Sad, but it is different than ”preachers” practicing adultery as part of the teaching of the church or worse telling the congregation that ”God told them” to do so to justify their actions. Steve definitely had been convicted by the HS and confessed to his local church elders who know him and gave the proper church discipline. Just like in our own families, we should have that same repentant spirit when convicted and continue to walk in this Christian life, focusing on the author and finisher of our faith, our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST.🙏❤️
Mohler says, “I’m in absolute agreement with [Senator Murray] on the fact that fetal personhood is the greatest threat to this kind of IVF bill.” This is nonsense. They’re both in error. The question of whether or not a fetus is a person has nothing to do with IVF. What IVF deals with are zygotes (single cells), cleavage-stage embryos (4 or 8 cells), and blastocysts (mostly-hollow balls of up to 200 or 300 cells), not fetuses. Early embryos and fetuses are very different stages of development, and fetuses themselves go through many drastic changes as they develop. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the fetus at some stage achieves personhood while denying that status to the early embryos IVF deals with. What do we even mean by ‘person’, anyway? The early modern philosopher John Locke pondered this question, as well as the question, What makes the same person over time? He distinguished ‘man’ from ‘person’ in his parable of the prince and the cobbler. “Locke asks the reader to imagine the soul of a prince entering and informing the body of a cobbler, taking all of its “princely thoughts” with it. In this scenario, the person called “prince” ends up persisting in the man identified as the “cobbler”, because the prince’s consciousness goes along with the prince’s soul. … Through the “prince and the cobbler” passage it not only becomes clear that a person goes where their consciousness goes, but also that Locke distinguishes between the term “man” (which is synonymous with “human being”) and “person”.” plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-personal-identity/ According to Locke’s view that personal identity is based on psychological continuity, and assuming, as seems reasonable, that the human embryo is incapable of consciousness, so that we have no psychological continuity with it, you and I, considered as persons, were never embryos. Our bodies were once embryos. We are the same animals, or if you wish, the same human beings considered as animals, as those specks of flesh that once inhabited our mothers. But we are persons, and they were not. So they were not us. If they had been disposed of as embryos, we would never have come to be, but we would not have been murdered, because no person, let alone one sharing our identity, was involved. I’m sure you’re familiar with body swap movies. Like Locke’s prince and cobbler story, the reason we find these so easy to follow is that we don’t believe that we are identical to our bodies. If we did, those movies would be nonsense. The argument for the difference between man and person doesn’t depend on believing that body swapping is possible. The point is, we are not our bodies, and we don’t believe we are, except insofar as our bodies are inhabited by our minds. And there is no reason to believe that that inhabiting of body by mind begins at conception, and good reason to believe it begins later, since our minds are most intimately related to a particular part of our bodies, our brains, which begin to resemble their final form only late in pregnancy.
Be funny to reach people. Preaching isn't taken seriously. It's a joke. I'm not here to reach people. I'm here to make them pick up their cross. You give them lollipops, the man made, and I'll give them fire, the uncalled for. Reaching people for god isn't a science, it is an invisible ray that comes from foolery, from preaching, not rationale. Formulas are from labs, the rational, and reach bodies, preaching is from ignorance, the depths of hell, and reaches souls. When the movie and the night out on the town is over, and things slow down, then the darkness will come flooding back in. My preaching is dark. In life you don't get all you want. If you went into a store and they didn't have what you want, you would say, 'Lets go, this store is a joke'. They're not in comedy clubs for the most part, but are attracted to survival more so, to the serious.
Brilliant.
Sad, but it is different than ”preachers” practicing adultery as part of the teaching of the church or worse telling the congregation that ”God told them” to do so to justify their actions. Steve definitely had been convicted by the HS and confessed to his local church elders who know him and gave the proper church discipline. Just like in our own families, we should have that same repentant spirit when convicted and continue to walk in this Christian life, focusing on the author and finisher of our faith, our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST.🙏❤️
Mohler says, “I’m in absolute agreement with [Senator Murray] on the fact that fetal personhood is the greatest threat to this kind of IVF bill.” This is nonsense. They’re both in error. The question of whether or not a fetus is a person has nothing to do with IVF. What IVF deals with are zygotes (single cells), cleavage-stage embryos (4 or 8 cells), and blastocysts (mostly-hollow balls of up to 200 or 300 cells), not fetuses. Early embryos and fetuses are very different stages of development, and fetuses themselves go through many drastic changes as they develop. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the fetus at some stage achieves personhood while denying that status to the early embryos IVF deals with.
What do we even mean by ‘person’, anyway? The early modern philosopher John Locke pondered this question, as well as the question, What makes the same person over time? He distinguished ‘man’ from ‘person’ in his parable of the prince and the cobbler.
“Locke asks the reader to imagine the soul of a prince entering and informing the body of a cobbler, taking all of its “princely thoughts” with it. In this scenario, the person called “prince” ends up persisting in the man identified as the “cobbler”, because the prince’s consciousness goes along with the prince’s soul. … Through the “prince and the cobbler” passage it not only becomes clear that a person goes where their consciousness goes, but also that Locke distinguishes between the term “man” (which is synonymous with “human being”) and “person”.” plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-personal-identity/
According to Locke’s view that personal identity is based on psychological continuity, and assuming, as seems reasonable, that the human embryo is incapable of consciousness, so that we have no psychological continuity with it, you and I, considered as persons, were never embryos. Our bodies were once embryos. We are the same animals, or if you wish, the same human beings considered as animals, as those specks of flesh that once inhabited our mothers. But we are persons, and they were not. So they were not us. If they had been disposed of as embryos, we would never have come to be, but we would not have been murdered, because no person, let alone one sharing our identity, was involved.
I’m sure you’re familiar with body swap movies. Like Locke’s prince and cobbler story, the reason we find these so easy to follow is that we don’t believe that we are identical to our bodies. If we did, those movies would be nonsense. The argument for the difference between man and person doesn’t depend on believing that body swapping is possible. The point is, we are not our bodies, and we don’t believe we are, except insofar as our bodies are inhabited by our minds. And there is no reason to believe that that inhabiting of body by mind begins at conception, and good reason to believe it begins later, since our minds are most intimately related to a particular part of our bodies, our brains, which begin to resemble their final form only late in pregnancy.
It is a woke position to speak in terms of gender existing.
Be funny to reach people. Preaching isn't taken seriously. It's a joke.
I'm not here to reach people. I'm here to make them pick up their cross.
You give them lollipops, the man made, and I'll give them fire, the uncalled for.
Reaching people for god isn't a science, it is an invisible ray that comes from foolery, from preaching, not rationale.
Formulas are from labs, the rational, and reach bodies, preaching is from ignorance, the depths of hell, and reaches souls.
When the movie and the night out on the town is over, and things slow down, then the darkness will come flooding back in. My preaching is dark.
In life you don't get all you want. If you went into a store and they didn't have what you want, you would say, 'Lets go, this store is a joke'.
They're not in comedy clubs for the most part, but are attracted to survival more so, to the serious.