Sauce For The Goose?

 Contemplating having a friend vouch for me so I can vote again…

Kind Of LIke Giving Hitler An Award For Supporting Jews.

 https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/npr-ceo-katherine-maher-harpers-award?r=28q7xt&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer

" Rejoice, comrades! On October 26, Harper’s Magazine will bestow NPR CEO Katherine Maher with its First Amendment Award at a ceremony in NYC. Commissar Katherine should repeat her previous statements about the First Amendment during her acceptance speech:

Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done…. The number one challenge that we see here is, of course, the First Amendment in the United States. So, you know, in a lot of countries—in Europe, for example—there’s a lot more willingness to pass legislation to restrict certain kinds of content. In the United States, the First Amendment makes it a little bit trickier.

And so what we are looking at is how do we continue to, you know, make sure that we are working with platforms, working with governments, working with civil society to make sure that we are not amplifying bad information, that we are not amplifying the influence peddlers who are trying to, you know, shape narratives in ways that are unhelpful…

We took a very active approach to disinformation and misinformation… The model was around how do we create sort of a clearing house of information that brings the institution of the Wikimedia Foundation with the editing community in order to be able to identify threats early on through conversations with government, of course, as well as other platform operations, to understand sort of what the landscape looks like."

 

Well done. Giving an award celebrating the 1st Amendment to someone who wishes that we could get around it for more censorship seems like a bad idea.   Let alone someone who's getting rich leeching off of taxpayer money.  

Influential/God

 https://open.substack.com/pub/andygbannister/p/jesus-man-myth-prophet-or-more?r=28q7xt&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer

 

" It has been remarked that if you were to make two lists: on one, write the ten most influential people in history, on the other, write people who have claimed to be God, only one name would appear on both those lists: Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, it would be hard to overstate Jesus’s influence: much of art, politics, ethics, literature, music, and culture—in the West but also in large swathes of the East—has been influenced by his life.

And, of course, Jesus is the central figure of Christianity—making Christianity, uniquely, a historically grounded religion. Consider this: you could remove the founder of any other religion from history and that religion could still stand. Somebody else could have taught the system of thought that became Buddhism. The Qur’an could have been brought by somebody other than Muhammad. But Christianity? Well, it isn’t a system of teaching taught by Jesus. No, in a very real sense, Christianity is Jesus Christ. Jesus’s personality, his character, his identity, are the heart of the Christian faith. Christianity stands or falls on Jesus.

Not least, Christianity claims that “God” is not some mere abstract idea, some vague higher power, something “out there” like the Force in Star Wars, or a distant, remote deity, like the God of Islam, but a God who is very, very real. A God who took on human nature and, in Jesus Christ, walked and talked in history.

Now for some that can be quite unnerving. It’s one thing to believe in a distant, remote God, but Christianity says God is much more real than that—closer, more personal. A God who is deeply interested in who we are. A God who loves us too much to abandon us, but also a God who asks much of us.

That cuts so much against the grain of radical individualism that runs through human nature, that our natural temptation can be to try to dismiss Christianity and the only way to do that is to do away with Jesus. Whilst we may not go so far as Jesus’s first-century enemies, who did away with him by crucifying him, we’re still tempted to relativize Jesus, to cut him down to size so that we can ignore him."

 

For the rest, click the link above.   

What Happens Next?

 There's a narrative out there that goes something like this.  "If Trump/The GOP loses the midterms, then Trump will do something to overthrow the results and impose his will on the nation."   

First, we actually have evidence that tells us what Trump as done when he or the GOP has lost elections.

Second, what happens to all of these conspiracy mongers when their dire predictions don't come True?  

 

I do want to note the reality that questioning results that seem to not make sense (votes counted exceed voters eligible to vote or middle of the night ballot dumps that break 100/0 in favor) and investigation those things are not problems or an attempt to overthrow anything.  Given what we've found out about GA election issues, it seems prudent to work for the most secure elections possible.  It seems unlikely that anything will change the tune of these conspiracy mongers, nor will it stop them from claiming fraud of their side loses.  

 

Commands V. Teachings

 There has been a lot of conversation recently about Jesus teachings, and where we find them.  But very little about His commands.   In Stan's post about that Great Commission, He makes the point that Jesus is commanding His disciples to go and male disciples.  As Stan notes, this command is based on Jesus' authority.   Jesus is clear when He says " “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mat 28:18)", and because of the authority He has been given we are to go and make disciples because He gave the disciples the authority and ability to fulfill His command. 

Two things struck me as I was reading Stan's post.   First was the difference between a teacher and a king.  

Both the king and the teacher have authority.  Yet the authority of the teacher is limited and is temporarily given them by higher authority.  The authority of the teacher is primarily limited to their conduct within the walls of their classroom or perhaps their school.  Within their classroom, they have a great deal of authority delegated to them, outside of their classroom they have less authority, outside of their school they have virtually no authority.  Any authority that do have is only their by virtue of being subject to a principle, school board, union, and the state or federal departments of education.   Further, their authority diminishes outside of the subject matter that they teach.  For example, a gym teacher has very little authority when it comes to teaching biology.  

Contrast this with the authority of a king.  A king is the ultimate authority within their kingdom.   A king answers to no one withing his kingdom.   Historically we do see instances where a kingdom is subject to the authority of an empire, Herod for example, yet within Herod's kingdom he was the authority.  

As an aside, in a world today where kings are mostly ceremonial we probably don't give their authority much thought.    

Now that we've looked at relative authority, how do we respond to what teachers tell us and what kings tell us?

 The short answer is that the teachings of a teacher and the commands of a king are two entirely different things.    It is much easier and less risky to choose to ignore the teachings of a teacher, than the commands of a king.  It's also much easier to pick and choose those who teach you, than those who rule you.  In the Jewish tradition one could choose which rabbi to follow based on what they taught and whether you aligned with their teachings.  Likewise we are free to choose which schools we attend or send our children to or which religious leaders we want to be taught by.  Whether that choice is prompted by style or substance, is immaterial, the choice exists.  It's less easy to choose your king.  

So, what happens in the case of Jesus were the teacher is also The King?   Where The Logos who has existed from before time, and who created all that exists, chooses to step down from His throne and teach His disciples.   How do we separate His teachings from His commandments?  Can His teachings be dismissed or subordinated to the teachings of someone else?  If the Teacher is also the King aren't the consequences for choosing to ignore His teachings more significant?  If the Teacher is also the one who has "All authority in Heaven and one earth" should we not take that into account?  

When this teacher is asked, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” and replies “The most important one, is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”, is His reply a teaching or a commandment?   

Personally, I think that it's easier for us to limit what Jesus said to teachings, because it's easier to ignore or  dismiss teachings, than commandments.  It's easier to see Jesus as a teacher, even The Teacher,  than as The King.   But if Jesus isn't The King, and doesn't have "all authority in Heaven and on earth", then why should we consider His teachings authoritative or worth following?  

What Is A...?

 

"She kept a secret key

for the sacred door

where all the holy stories were held

and the mysteries contained

within that room

no man could ever tell

for these were secrets

known only to women

they learned it was safer that way

they were stories of pain

and stories of resistance

and a soon-coming better day."

 

If it is impossible to define the terms "She" and "woman", this literally has no meaning at all.   

Embrace Grace, Not!

 Hayley Stevens, a far left democrat, finally decided that she could not support or endorse El Sayed for Michigan's senate seat and has chosen to support the GOP candidate instead.  

 Unsurprisingly, the DFL has showered her with love, grace, support and encouragement for taking this brave and principled stand.  

Given how Dan and his ilk operate, we know how likely that is.