G.O.M.C.

1: hi. i am schizophrenic too. its nice to see people like me, i know it's hard but it'll all be okay.

2: i'm a cook with psychosis! you're a good content creator! i like you getting into prices and stuff.

3: i just wanted to say i'm also schizophrenic. my parents made me learn to cook when i turned 12. i'm 29 now and haven't lost my love for cooking. thanks, both for inspiring people to cook and for teaching them that schizophrenia isn't scary.

4: hello! i live in russia with some kind of disorder (i tend not to ask my doc to not scare myself, just silently and happily eating my meds...which somehow tend to be for schizophrenic folks? haha). and because my diagnosis is very light, i have the strength to support all my neurodivergent schizo and affective friends out there. we're all get through and live a happy life eventually... and eat delicious food! cheers to you, chef!

5: both of my brothers have schizophrenia-- one of them is schizoaffective and the other is just classic schizophrenia. i appreciate you sharing yourself with the world because people need to see that schizophrenia is NOT scary!! schizophrenia is just a different way of experiencing life.

you are in the medieval era and you have this role!

there's some bbq joint somewhere in the middle of texas, some place you wouldn't expect kpop to have touched all that much, that has rumi's photo hung up on their wall not because she's a celebrity celebrity in that she's a world famous pop star, but because she's a local celebrity at that joint specifically because she beat some eating challenge the restaurant hosts in record time

(huntrix had an extra day in between the dallas and houston stops and zoey wanted to try ✨️ authentic✨️ texas bbq and went down a rabbit hole on reddit rumira tagged along because they're all codependent like that)

a random huntrix fan stumbles upon the joint one day while just going about their day, trying some place new for dinner and then-

fan: is that RUMI FROM HUNTRIX??? on your wall??

[there's a huge framed photo of rumi in casual clothing, a plastic tiara, and a bib, posing with a spare rib next to her face and the biggest 😀 smile. the caption reads PRINCESS OF PORK in blinding gold, all caps]

waitress: idk what huntrix is but yeah that's rumi alright she's famous around here for setting the record for the 7lb bbq platter challenge, 10 minutes faster than the next winner how do you know her?

fan: she's a world famous pop star??

Which is- Gd created everything, then Gd went around talking to people, shit happened, Gd tried to find a people to accept Gd’s laws and book, no one would. FINALLY Gd stumbles across the Jews and is like “Hey will y’all accept my laws and be my chosen people?” And the Jews were like “What does that mean?” And Gd is like “It means you follow my rules and read this book.” and the Jews were like “Eh sure why not.”

No.  In fact, it’s almost the opposite.  There are a number of places in Jewish thought and Jewish law where complete consensus is a sign of something having gone wrong with the process.  (For example, if all of the judges agree in a case where the death penalty would be imposed, then the accused automatically goes free and the case is dismissed–because something clearly went wrong if you can get all of the judges to agree!)

It’s because Judaism and Christianity have very different viewpoints on God, sinning, forgiveness, and punishment.  

In Judaism, there are several classifications for “sin” that are very different than Christian views; there are sins where one person transgresses against another person, and sins where one person transgresses against God.  The former category is viewed as more significant–indeed, two types of sin from one person to another are classified as unforgivable: Murder and gossip.  Murder because the victim is not around to give forgiveness, and gossip because it is impossible to take one’s words back once they are loosed in the community.  

And then there are the classifications of sin; in Judaism, it is believed that everyone has the internalized capacity for failure and straying.  That’s what sin is conceptualized as–a deviation from a correct path.  The most common word for sin, hata, essentially means “to go astray/to miss one’s mark”.  

So we conceptualize everyone as having free will, and the ability to stay on the correct path of moral righteousness (which is a concept itself tied to justice and charity) through their own choices, or to deviate from that course.  And for when we miss that mark, we ask the people we’ve wronged for their forgiveness directly, or ask God for forgiveness on the appropriate occasion (Yom Kippur) for when we’ve gone astray against God.  

So for us, we have moral and ethical guidelines on what to do from God, but the implementation and interpretation of them is up to us.  So we argue and debate if this particular action or other acts to fulfill that.  Is it good enough?  Well, let’s build a little fence around the concept so we don’t accidentally transgress.  Well, where do we put the fence?  And there’s debate on that.  And debate on whether we need the fence, or if a “keep off” sign is sufficient?  Is the fence still applicable in the modern age?  How do we interpret these strictures in the light of changing times?  Etc.  

And since we didn’t have a central authority to mediate and rule on these things for the last two thousand years, you get practice by consensus… to a point.  

Contrast that with Christian views on Sin, and how sin can only redeemed through Jesus–and in Catholicism, Jesus is only accessible through the priests of the Church, which, for the last thousand years, has been aggressively centralizing and defending its authority, on pain of sin for those that go against that authority.  And engaging in sin imperils your immortal soul to Hell (another concept that doesn’t exist in Judaism).  

So there is a coercive element there that doesn’t exist in Judaism, along with a centralized authority who can and will punish deviation–not just in behavior, but in thought.  Because Christianity has thought-crimes, being an Ortho-dox (Correct Doctrine/Thought) religion, while Judaism is an Ortho-prax (Correct Action/Practice) religion.  

As a result, in Judaism, debating on what actions to take is not only acceptable, but encouraged, but in Christianity, debate and dissenting viewpoints are forbidden, as independent thought has the risk of breaking someone from the doctrines, and is best left to the priests for the safety of one’s Christian soul.  

Judaism’s got, what, four major denominations and a handful of smaller specialized communities? Yeah, there are dozens if not hundreds of different Christian denominations. Has no one here heard of the Great Schism? The Protestant Reformation? The King’s Great Matter? Vatican I? Vatican II? Hell, the denomination I grew up in split up over whether or not to accept gay rights (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America vs the Missouri Synod) in the 90s.

Yes there are major personality differences between Judaism and Christianity, including the fact that Christians (ironically) choose to divorce* each other over doctrinal and socioethical differences a lot more often than Jews—and, historically, those divorces tend to be a lot bloodier, which is what happens when political and military power get involved—but the idea that there’s no record of substantial debate or dissent in Christianity—even within one denomination—is in no way supported by history.

Yes, because Christians will excommunicate and divide every time they have a doctrinal speedbump.  The fact that Christians fragment so easily in comparison to Judaism supports the point on “thinking for yourself is forbidden”–because it’s easier to take a group of like-minded heretical Christians and set oneselves up as a separate denomination than it is to talk things out with the parent denomination.   The sheer existence of so many divides being backed up with force and murder just shows the coercive power against heresy in Christian thought being applied.  

Then you look at Christianity, where people will immediately claim that a group isn’t actually Christian. My favorite example was a Baptist who was convinced that Roman Catholics aren’t Christian because they “worship” Mary, and are therefore polytheistic. (Even though Catholicism predates Baptists by over a thousand years.) For a long time, Anabaptists weren’t considered Christian because they don’t baptize children. Some Christians won’t consider Presbyterians to be fellow Christians because they see speaking in tongues as witchcraft. And don’t get me started on Santería and other branches of Christianity that blended with indigenous and slave cultures in the Americas.

Muslims will also do this. I’m less familiar with all the branches, but plenty of Shia don’t consider Sunni to be real Muslims, and vice versa.

Wars have been fought over these divisions in Christianity and Islam. People have died because their interpretation of the Bible was considered wrong and sacrilegious.

SAITO Kiyoshi（斎藤清 Japanese, 1907-1997）