What are /r/eformed's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I think that, having grown up in the Church, my mind is able to code-switch (I think that's the right term) and recognize when a masculine plural noun is meant to be gender inclusive.

But I'm a guy, and it's never bothered me that much in large part because my gender is wholly included. I think it's different for women (just ask /u/nerdybunhead!) who are rendered invisible by the English translation. (Apologies if you're also a woman; I tend to assume people on reddit are male because of the statistics.)

McCarthy uses 1 Timothy 5:8 as an example of how defaulting to masculine pronouns can lead to bad theology or practice. I made a quick/rough PDF of part of chapter 7 (link valid for 14 days) where she cites examples of (famous!) pastors misusing this verse on the basis of the masculine pronoun.

I came across this piece in The New Yorker this morning, which I found interesting since that's not normally the place I expect to find a review of a new Bible translation. I wasn't aware of this translation of the Gospels by Sarah Ruden although I am familiar with her translation of Augustine' s confessions. I find these new, single-author translations interesting although from the review, Ruden's doesn't seem very promising.

One thing, in particular, stood out to me, that made reading the review worthwhile regardless: apparently, we have been mistranslating the Lord's Prayer. ἐπιούσιος - the word traditionally translated as "daily" (as in "daily bread) almost certainly does not mean "daily. We've known it doesn't as far back as Jerome, but no one is completely sure what it does mean. The problem is that it only shows up twice in the NT (the Lord's Prayer in Matthew & Luke) and again in the Didache in reference to it. Several meanings have been proposed, but the most accepted seems to be essentially what Ruden uses: "tomorrow's bread." This Wikipedia article gives a decent overview of the issue.

Lightfoot is pretty old. I'd go with Fee's <em>The Canon of Scripture</em> instead. That's old too, but only 30 years old instead of 60.

I'm not sure you want to just throw a book at a sub and say "here, have them read this" even if they are "really smart^TM" - particularly for the first week of school and/or if it is your first year teaching.

Honestly, I'd be tempted to have them watch Phil Visher's What's In the Bible. Yes it is aimed at kids half the age of yours. Yes it is puppets. But it will cover the stuff you want, give a full overview of the Bible, in historical contexed with a focused on the story of redemption and I guarantee that your kids will learn a bunch - even the ones who have been in church their whole lives. Plus you don't over burden your sub. Throw some follow-up worksheets at them and call it a day.

I have a Garmin Vivomove. I really like the physical face, but it still can receive texts. I have had it for 3 years, and the battery life has been struggling recently, so I might need a new one.

Yes.

He's also the most influential theologian of the past, say 400 years, and happens to have been Reformed. If we can't learn something from someone like that, who can we learn from?

No one expects you to agree with everything Barth wrote - not even Barth himself could do that.

My go to recommendation for a gentle introduction to Barth for more conservative Reformed folks is Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader, by R. Michael Allen. Allen is a professor at RTS-Orlando

This is an interesting take on that conversation. I asked for evidence of egalitarianism (and still haven't received any, for what its worth). I didn't put forward patriarchial structures as complementarianism (or even biblical!), so it seems odd to me that the response is to assume their sexist views (which haven't been shown in the Divines) is what infected their theology.

Seems to me that this begs the question, doesn't it? "They were sexist, so their understanding of passages was probably wrong."

Especially in light of the fact that Christianity was so female dominant, and incredibly progressive in its historical form (See <em>Christianity at the Crossroads</em> by Michael Kruger, esp. the first chapter).

Additionally, doesn't this understanding undermine /u/rev_run_d's point that the early church—apparently sexist!—permitted women to be deacons? There seems to be a great deal of tension between these premises.

They are releasing a collection of works from the second age to coincide with the series. (Note: nothing new, just basically all of Tolkien's writings that take place in the second age that are currently spread throughout different books collated into one volume) https://www.amazon.com/Fall-N%C3%BAmenor-Other-Second-Middle-earth/dp/006328068X?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_dls&amp;dplnkId=1bc28043-3ca5-4acc-a361-72074606d875

A note on the source of the quote: The article That Which God Hath Lent Thee: The Puritans and Money originally appeared in Christian History in 1988*,* not Christianity Today. CT was the publisher of Christian History and hosts their archives.

More importantly, the quote does appear in that article. The Christian History article ends with the quote 'money is “that which God hath lent thee.”' I don't know where the rest of the article on A Puritan's Mind comes from. It is possible that it is from Ryken's book Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were, from which the Christian History article is an excerpt, or it may have a different source.

Caveat lector.

https://www.amazon.com/Adam-Beloved-Henri-J-M-Nouwen/dp/1570759944

You may be interested in this book. I have not read this one myself, but I have read other books by Nouwen and find him very insightful given he dedicated the last years of his life working with those with severe disabilities

Here's another quote from St. John Chrysostom:

> Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first – and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

~ Quoted in <em>On Living Simply: The Golden Voice of John Chrysostom</em> by Robert Van de Weyer.

https://www.amazon.com/Thrill-Hope-Celebrating-Revised-Expanded/dp/1737195666/ Loved doing this with the kids last year.

https://www.freshwindstudios.com/thewanderingwisemen

Doing this this year.

Our church made an advent devotional and relaunched our podcast with an audio version of the devotional!

The one that I have has its own "cleaning" setting, where you toggle it from "butt-mode" to "self-dribble-clean-mode," and then just spray it.

Here's the one that I picked up and it's been great.

Bidet Update:

Its finally fully installed and working well. After replacing way more parts than I wanted to, my toilet is no longer leaking. All that too say, my butt is very clean.

Here is the link for the bidet I bought, /u/tanhan27. I honestly would recommend spending another $10-$20 for a bit nicer one, but this one does the job.

I too wanted a physical watch face, so I recently bought a Withings Steel HR Sports - I bought a 'second chance' one, which in Dutch means one that returned to the online store right after it was bought, so I got it at a steal. Love the watch!