   Historians say that monastic hairstyles also may relate to the ancient custom of shaving the heads of male slaves. Some early monks who began shaving their heads voluntarily referred to themselves as "slaves of Christ." Such hairstyles thus would show that a person entering religious life intends to subordinate his own will to the will of God.
   Groups of Christian men began to form organized religious communities during the second and third centuries. These men, who became known as monk, lived apart from other people and developed distinctive modes of dress and appearance. Some monks cut their hair short, while others shaved it off completely or shaved part of their head.
   Partial shaving may have its origins in ancient Egypt, Greece, and other places where men shaved a circular bald spot on top of their heads to honor the sun god. Some orders of monks who left a narrow crown of hair around their heads said that this signified the crown of thorns placed on Christ's head during his crucifixion.
   The distinctive style, which is called the tonsure (from the Latin word tondere—"to shear"), often is associated with Catholic monks. Historians are unsure about the earliest origins of the tonsure, but church officials came to accept it and then required that all Catholic monks adopt this hairstyle. The tonsure is "a sacred rite . . . by which a baptized and confirmed Christian is received into the clerical order by a shearing of his hair" (The Catholic Encyclopedia).
   In Roman Catholic monasteries, novices who had just entered the community had their hair cut short with scissors. When the novice took his vows to become a monk, he received the tonsure. The hair was cut short and then the hair on top of the head was shaved off, leaving a round bald area on the crown. These haircuts were carried out as part of the initiation into the group and were maintained by monastic barbers.
   Three main variations of the tonsure developed among various orders. The eastern style involved shaving the head completely, according to a style attributed to St. Paul, while others shaved just the crown, a style associated with St. Peter and known as the Roman tonsure. A third style, called the Celtic (or transverse tonsure or tonsure of St. John) evolved in the British Isles. Celtic monks shaved the front part of their head from ear to ear but left the hair in the back hanging longer. Some Celtic monks pulled that hair around to form a semi-circle from one ear to the other. [...]

Reference:
Sherrow, Victoria. Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2006. Print.


If Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) don't believe in a Holy Trinity, then who do they believe is God?

LDS understanding of the nature of the Father and the Son is drawn from the First Vision, Joseph Smith's first-hand account of an encounter with them as an answer to his prayer to learn the truth about God and religion:

  I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. ... When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

The Father and the Son reveal themselves as distinct individuals.  And if this is not in harmony with the traditional description passed down in various creeds,

  The Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that ... “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Joseph Smith later clarified that:

  The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

LDS understanding of the Father and the Son being "one" is more in keeping with the literal meaning of the original text than of the interpretations that arose from it.  It kind of gets lost in translation, but it's a lot more clear in Greek that the Father and Christ are not one (the same being); they are one (united, the same in purpose.)  Further clarification can be found in John 17, where Jesus asks four separate times in his great intercessory prayer to the Father that his disciples may be one "even as we are."  To interpret this as a desire for the disciples to somehow merge into a composite being would be strange, to say the least.


What does the Orthodox Church actually teach about Original Sin?

The Orthodox position is called "Ancestral Sin".

  Ancestral fault (Greek προγονικὸν ἁμάρτημα, προπατορικὸν ἁμάρτημα) is the doctrine that the sins of the forefathers lead to punishment of their descendants. In Christian hamartiology, the concept is also known as ancestral sin (προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία or προγονικὴ ἁμαρτία).

.....

  St. Gregory Palamas taught that, as a result of ancestral sin (called "original sin" in the West), man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience.[9] The Greek theologian John Karmiris writes that "the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, 'no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day'. ... Original Sin not only constitutes 'an accident' of the soul; but its results, together with its penalties, are transplanted by natural heredity to the generations to come ... And thus, from the one historical event of the first sin of the first-born man, came the present situation of sin being imparted, together with all of the consequences thereof, to all natural descendants of Adam."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_sin

  “For the Orthodox tradition, then, Adam's original sin affects the human race in its entirety, and it has consequences both on the physical and the moral level: it, results not only in sickness and physical death, but in moral weakness and paralysis. But does it also imply an inherited guilt? Here Orthodoxy is more guarded. Original sin is not to be interpreted in juridical or quasi-biological terms, as if it were some physical 'taint' of guilt, transmitted through sexual intercourse. This picture, which normally passes for the Augustinian view, is unacceptable to Orthodoxy. The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good; easy to hurt others, and hard to heal their wounds; easy to arouse men's suspicions, and hard to win their trust. It means that we are each of us conditioned by the solidarity of the human race in its accumulated wrong-doing and wrong-thinking, and hence wrong-being. And to this accumulation of wrong we have ourselves added by our own deliberate acts of sin. The gulf grows wider and wider. It is here, in the solidarity of the human race, that we find an explanation for the apparent unjustness of the doctrine of original sin. Why, we ask, should the entire human race suffer because of Adam's fall? Why should all be punished because of one man's sin? The answer is that human beings, made in the image of the Trinitarian God, are interdependent and coinherent. No man is an island. We are 'members one of another'(Eph. 4:25), and so any action, performed by any member of the human race, inevitably affects all the other members. Even though we are not, in the strict sense, guilty of the sins of others, yet we are somehow always involved.”

Kallistos Ware, "The Orthodox way"


How do we know the events described in the bible are true?

I'll post an answer to one aspect of your question "How do we know that the Bible hasn't changed since it was written?"

It all boils down to manuscripts.

The number and age of the manuscripts that we have shows that nothing of significance has changed since the earliest Christian times.

Here is a list of some of the earliest manuscripts.  For reference on this site:

Author  Date Written            Earliest Copy   Time Span   Copies (extent)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)       1st century     50-60 AD    co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John)             90 AD           130 AD      40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John)        90 AD           150-200 AD  60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)    1st century     200 AD      150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century     200 AD      150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible)         1st century     325-350 AD  275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)        1st century     350 AD      300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)      1st century     400 AD      350 years

Through these (and many other) manuscripts, we have been able to show that the Bible of today has not been altered at since its earliest manifestation.