lol! This thing is so Nostr... It gives me different results every time I hit "issue," even when reading from the same relays.

Been seeing these in my feed today. Where are folks getting them generated?

Nostur is one client I really wish existed on Android.

Yes. https://zapstore.dev/apps/naddr1qqxhqatz9ejxjar5duhxzursqyv8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtn6v9c8xar0wfjjuer9wcpzq7q6z5ns2hm5c8msyv83qwzxpxe52j8c4d4q5m92wsp9sflelkh9qvzqqqr7pvxtj7r6

I agree that these things are generally better hashed out over a good stout. Barring that, I hope I can continue to charitably interact with your concerns. For some context, I am an elder in an OPC church in North Idaho. That doxxes me to some extent, but it’s nothing I haven’t mentioned here on Nostr before. I would be interested in hearing what you believe is the house-fire that is being ignored in favor of focusing on the flood. You said, “But there is a difference between being justified in Christ and the reality of nature. There is no male or female(justification) does not erase hierarchy of differences which God created.” I would heartily amen that statement. I don’t think any of these denominations are taking up statements about men and women having no differences, though, or denying male headship. The statements adopted are specifically about race, not gender. You mentioned that resolutions like the one these various denominations are adopting, which came out of the ARP, seem “performative,” rather than addressing actual issues the church is facing. I can speak from my own experience that this is not the case. Hands down the most divisive issues within the local church where I serve are the issues of Kinism, Race Realism, Christian Nationalism, and Radical Two-Kingdom theology. These things are being taken up at the denominational level, not because of any desire to have the approval of the world by saying, “look at us, we don’t like racists, too,” but because they are the things we are dealing with in our local churches, with members criticizing leadership as “leftists” because we won’t stand with them and say, “Whites should only marry whites, and interracial marriage is a sin.” Some who hold to these views have even managed to make their way into ecclesiastical offices in some OPC churches. I can only imagine that other NAPARC denominations are experiencing similar issues within their churches as we have experienced in the OPC. Thus, these issues have risen to the attention of our denominational meetings, specifically because of the strife these views are causing at the local level. At the presbytery and denominational level, the most pressing issue I see is the encroachment of feminism and egalitarianism, as exemplified by the publication of an article denouncing biblical headship in the OPC’s online journal for church officers. Though the article was quickly taken down, it was written by an OPC minister who has not retracted what he wrote, but rather published it again on his own Substack. This is the kind of error that will invariably lead to allowing women to be ordained as elders and pastors if it is not addressed immediately. We aren’t winking at side B views on homosexuality, or flirting with unordained female “shepherds” like the PCA, but if this isn’t dealt with we soon will be. That said, in this case there is plenty of material in Scripture and in our secondary and tertiary standards, as well as our 1988 report on women in office, that the matter can be taken up through the ecclesiastical courts, without the need for GA to erect a study committee or adopt a statement. There are certainly other important issues that churches in our denomination deal with on a regular basis, such as pornography, infidelity, pastoral neglect, or outright abuse of various forms. However, these are typically handled via church discipline at the local church and presbytery level, and only rarely rise to the attention of General Assembly when a case is brought up on appeal. The denomination would not take time making statements or forming study committees about these things; not because they are unimportant, but because they are not issues where we have members and officers who disagree about them. All agree that pornography is a sin, and those who persist in unrepentance ought to be subject to church censure. The same goes for the other examples I gave. As such, it may be that the fires in the house are actually being dealt with in less public ways, due to the unity the church has on those issues, while the flood is being dealt with more publicly because of the significant disagreement that exists. But that all depends on what you would identify as the house-fire(s) in distinction from the flood.

In short, no. This has to do with how follows are stored. When you first join Nostr and follow your first npub, your Nostr client creates a follow list note (kind 3). This note has a timestamp on it, however, when you follow another npub, your client will create a new note that lists BOTH the previous npub you followed and the new one. This new list has its own timestamp, and relays are supposed to delete any previous versions of your follow list. A timestamp of when you followed the first npub is not retained. I have over 500 I am following, but the only timestamp on my follow list is the last time the list was updated, so there is no way of knowing when I followed each of the on that list except the most recent. Now, the list should be in basically sequential order, with the first npub I followed at the top of the list, and the last npub at the bottom, but not necessarily. Since this is how follows are stored, there is absolutely no way to determine what order other users followed you. This would require the follow list to also store a timestamp of when each npub was added to the list, which clients are not currently doing, since it is not part of the spec for kind 3 lists.

I would also support that definition of Christian Nationalism. The problem is, that’s not necessarily the operating definition, even among self-proclaimed Christian Nationalists. There are also some within the church who would denounce even the idea that Christians should serve in political office, believing that since this world is not our home, we should not waste our time trying to “rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic.” They are content to let culture and civil government be exclusively in the hands of the world, and some even celebrate secularism, multiculturalism, and religious pluralism as a categorical good outside of the church. The fact is, there is more than enough disagreement about exactly what Christian Nationalism is, and what relationship the church should have with the state, to justify a study committee to study the issue in greater depth. And that’s all the OPC’s study committee will be doing: studying the issue and reporting their findings to the 94th GA in 2028. That assembly can receive the majority report, or the minority report if there is one, or neither report if they aren’t satisfied that the study committee handled the issue well. Even if the assembly accepts a report, it is only treated as “pious advice” and is not binding. It cannot serve as grounds in any ecclesiastical court. There will be no excommunications on the basis of the findings of a study committee report. That would require a change to our secondary standards. A report might be used as justification for proposing such an amendment, but that is an even longer and more difficult process. When it comes to racism, I think the statement that has been adopted by these various denominations is very close to what you provided as the classical definition. Here’s the statement as originally adopted by the ARP last year: “That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.” While I am not entirely happy with the wording of that statement, I think it more or less aligns with the classical definition of racism you outlined. When your classical definition mentions that racism holds that “humans can be divided into distinct biological ‘races’” with “inherited physical traits [that] are linked to inherent differences in abilities, character, intellect, morality, or behavior,” that is exactly what is meant by the statement’s language of “immutable human characteristics.” When your classical definition states that racism holds that “some races are superior or inferior to others,” that is exactly what is meant by the statement’s language concerning any “teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity.” I think both the statement adopted by the ARP, RPCNA, PCA, and OPC and your classical definition of racism leave room for a love of one’s own culture and heritage, and a recognition that cultures are not all created equal. We can also recognize that culture is not an “immutable human characteristic.” Just as Ruth forsook her Moabite culture saying, “For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you,” (Ruth 1:16-17) so can peoples from any and every culture forsake the defective aspects of their own culture in order to be grafted into the Church of Christ and reap the benefits of the transformation of culture that comes along with faith the gospel. I think this is where many of the kinists and race realists are missing the boat. They conflate race and culture, as though culture is immutably tied to biology. Thus they become more concerned that their grandchildren “look like them,” than they are about teaching the ways of God to their children “when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (Deut 6:7).

I haven't read the PCA's report on Christian Nationalism. I heard it was more balanced than that. Did it actually condemn all forms of nationalism? I can't speak for what other denominations had for grounds for adopting the ARP's statement condemning racism, but I can give you the grounds used by the OPC, as I was a commissioner to this year's GA. Here are the grounds: "1. This teaching commits serious errors concerning the creation (Genesis 1:26–27; Acts 17:26) and redemption (1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:14–22) of humanity. "2. The teaching violates the fifth commandment concerning the duties and sins of Equals (WLC 131 and 132). "3. One of the most prominent public proponents of this teaching is a former minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, who was divested from office without censure prior to the publication of a book promoting these errors. "4. There may be other members and officers of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who hold to these errors who need to be called to repentance in a spirit of brotherly love. "5. Permitting such errors to go uncondemned dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the church and harms the reputation and witness of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church." Additionally, the Presbytery of the Dakotas sent in a communication that opposed the statement as too vague, but also included this statement in support of condemning kinism and race realism: “God has clearly made of one blood all nations of men (Acts 17:26). In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28). Gentile believers have been grafted into the same olive tree as the Jews (Romans 11:17), and God has made Jew and Gentile one in Christ (Ephesians 2:14). If the Apostle Paul could count his ethnic identity dung that he might gain Christ (Philippians 3:8), there is no basis for any of us to boast in ours.” Likewise, the Presbytery of the Northwest sent in a communication in support of the statement and providing additional grounds for affirming it, noting that kinism and race realism “contradict the Larger Catechism’s teaching on the Fifth Commandment (WLC 131–132), which requires the preservation of the honor, dignity and equality of all humankind, body and soul, forbidding contempt and oppression which violates the moral law as confessed in our Standards.” None of the above sounds like it is “grounded in liberal civil rights rather than the Bible.” Rather, it appears to be directly on the basis of what the Bible teaches, and what our secondary standards affirm as a summary of what the Bible teaches.

The original site is, at any rate. Seems like a couple folks are keeping implementations of it alive.

read.withboris.com ain't half bad. 😉