Blessed art Thou, o Lord, teach me Thy statutes

@u-eat-people-ur-a-people-eater

This was too long to put in the tags so congratulations you get your own post <333

“Anyone who has read the Bible” includes everyone from Eastern Orthodox Christians to secular anti-theists. Try that one again. Please go tell Catherine of Siena, Angela of Foligno, Lutgardis of Aywieres, and Gertrude of Helfta that they were not worshipping God correctly. I didn’t even claim to experience half of what they have. 

On the note of worshipping God: I agree, I’m not worshipping God correctly. I attend and evangelical church against my will rather than the True Church of Eastern Orthodoxy. And until I renew my marriage vows with God and am baptized/chrismated into that church I unfortunately will not be able to properly worship God as we both desire I would. Until then, I do what it is within my power to: I love my neighbor and pray for the empowerment to love them more. For I know what my God has required of me: that I do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly in their sight. 

I haven’t made anything up: the God of Israel does want to make out with me. He literally kissed me on the cheek Saturday and I fell asleep while he was holding me twice that night: once in his arms and then again in his lap. You don’t believe that? Skill issue. That’s not my problem. But to accuse me of making that up is honestly just laughable because you weren’t there. I KNOW that’s what I experienced. A hotel in Tennessee has security footage evidence of me reading a book and having a conversation with, from their vantage point, the air. You don’t have to believe that ANY of that like objectively happened, but to accuse me of not believing it happened is honestly ridiculous. I do believe it happened. Because, phenomenologically that’s what I experienced. 

There is almost nothing worse when one is psychotic then having someone near to you convince you that you are actually not unwell at all, but are in fact speaking to God, or that God is speaking through you, or that what you're experiencing is something good and revelatory and not a sign of a profoundly ill soul/brain. It's extremely dangerous to spread the kind of logic you're spreading, but only for actually schizophrenic/psychotic people.

You know what's a simple test? When you suspect that something you hear/see/feel/sense (that other people don't hear/see/feel/sense) might be from a religion's god, go to the holy book and see if it aligns with their character. In the case of Christianity and Judaism, no, being a "woman trapped in a male body" does not accord with what the book says and no, being insane is not a good or holy thing.

He isn't a sola scriptura Protestant, so "just read the Bible" doesn't hold here. He cited a bunch of historic mystics (medieval Catholic mysticism is a rabbit hole of crazy) and in the past has cited the African-American Christian ecstatic tradition.

The primary mistake is believing that to be childlike is to be naive and unquestioning. In reality, anyone who has been around children for more than an hour knows well that children ask "Why?" constantly. Curiosity is ingrained into them by nature and by the Lord, that they might learn the workings and nature of the world around them.

Crucially, these questions are asked earnestly and from a place of trust. Children are painfully sincere in their asks, and they ask because:

They trust that you know what they are asking.

They trust that you will tell it to them truthfully.

If a parent arrogantly dismisses the questions of a child, the questions cease, not because curiosity has faded - it's actually likely their curiosity will only be stoked by a deficit of answers - but because the trust has faltered.

The problem with that is what the Serpent actually said. "He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?" The correct answer to "Did God really say...?", at least in that instance, was "No, God never said that, and you're misrepresenting Him by claiming He did."

The primary mistake is believing that to be childlike is to be naive and unquestioning. In reality, anyone who has been around children for more than an hour knows well that children ask "Why?" constantly. Curiosity is ingrained into them by nature and by the Lord, that they might learn the workings and nature of the world around them.

Crucially, these questions are asked earnestly and from a place of trust. Children are painfully sincere in their asks, and they ask because:

They trust that you know what they are asking.

They trust that you will tell it to them truthfully.

If a parent arrogantly dismisses the questions of a child, the questions cease, not because curiosity has faded - it's actually likely their curiosity will only be stoked by a deficit of answers - but because the trust has faltered.

The problem with that is what the Serpent actually said. "He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?" The correct answer to "Did God really say...?", at least in that instance, was "No, God never said that, and you're misrepresenting Him by claiming He did."

A local paper had some great photographs, all taken by Nicole Hester:

The day before, Rep. Justin Pearson tries to attend a Senate Committee meeting and is barred access by the Sergeant at Arms.

Lawmakers and protesters link arms as the descend the capitol steps.

Once inside the chamber, Democratic representatives continued to stand together with arms linked.

They continued standing together with arms linked as votes were cast.

Democratic representatives take a group photo protesting the redistricting.

Rep. Justin Jones burns a photo of the Confederate flag with the words, We will not go back.

And stomps the ashes.

KeShaun Pearson being escorted from the building by the Staties.

KeShaun Pearson (left) being taken into custody. Rep. Justin Pearson (right) showing his support of his brother.

Additional information: State lawmakers have been gunning for Pearson and Jones nearly their entire terms. Most notably, in 2023, the House expelled them for participating in a protest at the Capitol. Their districts had to have special elections to have them reinstated.

Pearson is one of the plaintiffs of a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the redistricting.

Like, they may express that, even internally, as "i wish i could live in a village" but that's because saying shit is free and thinking out every half-formed desire into a fully-spun political program is tedious for most people. If you spend any amount of time playing it out, it's not really what they want. What they want is the opportunity to form community and connection, or networks of care outside the capitalist labor system, or exposure to people in otherwise non-overlapping spheres of life. They want whatever the opposite of capitalist atomization is, and they're pointing at a time and place that had that in order to say "see? I know it's possible, and therefore it's reasonable to want." It doesn't matter that other things in that time and place were bad, because that's not the part they're pointing at, and acting like they're trying to get everyone to hop in a time machine and go back to medieval europe or precolumbian america is being a little silly.

Notably, bigots and reactionaries do this too. Your average us republican fascist doesn't actually want to go back to the 1950s, no matter what he says. What he's gesturing at when he says it is a desire to recapture, in the present, the parts of the 1950s he considered "good" (segregation, enforced patriarchal family structure, more rigid gender regime) while keeping everything else.

The primary mistake is believing that to be childlike is to be naive and unquestioning. In reality, anyone who has been around children for more than an hour knows well that children ask "Why?" constantly. Curiosity is ingrained into them by nature and by the Lord, that they might learn the workings and nature of the world around them.

Crucially, these questions are asked earnestly and from a place of trust. Children are painfully sincere in their asks, and they ask because:

They trust that you know what they are asking.

They trust that you will tell it to them truthfully.

If a parent arrogantly dismisses the questions of a child, the questions cease, not because curiosity has faded - it's actually likely their curiosity will only be stoked by a deficit of answers - but because the trust has faltered.

The problem with that is what the Serpent actually said. "He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?" The correct answer to "Did God really say...?", at least in that instance, was "No, God never said that, and you're misrepresenting Him by claiming He did."

Well, let's get the boring answer out of the way; I think that an event that ends the line of Apostolic Succession would most probably be an event that ends the Cosmos itself. :P

But bracketing that for now, I imagine one way around this would be to go the route that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints did: have an event that somehow "rekindles" Apostolic Succession. The church claims that Joseph Smith was ordained by the Apostles Peter, John, and James sometime around 1830, and definitely no later than 1835, in order to revive the priesthood, which had hithertofor gone extinct. (Adherents of many Sufi orders make similar claims about how their spiritual lineages started with Muhammad visiting their founders in dreams and initiating them into mystical brotherhoods that the founder then transmitted to others).

Now, of course, the question becomes: would people be convinced by such a claim? (I'll leave the truth value of the claim aside). I think that people who don't pay much attention to the hierarchy in the first place may accept it without question, if things remain more or less in continuity on the ground level. But this may be an opportunity for Protestants and (assuming their bishops weren't also wiped out) Orthodox to make some major inroads on what remains of the Catholic lay faithful, since I really do think this would really destroy the credibility of Catholic truth claims.

Instead of the "rekindling" approach, it's also possible that surviving lay faithful may take up positions similar to Sedevacantists today, placing heavier emphasis on para-liturgical celebrations and devotions; the Rosary could become the central communal act of worship, for example. For those who want sacraments (and again, this is assuming other lineages of Apostolic Succession survive), perhaps members of this remnant community may join communities of Orthodox Christians, either truly assimilating or becoming crypto-Catholics.

For background, in the 17th century, Patriarch Nikon of the Russian Orthodox Church made several liturgical reforms to bring Russian Orthodoxy in line with Greek practice, most famously changing how the fingers should be arranged in the sign of the Cross. This caused several people to be upset and split off, becoming the Old Believers, consisting of two factions. The popovtsy (priested) believed that the mainline Russian Orthodox Church was in grave error but still basically legitimate, and so maintained their own clergy consisting of unemployed or banished clergy - think of them as a Russian version of the SSPX.

A more significant problem: This sort of castle isn't defensible with the number of people who are implied to live in that house (that doesn't look like a barracks for 16+ people, and the shipping containers don't seem to be used for living or working space either!) It's fundamentally out of scale.

An even more significant problem on a logistical / strategic basis: While it generally makes sense to fortify a residence, large fortifications that require widespread cooperation (which this is one of) don't exist in a vacuum. Something even vaguely like this implies being a warlord controlling area (I don't accuse the people envisioning this silliness of wanting that).

Where's your farm field? Where are your livestock? How do you get around when the fuel for your Gigantic American Trucks is exhausted?

I think these two go together.

There's a certain kind of person fantasising about living in a different society who, without their knowledge, is actually fantasising about being an aristocrat. For left-wingers, this takes the form of dreaming that, in their queer communist utopia, everyone would just study and travel and make art - activities which, of course, need to be supported by people doing boring labour (such as hotel clerks, librarians and museum janitors). For right-wingers, it's about a fantasised version of a past society. My favourite example is one of what Bret Deveraux calls "the statue pfps" posting a painting of a Victorian ball and saying "I am going to bring back galas" - naturally, many people pointed out that galas are very much still around, it's just that people like you and me don't get invited to them.

Some extreme. "Trample this picture of Jesus." "Say you don't believe!" "Convert to a different religion!"

You didn't realize that it wouldn't look like that. You didn't realize that when the line gets drawn in the sand, and Jesus is on one side, the other side would look like crying people wailing out, "why can't you just accept me for who I am? Why aren't I enough for you?"

You didn't realize that the choice would be between Jesus the Truth...or a majority of people in the culture making movies, making t-shirt slogans, changing their names, gently telling you that maybe this word in the Bible doesn't mean what you think it means, maybe love just means love, maybe you can have Jesus and whatever sexuality you want.

"Did God really say...?"

You thought it would be something overt. But the bad guys never said, "hey, choose the dark side over the light." They always said, "hey, maybe you don't even know what Jesus said."

The choice is: "It is the Lord. Let Him do what seems good to Him." OR "Did God really say...?"

That's the choice. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is our "choose this day who you will serve." As for me, I'm serving the Lord, and He's holding on to me. He never changes, and yes He did really say.

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?””

Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?””‭‭

Because, of course, God never said that. He said they could eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The sin here is not Eve or the Serpent questioning God's commandments, but the Serpent misrepresenting God's commandments and Eve blindly going along.

Some extreme. "Trample this picture of Jesus." "Say you don't believe!" "Convert to a different religion!"

You didn't realize that it wouldn't look like that. You didn't realize that when the line gets drawn in the sand, and Jesus is on one side, the other side would look like crying people wailing out, "why can't you just accept me for who I am? Why aren't I enough for you?"

You didn't realize that the choice would be between Jesus the Truth...or a majority of people in the culture making movies, making t-shirt slogans, changing their names, gently telling you that maybe this word in the Bible doesn't mean what you think it means, maybe love just means love, maybe you can have Jesus and whatever sexuality you want.

"Did God really say...?"

You thought it would be something overt. But the bad guys never said, "hey, choose the dark side over the light." They always said, "hey, maybe you don't even know what Jesus said."

The choice is: "It is the Lord. Let Him do what seems good to Him." OR "Did God really say...?"

That's the choice. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is our "choose this day who you will serve." As for me, I'm serving the Lord, and He's holding on to me. He never changes, and yes He did really say.

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?””

Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?””‭‭

Because, of course, God never said that. He said they could eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The sin here is not Eve or the Serpent questioning God's commandments, but the Serpent misrepresenting God's commandments and Eve blindly going along.

(Source)

Additionally, I assume "rape gangs" is a reference to grooming gangs in the North and Midlands of England, when this actually happened in Ireland.