UPDATE
Would a drowning person accept help?
Jesus recognised as The Christ? Who? How? When? Where? They met him!
How do you learn new stuff? Various senses may be involved, for example, touch ("Ow, that is really hot!").
I have posted previously on Jesus being The Christ (ie, The Messiah). I have included information from disciples who show differing levels of understanding and conviction. But, how did it come about in the first place that they had become disciples of Jesus as being The Christ?
A Day of Anger - Jesus' anger and their fury.
Martha, a kind, hard-working, and dutiful lady had to learn about what is better and to recognise, after all, that Jesus was truly caring for her. Luke gives us a brief compressed pericope, with two unusual words, and it comes with even some alternative (puzzling) clauses.
voternotes.blogspot.com
“Well, then,” Jesus said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” His reply completely amazed them (Mark 12:17 NLT). Do these words of Jesus, spoken in different times and a different place, support civic responsibility on our part? Do we actually have civic responsibility today? (Jesus' amazing words actually call for greater thought than I will give them at this point.)*
Voter help here - maybe?
Jesus referred to "Caesar" and Caesar's belongings. The people of then had self-serving, unaccountable, and unelected despots who did whatever they wished. (It is a sad fact that even today so many people live under such rule....)
Alert: This post is NOT about WHERE you write your "1", etc. It is about why.
I like our system of parliamentary election. There is a longish and laudable history. Not least I approve the "Australian ballot", which is about the privacy of your vote. That same privacy rule means you must not write your name on your ballot paper, lest it be deemed invalid and joins the informal total. (You would never know, of course; neither would anyone else know the vote that failed was yours.)
Our system, with all its flaws, has integrity and is transparent and accountable. (See previous post.)
Actually I like our systems of parliamentary elections! Note the plural.
I do not like our chaotic situation with electors left in the dark.
We have three kinds of elections in each State of the Commonwealth. (I suppose the Territories have similar.)
The federal elections are administered by a specific federal bureaucracy, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). The federal system is consistent across the nation.
Australian national elections are carried out by a very large temporary election workers, a (“seasonal”) workforce of "election officials". The AEC has a large permanent staff and a large Commonwealth-size budget. Its staff are effectively or actually part of the permanent Commonwealth Public Service. Many staff are located in Canberra and the AEC exercises a lot of central control over the entire administration, Returning Officers notwithstanding!
Local federal electorates are called Divisions. In previous eras, as the Act provides, the Commonwealth maintained offices in the Division, a Divisional Returning Office(r), and thus the AEC had a couple of staff relatively close to the electors on the Division roll. (Use of local sites has been partially abandoned by the AEC, and I deplore that fact.)
The other electoral systems (State) came first and have their own (longer) proud history and do not aim to replicate the “new kid on the block”, nor each other. So, we have different systems, as people who relocate interstate find out eventually.
As an example of electoral differences: Victoria readily places voters aged 70 and over on their Registered General Postal Voter list. The Commonwealth does not agree and sticks with rigid rejection rules, even though they may not be energetically enforced. These situations flow from the history, combined with the inaction of the recent members of the respective parliament. (The rules can only be changed by Act of Parliament.)
And, a little unrelated story to illustrate the robust individuality of the States: in 1877 the then new, and deemed vital, international telegraph was being connected from South Australia to Perth, Western Australia, as the WA Government wanted. The works met at Eucla on the SA/WA border. The necessary telegraph station was built, but it was a dual station. The wires were definitely not joined! Messages for transmission were received and passed through a partition to the opposite officer employed by the other State. (That ended with Federation and the Commonwealth taking over.)
Below I will point you to a very fine illustrated explanatory Federal electoral document produced by the AEC, intended for teachers. It probably gives you more info than you want, including the Commonwealth's historical background, but you may skip stuff. (The AEC website also gives access to authoritative Factsheets.) I would like every Australian elector to read the AEC magazine.
The AEC magazine does not examine different kinds of votes: "ordinary" and "early" and "absent" and "provisional". Ordinary used to mean placed by the voter in the ballot box on Polling Day (voting day).
Many voters now "cast their ballot" in person before "polling day". That is Pre-Poll Voting (PPV). The AEC muddied the data by allowing some PPV to be counted and reported as "ordinary". (That trend has surely been fostered by the very easy to use and easily misunderstood procedure introduced by the Commonwealth. When/if a voter in a line is asked, are you entitled to vote early today, what other answer is likely?)
By the way: For reliable electoral information our best sources are genuine AEC printed matter and the AEC website. New AEC hires and short-term casual AEC staff do the best they can but the AEC does not successfully ensure they are fully informed. (In previous years I have experienced questions answered unfortunately incorrectly.)
Another excellent information source is the Parliamentary Education Office of the Australian Parliament.
Note that everything about the Australian federal election is compulsory. That includes numbering every square on the (small) House of Representatives ballot paper. (State systems, eg NSW, may use optional preferential in their own elections; I think that is better.) Every ballot paper has the instructions you need. There is, of course, no possible "enforcement" of every square; however, in a federal election, any failure to number every box makes invalid ("informal") your attempted lower house vote. The Senate election has its own (different) rules.
The AEC does not try to explain the systems of each State in Australia. They acknowledge but leave to the respective State to explain. (I dare say the States do.)
From the AEC website:
State, territory and local council elections are conducted by other electoral management bodies in accordance with separate legislation. See the Australian elections portal for information regarding state and territory electoral management bodies.
Your Australian Election. You are an elector? For whom will you vote? Where will you write "1"? That is your question and I certainly do not suggest any answer at all. Limited though it is, the power is yours and yours alone. No doubt there are political parties and lobbyists keen to tell you exactly how to fill your boxes.
And, you may ask, what has this post to do with “Jesussaviour 4unme”? I have posted previously on this. The power to rule might be used rightly. That is, in line with God’s intention, for which we pray. The power to rule lies with voters during an election, for the voters choose who will govern.
"Perhaps?": You are an Australian elector and you have read to here? I hope now that you will also look over the AEC magazine (see below) and feel assured you have a reasonable grasp of what this whole election business is about. I think you will find the story, brief as it is, of interest. You can see how your important job fits into the whole Australian picture and into our story. That the choice is more than a chore you have to do. The elections we have to have. The decision you have to make.
Elections do matter. Your vote matters. The election is a prayer topic, and thereafter we know what do do. I urge Australian electors to get their information directly from the AEC. If you are one of my numerous readers from elsewhere (welcome!), then I hope you have found this of interest. I think the principles apply broadly, and certainly do apply to all of us the challenging words penned to believers in an ancient, undemocratic, empire:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and acceptable before God our Savior (1 Timothy 2:1-3 NRSVUE).
Those in high positions may be greedy, liars, rapists, thieves, bullies, deniers of truth, deceivers, abusers, proud, arrogant, cruel, hating and hateful? So it was. So it is. How remarkable that we can still ask God and even give thanks! The power-holder may have many objectionable and repugnant ways but may be preserved by God for their role. That proves nothing about the individual's ultimate destiny. In the big picture, in the final accounting, sins are not erased nor forgiven by men; there is no decree, no order, for that. Only God can forgive, if God is asked for God's mercy.
Community engagement/civic responsibility/activism v. slacktivism
Such incredible news at the time. Is it now less so?
Give Caesar's to Caesar, and God's to God.
%20Portraying%20Julius%20Caesar.jpg "Website image from Art Institute of Chicago")
Jesus wanted a Roman denarius. Why? But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it” (Mark 12:15 ESV).
Did you ever see a water bag of canvas, or hessian?
.jpg "Hessian bag - probably would not hold water.")
The canvas water bag was not a skin but it could hold water, and even cool it. There was some loss, with water moving through the fabric. However, it was durable and effective.
Consider these words of Jesus: No one pours new wine into old wineskins. The wine would swell and burst the old skins.[b] Then the wine would be lost, and the skins would be ruined. New wine must be put into new wineskins. Both the skins and the wine will then be safe (Matthew 9:16-17 CEV).
Could Jesus really give to different men exactly opposite directions to follow?
Do you see here that men grateful to Jesus had opportunity to do exactly as Jesus said...
