Call me Lenny/Leni @ shinigamiookamiryuu @lemm.ee

It's nice to meet all you. I am she/her, can speak Toki Pona and English (n

---

Read more

Posts

138

Comments

5,088

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

So you're not aware then that this is someone whose descriptors match someone accused of constant returning/evading and who has been proven wrong.

So you're not aware then that this is someone whose descriptors match someone accused of constant returning/evading and who has been proven wrong.

Maybe it's worth acknowledging you're an exact copy of someone who keeps returning.

Maybe it's worth acknowledging you're an exact copy of someone who keeps returning.

Maybe it's worth acknowledging you're an exact copy of someone who keeps returning.

Maybe it's worth acknowledging you're an exact copy of someone who keeps returning.

Maybe it's worth acknowledging you're an exact copy of someone who keeps returning.

I have been described this way before, even though I see what I am as one whole. You could even call it "trial faith" if you count "agnosticism" as a component. I say that because I don't think of myself as metaphysically focused. Sure, God may exist, and I do have those leanings, but metaphysical matters are, by virtue of their nature, left out of the strict equations of life, by definition. I see my specifications with God as being summed up with "for all intents and purposes" (as much as people tend to mock it, Jordan Peterson's "what is" speech comes to mind here).

This may be my Pacific Islander side showing, but adherence to "folk LDS" has to do with the first part of my alignment. It has often been called Hagothism. In the Book of Mormon, one might recall (or so I am told) there are a few random verses where a sailor named Hagoth goes to different places in the Pacific to spread the light of the Nephites. This is where the tradition would come in. There are those of us who hold all the main teachings of "Mormons" (who don't really like being called that) but who teach something that's Australianized instead of Americanized. So different story narrative and whatnot. "Hagothists" still, however, identify as LDS. You can be a "Mormon" but not a "Hagothist" and vice versa, though even "Mormons" who have been to places relevant to "Hagothism" have seen the signs possibly indicative of being visited by the lord, such as stories in native beliefs about heavenly visitors. Though I am not absolute, I definitely lean towards these teachings known as Hagothism, it's not as judgmental and best matches expectations and answers questions.

Along comes the Mune Shinri, a scripture whose "faith name" is "Aiken". I only had to read it once, and everything fits perfectly. Components such as the views on gods (technically henotheism but technically monotheism, one doesn't rule out other gods while the other is like "hey, the angels of old were gods in a way"), the views on the afterlife (Hell is not for the good-hearted; one says you have to try really hard to get into Hell, the other speaks of a man named Akuma who was the first to do just that and resides in a place where people who haven't repented serious things stay given they don't speak their heart out), the views on geography (Aiken's connection to Japan comes to mind, and a lot of people wonder how Japan fits in with the lore about Hagoth, which may have an answer here), and the views on human rights (both are LGBT-friendly for example, err, one suggests it's not God's plan but implies it isn't damnable while the other says he does not look down on any form of unity) all come together like a rope and a curtain. As many of us do with many things, I, at different times, may vocally identify differently and with different semantics, even though it's all there at all times. As for what church I go to, it's a mix between a non-specifically denominational group and a regular LDS one.

Three of my favorites from each classic category...

Animal photography:

Landscape/sky photography:

Chalk drawings, my favorite medium (aside from stop-motion/claymation):

Regular drawings:

Memes:

No. Neither one would change how universally relevant basic ethics are.

Put whoopie cushions in the door.

I have no doubt it can be done. I've seen something along these lines for myself. Many people have begun their life with destructive ideas only to realize what was wrong and shake that off themselves, which one might say is natural as the seekers of insight we are. I'd be lying to say this didn't describe me in a few ways, having thought in a more generalized, unthinking way in the past. Given enough time, it's hard to imagine that not all of us would become Uncle Iroh.

We are given a glimpse of this in history; we see the likes of Hirohito going from warlike to a pacifist, General Butt Naked converting from a genocidal warlord to a preacher, Dr. Seuss once being Japanophobic before making amends, the great Confucius himself becoming who he was after being disillusioned with his position of power, and if you are of my religious group, God himself.

It depends on the kind of individual we are talking about and the circumstances behind them. So many different things potentially spring to mind when I hear the word "asshole" that it's impossible to generalize. In most conflicts I've observed, both sides are referred to as assholes in some way, which means, either way, you're going to be accused of defending an asshole. Sometimes you are even surrounded by assholes.

This was actually a huge problem in medieval times. The people back then adhered to the existence of the death penalty, but they also didn't see it as anything aside from a kind of state sanctioned murder rather than how you'd expect many people to see execution. Executioners were thus highly stigmatized, to the point where we have that stereotype today of medieval executioners having that black veil over their heads to conceal their identity, and out of necessity, the role of executioner was inherited like that of a monarch rather than acquired, since often nobody would've otherwise sought the job. Executioners were considered so much of an outcast and felt so little incentive to be executioners that it was medieval law that they would get a lifetime supply of free food in order to reduce the burden of the job. They were considered a hesitant necessary "evil" that put a cap on other "evils", like adultery (oh the horror). Or so they say.

Times have evolved though, and I go by a different school of thought (schools of thought where it's much more difficult to get to the bad place and stay there if your intentions are good). I cannot help you out of legal issues should something happen, but I have faith that doing what you consider to be a favor won't be eternally punished.

There is honesty, but there's also putting too much faith in the whole tough love thing. That's all I'm saying.

I'm sure it does or doesn't depending on the situation. There's no blanket answer to this, but I know it's not without its effects. I've noticed a lot of people who are considered attractive who get more tolerant treatment by others, all while some get worse treatment because the envious channel their disappointment on them. Often I wonder which one I am given the kinds of people (who are male-majority in some cases) don't like me.

To be fair, it's never that simple.

It helps to be a tad more productive/casual in one's responses to things like this, not give someone the Foghorn Leghorn treatment and expect it to be the final word.

Both? So the best way to put it is I identify with my hometown and my state, identify less with my nation without totally "not" identifying with it, and identify most strongly with the land I came from before then.

I'm not a mom at the time of saying this. The closest I get to being one is being a childrearing aid to a pair of twins. They are young, innocent, and without those political passions yet (I don't blame them), so I'm guessing Musk comes off as a passing circumstance to them, but at one point that one diplomatic meeting was airing and they asked if "that strange guy" (Elon Musk) was breaking the rules because he wasn't "wearing his school uniform" (i.e. he wasn't wearing a suit like everyone else). Probably the only thing they understood of it all, but it speaks a bit about what is starting to develop.