Just a stylistic critique: Close the aperture some. Wide open apertures are a big stylistic choice right now. Camera crews use it a lot in sporting events mostly as a cheap camera trick and because people think blur=cool. However when it is not used right, it looks someone's mom took a video on iPhone portrait mode. The issue is that the contrast between subject and background is too harsh creating an inorganic feel between the subject and the environment they are in. In this video, it seems like the F-stop is pretty open, probably somewhere around 2.8 to 4, maybe even lower. Closing it to ~4.5 and higher (5.6 might be the sweet spot, but I'm just guessing) will still give you sufficient depth of field, distinguishing yourself from the background, and still giving the appearance that you are actually in your office not in front of a green screen. It seems like you have pretty good lighting setup, but if the image looks too dark at something like 5.6, lower the shutter speed and don't worry about bumping up the ISO some. Some people worry not getting a sharp image and increasing the grain at higher ISOs, but that really only happens when you're at like 1200+. Staying in the range of ISO 500-800 or even 1000 won't effect the image quality that drastically. Love the content and hope this helps.
Good work brother! Stimulating argumentation. I keep thinking about Aquinas and the relationship between providence & natural law, how that relationship fills in the mechanics of this to some degree, of course not satisfactory for everyone. An implication seems to be that the denial of this doctrine would mean that groups whom act in concert are not moral entities, bringing legitimate rule of local sessions and denominations into question. But groups of individuals are moral entities bound by God's moral law, then nations as such out to obey, etc.
I think the part I’m most difficult to track is the relationship between “consent” and “political community.” How are political communities formed? Is it by the consent of the governed?
Thank you for the content brother! Would love to see a video explaining why it is that general equity theonomy is incompatible with your political theory.
Thank you so much for bringing Truth to our Christian communities, which have been scattered and disordered by Balaams, Wolves, and fools (Tares) as prophesied by Jesus.
If moral obligation itself comes only from God’s will, and if Christians ought to revere the bible as the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God, why then does the bible present such drastically different-often contradictory-notions of morality? I don’t find it reasonable to assert that the bible presents a singular coherent moral framework that’s clear and obvious to all who have ‘true’ faith.
@@Bilfford yes of course. Leviticus 19:18 contains what Jesus identifies as the very kernel of the law, namely to love your neighbor as yourself. The plain meaning of the command is intended only for the Israelites’ relations with each other, but Jesus’ application of this is universal in scope. How then, do we square this sentiment with other laws governing and permitting things like chattel slavery (Lev 25:44-46, Exodus 21, Titus 2:9) or ethnic cleansing/genocide/whatever you want to call it (Num 21:33-35, Deut 3:4-7, 1 Sam 15:1-3, the whole first half of Joshua) carried out by the Israelites apparently at the behest of their god. These are the most concerning areas of scripture, for me at least, and my regard for God’s goodness leaves no room for me to consider these sorts of statements inerrant and infallible. They belong to a people who belonged to their own time and place, and I appreciate their history greatly but see no reason to defend their activities in the name of god any more than we ought to defend the crusaders of the 11th and 12th centuries or the slaveholders of every generation prior to modernity.
@@Bilfford I am a Christian myself, though it’s very difficult for me to identify with the western evangelicalism that brought me into the faith. I prefer the likes of Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky and Moltmann, to name a few influences.
Can you not accept that other people have different beliefs than you? Or understand that this country was founded so that we may have religious freedom? How do you not see through your hypocrisy? If a Muslim, a Mormon, or any other religion made these arguments for a 1 religion state you would be outraged
@@Jordan-hz1wrWho has been lying to you about Christian nations? Nations are established by God as servants of God (Romans chapters 12 & 13). God uses 80% of his Word to teach is how to properly govern nations and to be proper citizens within nations.
WE LOVE YOU BROTHER WOLFE! We lived in a beautiful South Texas town but now… we have a literal Mexican Meth trap house right behind us playing music all night and day and the police say they can’t do anything. This is so obvious it’s almost like American Evangelicals have been given over to
Just a stylistic critique: Close the aperture some. Wide open apertures are a big stylistic choice right now. Camera crews use it a lot in sporting events mostly as a cheap camera trick and because people think blur=cool. However when it is not used right, it looks someone's mom took a video on iPhone portrait mode. The issue is that the contrast between subject and background is too harsh creating an inorganic feel between the subject and the environment they are in.
In this video, it seems like the F-stop is pretty open, probably somewhere around 2.8 to 4, maybe even lower. Closing it to ~4.5 and higher (5.6 might be the sweet spot, but I'm just guessing) will still give you sufficient depth of field, distinguishing yourself from the background, and still giving the appearance that you are actually in your office not in front of a green screen.
It seems like you have pretty good lighting setup, but if the image looks too dark at something like 5.6, lower the shutter speed and don't worry about bumping up the ISO some. Some people worry not getting a sharp image and increasing the grain at higher ISOs, but that really only happens when you're at like 1200+. Staying in the range of ISO 500-800 or even 1000 won't effect the image quality that drastically.
Love the content and hope this helps.
Thanks for the tip. I'm learning all this on my own, so I appreciate the advice.
Good work brother! Stimulating argumentation. I keep thinking about Aquinas and the relationship between providence & natural law, how that relationship fills in the mechanics of this to some degree, of course not satisfactory for everyone.
An implication seems to be that the denial of this doctrine would mean that groups whom act in concert are not moral entities, bringing legitimate rule of local sessions and denominations into question. But groups of individuals are moral entities bound by God's moral law, then nations as such out to obey, etc.
I keep seeing you being taken out of context and it's just made me want to listen to you more. The best marketing I suppose!
I think the part I’m most difficult to track is the relationship between “consent” and “political community.” How are political communities formed? Is it by the consent of the governed?
I’ve never subbed to a channel so fast.
Thank you for the content brother! Would love to see a video explaining why it is that general equity theonomy is incompatible with your political theory.
Thank you so much for bringing Truth to our Christian communities, which have been scattered and disordered by Balaams, Wolves, and fools (Tares) as prophesied by Jesus.
Amen!
If moral obligation itself comes only from God’s will, and if Christians ought to revere the bible as the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God, why then does the bible present such drastically different-often contradictory-notions of morality? I don’t find it reasonable to assert that the bible presents a singular coherent moral framework that’s clear and obvious to all who have ‘true’ faith.
Please provide an example to support your assertion that the Bible presents drastically different-often contradictory-notions
of morality
@@Bilfford yes of course. Leviticus 19:18 contains what Jesus identifies as the very kernel of the law, namely to love your neighbor as yourself. The plain meaning of the command is intended only for the Israelites’ relations with each other, but Jesus’ application of this is universal in scope. How then, do we square this sentiment with other laws governing and permitting things like chattel slavery (Lev 25:44-46, Exodus 21, Titus 2:9) or ethnic cleansing/genocide/whatever you want to call it (Num 21:33-35, Deut 3:4-7, 1 Sam 15:1-3, the whole first half of Joshua) carried out by the Israelites apparently at the behest of their god.
These are the most concerning areas of scripture, for me at least, and my regard for God’s goodness leaves no room for me to consider these sorts of statements inerrant and infallible. They belong to a people who belonged to their own time and place, and I appreciate their history greatly but see no reason to defend their activities in the name of god any more than we ought to defend the crusaders of the 11th and 12th centuries or the slaveholders of every generation prior to modernity.
@@paulallenscards I may give an in-depth response/explanation for all of that but first I want to ask you what standard do you use to judge morality?
@@Bilfford I am a Christian myself, though it’s very difficult for me to identify with the western evangelicalism that brought me into the faith. I prefer the likes of Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky and Moltmann, to name a few influences.
@@paulallenscards so you believe that God is perfect in morality and therefore the standard?
Can you not accept that other people have different beliefs than you? Or understand that this country was founded so that we may have religious freedom? How do you not see through your hypocrisy? If a Muslim, a Mormon, or any other religion made these arguments for a 1 religion state you would be outraged
would you be outraged if they made those arguments in a Muslim or Mormon (for sake of argument) country?
@baconjh Yes, I would be. I believe every person has the right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others
@@calebcarpenter5442makes sense. Religions historically live side by side in peace with no conflict at all.
@@harrystred7350 So everyone should be required to follow one? How does that sound right at all?
You mad bro?
You are either a Christian or a nationalist.
You are forgetting the Great Commission. What specific statement(s) of Stephen Wolfe do you object to.
@@CC-ii3ij You cannot go forth and make disciples by wielding the sword of Caesar.
@@Jordan-hz1wrWho has been lying to you about Christian nations? Nations are established by God as servants of God (Romans chapters 12 & 13). God uses 80% of his Word to teach is how to properly govern nations and to
be proper citizens within nations.
WE LOVE YOU BROTHER WOLFE! We lived in a beautiful South Texas town but now… we have a literal Mexican Meth trap house right behind us playing music all night and day and the police say they can’t do anything. This is so obvious it’s almost like American Evangelicals have been given over to