Dr. Mohler, we briefly met back in 2001 when I was a student at Boyce College. I am now a pastor. I enjoy listening to The Briefing daily. I preach from NET Bible, but I was wondering your thoughts on the NLT?
Thank you, Dr. Mohler, for this insightful analysis. Recently a feature on public radio struck me. It told the story about the horrific practice of FGM as practiced in The Gambia and documented recent efforts on both sides to prohibit or allow it legally. What struck me was that reportedly some Gambian women who had grown up with the practice wanted to keep it and argued, to paraphrase, that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. The striking thing is that the woman who said this was arguing for a Gambian version of “reproductive freedom”. And like those in the United States who favor this formulation, the disastrous impacts of the respective practices are not primarily on themselves but vulnerable others. I.e., it is not the young girls in Gambia who have a say, nor, obviously the unborn in the United States. It is hard to imagine a pro-abortion person advocating for FGM, but the reasoning beneath both practices is-or at least can be-strikingly similar.
Why should we only mistrust electronic components made outside the US? It is naive to think that that entities in our own system are not standing by to do mischief. It's my contention that any misuse a technology can be put to will happen in a fallen world.
I assume it’s unknown the precise audio trigger that was used? Key words or phrases? For example: “Jihad and extermination of all Jews forever?” Or maybe realtime monitoring of the terrorists’ conversations? Etc.?
Just War Theory was developed at a time when those involved would actually see the enemy. The idea of extending it to a situation of using technology from hundreds/thousands of miles away is a category error.
Praying for and standing with Israel from Louisiana
this "israel" hates Christ. they hate Christ as no group of people ever has. look it up
Great deliberation.
Key Phrase: “Wow! That’s impressive!” As is this commentary.
Dr. Mohler, we briefly met back in 2001 when I was a student at Boyce College. I am now a pastor. I enjoy listening to The Briefing daily. I preach from NET Bible, but I was wondering your thoughts on the NLT?
Thank you, Dr. Mohler, for this insightful analysis. Recently a feature on public radio struck me. It told the story about the horrific practice of FGM as practiced in The Gambia and documented recent efforts on both sides to prohibit or allow it legally. What struck me was that reportedly some Gambian women who had grown up with the practice wanted to keep it and argued, to paraphrase, that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. The striking thing is that the woman who said this was arguing for a Gambian version of “reproductive freedom”. And like those in the United States who favor this formulation, the disastrous impacts of the respective practices are not primarily on themselves but vulnerable others. I.e., it is not the young girls in Gambia who have a say, nor, obviously the unborn in the United States. It is hard to imagine a pro-abortion person advocating for FGM, but the reasoning beneath both practices is-or at least can be-strikingly similar.
ANY country, who wanted Israel gone, could have sent the pagers.
Why should we only mistrust electronic components made outside the US? It is naive to think that that entities in our own system are not standing by to do mischief. It's my contention that any misuse a technology can be put to will happen in a fallen world.
I assume it’s unknown the precise audio trigger that was used? Key words or phrases? For example: “Jihad and extermination of all Jews forever?” Or maybe realtime monitoring of the terrorists’ conversations? Etc.?
Just War Theory was developed at a time when those involved would actually see the enemy. The idea of extending it to a situation of using technology from hundreds/thousands of miles away is a category error.
Seems to me the issue is "likelihood of hitting the intended target", not "can we see the intended target".