#Moral Values

[blackswaneuroparedux]

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.

G.K. Chesterton

[guildofscribes]

Why the Good Ones?

Okay, so I've been watching the fandom culture for a while now, and I have a question; why are they breaking the good characters? Like, the characters that were built to be not so dark, to be more upright, morally accountable, who have it in their character makeup to just always try to do the right thing because that's what they believe in from the deepest parts of their being... why are they being broken down? There are already very awesome characters that we love who struggle with morally upright decisions, who struggle to make the right choices for some reason or another, and we mostly can all agree to respect and enjoy those characters and their arcs. They're characters created to struggle, and so many of us can get behind that because we struggle to make good choices all the time too. But why are the "model" characters being broken down into something base and detestable? Why can't we have Superman who chooses to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, who is Clark Kent and chooses to be kind and give chances and hope for the better? Why does he have to be broken from the ideal we're supposed to strive for? He's an alien who saw the best of humanity and said, "Yes! I want to be this! They're so worthy, they have so much potential to be amazing, and I want to be all of that because I choose to! Because there's worth in that decision, and I'm free to make it because of these amazing creatures on this planet." Why can't we have morally upright characters who just try to treat people right and make good choices? I thought that was the point. I thought we were supposed to strive to be better than our faults, not just sit in the wreckage of our own bad choices. What happened to stories that inspire people to be better than their current state, to treat people the way you'd want to be treated, to do everything to the best of your ability because it's building you up as a person and not just doing a banal task? I understand the use for catharsis, writing tragedies that don't have an easy out, writing grim and dark realities... I get it. I really, really do. But where are the hopeful stories? Where are the Actually Good characters that are still engaging? What happened to defining our faults, but then working very hard to overcome them? It seems like those stories aren't being put out there anymore, and it's depressing.

It's not cool to be good anymore. It's not popular to try to be selfless, to make difficult decisions because they're right and because you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if you didn't. It's not fun to believe in Good and Evil, that maybe the shades of grey aren't so overreaching that you can't try to do the right thing all the time.

What happened to just, deciding to be a better person? For the sake of just being a better person? I don't know. Maybe holding oneself accountable to a higher standard is silly. But it gives me hope.

[merthwyn]

People probably wonder why I don't quit since I'm fed up with my current job environment. Well, I've been searching for job for 7 months now. And I've found quite many that I could apply for and I'm sure they would choose me. But I still don't. The current job and the interviews I had for other jobs opened my eyes so now I'm extra careful and suspicious when I read a job advertisement as it is easier for me to spot the hidden red flags. For example:

Do they brag about how like a warm family or an amazing team they are? STAY AWAY. You will certainly be the black sheep of that family or being expected to be the doormat of the team

Do they brag about equality, respect, diversity? STAY AWAY. You will probably experience the worst amount of disrespect, inequality and favouritism you've ever experienced.

Are they trying to "seduce" you with promises of opportunities, training, development? STAY AWAY. You will end up doing the same things forever while others less capable are getting promoted because they are the bosse's friends or simply narcissists.

Too much enthusiasm in the job advertisement with many exclamation marks and excitement? STAY AWAY. You will soon find out that the job you applied is the most boring and abusive thing you've ever seen.

Only saying things like "amazing holiday scheme" or just "holiday entitlement" instead of mentioning exactly the actual amount of holiday allowance? STAY AWAY. Otherwise, you will get like 20 days of holiday and you will have to fight to manage to get them approved.

If they mention e.g.28 days of holiday ALWAYS CLARIFY whether it's actual 28 days or just 20 + bank holidays. If it's the second, STAY AWAY. You may be ok with this (I would be ok if I liked the job environment) but they should have clarified this in the job advertisement. Who knows what other maybe more important things they are hiding..

Never go somewhere where the salary is not mentioned. If you find advertisements saying "competitive salary" or "salary negotiable" STAY AWAY otherwise you'll be lucky if you get minimum wage.

Always check their website and read their policies. If it's too much about equality or whistleblowing STAY AWAY. You will probably get bullied for refusing to use pronouns or for being a Christian and this whistleblowing will never protect you from the bullies. You will not be allowed to wear a cross but your Muslim coworkers will have breaks for prayer. And if their bullying doesn't work, you will end up falsely accused of theft or rape.

If it's an entry level or apprenticeship compare the salary they give with the amount of work you will be expected to do and the experience they ask. I've found dozens of APPRENTICESHIPS out there which want you to have loads of certificates and qualifications and do the job of a fully experienced person with half the minimum wage and with the prerequisite of having 3 years experience.

I'm sure there are more things to add. For me, it's all the above PLUS those which they don't come to mind right now PLUS the fact that I want a Mon-Fri day job. Because, imagine if you end up working with bullies and have to sacrifice evenings, weekends, Christmas and time with friends and family for them, as it happens with my current job.

When you truly value respect, discipline, accountability, responsibility, honesty, team work, equality, development, work-life balance and generally moral values, it's damn hard to find a job.....

[fullhavelstonearmor]

I came across something here on tumblr. It was a list of stuff like “You don’t HAVE to make your evil protagonists justifiable” and “Your evil characters don’t HAVE to face consequences.” Now, this list was clearly yet another case of “tumblr user thinks they’ve thunk a new thought.” But here’s the thing. They’re right. You don’t HAVE to. Everyone knows it. Everyone who’s made a bad guy knows it. There’s nothing morally wrong with you as a person if you write a story about some homicidal rapist getting away with shooting up a school. But now tell me this. When was the last time you read about this kind of character in the role of protagonist, and ENJOYED it? You can’t really name a lot. Because in most cases where the protagonist is an unjustifiable evil person, the story is dogshit. It’s REALLY fucking hard to write a story about that kind of guy, and nigh impossible for the story to be GOOD. Especially if they face zero consequences.

Now, before opening my tirade on certain bad examples of evil protagonists, lemme speak on good examples. First of all, slashers. Like, horror movie slashers. These are good because they’re meant to be stupid and cheesy. They do ridiculous kills because it’s fun, or occasionally disturbing, to watch. And you may argue that they aren’t protags, but be honest with yourself. When I say Friday The 13th, who comes into your mind? Not Tommy Jarvis, Jason Voorhees. The hockey mask guy with a machete. The story of the series follows him, so he is the protagonist. And he does ridiculous shit like go to space. It’s dumb, it’s cheesy, and even though he avoids consequences by being immortal, you don’t really care, because it’s a shitty slasher film and it knows it. Next positive example.

Jack, from The House That Jack Built. Now, I hear you. “Oh ultimate super intelligence Havel, he DOES face consequence! He dies and goes to mega hell!” Okay, fine, I give you that, but for most of the movie, we watch him get away with despicable acts. When you reflect on this fucked up movie, do you think of the Dante’s Inferno references, or do you think of that taxidermy kid’s terrifying smile? The smile? Yeah, me too, bud. The reason he works as this kind of fucked up bastard of a protagonist is because we still see it from the outside. Despite being the protagonist from a technical standpoint, to us, he is an antagonist. We hate him. We watch the movie and hope he gets gunned down by police or something. We hopelessly pray to movie gods that his victims survive. This is only helped by Vergil, who provides insight and criticisms to Jack’s fucked up ideology. I mean, we watch him glorify Hitler for crying out loud.

Alright, final good example is ironically, good for almost the exact opposite reason as Jack. “Johnny Cutthroat Cash” from Manhunt. See, while we see that Jack likes killing, and is straight up addicted to it, we can only INFER that about Johnny. We only know two things about Johnny. He was on death row, and he’s good at killing people. We don’t know if he was a serial killer or a mercenary or anything. You could claim he’s sadistic, but he may also be doing his job of creating a spectacle. We see only one bit of guaranteed emotion from Johnny, and it’s from when his family is kidnapped. Johnny works so well, not because he’s a well written character, but it’s the fact he lacks a character. He’s a bald Caucasian man. He matches a million people. You are Johnny. You decide in your own mind if he’s a fucked up killer or he maybe killed some official for banging his girlfriend. You don’t know and you get to pick. I think the lack of origin aside from his family hating him after whatever he did is what helps. When you can make your own character, it doesn’t get boring.

Now. Onto the two bad examples. Our first protagonist is ironically called “The Antagonist.” From Hatred. Hatred is… well… dogshit. The story is ass and so is the gameplay. If you’ve never heard of him, you’ve definitely seen his face. He’s the poster child of shitty edgelords. The whole plot of the game is that he hates people and just goes on a shooting spree before nuking his city. Its gameplay is similar to the original Postal. But while Postal 1 is a delve into a madman’s psyche, in which he expresses remorse and is implied to have killed himself for it, (for a defense of later Postsl installments, see horror slasher section) The Antagonist just… doesn’t do that. He shoots people and then nukes the city. It’s fucking stupid. I’m not crying over the lack of a happy ending, I’m complaining that it’s BORING. I mean, we don’t even get an idea on why he hates people. The game is so edgy it’s laughable.

Speaking of so edgy it’s laughable, I could really put any original Garth Ennis character here, but I’m going with the classic. The one and only British Punisher. The worst “protagonist” I’ve ever even fucking heard of. Billy motherfucking Butcher, from The Boys comic run specifically. If you’ve ever watched the show, you’ll notice that Billy is a complex individual. All of that depth is gone in the comics. He’s just a genocidal freak, and Garth Ennis makes all the superheroes pedophiles and junkies to justify the Punisher ideology he’s such a fan of. Thing is, the Punished is a good character. Because he’s different. The Punisher is in the wrong, and he knows it. He knows blowing the brains off some bank robber is not the most moral choice. Butcher on the other hand, will kill a super hero in front of his children, and AFTERWARDS discover the super hero had a stash of “cheese pizza” so he’s ACTUALLY the good guy now. He’s only seen as a bad thing at the end when he goes full on “I hate ALL superpowers, time to kill my friends who I have superpowers” which is… I mean, it’s consequence I guess? But it’s a dumb fucking ending to dumb fucking comic series. The Becca thing still happened, but he only mentions it occasionally to justify his bullshit when he DOES do something Garth recognizes as questionable. Don’t read The Boys comic. It’s not even so bad it’s good. Just read Watchmen.

Anyway! This is a topic I’m strangely invested in. Can’t believe I wrote a whole rant over a single tumblr post about “bad guys are cool.” I think it’s because I agree. Bad guys are cool. But consequences to their actions is a major part of it all, and so is a base level of justification. Do you guys have favorite examples of this, good or bad? Lemme know. I’m open to debate too, if for some reason you loved Hatred or hated Friday The 13th.

TL;DR: You know how making a pure evil character in Fallout is just a boring playthrough? Fiction writing can be like that if you’re not REAL careful.

[culture-and-relationships]

[miscellaneousjay]

Started watching “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” in order to prep for “Ashoka” last week. WHY AIN’T CHA’LL TELL ME THE JEDI (AS A GROUP) ARE KINDA TRIFLING?! Like, we’re expected to believe in this honorable Jedi Code, but then, when you break it down, it makes no sense! “Go to other planets and save people from being punked and create and ensure alliances, but don’t make meaningful connections if it’s not for political gain.” It’s crazy to me! In addition, I’m biased because I’m really only invested in the first two trilogies and the main character arc that I latched on to was that of Anakin Skywalker. Seeing his descent from beloved Jedi Master, friend, mentor, husband, and soon-to-be-father to being one of one of the WORST Sith Lords to ever do it was so SAAAAADDDD!!!!! All he wanted to do was protect the people he loved and he felt that he couldn’t do that as a Jedi because of said contradictory honor code. Then, apparently because the Force is extremely neutral, once a Jedi takes a life (even if necessary because WAR), their connection to the Force becomes tainted and eventually dark. I understand that the Jedi want to maintain moral high ground, but wouldn’t that mean the Dark Side would have to have a conscience? From what I’ve seen thus far, the Jedi don’t unalive captured Sith, but if the shoe was on the other foot, the same Sith would torture and possibly unalive captured Jedi if they were in the way of a goal (most of the time, they are).

P.S. Still waiting for somebody to off this filthy so-and-so right here ⬇️🤦🏾‍♀️🙄😒👊🏾💥:

[pinkpetalbee]

[episodesofdailyjournal]

This is productive

Early morning! I’ve found a time that works best for my productivity and study habits. The early morning hours can be incredibly peaceful and free from distractions, which makes them ideal for focused work like studying. Happy studying! 📚✨ ©Himanshi Dargas

[globsynbusinessschool]

Namrata Dutta and Anibrata Ghosh, alumni (Batch 2021-23), Globsyn Business School, in their valedictorian speeches, echoed the sentiments that resonated in the hearts of nearly 250 graduates present at the 20th Convocation Ceremony of the B-School.

Expressing gratitude and fondly reminiscing about her GBS journey, these two alumni shared how Globsyn exposed them to pedagogical greatness and moral values, both inside and beyond classrooms. They further emphasized that the responsibility now lies with each graduate to recall, reflect upon, and actively apply the invaluable lessons learned during their time at the B-School.

[icepopstar5105us]

Someone recently asked me what my moral alignment is. It was a surprise to me when I found that I had no idea.

I am not Lawful Good, because some rules are stupid and I don’t blindly follow rules. Sometimes I manage to get rules changed if they’re particularly ridiculous by making a point to follow them in a way that is not intended to demonstrate their stupidity. There are numerous examples of this going as far back as to when I was a toddler. Most people say I have authority issues, because I always question stuff. I just prefer to draw my own conclusions when possible and not take the word of a potentially biased individual

Most people agree that I definitely fall into ‘Good’. I sometimes care too much for other people and get into risky situations as a result. I push the limits of the rules and laws, because they’re wrong. Not for my own gain, but more out of anger for how it stifles or harms people. If I’m fighting a rule, it’s because it’s either needlessly limiting, harming someone else, or benefiting a select few at the expense of others.

However, I am okay with using less honest tactics to do something good so long as the means does not cause lasting or serious harm.

Ex: In elementary school, I once tricked a teacher into leaving my FM trainer on so I could hear her call me a r*tard and my friend a racial slur when she went to the teachers lounge. Then, I spilled crocodile tears and sobbed in the middle of lunch about it. Shouting to the entire cafeteria what I knew. She was fired. However, I did that because I knew that the teacher had been verbally abusing several students and had hit one of my friends. So while the method was certainly immoral and manipulative, she deserved it and my actions protected the other children.

I have done stuff like this a lot throughout my entire life. I don’t have the finances to pursue legal action, but I protect myself and others in this way. I don’t typically use any immoral tactics for personal gain. It’s a means of justice fueled by righteous anger and a desire to stop someone from hurting people.

I was talking to a friend about all this and they blinked at me. Then, they snorted and told me I was the definition of Chaotic Good: Breaking rules and bending morality to do good.

This explains a lot, honesty.

Tdlr: i just realized I’m Chaotic Good.

[tapan4evr]

True me.. Tap-1539..

Beauty also looks like:• Authenticity. • Honesty. • Commitment. • Consistency. • Lightheartedness. • Good moral values. • Emotional intelligence. • A kind and grateful heart. • A desire to do and be better. Tap..✌️

[withgreatpraise-blog]

Overcoming Pediatricophobia: Navigating the Journey of Parenting with Confidence and Care

Pediatricophobia" is a term used to describe the fear of caring for and raising children. This fear can be caused by worries about socializing the child properly, failing to instill good moral values, or feeling inadequate as a parent. The weighty burden of ensuring proper upbringing can leave one grappling with uncertainty and the desire to make the right choices.

However, it is important to understand that parenting is a journey that requires a measured approach and careful consideration. Education, support, and self-care can all play a role in managing pediatricophobia.

Here are some additional pieces of advice to consider:

1. Seek a balanced approach: Consider both intuition and data when making decisions about parenting. Utilize the wisdom of experienced parents and professionals, but remember to trust your own instincts as well.

2. Embrace the challenges: Parenting can be a rollercoaster of emotions, but it is also a journey filled with joy, love, and pride. Embrace the ups and downs and cherish every moment of it.

3. Take care of yourself: Don't forget to take care of yourself. Make time for your own needs and interests, and don't be afraid to take a break when you need it.

In conclusion, pediatricophobia is a common fear among parents, but it can be managed with a balanced approach and proper self-care. Remember that there is no one right way to parent, and it's okay to make mistakes along the way. The most important thing is to love and care for your child with all your heart.

[colorolors]

A new colorful series of Children's books ideal for children ages 3 - 9

[traumatizedjaguar]

You don’t care about what’s right or whats wrong you only care about who you agree with.

[vegandude72]

[eli-kittim]

“What is truth?” Pilate asked.

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Feigned madness

Recently, I’ve had numerous Biblical debates with various people in many different groups. The topics were all different, but there was a common denominator: all my opponents refused to accept the indisputable and overwhelming evidence that I was presenting. This prompted me to seriously explore and investigate the cause of their reactions. In other words, when a scholar or a scientist provides irrefutable evidence that is not only obvious and clear but also demonstrably factual, then any refusal to accept it should be viewed as a form of mental illness or psychological neurosis. It can also be described as a *delusion*:

a persistent false … belief … that is

maintained despite indisputable evidence to

the contrary.

——- Merriam-Webster dictionary

It’s like giving someone all the facts that the earth is round, but they nevertheless still maintain that the earth is flat. Then there’s nothing further one can say. Anyone who pretends not to understand the evidence is therefore *feigning madness*:

‘Feigned madness’ is a phrase used in

popular culture to describe the assumption

of a mental disorder for the purposes of

evasion, deceit or the diversion of suspicion.

——- Wikipedia

It’s like a mathematician proving that 2+2 = 4. Only an insane person would disagree. Similarly, in one of my debates, I produced multiple lines of indisputable evidence to demonstrate that the pre-tribulational rapture is a false doctrine. Instead of accepting the evidence and thanking me for the proof-texts, my opponent got very irritable and hostile and started to insult me. He even called me a heretic. That’s when I knew I was dealing with a fanatic who probably had some form of mental illness. So, when a scholar or a scientist gathers the available body of facts about a particular topic and clearly demonstrates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, then that should settle the matter, unless another scholar can disprove him. For example, when a belief or proposition is clearly proven to be false but certain people are unwilling to accept the evidence——to such an extent that they would even use insults to disrespect the researcher——then these people might be labeled fanatics. But what is actually happening psychologically is that these so-called “fanatics” who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence are employing the defensive mechanism of *denial*:

Denial … is a psychological defense

mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst

Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced

with a fact that is too uncomfortable to

accept and rejects it instead, insisting that

it is not true despite what may be

overwhelming evidence.

——- Wikipedia

It seems that a lot of people are deceived about a lot of things because they are essentially BIASED. That is to say, they’re not open to other views. The way this works is that they typically have an obstinate belief that they wish to maintain no-matter what, and so they are not interested in objective truth. They are only interested in maintaining their beliefs. So if people challenge their beliefs, they think that abandoning their beliefs would eventually lead to chaos. So they cling to their beliefs for dear life, even if these beliefs have been totally debunked. They’re not really interested in finding out whether their beliefs are true or false because that would entail a complete restructuring of their entire belief-system. So, instead of abandoning their current beliefs, which could lead to terrifying thoughts and emotions, they’d rather hold on to these false beliefs as a coping mechanism against a potentially hostile reality:

The theory of denial was first researched

seriously by Anna Freud. She classified

denial as a mechanism of the immature

mind because it conflicts with the ability to

learn from and cope with reality.

——- Wikipedia

Seeking Truth

But when something is proved to be false, shouldn’t we disregard it? If it doesn’t matter whether we prove it or not, then why bother debating at all? Why bother interpreting scripture or translating the Biblical languages? Why bother studying the Bible? If truth no longer matters, then why bother explaining scripture? Who cares? Many people typically say, “I don’t care what scholars say or what they can prove. I believe what I believe and that’s final.” Well, if truth no longer matters, then what’s the point of reading the Bible or following God? God might not exist & the Bible might be false. So why should we even bother reading about Christ if we’re no longer interested in truth?

What I am trying to get across is that “truth” must be the basis of everything we do! We must change our beliefs if they are found to be false. We shouldn’t entertain “beliefs” for their own sake but only because they can be demonstrated to be true! If our “beliefs” or “traditions” line up with truth, then we should accept them. But if they don’t, then we should reject them. You see, beliefs can be false, even deceptive and misleading. For example, many liberal pastors have crept into the church and are disseminating many FALSE BELIEFS as if they were true. That’s why so many people are deceived and confused. Many don’t even know what salvation is because of these false teachings. Bottom line, we should not be searching for “beliefs.” We should be searching for the “truth”! Paradoxically, when we find the truth, we will also find Jesus. And when we find Jesus, we will also find the truth. Why? Because the truth is not a principle; it’s a person:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am … the truth.’

——- John 14.6 (NASB)

So, “seeking” the truth is a noble path. In fact, we must be reborn into the truth. Rebirth is all about a new way of seeing (Jn 3.3), when we get rid of our false beliefs about God and meet him existentially. That’s when we come to realize that many of our beliefs about him are false. God then becomes a reality and teaches us new things about him that we never knew before (Jn 14.26).

What is Truth?

When we say that God’s word is “true,” we don’t mean that every story in the Bible is literally true. It could be a parable, a poem, or an allegory. Rather, we mean that the essence of God’s teachings (behind the narratives) is true. And when we do Biblical exegesis, we should always strive to see what we can prove; that is to say, what is true. Otherwise, there’s no point in trusting scripture or following God. We study scripture to prove it is true. And we follow God because we believe that he is truth itself. In other words, truth should be our guide and our teacher:

you will know the truth, and the truth will set

you free.

——- John 8.32

First kings 17.24 reminds us that “the word of the Lord … is truth.” In the same way, Psalm 25.5 prayerfully says, “Lead me in Your truth.” Psalm 45.4 similarly suggests that God himself fights “For the cause of truth” (cf. Rev. 19.11). Moreover, Psalm 119.160 says to God that “The sum of Your word is truth,” while Isaiah 65.16 calls him Elohim, “the God of truth.”

Interestingly enough, Jeremiah 9.3 compares good and evil to truth and falsehood (cf. Jer. 9.5). That’s why Dan 10.21 calls the Bible “the book of truth”! John 5.33 speaks of testifying to the truth. Notice that John 8.32 claims that the knowledge of the truth is what sets people free. By contrast, the devil “does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (Jn 8.44). So the battle between good and evil turns out to be a battle between truth and falsehood. That’s precisely why the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14.17). John 17.17 concludes that God’s “word is truth.” Thus, there is something special about truth that allows us to follow Christ. That’s why in his testimony before Pontius Pilate, Christ says:

Everyone who is of the truth listens to My

voice.

——- John 18.37

Therefore, we can rightly conclude that the difference between sinners and saints is the truth! How did people sin in the first place (according to Romans 1.25)? Answer: “they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood.” This means that the lies we believe are equivalent to sins. And if we are corrected but refuse to accept or even acknowledge the said edification, then we are deliberately sinning against God. Surprisingly, in Romans 2.8, truth is pitted against wickedness. That is to say, those who don’t obey the truth obey unrighteousness. In other words, being evil or morally wrong is directly related to a disobedience of the truth. That is why our defense against evil always involves criteria of truth (Eph. 6.14). As a matter of fact, 2 Thess. 2.10 attributes the state of damnation to a form of deception, in that those who are evil “did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.” So they will ultimately perish because they loved the lie more than the truth. Unlike Calvinism, which falsely preaches that God predestines people to hell, 1 Tim. 2.4 claims that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Therefore, *salvation* comprises a reception of “the knowledge of the truth.”

That’s why 2 Tim 1.14 is an exhortation to guard the truth that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit. Why should we guard the truth? Because if we believe a lie, it could be the difference between life and death; between salvation and damnation; between eternal life and eternal hell. Second Timothy 3.7 describes sinners as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This means that one can have a vast amount of knowledge with regard to secular learning yet “never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” First John 4.6 separates the open-minded from the close-minded people in terms of whether they possess “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of error.” In other words, the ability to listen objectively with an open mind is somehow related to the Holy Spirit. That’s why holding on to deceptive doctrines and “paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1) is equivalent to the wide gate “that leads to destruction” (Mt. 7.13).

We know, for example, that we often deny the obvious truth because our defense mechanisms don’t allow us to hear it. That’s precisely why Jesus often says, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Only one question remains:

Are you willing to follow the *truth*

regardless of where it might lead?

——-