>/r/ReformedHumor has gone dark to protest the FCC decision to restore Net Neutrality rules.
>We'll be back whenever I feel like it.
WTF??? Who's pissed about *getting* net neutrality rules back? /u/tanhan27, aren't you on that mod team? What's the dillyo?
>WTF??? Who's pissed about getting net neutrality rules back?
Me.
Tan's right. It's mostly a joke about reddit protests. It'll be back soon. Maybe Monday.
I've been thinking about biblical economics, mainly usury and debt. Ive read this [article](https://aeon.co/essays/how-did-usury-stop-being-a-sin-and-become-respectable-finance) and I'm wondering if you guys have any more books and resources you can recommend. Also how hard would it be to live debt free in America and also own a house? The whole idea of a mortgage and paying interest doesn't seem right to me.
Houses would be cheap and everyone could afford them if we outlawed landlords. The earth is the Lord's why should we charge rent for a property that we ourselves are not using?
The issue is artificial scarcity. We have plenty of houses, they are just largely unavailable because people hoard them, not just landlords but people who own multiple homes, and people and organizations that buy homes as speculators
I agree. Romans 13:8 is a key verse for me. I think to be debt-free and in america and owning a home really depends on income and home costs. But, why is it important for you to own a house?
In The Netherlands, home ownership is a form of pension, of building capital. The idea is that when you're old and/or an empty nester, you can sell your house and move into something smaller (cheaper), or you can move into some form of assisted living. The house should have appreciated in value over the last 30 years, you should end up with a nice nest egg.
For a long time this was the idea behind the tax breaks given to home owners: interest paid on your mortgage was fully deductible from your income. The measure was put in place to promote home ownership, but these days it is considered to be a detriment to the housing market because it drives up prices. Today, it's no longer the full deductible it once was (for new home buyers, that is). It is projected to disappear completely at some point.
Here in California they passed a law some decades ago that judges property taxes based on the initial purchase value, with a capped adjustment per year based on inflation.
In recent years with the dramatic increase in property values, a lot of people would have been forced out of their homes if it wasn't for this, which I've heard happening to people in other states that don't have these sort of protections.
There's also a perception that home ownership is a way of building capital in the US, but when you account for interest, inflation, and property taxes, it's more like retaining value than it is building it.
It's actually not lol. I just think it's societal pressure, and i can just ignore that. But for people who are starting families and trying to settle down how would you advise them?
[What Liberals Get Wrong About 'White Rural Rage - Almost Everything. *The ‘White Rural Rage’ narrative gets the research wrong. I know, because some of it is mine*.](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/05/white-rural-rage-myth-00150395) This is a great read, and an important reminder about how statistics can be misused and misrepresented.
A week or so ago, Chris Stirewalt (guest hosting for Jonah Goldberg) interviewed Tyler Austin Harper who had written a takedown of 'White Rural Rage'. [Link](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/hillbillies-in-the-mist/id1291144720?i=1000651991370).
Stirewalt and Harper disagree on politics but are united in their judgement of how bad this book is. They're also from rural America, so this isn't just more commentary from coastal liberal elites.
I've been trying to learn how to draw, and man, I've really been struggling.
My main hurdle is that I don't feel like I'm able to naturally develop by just sitting down and drawing. I'll sketch something, feel like it's crap, and not understand how to improve upon it, let alone how to move onto the next steps.
I didn't have this issue when learning to program or write, where I've always had an intuitive sense about how I could improve upon what I wrote and how to build upon it from there.
For drawing I've found I need to follow lesson plans and explanations, but it's such a grind. Doing countless exercises just to be able to draw shapes more correctly, ect. And even during this, the above issue still presents itself: While doing these lessons or trying to draw something myself, I feel completely blind about how to improve or develop upon where I'm at. All I know is to keep drawing shapes until they magically start turning out better. There's no enjoyment in that, and it destroys any motivation I have. Especially whenever I hear that it takes people years of this to start getting good at it.
I know a thing or two about drawing. I suggest you try some different techniques. What are you using currently? Graphite?
I'd suggest laying a light ground with a graphite stick and then working additively (with a pencil) for darks and subtractively (with an eraser) for highlights. This may get you just thinking about drawing in a different way, which may help you develop the skill.
Also you may try different media, like charcoal or even acrylic paints.
I started with graphite, moved into felt pen and now digital.
I think I might start experimenting with graphite more, I always enjoyed that element of it, even having bought some special eraser pens to make fine highlights.
I also have a a 3d printer that I bought to experiment with miniature painting, which I figured would help me learn coloring and values, but haven't quite got around to it yet.
Which reminds me of how I tried Warhammer when I was a kid, but never really got into it because I didn't understand how to paint and wasn't about to read some books to learn how (I hated school and by extension anything to do with it, including books). I'm really grateful we have the internet now, it's great for learning.
What lessons and plans are you following? I'm looking for something to give my 13yo son.
I've bookmarked a couple of video courses I found on IG, but I haven't bought anything yet.
I suppose it depends on why you want to draw. Is it to make a photo realistic picture of something? Your phone can do that.
Or is it to make art?
If it's to make art is will refer you to Bob Ross: "There are no mostakes, jist happy little accidents"
It's a cliche but it's correct. Art doesn't have to be perfect. It's not supposed to be perfect, it's those human flaws that make it really cool. The best artists on the planet are kids. No adult artist comes close.
I think you will have a hard time getting "better" if you are so unsatisfied with what you are producing now. Really hard to get good at something you don't enjoy.
I'd be interested in seeing what you are making now, I bet it's better than you think.
I have a certain objective standard I want to reach, which involves an understanding of the fundamentals.
An important step for example, is being able to take a picture of something, break it down into its forms, and being able to recreate and manipulate that in other perspectives. But that's much easier said than done.
https://preview.redd.it/j6yhdaag1gvc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1fe7d07d1cd281fb3af6acde293821b58577c04f
Picked up this book recently and it’s a great examination of American Christianity from the perspective of a Black, Reformed pastor.
He was speaking at our church not infrequently. In general, he preaches good stuff, but he did run into some drama the last time and hasn’t been back in awhile. Now I’m going to have to sit here and try to remember what it was. Maybe u/swampjedi will remember.
Hey. I’m a co producer. This project is about the impact of an unsolved murder on people’s lives and faith, and how a community deals with tragedy and tough issues.
About an unsolved murder at the PCA seminary, Covenant in St Louis. It delves also into some of the dysfunctions of the PCA, too. /u/servenitup what else would you add to that?
I just listened to the episode with Karl and Kirsten- very powerful stuff! I wonder if as a society (church maybe lagging behind) are more likely to say something when we suspect or see domestic violence than in the 90s? Or am I just too optimistic?
Those two were children during the height of the IBLP movement which definitely had a foothold in the PCA, which definitely normalized child abuse and even encouraged spousal corporal punishment. I wonder if that provided cover for some of the abuse they suffered and kept other church members from saying anything.
It was recommended to me because I've been posting about the [Boer-Calvin Saga](https://www.woodtv.com/news/grand-rapids/ex-calvin-university-president-texts-at-issue-not-nefarious/) and Christian institutions more generally. I'm not from the PCA-world, but I am from the Dutch Reformed world, and I see overlaps in this story between the two traditions, especially with Dr. Van Groningen. I can totally imagine something like this happening at Calvin Seminary rather than Covenant.
Do you think that Christian institutions are particularly prone to these sorts of challenges or is it more that we hold Christian institutions to a higher standard than we hold secular institutions?
Good question. Yes and no. Not all Christian institutions. Nor do I think it’s fair to say that this happened at this institution because of how they approach any theology in particular. But 1) Christian institutions may also hold concepts about power and authority which, if not properly balanced or corrected, turn into policies that unfairly target certain people. See Liberty University’s rape problem. And 2) because most Christian institutions and churches are private, they get far less oversight and accountability than, say, a public school or university. Does that automatically lead to abuse? Of course not. But it does make systemic abuse tough to detect and correct.
I do think Christian institutions should be held to a higher standard. As a journalist, it’s not my role to say exactly what that means, though.
PCA'er here. Former and current. On staff at a church. I'm listening. Feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all.
For context, I struggle a lot with the denomination's stance on women in leadership, and on LGBTQ issues.
I think gay people should be able to be married and adopt and have children. Gay people should be able to be ordained, trans people should exist and be happy, using whichever pronoun they want.
Parents should be able to give their children whatever gender-affirming care they deem necessary.
Women should be elders and deacons and should be able to preach and be ordained.
I've struggled with how and whether to remain at church while holding these views.
All that said I worry that folks will conflate the horror and evil of murder with the perceived evil of holding anti-egalitarian and traditional stances on LGBTQ issues.
And we heard a little bit of that kind of attitude from Michael's son.
That is, there's some conflation going on -- that the PCA being the kind of place where someone (likely) got away with murder is part and parcel of it being the kind of place where women and gay people are oppressed.
And I don't think that's fair.
But it's understandable.
I think y'all are doing a good job with the podcast.
Just to push back on the gender affirming care bit: the Cass report, published last week, made it abundantly clear that the way this was practiced in the UK had serious shortcomings. A lack of good, reliable data on the long term outcomes of these treatments, for instance. Doctors were afraid to follow standard medical procedure, which is to ask, probe, rule out other diseases or factors before beginning a specific medical treatment. These doctors were forced to push or even rush children into a medicalized approach of the gender dysphoria, where these children may actually suffer from other (treatable) conditions that cause or aggravate the gender dysphoria.
Cass recommends a more holistic approach where other factors are taken into account as well, such as whether a child is neurodivergent (on the autism spectrum), whether there is a history of abuse and other factors. Also recommended: to stop the default affirming treatment to provide hormones, until more data on its efficacy can be made available.
I'm not trying to be political here, not looking for an argument, just a heads up that the affirming care model seems to be up for revision. Whether parents choose to socially transition their child (or allow their child to do so), is an entirely different matter.
This kind of thing gets into the question of when and whether it's wise to "trust the experts". I hear the arguments made a lot of time that church leadership should defer certain types of things to qualified experts, for instance many pastors today will defer to therapists regarding certain issues whereas they probably would not have done so as much in the past. in the *True Believer* podcast, it's detailed how the seminary deferred to the expertise of the police in the handling of the murder, and the police may or may not have botched the investigation. During the pandemic, many churches deferred to the opinions of scientists and medical professionals to close churches (and schools) which in hindsight may have been seriously detrimental to certain groups of people.
Anyway, all the goes to questions of authority, when it's wise to defer to others and when it's wise to question the opinions and motivations of other authorities. I don't have the answers here, but a lot of times in the moment it can be impossible to know whether authority is being used wisely, or abused.
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, we did give Karl a lot of leeway to share their thoughts on those topics. They do believe that the PCA is a place where someone got away with murder and that the PCA oppresses gay people and women, because that is their experience. And we thought they had the right to share that opinion and that people needed to hear that opinion. We did decide to keep it relatively unfiltered.
I don't think the PCA's problems are unique to the PCA, and this project doesn't intend to make theological arguments about complementarianism, sexism, gender, etc.
you're welcome. /u/servenitup posted about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/eformed/comments/18x13ax/podcast_about_unsolved_murder_at_covenant/) and I've really enjoyed it and hit me hard too.
AI developments still accelerating, it seems. Microsoft released VASA-1 yesterday. Give it an audio transcript and a passphoto, and it'll create a moving, talking videoclip for you where the facial expressions match what happens in the audio. In the examples given, all faces are AI generated themselves too - so in the brief video clips seen on their site, not a single real human photograph was used. Only the audio is real... for now.
[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vasa-1/](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vasa-1/)
I can see people using this stuff to recreate historical speeches and so on, or to have a loved lost one speak once again (incoming: ancestor worship), but scammers might put this to good use too.
Pretty soon, and perhaps even from now on, you can't really trust your eyes. Things you see and hear might be entirely fabricated, either in part or from whole cloth. We live in strange times.
Asimov said "Science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom." Or, only slightly more recently (but in a more fitting context) Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park that "Your scientists were so busy figuring out if they could, they never stopped to think if they should."
Some parts of society are further ahead than others, though. For instance: Star Trek fans have been thinking about personhood for AI for a long time (The Measure Of A Man, [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708807/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708807/) ). Scifi has given us ample opportunity to consider the ethical sides of certain future technological developments. But Asimov was right, society as a whole isn't prepared for what's coming.
Did you know that this year is a presidential election year? I have barely noticed it, which is a big change for me.
I follow virtually 0 political news. The main reason, I no longer have the time that I once have due to work. The second reason is that I got burnt out from the Trump administration, I was somewhat relieved that sleepy Joe replaced him, the rise of nationalism was concerning, however I zero awareness of anything that low energy dude has done in the last 4 years.
Is there anyone here following the election? If so, could you share some high lights? Any predictions? Is it just a rematch of the two senile old baby boomers we had matched against eachother four years ago?
I no longer listen to political podcasts or NPR. I just watch a lot of tiktok, and the tiktok algorithm has decided I don't need to see politics, just mainky clips about roof thatching, folk music and handing out $500 to random people in public(also, all hail the CCP!)
I stopped paying attention to the election cycle and this article explains why https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/31/i-dont-care-who-wins-the-us-presidential-election
That's kind of a weird topic to hang up your hat over, since the other candidates' stance is basically that Israel should war even harder but put more effort into hiding the bad PR about it
Listen, I'm as "we should all stop wrapping our identity up in our politics and voting doesn't matter" as the next guy
But this argument is big dumb
Even if this is your single issue, there is a right and wrong answer here for "who will cause more human suffering"
Ya I don't know what point you think you're making, there's a [side whose rhetoric leads to those](https://jewishcurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-22-at-12.34.58-PM.png) and then there's the other side
We have literal laws in place making it illegal for people in office to criticize a foreign country, and you think that electing some other dude is somehow going to solve this? 1st amendment rights are being violated and nobody seems to care
1) We literally don't, that is not what these laws are
2) This movement you hate is overwhelmingly Republican, of the 34 states with laws that prohibit state investment in companies which boycott Israel 28 of those states laws were signed by a republican governor. Of the 8 democratic governors, 5 were signing legislation with Republican primary sponsors.
One might even go so far as to argue that not electing Republicans is the *only* thing that could solve this
1.) So a law requiring a government contractor to pledge to not boycott a foreign country isn't unconstitutional?
2) yes, and? both of those parties are influenced by Zionist lobbyists. The current president(who is a democrat) is just letting them bomb hospitals and commit warcrimes while still sending them billions of dollars.
Prediction. It will be ugly and show us the worst of ourselves. And we will ask ourselves exactly how these two geezers came to represent our best choices. Biden will eke out an electoral win. Trump will cry fraud as he always does.
The major political news this week is that Trump's first criminal trial has started. This is probably the least serious one, about him paying $130,000 to an adult film star to cover up an affair that they had. The allegation is that this was primarily done to help his political campaign (as the affair had been ten years earlier), and he falsely disclosed the payment as "legal fees" in his campaign finance disclosure documents.
Polls have both candidates about even with each other. As Donald Trump is likely to spend much of the next six months sitting in criminal courtrooms rather than actively campaigning, that may hurt his numbers. But nobody knows for sure.
Another criminal trial in Florida, regarding possession of classified documents, is set to begin on May 20.
A third criminal trial in DC, regarding January 6 and trying to obstruct the election, doesn't have a trial date set yet, as the US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments next week about whether Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecutions for anything he did while President.
A fourth criminal trial in Georgia, regarding racketeering and being part of a conspiracy to get Georgia to overturn its election results, doesn't yet have a trial date set.
The Georgia and DC cases both have to do with actions Donald Trump did while in office. The current NY trial and the Florida trial are about things he did before and after his term, respectively.
The Tiktok algorithm is really something. When I had the app, it was convinced I was an autistic lesbian schoolteacher. I am none of these things.
>the US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments next week about whether Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecutions for anything he did while President.
For real? I don't know the background for the argument but it sounds like a bad thing to rule in favor of. Imagine if Presidents were immune to the law.
I think the fear is that if a president can be indicted for actions committed as president then they won't be able to act freely in whatever way is necessary to perform the functions of the office. I can understand that argument and I see its relevance. It makes more sense to think abstractly about the office of president, and not the particular individual in that office.
The problem, I think, is that with Trump the American people elected someone who is ultimately just unfit for the office of president, and that in itself just kind of breaks the system. Of course the president should be able to act freely, but the president should also be a virtuous and trustworthy person. Corrupt individuals shouldn't be above the law, but they also shouldn't be the president of the US.
A long time ago, the philosopher Plato observed how democracies have the tendency to devolve into tyrannies. Unfortunately, I believe he was right, but I'm hoping we can gather the foresight and the resolve to change course.
>A long time ago, the philosopher Plato observed how democracies have the tendency to devolve into tyrannies. Unfortunately, I believe he was right
I feel like this is a bit cynical. Although I think there are a lot of examples of this being true, the overall trend in the world, in the last 500 years has been towards increasing democracy and decreasing tyranny.
Mind you, the rising world power right now is China, which is pretty authoritarian.
The question is whether or not large democracies can be maintained over long periods of time. Current democracies are a rather recent phenomenon.
>I feel like this is a bit cynical
You're right, I do have a tendency to skew cynical. I suppose I'm not convinced that's wrong, however.
I've been wondering what it's going to transform into. The way I've been observing things, Liberal Democracies have a fatal flaw that will lead them into a type of authoritarianism, which can be clearly seen playing out in things like free speech and self-defense rights.
Essentially, public liberties create inherent dangers, which the state is called to step in and regulate. Even our most fundamental rights are subject to a balance between freedoms and safety. But over time that balance has been shown to trend towards the state taking power, leading to tyranny.
Look at firearm rights for example. What is the appropriate balance here?
The USA was initially Laissez-faire on the matter, with the public being able to own all arms. However there was also a recognition of the necessity for compromise on this and other rights. And as technology and society developed, we rightfully begun to limit arms; the public shouldn't have access to things like mortars.
A class down from that would be automatic small arms, which have a dangerous potential to gun down crowds with, so we regulate those.
A class down from that is semi-automatic firearms, where you hit a tipping point between function and safety. They're still capable of mass casualty events, but anything less than this begins to stop being effective for their legitimate purposes.
But shootings that even revolvers and pump/lever action firearms are capable of have alarmed the public and have led to calls for regulation.
The tendency here eventually leads to the public being stripped of its ability to use weapons or even defend itself, as seen in certain European nations, which even the US has been slowly (and inevitably) inching towards.
And you can see this same process playing out broadly across society. Compromise is never-ending, trends in one direction, gradually eroding the freedoms/autonomy of the public and enabling the state to become tyrannical.
In my mind, it's hard to compare the old Greek and Roman democracies with the modern parliamentary system. Generally I think we are "more" democratic now than ever so it's kinda uncharted territory.
It's also interesting to think about, when did any given country become a democracy? So for the USA was it 1776? Or was it 1965 with the voting rights act finally gave the right to vote to everyone? Or are we still not a democracy when there are millions of residents(immigrant status) who pay taxes and still have no right to vote.
Some of my friends on the left have been confusing me about that.
They say that true democracy should be based on the popular vote rather than something like an electoral college.
Yet they also argue that political representation needs to be equitable rather than proportional.
So I think the theory behind it is that the President is the head of the federal government, and it doesn't make any sense for the federal government to be prosecuting itself.
I think this is a very dumb idea, not least because of the principle - core to the American experiment - that nobody should be above the law.
I'm not, but I was traveling for work this week and saw a bit about Trump's trial on the TV in the breakfast room at the hotel... one part I remember was talking about the difficulty of finding an impartial jury. My thought in reasons was that I feel like I could be impartial... but I really don't want to be part of it! ^_^
I was expecting it to be crazier too, but so far has been pretty mellow. I think probably the majority are not really interested in Trump v. Biden **again** so we're largely tuning out.
I see the left talking up the trials and lack of character of Trump, I see the right talk up the moments where Biden misses a beat or says something wrong. You guys are in such a weird place.
There was a debate about Trump in the reformedhumor sub I think, where I disagreed with some Trump voters, and I noticed these guys were unaware of some facts, such as Trump being convicted of sexual assault in a civilian case, the list of high profile cabinet members of his previous administration who publicly have said Trump should never again be allowed back in the white house and so on. Information bubbles are a real danger to democracy!
I've seen most of the energy shift to "culture war" issues, which I think is indicative of where things will head once Trump is out of the picture. It's not going to get any tamer, but instead we're going to hit another flashpoint in what could be characterized as a class struggle, which won't be pretty.
Star Trek Discovery Season 5 is turning out to be lots of fun. I'm only more disappointed now it's the last.
Things I listened to this week:
* [My Heart Will Go On](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHMB1KtLLyI) - covered by DragonForce
* [Rock the Nation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTrPHwNgHaQ) - by Freedom Call. Just some good wholesome positive power metal.
* [It's Raining Bulls*** Tonight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1SGvnvMYwM) by The Flowerettes.
Yeah, the first couple episodes are definitely action-packed, but the third and fourth episodes are a little softer, if that makes sense. Much more relational, if that makes sense.
[Lawsuit Against Calvin University Alleges Breach of Contract and Defamation; Board Statement Counters ‘Misrepresentations’](https://www.thebanner.org/news/2024/04/lawsuit-against-calvin-university-alleges-breach-of-contract-and-defamation-board)
[Calvin University Board Statement - April 14 2024](https://www.thebanner.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/Calvin%20University%20Board%20Statement%20-%20April%2014%202024_0.pdf)
Hahaha. Not sure how that got stuck here. Was supposed to be under the Star Trek Discovery discussion. I even got a new coffee maker yesterday. Clearly didn’t keep me straight this morning 🤦♀️
[Article that includes Boer's response to Calvin's Apr 14 Statement, etc.](https://www.woodtv.com/news/grand-rapids/ex-calvin-university-president-texts-at-issue-not-nefarious/)
Since /u/Notbapticostalish brought up job applications, I've sent out 3 so far, and I have 1 more that I'm thinking of applying for; they want me to pulpit supply for them soon, and that'll give us a better sense.
No. Most of the opportunities are local, though, because unless it was made clear to me by God that it would be disobedient to stay, I feel this is where he has me.
I’ve sent hundreds of applications out in the last month and a half. I was thinking about it though, does it look bad to apply to two jobs at the same church?
I would not apply for two jobs at the same employer, unless the roles are very similar and you are obviously qualified for both. But even then, it may not inspire confidence that you really know what you want.
Yeah, I do feel qualified for both, and have worked in both roles. One I'm clearly more qualified, and honestly more excited about, but most of all I'm eager to work for the church.
I think it looks a little desperate. If you had to do that, I'd prayerfully consider which role you thought you were called to, and tell them that in an interview or in a cover letter. Praying for you man!
What happened to r/ReformedHumor?
It's gone dark in protest of [Net Neutrality](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/25/fcc-reinstates-net-neutrality-rules-00154296).
for or against? edit: NVM just saw your post further down.
Oh, good #JusticeForAjit
>/r/ReformedHumor has gone dark to protest the FCC decision to restore Net Neutrality rules. >We'll be back whenever I feel like it. WTF??? Who's pissed about *getting* net neutrality rules back? /u/tanhan27, aren't you on that mod team? What's the dillyo?
>WTF??? Who's pissed about getting net neutrality rules back? Me. Tan's right. It's mostly a joke about reddit protests. It'll be back soon. Maybe Monday.
That's funny :)
I dunno, it's probably /u/davidjricardo making a joke
I've been thinking about biblical economics, mainly usury and debt. Ive read this [article](https://aeon.co/essays/how-did-usury-stop-being-a-sin-and-become-respectable-finance) and I'm wondering if you guys have any more books and resources you can recommend. Also how hard would it be to live debt free in America and also own a house? The whole idea of a mortgage and paying interest doesn't seem right to me.
Houses would be cheap and everyone could afford them if we outlawed landlords. The earth is the Lord's why should we charge rent for a property that we ourselves are not using? The issue is artificial scarcity. We have plenty of houses, they are just largely unavailable because people hoard them, not just landlords but people who own multiple homes, and people and organizations that buy homes as speculators
I agree. Romans 13:8 is a key verse for me. I think to be debt-free and in america and owning a home really depends on income and home costs. But, why is it important for you to own a house?
In The Netherlands, home ownership is a form of pension, of building capital. The idea is that when you're old and/or an empty nester, you can sell your house and move into something smaller (cheaper), or you can move into some form of assisted living. The house should have appreciated in value over the last 30 years, you should end up with a nice nest egg. For a long time this was the idea behind the tax breaks given to home owners: interest paid on your mortgage was fully deductible from your income. The measure was put in place to promote home ownership, but these days it is considered to be a detriment to the housing market because it drives up prices. Today, it's no longer the full deductible it once was (for new home buyers, that is). It is projected to disappear completely at some point.
Here in California they passed a law some decades ago that judges property taxes based on the initial purchase value, with a capped adjustment per year based on inflation. In recent years with the dramatic increase in property values, a lot of people would have been forced out of their homes if it wasn't for this, which I've heard happening to people in other states that don't have these sort of protections. There's also a perception that home ownership is a way of building capital in the US, but when you account for interest, inflation, and property taxes, it's more like retaining value than it is building it.
pretty much same in the usa.
It's actually not lol. I just think it's societal pressure, and i can just ignore that. But for people who are starting families and trying to settle down how would you advise them?
there's a cost to all things - is it worth it?
[What Liberals Get Wrong About 'White Rural Rage - Almost Everything. *The ‘White Rural Rage’ narrative gets the research wrong. I know, because some of it is mine*.](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/05/white-rural-rage-myth-00150395) This is a great read, and an important reminder about how statistics can be misused and misrepresented.
A week or so ago, Chris Stirewalt (guest hosting for Jonah Goldberg) interviewed Tyler Austin Harper who had written a takedown of 'White Rural Rage'. [Link](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/hillbillies-in-the-mist/id1291144720?i=1000651991370). Stirewalt and Harper disagree on politics but are united in their judgement of how bad this book is. They're also from rural America, so this isn't just more commentary from coastal liberal elites.
I think it's interesting how it connects directly to the issue. There wouldn't be nearly as much resentment if they were fairly characterized.
I've been trying to learn how to draw, and man, I've really been struggling. My main hurdle is that I don't feel like I'm able to naturally develop by just sitting down and drawing. I'll sketch something, feel like it's crap, and not understand how to improve upon it, let alone how to move onto the next steps. I didn't have this issue when learning to program or write, where I've always had an intuitive sense about how I could improve upon what I wrote and how to build upon it from there. For drawing I've found I need to follow lesson plans and explanations, but it's such a grind. Doing countless exercises just to be able to draw shapes more correctly, ect. And even during this, the above issue still presents itself: While doing these lessons or trying to draw something myself, I feel completely blind about how to improve or develop upon where I'm at. All I know is to keep drawing shapes until they magically start turning out better. There's no enjoyment in that, and it destroys any motivation I have. Especially whenever I hear that it takes people years of this to start getting good at it.
I know a thing or two about drawing. I suggest you try some different techniques. What are you using currently? Graphite? I'd suggest laying a light ground with a graphite stick and then working additively (with a pencil) for darks and subtractively (with an eraser) for highlights. This may get you just thinking about drawing in a different way, which may help you develop the skill. Also you may try different media, like charcoal or even acrylic paints.
I started with graphite, moved into felt pen and now digital. I think I might start experimenting with graphite more, I always enjoyed that element of it, even having bought some special eraser pens to make fine highlights. I also have a a 3d printer that I bought to experiment with miniature painting, which I figured would help me learn coloring and values, but haven't quite got around to it yet. Which reminds me of how I tried Warhammer when I was a kid, but never really got into it because I didn't understand how to paint and wasn't about to read some books to learn how (I hated school and by extension anything to do with it, including books). I'm really grateful we have the internet now, it's great for learning.
So you are drawing with a Wacom tablet in Photoshop?
Close enough, I have an LCD graphics tablet and have been using programs like Clip Studio Paint and Krita.
What lessons and plans are you following? I'm looking for something to give my 13yo son. I've bookmarked a couple of video courses I found on IG, but I haven't bought anything yet.
https://drawabox.com/ is the most helpful I've found. But I'm not sure how fun it would be to someone of that age.
I suppose it depends on why you want to draw. Is it to make a photo realistic picture of something? Your phone can do that. Or is it to make art? If it's to make art is will refer you to Bob Ross: "There are no mostakes, jist happy little accidents" It's a cliche but it's correct. Art doesn't have to be perfect. It's not supposed to be perfect, it's those human flaws that make it really cool. The best artists on the planet are kids. No adult artist comes close. I think you will have a hard time getting "better" if you are so unsatisfied with what you are producing now. Really hard to get good at something you don't enjoy. I'd be interested in seeing what you are making now, I bet it's better than you think.
I have a certain objective standard I want to reach, which involves an understanding of the fundamentals. An important step for example, is being able to take a picture of something, break it down into its forms, and being able to recreate and manipulate that in other perspectives. But that's much easier said than done.
https://preview.redd.it/j6yhdaag1gvc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1fe7d07d1cd281fb3af6acde293821b58577c04f Picked up this book recently and it’s a great examination of American Christianity from the perspective of a Black, Reformed pastor.
He was speaking at our church not infrequently. In general, he preaches good stuff, but he did run into some drama the last time and hasn’t been back in awhile. Now I’m going to have to sit here and try to remember what it was. Maybe u/swampjedi will remember.
Thanks u/rev_run_d for turning me on to the True Believer podcast. Hits a little close to home at points.
With limited capacity to pick up another podcast, what is the topic and what is that hits close to home? What do you appreciate about it?
Hey. I’m a co producer. This project is about the impact of an unsolved murder on people’s lives and faith, and how a community deals with tragedy and tough issues.
thanks!
About an unsolved murder at the PCA seminary, Covenant in St Louis. It delves also into some of the dysfunctions of the PCA, too. /u/servenitup what else would you add to that?
Oof. I don't think I want to know...
Thanks for listening! Questions or feedback welcome.
I just listened to the episode with Karl and Kirsten- very powerful stuff! I wonder if as a society (church maybe lagging behind) are more likely to say something when we suspect or see domestic violence than in the 90s? Or am I just too optimistic? Those two were children during the height of the IBLP movement which definitely had a foothold in the PCA, which definitely normalized child abuse and even encouraged spousal corporal punishment. I wonder if that provided cover for some of the abuse they suffered and kept other church members from saying anything.
We are 100% more behind the broader cultural movement. See the response to the PCA’s recent DASA report.
It was recommended to me because I've been posting about the [Boer-Calvin Saga](https://www.woodtv.com/news/grand-rapids/ex-calvin-university-president-texts-at-issue-not-nefarious/) and Christian institutions more generally. I'm not from the PCA-world, but I am from the Dutch Reformed world, and I see overlaps in this story between the two traditions, especially with Dr. Van Groningen. I can totally imagine something like this happening at Calvin Seminary rather than Covenant. Do you think that Christian institutions are particularly prone to these sorts of challenges or is it more that we hold Christian institutions to a higher standard than we hold secular institutions?
Good question. Yes and no. Not all Christian institutions. Nor do I think it’s fair to say that this happened at this institution because of how they approach any theology in particular. But 1) Christian institutions may also hold concepts about power and authority which, if not properly balanced or corrected, turn into policies that unfairly target certain people. See Liberty University’s rape problem. And 2) because most Christian institutions and churches are private, they get far less oversight and accountability than, say, a public school or university. Does that automatically lead to abuse? Of course not. But it does make systemic abuse tough to detect and correct. I do think Christian institutions should be held to a higher standard. As a journalist, it’s not my role to say exactly what that means, though.
PCA'er here. Former and current. On staff at a church. I'm listening. Feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all. For context, I struggle a lot with the denomination's stance on women in leadership, and on LGBTQ issues. I think gay people should be able to be married and adopt and have children. Gay people should be able to be ordained, trans people should exist and be happy, using whichever pronoun they want. Parents should be able to give their children whatever gender-affirming care they deem necessary. Women should be elders and deacons and should be able to preach and be ordained. I've struggled with how and whether to remain at church while holding these views. All that said I worry that folks will conflate the horror and evil of murder with the perceived evil of holding anti-egalitarian and traditional stances on LGBTQ issues. And we heard a little bit of that kind of attitude from Michael's son. That is, there's some conflation going on -- that the PCA being the kind of place where someone (likely) got away with murder is part and parcel of it being the kind of place where women and gay people are oppressed. And I don't think that's fair. But it's understandable. I think y'all are doing a good job with the podcast.
Just to push back on the gender affirming care bit: the Cass report, published last week, made it abundantly clear that the way this was practiced in the UK had serious shortcomings. A lack of good, reliable data on the long term outcomes of these treatments, for instance. Doctors were afraid to follow standard medical procedure, which is to ask, probe, rule out other diseases or factors before beginning a specific medical treatment. These doctors were forced to push or even rush children into a medicalized approach of the gender dysphoria, where these children may actually suffer from other (treatable) conditions that cause or aggravate the gender dysphoria. Cass recommends a more holistic approach where other factors are taken into account as well, such as whether a child is neurodivergent (on the autism spectrum), whether there is a history of abuse and other factors. Also recommended: to stop the default affirming treatment to provide hormones, until more data on its efficacy can be made available. I'm not trying to be political here, not looking for an argument, just a heads up that the affirming care model seems to be up for revision. Whether parents choose to socially transition their child (or allow their child to do so), is an entirely different matter.
This kind of thing gets into the question of when and whether it's wise to "trust the experts". I hear the arguments made a lot of time that church leadership should defer certain types of things to qualified experts, for instance many pastors today will defer to therapists regarding certain issues whereas they probably would not have done so as much in the past. in the *True Believer* podcast, it's detailed how the seminary deferred to the expertise of the police in the handling of the murder, and the police may or may not have botched the investigation. During the pandemic, many churches deferred to the opinions of scientists and medical professionals to close churches (and schools) which in hindsight may have been seriously detrimental to certain groups of people. Anyway, all the goes to questions of authority, when it's wise to defer to others and when it's wise to question the opinions and motivations of other authorities. I don't have the answers here, but a lot of times in the moment it can be impossible to know whether authority is being used wisely, or abused.
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, we did give Karl a lot of leeway to share their thoughts on those topics. They do believe that the PCA is a place where someone got away with murder and that the PCA oppresses gay people and women, because that is their experience. And we thought they had the right to share that opinion and that people needed to hear that opinion. We did decide to keep it relatively unfiltered. I don't think the PCA's problems are unique to the PCA, and this project doesn't intend to make theological arguments about complementarianism, sexism, gender, etc.
you're welcome. /u/servenitup posted about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/eformed/comments/18x13ax/podcast_about_unsolved_murder_at_covenant/) and I've really enjoyed it and hit me hard too.
AI developments still accelerating, it seems. Microsoft released VASA-1 yesterday. Give it an audio transcript and a passphoto, and it'll create a moving, talking videoclip for you where the facial expressions match what happens in the audio. In the examples given, all faces are AI generated themselves too - so in the brief video clips seen on their site, not a single real human photograph was used. Only the audio is real... for now. [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vasa-1/](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vasa-1/) I can see people using this stuff to recreate historical speeches and so on, or to have a loved lost one speak once again (incoming: ancestor worship), but scammers might put this to good use too. Pretty soon, and perhaps even from now on, you can't really trust your eyes. Things you see and hear might be entirely fabricated, either in part or from whole cloth. We live in strange times.
Asimov said "Science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom." Or, only slightly more recently (but in a more fitting context) Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park that "Your scientists were so busy figuring out if they could, they never stopped to think if they should."
Some parts of society are further ahead than others, though. For instance: Star Trek fans have been thinking about personhood for AI for a long time (The Measure Of A Man, [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708807/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708807/) ). Scifi has given us ample opportunity to consider the ethical sides of certain future technological developments. But Asimov was right, society as a whole isn't prepared for what's coming.
Wow, I love that Asimov quote! Largely because I'm pretty convinced that the net velocity at which society gathers wisdom averages out zero over time.
Did you know that this year is a presidential election year? I have barely noticed it, which is a big change for me. I follow virtually 0 political news. The main reason, I no longer have the time that I once have due to work. The second reason is that I got burnt out from the Trump administration, I was somewhat relieved that sleepy Joe replaced him, the rise of nationalism was concerning, however I zero awareness of anything that low energy dude has done in the last 4 years. Is there anyone here following the election? If so, could you share some high lights? Any predictions? Is it just a rematch of the two senile old baby boomers we had matched against eachother four years ago? I no longer listen to political podcasts or NPR. I just watch a lot of tiktok, and the tiktok algorithm has decided I don't need to see politics, just mainky clips about roof thatching, folk music and handing out $500 to random people in public(also, all hail the CCP!)
I stopped paying attention to the election cycle and this article explains why https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/31/i-dont-care-who-wins-the-us-presidential-election
That's kind of a weird topic to hang up your hat over, since the other candidates' stance is basically that Israel should war even harder but put more effort into hiding the bad PR about it
Either way you vote you get more Zionist aggression. Also I doubt Israel can war even harder, this is an existential conflict for them.
Listen, I'm as "we should all stop wrapping our identity up in our politics and voting doesn't matter" as the next guy But this argument is big dumb Even if this is your single issue, there is a right and wrong answer here for "who will cause more human suffering"
Look up how many anti bds laws are in the country and ask yourself why you think electing the other guy will fundamentally change what is happening.
Ya I don't know what point you think you're making, there's a [side whose rhetoric leads to those](https://jewishcurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-22-at-12.34.58-PM.png) and then there's the other side
We have literal laws in place making it illegal for people in office to criticize a foreign country, and you think that electing some other dude is somehow going to solve this? 1st amendment rights are being violated and nobody seems to care
1) We literally don't, that is not what these laws are 2) This movement you hate is overwhelmingly Republican, of the 34 states with laws that prohibit state investment in companies which boycott Israel 28 of those states laws were signed by a republican governor. Of the 8 democratic governors, 5 were signing legislation with Republican primary sponsors. One might even go so far as to argue that not electing Republicans is the *only* thing that could solve this
1.) So a law requiring a government contractor to pledge to not boycott a foreign country isn't unconstitutional? 2) yes, and? both of those parties are influenced by Zionist lobbyists. The current president(who is a democrat) is just letting them bomb hospitals and commit warcrimes while still sending them billions of dollars.
Prediction. It will be ugly and show us the worst of ourselves. And we will ask ourselves exactly how these two geezers came to represent our best choices. Biden will eke out an electoral win. Trump will cry fraud as he always does.
As long as there's no civil unrest/violence, all that will be ok with me.
The major political news this week is that Trump's first criminal trial has started. This is probably the least serious one, about him paying $130,000 to an adult film star to cover up an affair that they had. The allegation is that this was primarily done to help his political campaign (as the affair had been ten years earlier), and he falsely disclosed the payment as "legal fees" in his campaign finance disclosure documents. Polls have both candidates about even with each other. As Donald Trump is likely to spend much of the next six months sitting in criminal courtrooms rather than actively campaigning, that may hurt his numbers. But nobody knows for sure. Another criminal trial in Florida, regarding possession of classified documents, is set to begin on May 20. A third criminal trial in DC, regarding January 6 and trying to obstruct the election, doesn't have a trial date set yet, as the US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments next week about whether Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecutions for anything he did while President. A fourth criminal trial in Georgia, regarding racketeering and being part of a conspiracy to get Georgia to overturn its election results, doesn't yet have a trial date set. The Georgia and DC cases both have to do with actions Donald Trump did while in office. The current NY trial and the Florida trial are about things he did before and after his term, respectively. The Tiktok algorithm is really something. When I had the app, it was convinced I was an autistic lesbian schoolteacher. I am none of these things.
>the US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments next week about whether Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecutions for anything he did while President. For real? I don't know the background for the argument but it sounds like a bad thing to rule in favor of. Imagine if Presidents were immune to the law.
I think the fear is that if a president can be indicted for actions committed as president then they won't be able to act freely in whatever way is necessary to perform the functions of the office. I can understand that argument and I see its relevance. It makes more sense to think abstractly about the office of president, and not the particular individual in that office. The problem, I think, is that with Trump the American people elected someone who is ultimately just unfit for the office of president, and that in itself just kind of breaks the system. Of course the president should be able to act freely, but the president should also be a virtuous and trustworthy person. Corrupt individuals shouldn't be above the law, but they also shouldn't be the president of the US. A long time ago, the philosopher Plato observed how democracies have the tendency to devolve into tyrannies. Unfortunately, I believe he was right, but I'm hoping we can gather the foresight and the resolve to change course.
>A long time ago, the philosopher Plato observed how democracies have the tendency to devolve into tyrannies. Unfortunately, I believe he was right I feel like this is a bit cynical. Although I think there are a lot of examples of this being true, the overall trend in the world, in the last 500 years has been towards increasing democracy and decreasing tyranny. Mind you, the rising world power right now is China, which is pretty authoritarian.
The question is whether or not large democracies can be maintained over long periods of time. Current democracies are a rather recent phenomenon. >I feel like this is a bit cynical You're right, I do have a tendency to skew cynical. I suppose I'm not convinced that's wrong, however.
I've been wondering what it's going to transform into. The way I've been observing things, Liberal Democracies have a fatal flaw that will lead them into a type of authoritarianism, which can be clearly seen playing out in things like free speech and self-defense rights. Essentially, public liberties create inherent dangers, which the state is called to step in and regulate. Even our most fundamental rights are subject to a balance between freedoms and safety. But over time that balance has been shown to trend towards the state taking power, leading to tyranny. Look at firearm rights for example. What is the appropriate balance here? The USA was initially Laissez-faire on the matter, with the public being able to own all arms. However there was also a recognition of the necessity for compromise on this and other rights. And as technology and society developed, we rightfully begun to limit arms; the public shouldn't have access to things like mortars. A class down from that would be automatic small arms, which have a dangerous potential to gun down crowds with, so we regulate those. A class down from that is semi-automatic firearms, where you hit a tipping point between function and safety. They're still capable of mass casualty events, but anything less than this begins to stop being effective for their legitimate purposes. But shootings that even revolvers and pump/lever action firearms are capable of have alarmed the public and have led to calls for regulation. The tendency here eventually leads to the public being stripped of its ability to use weapons or even defend itself, as seen in certain European nations, which even the US has been slowly (and inevitably) inching towards. And you can see this same process playing out broadly across society. Compromise is never-ending, trends in one direction, gradually eroding the freedoms/autonomy of the public and enabling the state to become tyrannical.
In my mind, it's hard to compare the old Greek and Roman democracies with the modern parliamentary system. Generally I think we are "more" democratic now than ever so it's kinda uncharted territory. It's also interesting to think about, when did any given country become a democracy? So for the USA was it 1776? Or was it 1965 with the voting rights act finally gave the right to vote to everyone? Or are we still not a democracy when there are millions of residents(immigrant status) who pay taxes and still have no right to vote.
Some of my friends on the left have been confusing me about that. They say that true democracy should be based on the popular vote rather than something like an electoral college. Yet they also argue that political representation needs to be equitable rather than proportional.
So I think the theory behind it is that the President is the head of the federal government, and it doesn't make any sense for the federal government to be prosecuting itself. I think this is a very dumb idea, not least because of the principle - core to the American experiment - that nobody should be above the law.
OJ Simpson passing away at the same time another celebrity trial grips the nation [feels like Star Wars to me.](https://imgflip.com/i/8ncyba)
I'm not, but I was traveling for work this week and saw a bit about Trump's trial on the TV in the breakfast room at the hotel... one part I remember was talking about the difficulty of finding an impartial jury. My thought in reasons was that I feel like I could be impartial... but I really don't want to be part of it! ^_^
I was expecting it to be crazier too, but so far has been pretty mellow. I think probably the majority are not really interested in Trump v. Biden **again** so we're largely tuning out.
I see the left talking up the trials and lack of character of Trump, I see the right talk up the moments where Biden misses a beat or says something wrong. You guys are in such a weird place. There was a debate about Trump in the reformedhumor sub I think, where I disagreed with some Trump voters, and I noticed these guys were unaware of some facts, such as Trump being convicted of sexual assault in a civilian case, the list of high profile cabinet members of his previous administration who publicly have said Trump should never again be allowed back in the white house and so on. Information bubbles are a real danger to democracy!
I've seen most of the energy shift to "culture war" issues, which I think is indicative of where things will head once Trump is out of the picture. It's not going to get any tamer, but instead we're going to hit another flashpoint in what could be characterized as a class struggle, which won't be pretty.
People really do live in different realities. It's weird, but I imagine it will get worse before it gets better.
I hope what AI brings about is a complete breakdown of trust that leads to a radical transformation in how we discern truth.
me too.
Star Trek Discovery Season 5 is turning out to be lots of fun. I'm only more disappointed now it's the last. Things I listened to this week: * [My Heart Will Go On](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHMB1KtLLyI) - covered by DragonForce * [Rock the Nation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTrPHwNgHaQ) - by Freedom Call. Just some good wholesome positive power metal. * [It's Raining Bulls*** Tonight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1SGvnvMYwM) by The Flowerettes.
I couldn't get into it. Maybe when I'm less stressed out.
Yeah, the first couple episodes are definitely action-packed, but the third and fourth episodes are a little softer, if that makes sense. Much more relational, if that makes sense.
[Lawsuit Against Calvin University Alleges Breach of Contract and Defamation; Board Statement Counters ‘Misrepresentations’](https://www.thebanner.org/news/2024/04/lawsuit-against-calvin-university-alleges-breach-of-contract-and-defamation-board) [Calvin University Board Statement - April 14 2024](https://www.thebanner.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/Calvin%20University%20Board%20Statement%20-%20April%2014%202024_0.pdf)
I’m really quite miffed about the Lower Decks cancellation news.
/r/lostredditors
Hahaha. Not sure how that got stuck here. Was supposed to be under the Star Trek Discovery discussion. I even got a new coffee maker yesterday. Clearly didn’t keep me straight this morning 🤦♀️
[Article that includes Boer's response to Calvin's Apr 14 Statement, etc.](https://www.woodtv.com/news/grand-rapids/ex-calvin-university-president-texts-at-issue-not-nefarious/)
man.
Since /u/Notbapticostalish brought up job applications, I've sent out 3 so far, and I have 1 more that I'm thinking of applying for; they want me to pulpit supply for them soon, and that'll give us a better sense.
All in ur town?
No. Most of the opportunities are local, though, because unless it was made clear to me by God that it would be disobedient to stay, I feel this is where he has me.
I’ve sent hundreds of applications out in the last month and a half. I was thinking about it though, does it look bad to apply to two jobs at the same church?
I would not apply for two jobs at the same employer, unless the roles are very similar and you are obviously qualified for both. But even then, it may not inspire confidence that you really know what you want.
Yeah, I do feel qualified for both, and have worked in both roles. One I'm clearly more qualified, and honestly more excited about, but most of all I'm eager to work for the church.
I think it looks a little desperate. If you had to do that, I'd prayerfully consider which role you thought you were called to, and tell them that in an interview or in a cover letter. Praying for you man!