Very good podcast which raises at least several questions:
1. What is the current situation with the Heralds of the Gospel?
2. If the concepts expressed by a “charlatan “ are objectively valid, why would the character of the “charlatan” require that those concepts be put down the memory hole? Do I recall Balaam’s donkey, or Pilate’s writin…
Very good podcast which raises at least several questions:
1. What is the current situation with the Heralds of the Gospel?
2. If the concepts expressed by a “charlatan “ are objectively valid, why would the character of the “charlatan” require that those concepts be put down the memory hole? Do I recall Balaam’s donkey, or Pilate’s writing “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews”?
3. Similarly, if the fruits of the tree are good, why dig down to examine the roots? Or perhaps, if there were flaws with the roots, do the good fruits show that the flaws did not render the whole tree bad?
4. In the case of religious institutes that are notably very masculine in tone, won’t the reforms that are instituted in response to the founder’s wrongs basically steer the institute to have a more feminine tone ?
5. Why are do so many men joining one or other Orthodox jurisdictions complain that their previous denomination was too feminized?
> Similarly, if the fruits of the tree are good, why dig down to examine the roots? Or perhaps, if there were flaws with the roots, do the good fruits show that the flaws did not render the whole tree bad?
Every branch that bears fruit is pruned so that it bears more. It is legit to examine roots, therefore, even if the branch is bearing some fruit.
Very good podcast which raises at least several questions:
1. What is the current situation with the Heralds of the Gospel?
2. If the concepts expressed by a “charlatan “ are objectively valid, why would the character of the “charlatan” require that those concepts be put down the memory hole? Do I recall Balaam’s donkey, or Pilate’s writing “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews”?
3. Similarly, if the fruits of the tree are good, why dig down to examine the roots? Or perhaps, if there were flaws with the roots, do the good fruits show that the flaws did not render the whole tree bad?
4. In the case of religious institutes that are notably very masculine in tone, won’t the reforms that are instituted in response to the founder’s wrongs basically steer the institute to have a more feminine tone ?
5. Why are do so many men joining one or other Orthodox jurisdictions complain that their previous denomination was too feminized?
> Similarly, if the fruits of the tree are good, why dig down to examine the roots? Or perhaps, if there were flaws with the roots, do the good fruits show that the flaws did not render the whole tree bad?
Every branch that bears fruit is pruned so that it bears more. It is legit to examine roots, therefore, even if the branch is bearing some fruit.