Good afternoon nostr!
#Christianity offers the most coherent, rational, and comprehensive explanation of reality!
FREE ⚡SAT⚡ GIVEAWAY, PLEASE SHARE!
I recently started a Substack newsletter and I've been brainstorming ways to bootstrap my subscriber list. I don't use social media outside of Nostr, and I'd like to keep it that way.
I have a theory that Nostr+zaps could open up a different type of "advertising" model. Typically with paid ads, you're paying the centralized social media company to show your content to a bunch of people in hopes that they'll view it. Why not pay the viewers directly and cut out the middleman? That way they're getting some value regardless whether they like your product or not, and it's just a more elegant system overall.
So I'm going to run an experiment myself and see how this works. I recently wrote an article about Bitcoin and money inspired by a comment @Odell made on a recent Citadel Dispatch episode. If you're interested in the philosophy of money and banking, you might enjoy it.
I'm going to link the article below. It's about a 20 minute read. So the first 10 people who read the article and leave a thoughtful response, commentary, or criticism as a reply to this note will get zapped 15,000 sats each. I think that's fair for 20 minutes of your time. After the first ten replies, I'll zap each additional reader 1,500 sats as long as my funds hold out.
And if you find the content valuable enough that you feel you don't need the sats, just zap it back to me and I'll pass it along to the next person.
Thanks in advance!
https://open.substack.com/pub/f0xr/p/money-as-equity?r=3i492j&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I read your article..
Interesting read and I liked the comparison of owning fiat to owning shares. You want both to increase in value as the economy or company grow, no decrease. Good analogy my dude.
I'll prob read the next few and so if you can keep me coming back. Some feedback if you don't mind: "tighten" things up a bit if you can in terms of verbosity. On poss way to accomplish this: maybe make it less conversational: less personal pronouns ("you", "I" and "we").
Good luck on your substack!
cant deny it: you walk the walk
Good morning.
"Influencers" is such a downgrade from what I used to call "thought leaders." Prob because most influencers dont give much thought to the crap they spew.
"But I find it noteworthy and strange that Pilate's and the high priests' economic motives aren't at all reflected in the gospels."
I think this is where the modern reader can go wrong: we risk imposing our worldview on the ancient writer.
So it'll seem strange that economic motives aren't mentioned only if we presume the authors considered such concepts. But I dont think people thought that way about things back then. Economics as a discipline developed way after the gospel writers...Adam Smith didnt write his wealth of nations stuff until the 1700s I believe.
Im not saying there werent economic motivations throughout history. Im just saying we only started to recognize them over the past few hundred years, so there is no need to jump to a censorship thesis to explain why they arent reflected explicitly in the bible.
Thanks for the stimulating interaction!
I enjoyed the novel analysis but the conclusion that there has been a centuries-long politically-motivated censorship of the Bible gives your ideas too much credit.
A more likely explanation would be that the historical context you are alleging is missing is that the biblical authors assumed that info to be known generally, so no need to state the obvious. Afterall, you seemed to be able to deduce these missing facts 2 centuries later using primarily the Biblical text itself.
Another possible explanation would be that the original authors simply didnt intend to convey the ideas you are asserting, ie you're wrong.
Our oldest complete NT manuscripts date to the 300s AD. So if editing/censorship happened, it didnt happen "throughout history." But textual critics have pretty strong arguments refuting editing during period as well.
Why do you think Jesus refused to sacrifice himself? Is it something in the Biblical text or some other line of reasoning.
When Jesus was arrested he reminded Peter that if he were so inclined God to bring 12 legion of angels to fight. But he didnt, he permitted his unjust arrest.
And the letter to the Hebrews talks a lot about Jesus as both priest ans sacrifice. For example 7:27- "He sacrified for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
I appreciate the interaction.
Jesus' actions can teach us many things, and I'm 100% with you: individual rights, challenging peaceful authority, identifying right vs wrong, and pursuing truth are all good things.
But, its bit anachronistic to think Jesus' death is supposed to teach us those things. Jesus' death wasn't a mere peaceful challenge to authority. To the contrary, Jesus' death was an act of service, an act of submission to an unjust and false authority (the Romans), and ultimately an act of assertion of *his* authority. "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." He was proving his diety. He was asserting his sovereignty and his love. Only he could do those things because only he was blameless and God incarnate.
So we don't model Jesus' death when we challenge authority. We model his death when we turn the other cheek, when we sacrifice what is rightfully ours for the benefit of another.
imho.
Im not following the AI stuff you're writing, but no matter.
Peace!
You made multiple assertions in your note, the latter one was the one I was responding to.
And yes, Easter is not on always on March 31. We agree!
Ngl thats a good one
This is commonly implied about Jesus, that he was "tolerant," but is not true! Jesus was not tolerant of brokenness in any way! In fact, he had such love for us that he came to our world to redeem us through his death and resurrection. Far from tolerating our separation from God, he provided a way for restoration to our true identity as image bearers of God.
"Go, and sin no more."
Great morning nostr!
He is risen. He is risen indeed!