David Olson

@IVMiles I think Keller will be appreciated again in a couple decades when people can more easily parse the different parts of his works and glean the best while shrugging at the worst…as we do with many dead theologians.

@PeterRandewijk @BMcGrewvy I’ve already run across multiple stories of lawyers and even a federal judge getting caught doing it. So, I don't doubt many will hit the ‘easy’ button

@BMcGrewvy Speakers/writers I don't doubt it. But academics? If they do so they will lose their career very fast.

Evangelical speakers/writers/academics are increasingly going to produce books that heavily use AI. Without naming names, I have direct knowledge that this is already starting. And it's shameful.

I wish this was possible. But you need a public that values the future more than the present. Values their children more than themselves (which means they have to value having children). Are willing to personally sacrifice because it’s good, right, etc. And we don’t have that nation…yet. But for the first time in more than a decade, I think we could. We are in a race to find out if the character of the country can improve fast enough to conquer the flaws.

@IVMiles Would you happen to have written something that shows their insights?

Early Republic Calvinist Southern Baptists ca 1800-1830 had a remarkably healthy understanding of the relationship between war, the civil order, and religion.

@SoMuchBloodJoe I have taken to offering to sell… at somewhere to 4x to 10x the current market depending how sassy I feel.

These people are insufferable.

Call Medical Supply company Me: I need this. Wait. Them: We aren’t in your network. Me: I know that’s why I have this pre authorization. Them: We aren’t in your network. Me: Yes I know that’s why I have this authorization. Repeat with at least 4 people. Them: You need to contact this other medical supply company. Contact medical supply company 2. Them: Great we will take care of everything and let you know. Wait. Me: Check back in Them: we are waiting on your insurance. We will let you know. Wait. Me: Check back in Them: we are waiting on your insurance. We will let you know. Wait. Me: Check back in Them: we are out of network with your insurance. They won’t cover it. Call insurance: Insurance: they just need to fill out an authorization form. Call Medical Supply: Me: you need to fill out this form. Them: No, the notes from the call here say we are out of network. And won’t cover it. Call back insurance: Insurance: yes, we have notes from that call we told them since we are out of network the need to submit this form. Call back medical supply: Me: yes, as I said before they need you fill out the form. Them: ok…I will tell the insurance department guys to fill out the form. So yes, the competency crisis is a real thing.

I have a clip of a Democrat in the back of my mind saying something like it’s a dangerous idea that our rights come from God. Which is interesting to think about in relation to this idea of the Rule of Law. Appealing to a rule of Law makes sense IF the people agree there is a moral order to which we are trying to conform our earthly laws too and that we have a reasonably similar understanding of what that higher moral law is. But to what exactly is that Democrat appealing if he says “the rule of law”? If Rights (an outworking of the moral order) don’t come from God but from Government and then appealing to the Rule of Law simply means doing whatever the Law currently says. But of course laws change. So it really means doing whatever the people with power say the law is. These are not long term compatible worldviews.

@Loyal2tGo17 @BMcGrewvy Why don’t you think it matters?

@Djolson @BMcGrewvy I don’t think where he criticizes makes any difference really

David French keeps writing the same essay over and over because he is still pretending he's some variety of conservative evangelical and thus has a duty to address "his" people. Real courage would be rebuking his actual people now.

@BMcGrewvy Fair.

@Djolson I agree with much of this but I think his material is just plain bad, and would be bad wherever he was writing it.

7 is tempting (to me) because it would be cool to saw you sat next to the Pope on a flight. Also, I really want to know from some high level Catholic why they have such high tolerance for things like politicians who openly support Abortion, homosexuality, etc. and high tolerance for priests who sow confusion in these areas. But then crack down on, for example, the Latin Mass. But I think your first answer is right. Getting Gavin thrown in across the aisle would make for pleasant conversation as a break and if you want to be entertained you eavesdrop in front of you…

(But 3 is tempting.)

7, so I could overhear Wes Huff cooking Bart Ehrman's goose.

Pro-lifers should absolutely criticize this and make the case that IVF kills millions of humans every year. We just need to keep perspective as we do so. The problem isn’t that pro-lifers got hoodwinked and we could have had such a great pro-life government if only we hadn’t been so stupid. For where the country and politics currently are, this is about the best we could have managed. But we should also work to shift the country so that this is not the high water mark. But we can’t do that if we crash out every time we haven’t hit perfection.

Yes IVF kills more humans that other forms of Abortion. But first, the Democrats are not anti-IVF. So it’s not 1.5-2million versus 1million. It’s a party still allowing for 1.5-2millikn deaths because they have not yet had their moral sense awakened to what is actually happening in IVF versus a party that is fine with 1.5-2 million + 1million and are actively promoting getting that number higher. Further, I ask you, which country is more likely to soon realize that this is evil and end it. A country that identifies as prolife and has not yet applied the logic to the context of IVF or the Country that identifies as “my body my choice, abortion on demand without apology and any stage”? Really, if you had to wager which one will ban IVF first, which one would you put your stake on?

@VentureCoMining No you aren’t obligated to answer any of my questions and I appreciate that you have take the time to. But I am confused, How am I supposed to answer your question?

What is the difference between having a different understanding (even false or incorrect) of the same essential person/being and actually speaking of two separate things?

I’m pro-life. I’m unhappy with both of these things. I also am not surprised, in fact expected these things would likely happen. But that’s not the question that was offered. The question that was offered was do you want to give power to the “abortion on demand without apology at any stage of pregnancy” party, who also promotes the abuse by castration and sterilization of children and uses the arms of the law to go after pro-lifers, and the list goes on. Or do I want the candidate that’s about as pro-life as the median voter of the country? And isn’t hostile to Christians and pro-lifers as a bonus. And whose administration at least has a chance of being influenced by pro-lifers? It isn’t a matter of partisanship. Or being duped. It’s pretty standard political strategy. We don’t have a very pro-life administration because we don’t have a very pro-life country. So take the win you can achieve today and work to convince the rest of the country so you can win the rest tomorrow.

Having earlier this month approved abortion pills (which are responsible for most abortions), the administration now actively promotes IVF (which destroys more embryos than abortion). Pro-lifers were warned this would happen. Many kept silent anyway. Will they continue to do so?

@VentureCoMining So if I found a tribe on an Island somewhere that claimed there is only in eternal God who made heaven and earth, you would say they are worshiping the same God as Christians regardless of whatever else they believed about this God?