Genesis 19:24
24 And Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven,

This text is used a proof for the trinity. But what does the context say?

Genesis 19:12-14
12 Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and everyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place;
13 for we are about to destroy this place because their outcry has become great before Yahweh, so Yahweh has sent us to destroy it.”
14 And Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, “Get up, get out of this place, for Yahweh will destroy the city.” But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

You see how the angels said they are send to destroy the cities themselves? Then right after they say Yahweh will destroy. The angels are representatives, destroying Sodom in the name of Yahweh who is in heaven. In Genesis 18 we see Yahweh stayed with Abraham while He send his angels to Sodom.

Genesis 18:22
22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before Yahweh.

In Genesis 19:1 we read only the 2 men (angels) appeared in Sodom.

Genesis 19:1
1 Then the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. Lot saw them and rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
Genesis 18:33
33 And as soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham, Yahweh departed, and Abraham returned to his place.

It says Yahweh departed. It does not say where to. But in 18:22 it clearly says the angels went to Sodom.
Now notice this:

Genesis 19:18-23
18 But Lot said to them, “Oh no, my lords!
19 “Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by preserving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, lest calamity overtake me and I die;
20 now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be preserved.”
21 And he said to him, “Behold, I grant you this request also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
22 “Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
23 The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar.

Lot asked the angels if he could go to the nearby town (Zoar). One of the angels replied and granted his request, saying "I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken."
Now notice 19:22, the angel tells Lot to hurry, because "I cannot do anything until you arrive there."
And finally, Lot arrives at the town (Zoar) in verse 23. THEN the infamous verse 19:24 comes.
All in all, the Bible clearly says that the angels were send to destroy the cities, and that they (the angels) will destroy the city. That is a fact (Gen 19:13).
Again, we also have to consider the most logical explanation from the context. Why is this explanation the most logical? Because there being two Yahwehs is in complete contradiction with the rest of the scriptures.
Verse 25, the very next verse. “and HE”. Singular. Not plural. Why does it not say “they” if “they” did it in cooperation?
The answer is that the angels are representatives for Yahweh. If not, 19:13 and 19:14 would contradict each other.

Disclaimer:
This post has heavy spoilers to the story of the version 2.2 and maybe to something else. Good luck to read all of this. I yap for Ena and maybe repeat myself little too much. Mentioned characters:
Sunday
Robin
Aventurine
Dreammaster
Bronya
Seele
Cocolia
Mentioned Aeons:
Ena
Xipe
Hooh
Long
Oroboros
Qlipoth
Mentioned organisations:
Beyond the Sky Choir
Astral Express
Family
In loving memory: Ena the Order “The one who transcends the many”
In loving memory of Tazzyrronth the Propagation “The Sand king”
In loving memory of the Great Tatalov “The Garbage King”
So, the original intent behind this post was to create a lot of puns about Order and Sunday (for example something like Golden Order Radagon Sunday, “I will have order” with Sunday and a falling train instead, Sunday working in a delivery and saying that someone’s order was cancelled).
But then I started remembering all parts of Penacony storyline that have fascinated me. And one particular part master stroked me. When Sunday used his “tell the truth or die in 24 hours voice magic” he used not the power of Order, but Harmony – the Path he supposedly deliberately left behind and betrayed.
How can I be so sure, that he didn’t use the power of Order, making it look like the power of Harmony? Well, nor Dr. Ratio, nor Aventurine, nor Welt, nor (most importantly) Robin didn’t notice any sign that the Order was used and that the power on display did in fact belong to Harmony. And mind you, all of them are quite clever, experienced and hard to deceive. And in Aventurine’s conversation with Acheron in the Horizon of existence, Acheron (who as Self-Annihilator isn’t affected by the illusions of Order and can see through them) referred to the brand, used on Aventurine as the “brand of Harmony”. And the last proof is that when Sunday uses this power, he makes a call (or if you are a pun enjoyer like me, “an order”) to Xipe, referring to THEM as “Triple-faced soul”.
So, this was a really long and a roundabout way to prove that even with his supposed devotion to Order, Sunday still remains the Pathstrider of Harmony (and the laws of the HSR universe dictate, that you become a Pathstrider by following a philosophy of a particular Path). While being a Pathstrider of two Paths is not called impossible in the game, and Harmony and Order mostly overlap, there are some key differences between them. It means, that Sunday to some extant still believes in a philosophy of Harmony and is not a complete devotee of Order, how some people could have believed.
So, the goal of this post is to delve on the philosophy of Ena and Harmony through Sunday’s story, words, thoughts and actions. And to make some obnoxious theories, but that’s later.
So, let’s begin!
Ⅰ
In his childhood, Sunday alongside Robin, was called by the Dreammaster “two best interpreters of the Great One”. That means, that as a child, Sunday was extremely close to the philosophy of Harmony.
Let’s remember what Harmony embodies as a philosophy:
“Then, they say, O you who have reached the end, enter into the paradise that envelops all! Join this great choir and feast, listen to the beating of billions upon billions of hearts, holding you in THEIR embrace...”
“To battle the brutality of the laws of the universe, intelligent lifeforms must discard their cowardly selfishness and the differences between individuals, fusing into one singular melody — to have the strong help the weak, and to protect life with death.”
That is what Harmony preaches and Sunday was a follower of this ideology. Harmony preaches selfless people not only helping and uplifting each other to build “the paradise” (a prominent theme in Sunday’s thoughts) bit also welcoming every other willing person. Harmony philosophy is about acceptance, forgiveness, cooperation, that no person is beyond redemption, that in every person has inside of them the force that genuinely cares for others and strives for good. Harmony preaches something like this: “Because if it is possible for every person to become a member of Family’s shared paradise, then we should at lest try to welcome them in it.” That’s why Harmonic Strings (Emanators of Xipe) are not people and are actually manifestations materialized as the responses to the Hive Mind’s demands. It is a seemingly naïve and romantic ideal for the sometimes and indifferent brutal universe of HSR that requires great kindness, compassion, understanding, belief in other people, ability to see the better in other people and uplift them. And Sunday-follower of Order reflects on that:
"When I appeared as a child, my speech, mindset, and soul reflected immaturity and innocence."
"As I grew into adulthood, I left behind my childlike side."
Sunday (as shown in the quest) was a person of great understanding, compassion, and love for other living beings, full of desire to protect them (bird, Robin, other people). He was able to embrace even the worst people if they would show even the slightest glimpse of desire to redeem themselves and change for the better, like people who allegedly sold their own children. It is notable that he both acts as a follower of Harmony and an enforcer of Order conspiracy because of these very character traits. The motivation is the same, just the choice how to act based on this motivation is different between him and Robin because of different experiences.
As the ardent believer of Harmony, the seed of doubt in his mind was planted ironically by the very followers of the Harmony -the Family. And the disillusionment about Harmony also began, when his belief in other people was tested. When asking Xipe to clear his doubts, Sunday asks three questions:
“Who can judge the strong when their power hides their crimes?”
“Who can vouch for the weak when they will pay any price to survive?”
“If "the strong defending the weak" is truly the foundation of paradise, then who is responsible for the suffering and anguish in this wretched world?”
The questions display that the preached Harmony doesn’t work as intended. The extremely hard ideal to follow was exactly too demanding for numerous people who couldn’t stand up to the responsibility that came with upholding it. Also, as displayed both in the main quest of Penacony and in numerous events and side quests, flaws and imperfections of Family(note: of the Family on Penacony) are numerous. We have an entire “Ode to Fool” in the Grand Theatre about internal bloodthirsty war between the Family, where two of the seven families of Penacony ceased to exist. When even Family: those who preach the Odes of Harmony don’t act as they preach, are not harmonious, don’t show compassion and forgiveness, it is extremely hard to still believe in its teachings. And from that, the belief in people starts to slowly crumble as the very belief in a possibility of a paradise preached by the Xipe, is tested.
That is what turns him to Order. The feeling that while the paradise of Harmony is theoretically possible, how much suffering must people experience before it actually arrives. And when will it arrive? And IF it will arrive? These doubts in human inherent desire to change for the better leads to the idea: “And what if they don’t change? Then why take the risks? Why not to create something that guarantees their safety, happiness and protection?” His desire for Order is still born from his love for humanity.
Ⅱ
And while the shift in beliefs did in fact happen, it wasn’t completed and some beliefs in Harmony remain, alongside doubts about the philosophy of Order.
To prove that, let’s remember the Grand Theatre part of the quest (“Everything that Rises Must Converge”).
Before that Dreammaster has a particularly interesting conversation with Sunday. Sunday not only changes their plan, taking Robin’s place in the plan and then he asks Dreammaster why Penacony was the chosen planet to bring “paradise” of the Order. If he was completely convinced, why would he pose these questions?
Sunday several times brings the part of 107,336 souls of the Oak Family in his monologues. Why? Because he uses them to give self-validation to his beliefs. It comes not only from his desire to grant “paradise” to everyone (and this guys as stated dreamed about the paradise of Order), but also from his self-perceived responsibility as the Head of the Oak Family to stand up to wishes and desires of his subordinates, to protect them, and as the man with greatest position among them, to fulfil the hardest task. Because if people he is in charge of follow and support his views, not only it gives him more belief in his set of beliefs(ha), but also gives him even greater responsibility to prove that their faith in him, in Order is not misplaced.
In first two acts he displays before us shortcomings of the Harmony, trying to display himself as the ardent believer of the Order:
In the first act “Ode to Prisoner” he says that the freedom was not really achieved in Penacony’s great Independence War, posing a doubt that the ideal of Harmony even existed in Penacony since the very beginning.
In the second act “Ode to Fool” the theme of not so harmonic Harmony remains. Sunday talks about internal civil war between the Family, that eradicated two of the seven families on Penacony. How “harmonic” it is!
But in the last and most important act “Ode to Order” has a surprisingly different theme, hidden in it.
It is supposedly talking about the future of Penacony, but there is something more if you listen to its content once again:
General: “Without a ruler who would protect the weak and fight back against the tyrants?”
Chansellor: “We must assist each other in protecting the weak, just as we must assist each other in opposing the tyrannical.”
This dialogue argues that the very measures Sunday preaches, are not required for the coexistence and unification are also an option. Case of how differently Order and Harmony solve one problem.
Jester: “Without a ruler, who will make the stars follow their paths, the tides rise and fall, and allow life to grow?”
C: “These things did as they will long before the ruler appeared, just as they will continue to do with rulers gone.”
Where the Order requires an all-mighty divine king, controlling the world (like God-Emperor of Mankind from Warhammer), Harmony simply says that actually such beings are not needed.
Minister: “However, now that we have bid farewell to our ruler. Who shall take their place?”
C: “We no longer require a ruler, for we were originally all rulers who stand above all things.”
Once again, order preaches about the ruler on the top of everything, the one who has all of the rights and makes all of decisions. But harmony doesn’t work that way. Harmony preaches that if every person has equal rights to enter its paradise, then they are essentially equal. Where Order differentiates people and treats them differently according to THEIR criteria, harmony does not as THEY are all-embracing.
The choice of the position of Chansellor as the one giving answers is deliberate. It is another innuendo on differences between Harmony and Order. In Order king takes the power and pushes everyone under his control. Chancellor, as the representation of Harmony in this argument, is a position not a person. He is subject to change, unlike king. Unlike king, Chancellor is chosen among the people, by the people. He serves as one man being the voice of many people, for they have chosen him as a Chancellor because their ideals are the same and thus, they have entrusted him to fulfil their ideals in reality in their stead.
Some people were not satisfied that the arguments were not posed against Sunday by the Astral Express. Well, this entire act serves as a counter to his arguments, showing the point of view of Harmony arguing against the necessity of ideals of Order. Most importantly, they don’t disprove hid arguments completely, but rather pose a possible alternative take on things.
The Clockwork doesn’t work on puppets because they are “satisfied”. But what gives satisfaction: Order or Harmony? In my opinion, Harmony. Remember: in THEIR paradise there is “peace bestowed, sorrows and strife released.”
The “king” in the text obviously refers to Ena the Order, and the last talk from the “Future” in the act is about “final rites” to the king, that there is no need to seek THEIR existence, nor remember THEM. It illustrates the final confusion of Sunday: if Ena didn’t fight back while being consumed, if the philosophy of Harmony prevailed in the confrontation among the Paths, why try to restore the Order?
And after that particular act he chose to reveal to us the finale of Ena’s story. That THEY were banished to oblivion by the united will of the people who defied Order. And THEIR death was praised alongside praises for the appearance of Harmony – the ideal that prevailed on Penacony in the end.
And that is what actually 3 is actually about. Puppets(Members of the Beyond the Sky Choir) ask what they and everyone else should do after the “king(Ena)” disappeared.
They feel no safety and out of their comfort zone when the one that controlled everything about their lives suddenly disappeared. And Chancellor’s answers are the representation of the ideology of Harmony, that you don’t need to be controlled to strive in life, for that there is more to universe and that the “king” is not actually required for betterment of society, that society can harmonize and evolve on their own, that the unity of people can replace the “king”. Ironically, “the Ode to Order” doesn’t glorify Order but rather disproves it from being the one and only universal truth.
In this act Sunday actually reveals, intended or not, that he doesn’t disprove Harmony’s ideal, that he subconsciously feels that it can stand on par with the ideal of Order.
Then, Sunday poses between us three questions, each one has different answers depending on your set of believes: order or Harmony. Notice, that Sunday doesn’t give his own answers to the questions.
“Is darkness equal to daylight?”
This question is very metaphorical. Radiance and light, eradicating darkness and giving protection to those under the light are a repeated theme in the ideology of the Order (“I shall ascend to the heavens, becoming the scorching sun. Bathed in my light, my people shall flourish, while all evil shall be eradicated” / “Those who live in the shadows do not bear the right to tread the illuminated stage.” / “I now permit you to gaze into the sun [hardest line in the game btw]”) But radiance is also a term sometimes used to describe Xipe. The greatest difference lies in the fact that what Order will not tolerate (“darkness”), harmony will be able to co-exist with and eventually embrace. So for Order they are different, but for Harmony not at all.
“Are sinners equal to the righteous?”
Order punishes the unjust and uplifts the righteous. For it, they are not equal. But for Harmony they are, mostly because before Xipe the very concept of sinners doesn’t exist. Harmony is all-embracing, for everyone can change for the better and be redeemed.
It is a discourse in philosophy: first question was about whether are you able to tolerate something that goes against you. While Harmony can, Order cannot (Sunday can as literally shown in the quest so he leans more to Harmony in that part). Second question was about whether people can change for the better and be redeemed. Order doesn’t believe in it, Harmony does.
“If you are born weak, which god should you turn for solace?”
It is another question to choose between philosophies because Sunday struggles to choose himself. If you are weak and you bow before someone(“king”) for the protection then this is a choice befitting Order, but if you choose to cooperate with others, uplift one another and “listen beating of billions of hearts holding you on their embrace” then this is the choice of Harmony.
Notice, that Sunday doesn’t consider us as enemies at all. As he says: “I genuinely wish to avoid a violent clash with my esteemed guests from afar.” When Astral Express team asks Sunday why did he invite us to the duel, he responds: “Because our shared goals give equal weight to the beliefs we strive for.” He regards everything happening more like a debate of two equally valid philosophies. Even in the fight with him (second one) he still invites us to join his chorus of Order. And he says “our final talk is concluded” only when he turns into his Embryo of Philosophy form, when literally everyone who could has risen against him. And then he reveals his true emotions:
“If your ‘paradise’ can save more people, sever my path with your hands”
He knows he is not infallible, that his plan can be wrong, that there is a possibility of making better choices, better decisions. And he asks us to prove, that Harmony after all is a stronger concept then that of Order. And his quote before that really makes everything extremely ironic:
“If we had never experienced solitude, how could we embark on different paths?”
Once again, this solitude refers to the times when he still completely followed Harmony. Yet he was the only person on the entire Penacony because of his great compassion, who actually followed what Xipe preached. Yet, in this he was alone. How can you be in Harmony with anyone, if you are alone. The irony is in the fact, that if Robin didn’t leave Penacony, of if he met another genuine believer, he wouldn’t have turn to Order and he would remain under Xipe. With many similarities of Order and Harmony: the epitome of Order is loneliness, being a sole ruler of everything, the epitome of Harmony is a unity of numerous people.
“And thus, my talk about Sunday has concluded. Next part is about Ena.”
Ⅲ
While his monologue about history of Ena can also be interpreted as parts above, it is much more interesting to discuss it when talking about Ena THEMSELVES.
“Let us commence with the dawning of the world… After the Dusk Wars, darkness veiled the sky, and chaos consumed the earth. Ena the Order emerged, destined to restore all existence. That marked the first day.”
The Dusk Wars are one of the most ancient (if not the most) periods of history we know about. Ena emerging at that time, makes THEM one of the oldest Aeons alongside Long, Hooh, Qlipoth and Oroboros.
” THEY gathered nebulae and forged them into picks, thus creating a grand lyre with black and white keys. Strike the white keys, and the sun rose. Strike the black keys moon and the rose. And so the cycle of day and night arose. That marked the second day. “
“THEY transmuted streams of stars into inked nibs, creating symbols to be pronounced and counted. THEY molded stardust into flowing rivers, assigning the righteous upstream and the unjust downstream. Thus, all things were marked and the world learned to discern between good and evil. That marked the third and fourth days. “
“THEY used the planetary rings to establish the law, forging a code of conduct among the masses. A grand lyre with black and white symbols of articulation and numerical notation took the form of musical notes. The downward-flowing river became a melody, and the cannon of law dictated the form. Thus, all mortals found their unique place within this symphony. That marked the fifth and sixth days. “
Ena, as we know was a control freak, at much bigger scale and extent, then Sunday could have ever hoped to become. We know that «Ena's harmonic songs seems to align within a three-dimensional framework, akin to an emperor maintaining hierarchical order among all creatures» Not only people, but the movement of celestial bodies were under THEIR control. THEY wanted to and almost controlled everything in the known cosmos. So, THEY were the only person responsible for everything. And when THEY were consumed, the manager of everything disappeared and the scales of order and discord lost their balance. That is why Hooh intervened and took THEIR responsibilities.
“THEY imbued world with meaning, perfecting all things in the heavens and earth. Then, THEY rested from the labors of creation. Yet, all beings cried to Ena – ‘Under the banner of the Order, you have defined all things in the Cosmos… but this made us realize that we are but puppets in your hands!’ – Thus, on that day, all beings united and cast the Aeon into the abyss of oblivion. That marked the seventh day. “
And this is the most interesting part. We know that Ena was consumed by Xipe, so why does Sunday refer to THEIR death as an action, made by humans?
As we know, Xipe “hails from multiple harmonious celestial words”, “a plural Aeon” and “THEY are the amalgamation of thousands of entities”. Thus, I pose that Xipe ascension was not a process of accension of a one person who somehow become an Aeon, but rather that several beings in a moment of unity (of “harmony”) were ascending as one. Next bit is purely theoretical:
But who could provide such unity before the existence of Harmony? Only the Beyond the Sky Choir – followers of Ena could understand the true extent of Ena’s control over everything and unify to create a change. Thus, mortals ascended into Aeon, befitting their shared beliefs, and from the Beyond the Sky Choir, Xipe arose with a new symphony of Harmony.
ⅠⅤ
Also, some other interesting bits from 2.2. storyline:
The most overlooked part of 2.2 quest for me is that part before boss battle when Sunday says that he doesn’t intend to either resurrect Ena or become a new Aeon of Order. While the actual possibility of such actions remains “enigmatic, we can now speculate that it could be possible to take control of a masterless Path or revive its master. I speculate that when we finally reach strongest Emanators level of poweallies/etc. the enemies we will be facing before actual Aeons will be unique beings like that: fallen Aeons in the process of resurrection or people in the process of becoming a new Aeon of a Path without one.
Another interesting bit of lore about Ena is that while she was “consumed” by Xipe, her Path still lingers in the cosmos masterless. While it was known about Paths of other fallen Aeons it is interesting that even assimilation by a broader concept Aeon isn’t enough to completely eradicate the Path from the face of the cosmos.
Some other connections that I noticed about Sunday while rewatching 2.2 quest were surprising even for me. Name a planet where the ruler intentionally left their subordinates in ignorance about the truth about the events for the sole reason of protecting them? It’s Belobog with Bronya and Seele (I could talk about similarities and differences of Bronya and Sunday but that would make already long post even longer). And this is why Ena was able to persuade Qlipoth. Because Qlipoth shares with THEM that general theme of protection. Because their Paths partly overlap. Because Preservation is about keeping everything dangerous behind the walls (in this case dangerous information about Cocolia), and everything inside the walls is safe, protected, or you could say “in Order”.
Ⅴ
P.S. I feel like in this quest there is still so much more to discuss(and I could write EVEN MORE), but this long wall of text is already too out of character from me as a humble follower of Enigmata.

I want to take a moment to list out some of my most challenging problems with Protestantism according to what Scripture says, in no particular order. It is not a comprehensive list of all of the problems that I have with it, but having these answered would go a long way to me taking Protestantism seriously from a theological viewpoint.
We should rely on our own personal interpretation of Scripture
And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. ²⁰ First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, ²¹ because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Here, Peter is saying PAY ATTENTION TO THE CHURCH!!! Listen to what the apostles are teaching and allow that to form your reading of Scripture. If you read the rest of this chapter, He says that "we" (the apostles) have had given to them, "all things that pertain to life and godliness" through knowledge of Jesus Christ. When we read Scripture, we should not read it solely with our own understanding, but allow ourselves to be taught by the apostles (or those appointed by them as successors).
When it comes to Sola Scriptura, I do not see how it is not relying on one's own personal interpretation. How do I know that I am understanding Scripture correctly? How do I know that I do not have an interpretation that is horribly off base? I have never really gotten an answer to this from Protestants.
If I am debating Scripture, according to Protestants, I am debating the sole highest authority. So if I test my interpretation against something else, I am testing against a lesser authority and thus it can still be challenged and I have not sufficiently solved the problem.
We only need to declare Jesus as Lord to get to Heaven
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Here Jesus flatly says professing that Jesus is Lord is not enough to get you into Heaven, but doing the will of the Father. Yes, we are saved by faith through grace. If you get baptized and are shot dead the moment you walk out of the church, you will go to Heaven having done nothing except making that "leap of faith." If you are in a car crash and have a minute to live and all you can do is place your trust in Jesus, yes, you will be saved. But for 99.99999% of people, this is not the case. We have our entire lives to live after baptism. So the question is "Do we live according to what we profess with our mouth?"
If I say "I am an Orioles fan." but only ever go to/watch Yankees games and only ever root for the Yankees, would you say that I am actually an Orioles fan? Do I not call into question that statement that I made by my actions? What if I grow up as an Orioles fan, regularly attending games and watching them daily. But then later, my favorite player gets traded to the Yankees and I convert to a Yankees fan. Was I never an Orioles fan to begin with? No. That would be silly. I was an Orioles fan, but then became a Yankees fan.
Likewise, if I say "I am a Christian and believe that Jesus rose from the dead." But I never attend Church, I am not loving others, I am worshipping other gods, etc. Am I really a Christian? Maybe I was at one point, but I certainly am not now based on what I have done.
As such, yes, it is true that works do not save us, but if we act contrary to what we believe, we cannot have assurance of our salvation. Hopefully God still finds a way to bring us to Heaven. I would rather someone spend 1000 years after death having their soul purified knowing that they will go to Heaven then know for a fact that they are in Hell. Even so, we must recognize that Hell is real, it is a real possibility.
Baptism does not save
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
I have ZERO idea where some Protestants get this idea from. The idea that Baptism is not salvific is not at all Scriptural. This really ties into the "Sola Fide" bit of this post.
The Eucharist is merely symbolic
I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. ⁵⁰ This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread^\)^c\) which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
⁵² The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”^\)^d\) ⁵³ So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; ⁵⁴ he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. ⁵⁶ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” ⁵⁹ This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
Jesus flat out says "This bread that I am talking about here is my flesh." So the disciples challenge Him saying "You mean this figuratively right?... RIGHT?
So Jesus responds repeating himself over and over in verses 53 through 58. How many times does Jesus need to say something for you to believe it? You will latch on to a singular verse that teaches something you agree with (or seems to) for dear life at the exclusion of literally any other verse on the topic, but something else is taught multiple times and you don't believe it? I am confused about how Protestants read the Bible. It does not seem to be in any kind of coherent exegesis.
You are allowed to get divorced and remarried... at all.
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. ⁶ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ⁷ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,^\)^a\) ⁸ and the two shall become one.’^\)^b\) So they are no longer two but one.^\)^c\) ⁹ What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,^\)^c\) and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Marriage is "until death do us part." The teachings on divorce from the Gospels is trying to set a trap for Jesus to see which rabbinical school he agrees with. Jesus comes out and says. "Neither." He says "Yeah. Moses allowed for divorce. But this is not how it was from the beginning. What about that "except for unchastity" phrase in Matthew (and only Matthew)?
There Matthew is talking about unions that God did not join together. He is talking about invalid marriages that his primarily Jewish readers would have been thinking about. The gentile converts to Christianity would not have thought about these weird situations, so this is excluded from the other gospels.
You can get re-baptized
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Some that want to say that you can get rebaptized jump to Acts 19. Reading this passage, it would seem that what is going on here is that the Baptism by John was not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Paul is essentially saying that the "baptism" that they had received was not valid. He does not say that he "baptized them again into Christ." Rather it says that Paul "baptized them in the name Jesus Christ." As in they were not baptized into Christ, so Paul baptized them "for real this time."
You can only be cleansed from Original Sin once. After that, you can confess your sins and have them forgiven. Baptism is what makes into a child of God. That can only happen once. To do otherwise is a grave sin because you are saying that God was not powerful enough to save you the first time. Again, if a baptism is deemed to be invalid, this is a different story. This is why Paul asks "Into what were you baptized?"
The Church is simply the collection of believers
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶ But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸ Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Here it is clear that the "Church" is something more than a collection of believers. Jesus teaches here that first, you deal with disagreement 1 on 1. If that does not work, you go and get other believers to help show that they are wrong. If that does not work, then take to the Church. If even that does not work, they are to be treated as an unbeliever (excommunicated).
Certainly, all believers are a part of the Church - which is the body of Christ. The Church is not a parish or a singular building. The Church is universal, but there is a clear structure to it. There are priests, bishops, elders, etc. There is real authority in that structure. This article goes over in Scripture and towards the bottom the Church Fathers what the Church is meant to look like: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-biblical-church/
Many Protestant ideas sound nice, but I do not want to believe something merely because it sounds nice. Dessert for dinner sounds nice but it is not good for my body. Likewise, we should not judge something on "does it sound nice." We should judge something on whether it is good for our souls.
I look at many Protestant theological views and note how they seem to not be based in Scripture or based on a misunderstanding of Scripture. I would love to see if Protestants can properly answer these. Simply quoting verses that seem to back you up is not enough here. You need to show that these other verses are not problematic.
I do not only want to trust in Jesus, I want to trust that I am following everything that he taught. Jesus commanded the apostles to teach all that He has commanded, not just the important stuff. If you get the main stuff right but other things wrong, you still got it wrong. If a teacher gave a 10 question quiz and said, "You got questions 1, 2, 5, and 7 right, but everything else wrong. It is ok though those questions were the most important." I still get a failing grade. So, if you want me to convert to Protestantism you need to show that you actually follow all of Scripture, because I want to strive to get a 100% on the "test" of salvation. After all Jesus told us to "Be perfect as Your Heavenly Father is perfect" Not "Be kind of perfect as Your Heavenly Father is perfect."

In part one we looked at first and second person pronouns. In this post we will look at the third person pronouns.
Old Telugu = Telugu = Sanskrit
వాండు = వాడు (masculine) = సః (masculine)
అది = అది (non-masculine) = సా (feminine)
వాండ్రు = వారు (human) = తే (masculine)
వాండ్రు = వారు (human) = తాః (feminine)
అది = అది (non-masculine) = తత్ (neuter)
అవి = అవి (non-human) = తాని (neuter)
As you can see, they don’t sound similar at all. And, the gender system is different. In terms of pronouns, Telugu’s gender system is male & non-male is singular, human & non-human in plural.
Whereas, Sanskrit is male, female, neuter in both singular and plural.
Although Telugu today has a feminine pronoun: ఆమె, ఆవిడ. These are recent additions given that there is no attested interrogative pronoun: ఏమె, ఏవిడ to go with it.
Now, let’s look at the derivations:
వాడు evolved from వాండు which evolved from అవండు. అవండు is derived from అ (distant adj) + వండు (not too sure what it means, but it’s used as the masculine pronoun. Perhaps it was the ancient word for “man”)? How do we know వాడు was originally అవండు when there is no literary proof? It’s because of ఎవడు and the existence of వాండు, we can understand that at one point in the distant past, అవండు as a pronoun existed which evolved into వాండు and evolved into today’s వాడు. I have been told that వాడు has now evolved into ఆడు in Telangana.
సః is derived from స which is the distant adj particle (more info on this in coming posts) and ః (which is the masculine suffix).
అది is derived from అ (distant adj particle) + ది (unsure of the meaning if there is one).
తత్ is derived from త (distant adj particle).
వారు evolved from వాండ్రు which evolved from అవండ్రు. అవండ్రు is basically అవండు + రు. రు is the human plural marker.
తే is the plural form of సః… unlike Telugu which as a structured plural form… Sanskrit is irregularly inflected. Inflections are basically changed to the word. అవండు + రు = అవండురు which was shortened to అవండ్రు similar to కన్ను + లు = కన్నులు shortened to కళ్ళు. Whereas, తే is just an irregular plural. There is no pattern or structurized form.
In the next post, we shall look at interrogative pronouns which are the pronouns you use to ask questions.

I remember in her older playthroughs, Welonz would say: "thank the Lords" (plural).
These days, she may say "thank the Lord" (singular) or something.
Although she still does it, I also think that "coo coo" ('cool cool') is seeing a lot less use these days.
The current meta seems to favour a lot of: "Or something"
I feel like there are a lot of catchphrases which have been phased out, but I can't recall any more off the top of my head.
What are some other ones she used to say, but no longer does?

Millions profess to know God or believe that there is a supreme creator, and yet, the surprising truth is that not many people truly know who or what God is. It may sound shocking to make such a statement, but it happens to be true; Satan, the god of this planet has deceived humanity to have a false view of God.
People do not know who or what God is
What God is NOT
The popular belief in the professed Christian world is that God is a trinity – composed of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as being a trinity.
There are those who will quote several scriptures which seem to refer to the holy Spirit as being a third person because the Bible – using the personal pronoun, often refer to the Spirit as HE. For example, John 16:13 says, “… when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak …” Looking at this has convinced millions to believe Christ is speaking of another Being or third person. But what the millions have failed to understand that the personal pronoun “HE” should actually be correctly translated as “IT” and not “HE”. The translators who wanted to believe God is a trinity, used the word “HE” instead of “IT.” It should read: “When “IT” the spirit of truth is come …” This word is in the neuter gender and is not referring to either male or female; and should not be translated as “He.” If you go to Romans 8:16, you will read the correct usage - for here it says, “The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit …”. The spirit of God is referred to as “ITSELF”. The holy spirit of God is a “IT” and not a He; it is not a third person.
A woman conceives a child through the father, and yet Jesus who was conceived by the holy Spirit, never called the holy Spirit his Father, Why?
Also consider this: The Bible says in Matthew 1:20 that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. If the holy spirit was a person, then it means the holy spirit would then be the father of Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus makes any reference to the holy Spirit as being his father; You never see Jesus praying to the Holy Spirit but to God as his Father; This fact alone is proof positive that the holy spirit is not a third person.
In Zechariah 4:6, God says, “… not by might, nor by power (meaning human might or power -as God does not rely on human power), but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” God says his power comes from his own spirit - meaning the spirit is the power of God; it the power that emanates from God himself.
In John 7:38,39 Jesus spoke of the Spirit as rivers of living waters; a person is not a river of water; also Acts 2:17 speaks of God pouring out his Spirit; if the holy Spirit was a person, how can a person be poured out or quenched – even a 1 Thess. 5:19 says?
Jesus spoke of the Spirit as living waters; a person is not living waters, but rather the power that emanate from God
But what about 1 John 5:7,8 which says, “For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word and the HOLY GHOST; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in the earth) the spirit, and the water and the blood …” If you take careful note, the words placed in the parenthesis or bracket - beginning with “in heaven and ending with witness in the earth” was actually added by editors to the Latin Vulgate translation possibly in the Early Fourth century as it was never in the older Greek manuscripts; men added these words because they wanted to pass on their own belief that God is a trinity, but thankfully God has so inspired his word so that we can know this is false and was added to God’s inspired truth. You can read this passage in the New American Standard Bible, The English Bible and others to see that they left out this false or spurious scripture.
God is not a trinity; this is a false belief that people have been led to believe and a little diligent study on your part will open your mind to this stunning truth. The Bible command the true servant of God to not only prove all things, but also says we are to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Who or What God is
If you go to Genesis 1;1 you read these words: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. “The Hebrew word for God is Elohim and it signifies more than one person; it is in plural form but can be used in a singular sense to represent that which comprise more than one person; For example, the word can refer to a Church or family or group in the singular sense, but, at the same time, we know that a Church or family is made up of more than one person. Consider it this way: Suppose a person goes by the last name of brown as the family name; we know that the name Brown, in this case, is speaking of the Brown family – meaning one family named Brown, but having more than one person in the family. Similarly, Elohim is referring to God in the family sense; it is revealing that God is a family; Elohim means God is a family comprised NOT of three persons but only of two persons; it is comprised of the other person to whom God said; “… Let us make man in our image …” (Gen. 1:26).
When God said, “Let us,” God was not talking to himself but to the other God Being – who became Jesus Christ in the flesh; the one who created all things. If you go to John chapter 1:1 it speak of the beginning that was long before God created the heaven and the earth. Notice what it says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Consider carefully that the Word was also God and that this Word or God was also with God. “With” God - signifies that you are talking about two divine personages or persons. In other words, this Word or person who existed with God was the very same one who became Jesus Christ in the flesh. In speaking of this eternal relationship, Jesus said, “… O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
Notice Christ said before the world was; this is speaking of their eternal togetherness in eternity; you will also notice that no third person or holy spirit is mentioned as existing with God as a separate person or individual; it was only two personages mentioned. Do you see and believe that?
The truth is God is NOT a trinity, but God is a family of two supreme Beings who has eternally existed in harmony and peace together; there is one God existing as one family – meaning ONE God family, but are two separate individua person who make up the God family.

my therapist told me to start documenting the personalities and motivations of my different dissociative states so i could communicate with them better, literally i think the next day i completely forgot i even had other states.
i feel like i had to have had some vague awareness of it because theres no way for me to not have, but this really does exemplify my emotional amnesia because i genuinely cannot even a little bit remember any thoughts about it the past few days. it just feels like i woke up from a dream where i was definitely singular and now im back to being possibly plural 😭
im sure this makes complete sense from a perspective of me having OSDD, like this would definitely align with the symptoms; but also i cant help but use it to also tell myself ive definitely been faking. how in the world do i just forget that. it feels literally impossible unless i was faking and then got bored of faking.
this happens with me a lot i know, ill think there’s something going on with me mentally super strongly and be panicked about it for a few weeks and then itll just disappear and i forget, and OSDD is actually The Answer for why that happens but still i feel like this must have just been another one of those episodes and i made everything up

Kiintymys (n.) – Affection, attachment

Example: Minä olen isä, joka ei ole koskaan halannut poikaansa, koska minut kasvatettiin pelkäämään kiintymyksen osoittamista toisia miehiä kohtaan.
Translation: I am a father who has never hugged his son, because I was raised to fear showing affection to another man.

	Singular	Plural
Nominative	kiintymys	kiintymykset
Accusative (nom.)	kiintymys	kiintymykset
Accusative (gen.)	kiintymyksen	kiintymykset
Genitive	kiintymyksen	kiintymysten; kiintymyksien
Partitive	kiintymystä	kiintymyksiä
Inessive	kiintymyksessä	kiintymyksissä
Elative	kiintymyksestä	kiintymyksistä
Illative	kiintymykseen	kiintymyksiin
Adessive	kiintymyksellä	kiintymyksillä
Ablative	kiintymykseltä	kiintymyksiltä
Allative	kiintymykselle	kiintymyksille
Essive	kiintymyksenä	kiintymyksinä
Translative	kiintymykseksi	kiintymyksiksi
Abessive	kiintymyksettä	kiintymyksittä
Instructive	—	kiintymyksin

You can practice the word of the day by using it in a sentence in the comments below!

0th Dimension - Universe: - Contravism: The foundational principle representing inherent opposition within the cosmic order. - Singular: Any captivation of the Universe, transcending individual experiences or perspectives. - Mayora Singular: The self, embodying individual identity or principle within the cosmic hierarchy. - Menor Plural: The cosmos, representing the collective realm of existence or the broader cosmic order. - Warp: The completion of altruism, signifying an additional merit within the cosmos, achieving a state of wholeness or fulfillment.
1st Dimension - Being: - Activism: The principle of action and engagement with the cosmic order, contributing to the realization of individual identity and purpose. - Breathe: The fundamental act of existence, symbolizing the breath of life and vitality. - Bounce: The dynamic interplay between individual actions and their impact on the broader cosmic framework. - Merit: Any aspect of existence or manifestation within the cosmos contributing to overall harmony and balance.
2nd Dimension - Emotion: - Responsivism: The principle of emotional response and engagement with the cosmic order, shaping individual experiences and interactions. - Stance: The emotional posture or attitude towards the cosmic order, influencing perception and interaction. - Whum: The resonance of emotional energy within the cosmic framework, reflecting vibrancy and intensity of feeling. - Manifestation: Any aspect of existence arising from the interaction between Contravisms and emotional dynamics within the cosmic order.
3rd Dimension - Mind: - Objectivism: The principle of cognitive understanding and interpretation within the cosmic order, shaping perception and knowledge. - Stretch: The expansion of consciousness and awareness, encompassing the breadth and depth of cognitive exploration. - Dance: The dynamic interplay between mental constructs and their manifestation within the cosmic framework. - Identification of Being: The stages of realization contributing to the completion of altruism within the cosmic order.
4th Dimension - Electricity: - Inventivism: The principle of creative expression and innovation within the cosmic order, driving evolution and transformation. - Worship: The reverence and celebration of creative energy and expression, acknowledging the divine spark within all manifestations. - Whistle: The harmonious alignment of creative energies, generating resonance and synergy within the cosmic framework. - Cosmic Dynamics: The intricate relationships, interactions, and interdependencies governing the functioning and evolution of the cosmic order.

MUTUAL contravisms are paradox
Generate altruism - good faith that the divine cosmos sacrifices as much as the divine self for a universally-divine goal
Those who oppose this can still benefit from contravism
However, yangs are now set in plural & are to be energized backwards [inwards] - Bounce, Whum, Dance, & Whistle
Yins are set forward [outward]: Breathe, Stance, Stretch, Worship
Helps tie working backwards theme + [eventual] countdown theme, mayora singular v menor plural, as well as gives the feeling of the self as the nexus [recipient] of these divine paradoxes.
Altruism is generated when the contravisms are approached with a sense of mutuality - altruism as equal to contravism? Setting altruism above contravism provokes an inbalanced dynamic scale.
[[Alt - tiempo as a scale vs as a range]]
Focusing on the mutual activisms blinds one to surrounding contravisms
Four Divinities?
Four divinities created by four harmonies. Altruism cannot be created unless approached with a sense of utopianism. If the "Universe" is the majora Singular, then altruisms would be the menor Plurals.
Altruisms as merits, then, paradox of two divinities interacting is that it will generate altruism. Principles as the mayora Singular & merits as the menor Plurals.
This allows for the "idea" of binary, addressing "two" sides, while ensuring to avoid paradoxes of attainable perfection. In the Real universe, two halves of a whole will never be perfectly alike. Hence the need for one to overarch the other, hence mayora Singular & menor Plurals.

Today I'm discussing Master of All, which is a perk from Generic Gamer. If you've never seen this perk or heard of this jump... this perk is probably the best singular perk in the jump (though ALL of them are really good), but it's not the INTENDED reason to come here. I personally think an early jump could stand to benefit from fusing GGJ with a more mundane jump (which is what my latest story-jumper is doing though not by choice) and grabbing this perk, it's appeal is kind of amazing. Now let's see the ACTUAL perk!

Master of All: Specialists focus on depth at the expense of breadth; generalists focus on breadth at the expense of depth. But what if you could focus on a single ability and have it benefit all of them? When you train one skill, ability, or power, that training and development applies not just to it, but to all of the skills, abilities, and powers you possess.

This is, understandably, a capstone perk. It is immensely powerful, and is the best TRAINING perk I've ever seen. There are BETTER perks out there for mastering stuff, heck I'll even include the other capstone in this jump just so you can see a better perk for MASTERING something.

Hyperspecialization: There’s focusing in a few specific areas, and then there’s this. Select a single skill, ability, power, Perk, whatever, so long as it’s possible to improve. At base, two things happen. A: the chosen ability progresses as if you’re training with it all the time, even when you’re doing nothing; if you were to actively train with it, the rate of growth would be effectively doubled. B: the rate of growth and development for the chosen ability is multiplied by a hundred.
Now, keep in mind that that’s just at base — both of these boosts increase gradually but exponentially the longer you focus on a single ability. Give it a few days, and the rate of growth will be multiplied by two hundred; a month, and by a thousand. You can change what ability you’re focusing on at any time at the cost of resetting the accrued exponential boosts.

Hyperspecialization IS a better perk if you want to master singular skills (or if you need a boost in power or skill in some SPECIFIC area but don't have the time to actually sit down and hone that area), but if you want to TRAIN something, if you value working for your goals, and if you want to be a jack of all trades Master of All is the better perk. And of course you could always grab BOTH perks, you could even do so without a SINGLE drawback AND you could still get other perks WITHOUT stacking drawbacks due to the discount mechanics of this jump. But I strongly prefer Master of All, personally.
Master of All is a very creative way to reward engagement in a setting which is something I'm always a fan of. A smart jumper who is not constrained by something like the notion of a fickle benefactor who ACTUALLY punishes boring jumpers might get something like Hyperspecialization and want to turtle up, but with Master of All you need to do SOMETHING for it to benefit you. Now WHAT you do doesn't matter, so long as you do SOMETHING that serves as training.
A very fun build could be for someone to snag both Skills, which is a function of the gamer system in Generic Gamer and then grab MoA and go to something like Generic School Years and diligently study. That studying will definitely count for MoA, since studying will definitely become or involve a skill as defined by Skills. This means that while you're studying you're becoming better at gymnastics, or cooking, or painting, or... using The Force, or mana management, or whatever other skills you've gained at this point in your journey.
One small facet of Master of All that is very interesting is how it stacks with uncappers and the very neat knowledge that there is a free uncapper in Generic Gamer (it's a facet of the gamer system!). This means that Master of All will eventually give you stuff like functionally limitless stamina and potentially unlimited strength, once you get the right upgradeable stuff at least. A fun thing I like about this perk is how it affects stuff like workouts. Workouts not only make you more physically fit with this, they also strengthen your perks, strengthen facets of your physique, and can even improve your luck (assuming there is a perk for your luck, which there IS in this jump in two senses: there's The Devil's Own Luck, AND there's a gamer function called Attributes, which CAN give you a luck stat if you want, I recommend it partially to mix with this perk). The idea that going for a joydrive can strengthen your telekinesis, or actively make you smarter is very funny but also very true with this perk and the right mix of gamer things.
This perk on it's own is somewhat limited, but a smart strategist who wants their jumper to be able to stand alone has a lot of options they can use. Two of my favorites here are Jack of All Trades and Experience Booster. JoAT is a fun perk that makes it much easier for you to hone new perksyou acquire along your chain, and Experience Booster is just a POWERHOUSE of a perk that boosts how much experience you get from anything that gives you experience, whether you only get it from defeating enemies or you get it from doing minor stuff, and if you mix it with Master of All you get a powerful combination since it makes it so that your workouts buff your brain by twenty times as much as they would otherwise. The best way to cheese it has got to be to go all in on game-ifying your life and taking the skills function of the gamer system, which allows you to make a ton of stuff into a skill, which thus plugs it into the Master of All functionality. Here, look at the description of Skills so you can see what I mean.

Skills (-100/-200/-300 GP)
For 100 GP, any ability or skill you possess becomes a ‘Skill’, with a skill level, increasing in power and efficiency as it levels up, done by gaining enough experience, which is gathered by using the skill; Level 1 is maximum inefficiency, while Level 99 is the maximum efficiency you could normally get — you can go even beyond that, though, with no hard cap to how high a skill’s level can be. The higher a skill’s level, the more experience required to get it to the next level. Generally, the more powerful and useful a skill, the slower it is to level up.
Any powers, skills, or abilities you already possess are automatically converted into System Skills. You may gain new skills by performing relevant actions; for example, throwing a knife might earn you the skill ‘Knife Throwing’. Skills will not deteriorate with time or disuse.
For an additional 100 GP, once a skill has reached Level 99, it may ‘prestige’, granting you an at least vaguely similar but much more powerful skill at Level 1 without taking away this one or, occasionally, traits if you’ve purchased the option. Prestige skills may themselves prestige. Prestige skills are especially difficult to level up.
For an additional 100 GP, you may ‘combine’ certain skills into a new one — without actually losing the ingredient skills.

This is hands down the best way to cheese this. This is also just a VERY good function in general, but guaranteeing that your skills can improve AND uncapping how good the stuff you do and the stuff you make can be is INCREDIBLE. This also allows you to become holistically better at everything just by cooking, or reading, and thus rewards you for having hobbies. This perk is very nice because it frees you from the constraints of training and having to incorporate stuff that makes you a stronger jumper but is more time-consuming and is not what a native would do.
I'm gonna take a beat to talk about Hyperspecialization again because one thing that's worth mentioning is that it's a passive trainer perk. It's MORE than that, sure, and in fact if you get it you're getting something worth every bit of CP you pay for it, but at it's core it's an enormously powerful passive trainer. There are other passive trainers. There didn't USE to be, at least not a LOT of them, but they exist now (these types of perks exist in several Edrogrimshell jumps, usually they are named "Dabbler" but not all of them have that name) so this perk has lost of some what made it unique. A perk doesn't have to be unique to be valuable, but it helps. Master of All, on the other hand is part of a, as far as I've seen, rarer type of perk: a training synergizer (something which blends types of training and studying together), and it's also a COMPLETE training synergizer which I've never seen before or anywhere else (normally the training synergizers I've seen link SPECIFIC skills, such as a perk from Generic Wizard which syncs how strong you are with your skill as a wizard, or a perk from Generic Culinary Warrior that links your cooking and combat skills). What this means is that if you miss out on Hyperspecialization you can go to other jumps and snag an equivalent perk there. In fact, you can actually grab something that is a MINOR improvement over Hyperspecilization, because all of the passive trainers I've seen let you passively train more than one thing at a time. It IS true that Hyperspecilization beats out these other, baby perks in how quickly it trains what you assign, but that minor aspect of its winning out is somewhat lessened in importance when you remember that placing something new in the lone slot hyperspecialization gives you resets how fast it trains the thing in question. Master of All is both less easy to compare to other existing perks and doesn't have any internal conditions that weaken active usage of it like Hyperspecialization does.
Now that's not to put you off of Hyperspecialization, if I were in a real chain I'd want to grab BOTH Hyperspecialization and Master of All (and not just because MoA completely removes the weakness of Hyperspecialization, but that's certainly a part of it haha), these are INCREDIBLY powerful perks, but one is... one is more universally useful than the other. Master of All is just an absolute S-tier perk. I cannot imagine any build where MoA is applicable where it wouldn't be an absolute GOD-TIER of a purchase. The only possible combination I could think of that might invalidate MoA would be the Sage x Spirit Touched combination from the ATLA Redux jump, and that'd be most of your base CP in a jump that has MULTIPLE sections worth of stuff to try and grab.
To put this in perspective, with a perk like this and the right combination of gamer things you can go into a setting like Chronicle and hone your telekinesis by working on your photography skills. You can become a better chef by doing your math homework and rereading whatever chapter of MacBeth you're on in English. Once you've gained the right skills you can become better at soccer and other sports while you design a website. Become a better wizard by practicing juggling. This is an incredible QoL perk that frees you from a lot of the time-crunchiness that comes with only having a decade in a setting as opposed to a lifetime. Honestly that's kind of the biggest strength of the particular nature of the Generic Gamer Jump, it does a LOT to free up your time and really let you optimize your time in a setting.

Generic Gamer As A Time Optimizer

So depending on the setting, a decade is either a LOT of time or it's BARELY any time. In Avatar the Last Airbender, a decade can be a HUGE amount of time (the entire plot of the first show is about one calendar year according to one of the show's execs), but in Harry Potter a decade is only a bit more time than the plot takes, and truthfully is barely a blink of an eye. So perks that allow you to have a special relationship with time are always good.
One of the critical facets of Generic Gamer is how it allows you to optimize time. There's definitely some underlying logic here, since game characters have INCREDIBLE growth rates, and I love that about this jump. Generic Gamer, for the cost of 50 GP lets you lose the need to sleep, the need to eat, and the need to drink. That is an INCREDIBLE boost to the amount of functional time you have in a jump, if you started your chain off as a base human and entered this jump as a non-boosted human or as an only minorly-boosted human. Getting rid of three of the most essential bodily needs for the cost of 50 points in a thing where you start off with 1350 points makes it a steal (You get different points for perks and for gamer system customization in this jump).
A big part of how essential this is, is how much time it saves you by eliminating sleep but in all honesty removing your need to drink or eat is also critical. I don't know how many jumps could safely be taken as first jumps that completely eliminate the need for sleep, food, AND water, but this one can and that's pretty OP given the costs. Also, bv eliminating the need for stuff like food and water you make entire other jumps wholly more viable. Minecraft, for example, becomes WILDLY safer if you don't have to work about starvation, since hunger is directly linked to your ability to recover from wounds but in Generic Gamer you can completely subvert this system by spending 100 GP: purchase Gamer Body (eliminating the need for food) and also purchase the HP System (which gives you fiat-backed regen, so long as you don't take a hit for a beat, giving you a passive heal much like some FPS games).
Gamer's Body & HP System guarantee you survive any setting that isn't actively trying to kill you, and also frees you up to more safely do what you want like explore or just have a good time. If you don't have to pay for food or housing for sleep, you either don't need money or you need a LOT less of it. Stuff like this is also DRAMATICALLY powerful for vampires and other creatures that are normally driven by, or at least associated with, constant hunger. Also this just makes zombie jumps hilariously easy for you to solo since the number of risks you have to take (while solo) are SO MUCH lower. Funnily enough the right set of perks here even lower the risks you have to take when you work WITH other people, as Inventory lets you both raid places by yourself (since you can store an infinite amount of stuff on you by yourself) AND lowers how much supplies you need for your friends (since time doesn't pass for stuff in your inventory, preventing it from going bad!).
This jump is also filled with training boosters, with Jack of All Trades, Experience Booster, Hyperspecialization, and Master of All all qualifying as training boosters broadly, they all just qualify as different TYPES of training boosters. This is very interesting, since one of the big things a lot of adventure jumpers will need sooner or later are training boosts of their own. The best training boost here is Experience Booster which buffs training by 100 times, a STUNNING boost to one's training, and this stacks hilariously with every other training booster here.
I have a lot of thoughts on this jump and I think I'll keep writing them down from time to time. It's just so good.

Millions profess to know God or believe that there is a supreme creator, and yet, the surprising truth is that not many people truly know who or what God is. It may sound shocking to make such a statement, but it happens to be true; Satan, the god of this planet has deceived humanity to have a false view of God.
People do not Know Who or what God is
What God is NOT
The popular belief in the professed Christian world is that God is a trinity – composed of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as being a trinity.
There are those who will quote several scriptures which seem to refer to the holy Spirit as being a third person because the Bible – using the personal pronoun, often refer to the Spirit as HE. For example, John 16:13 says, “… when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak …” Looking at this has convinced millions to believe Christ is speaking of another Being or third person. But what the millions have failed to understand that the personal pronoun “HE” should actually be correctly translated as “IT” and not “HE”. The translators who wanted to believe God is a trinity, used the word “HE” instead of “IT.” It should read: “When “IT” the spirit of truth is come …” This word is in the neuter gender and is not referring to either male or female; and should not be translated as “He.” If you go to Romans 8:16, you will read the correct usage - for here it says, “The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit …”. The spirit of God is referred to as “ITSELF”. The holy spirit of God is a “IT” and not a He; it is not a third person.
Also consider this: The Bible says in Matthew 1:20 that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. If the holy spirit was a person, then it means the holy spirit would then be the father of Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus makes any reference to the holy Spirit as being his father; You never see Jesus praying to the Holy Spirit but to God as his Father; This fact alone is proof positive that the holy spirit is not a third person.
https://preview.redd.it/ebsgp3le680d1.png?width=474&format=png&auto=webp&s=b78e30338c31a95b20fdb9a8a2dbd84cc4175a75
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but Jesus NEVER prayed to or called the holy spirit his father because the Spirit was not a third person but the power of God that conceived Christ in the womb; and we too are to pray only to God the Father.
In Zechariah 4:6, God says, “… not by might, nor by power (meaning human might or power -as God does not rely on human power), but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” God says his power comes from his own spirit - meaning the spirit is the power of God; it the power that emanates from God himself.
In John 7:38,39 Jesus spoke of the Spirit as rivers of living waters; a person is not a river of water; also Acts 2:17 speaks of God pouring out his Spirit; if the holy Spirit was a person, how can a person be poured out or quenched – even a 1 Thess. 5:19 says?
But what about 1 John 5:7,8 which says, “For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word and the HOLY GHOST; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in the earth) the spirit, and the water and the blood …” If you take careful note, the words placed in the parenthesis or bracket - beginning with “in heaven and ending with witness in the earth” was actually added by editors to the Latin Vulgate translation possibly in the Early Fourth century as it was never in the older Greek manuscripts; men added these words because they wanted to pass on their own belief that God is a trinity, but thankfully God has so inspired his word so that we can know this is false and was added to God’s inspired truth. You can read this passage in the New American Standard Bible, The English Bible and others to see that they left out this false or spurious scripture.
God is not a trinity; this is a false belief that people have been led to believe and a little diligent study on your part will open your mind to this stunning truth. The Bible command the true servant of God to not only prove all things, but also says we are to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Who or What God is
If you go to Genesis 1;1 you read these words: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. “The Hebrew word for God is Elohim and it signifies more than one person; it is in plural form but can be used in a singular sense to represent that which comprise more than one person; For example, the word can refer to a Church or family or group in the singular sense, but, at the same time, we know that a Church or family is made up of more than one person. Consider it this way: Suppose a person goes by the last name of brown as the family name; we know that the name Brown, in this case, is speaking of the Brown family – meaning one family named Brown, but having more than one person in the family. Similarly, Elohim is referring to God in the family sense; it is revealing that God is a family; Elohim means God is a family comprised NOT of three persons but only of two persons; it is comprised of the other person to whom God said; “… Let us make man in our image …” (Gen. 1:26).
When God said, “Let us,” God was not talking to himself but to the other God Being – who became Jesus Christ in the flesh; the one who created all things. If you go to John chapter 1:1 it speak of the beginning that was long before God created the heaven and the earth. Notice what it says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
God is a family name comprising two supreme Beings
Consider carefully that the Word was also God and that this Word or God was also with God. “With” God - signifies that you are talking about two divine personages or persons. In other words, this Word or person who existed with God was the very same one who became Jesus Christ in the flesh. In speaking of this eternal relationship, Jesus said, “… O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
Notice Christ said before the world was; this is speaking of their eternal togetherness in eternity; you will also notice that no third person or holy spirit is mentioned as existing with God as a separate person or individual; it was only two personages mentioned. Do you see and believe that?
The truth is God is NOT a trinity, but God is a family of two supreme Beings who has eternally existed in harmony and peace together; there is one God existing as one family – meaning ONE God family, but are two separate individua person who make up the God family.

The word ‘jew’ is a modern word. It’s only been around for a few hundred years so when we talk about jews in ancient times, we cannot use the modern moniker we thoughtlessly use today. In doing so, we mistakenly link modern day ‘jews’ to the people of the Bible, the descendants of Judah.
The word jew comes from, depending on what language we are using, ‘Judean’, which was a person who dwelt in the land of Judea.
If I move to Japan, does that make me Japanese? Thankfully not, and as such, we can say the same thing for the people who moved to the southern part of ancient Palestine in the days of John Hyrcanus. Josephus informs us that it is he that is responsible for bringing in this mixed multitude(mostly Edomites) and forcing them to convert to the laws of Moses, what we later call Christianity.
Later in the 2nd to 6th century A.D., the term Judaism was applied to the religion of these Edomites(Idumea), Canaanites, and Pharisees, just like they hijacked the word “jew” so they could pretend to be the people of the Bible.
This is also why they include the Torah in their “holy” book, their ultimate source of Pharisaism(modern day Judaism), the Babylonian Talmud. It’s Identify theft; they need some truth in their books to push their lies and deception.
“Up to the seventeenth century this word was spelled in Middle English in various ways: “Gyu,” “Giu,” “Gyw,” “Iu,” “luu,” “Iuw,” “Ieu,” “Ieuu,” “Ieuz,” “Iwe,” “Iow,” “Iewe,” “Ieue,” “lue” (“Ive”), “Iew,” “Jew.” All these forms were derived from the Old French “Giu,” which was earlier written “Juieu,” derived from the Latin accusative “Judæum” with the elision of the letter “d.” The Latin form “Judæus” was derived from the Greek ‘Iουδαĩοσ; and this in turn from the Aramaic , corresponding to the Hebrew a gentilic adjective from the proper name “Judah,” seemingly never applied to members of the tribe, however, but to members of the nationality inhabiting the south of Palestine (Jer. xliii. 9).” –Jewish Encyclopedia
Jew (n.) late 12c., Giw, Jeu, “a Jew (ancient or modern), one of the Jewish race or religion,” from Anglo-French iuw, Old French giu (Modern French Juif), from Latin Iudaeum (nominative Iudaeus), from Greek Ioudaios, from Aramaic (Semitic) jehudhai (Hebrew y’hudi) “a Jew,” from Y’hudah “Judah,” literally “celebrated,” name of Jacob’s fourth son and of the tribe descended from him.
Spelling with J- predominated from 16c. Replaced Old English Iudeas “the Jews,” which is from Latin.” –Etymology Online
Ioudaios (Greek: Ἰουδαῖος; pl. Ἰουδαῖοι Ioudaioi)^\n 1])^\1]) is a Greek ethnonym used in classical and biblical literature which commonly translates to “Jew” or “Judean“.^\2])^\3])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioudaios
Christogenea Europe, July 5th, 2015: Judaea, Judah and Jew (listen to this)
“Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a “Jew,” moreover, that he was “King of the Jews.” Thus, by inference, that the “Jews” were the “Chosen People” of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ’s Mission and Passion no such people existed called “Jews” nor indeed did the word “Jew.” In short: Jesus was NOT a “Jew” nor was he “King of the Jews.”
In fact, Jesus is referred as a “Jew” for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word “Jew” is quit clear. Although “Jew” is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word “Jew” is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin “Iudaeus” found in St. Jerome’s Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word “Ioudaios.” The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word “Jew” found in the Latin word “Iudaeus” but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin “Iudaeus” to the English “Jew” the evolution of these English forms is: “Gyu,” “Giu,” “Iu,” “Iuu,” “Iuw,” “Ieuu,” “Ieuy,” “Iwe,” “Iow,” “Iewe,” “Ieue,” “Iue,” “Ive,” “Iew,” and then, finally, the 18th century, “Jew.” Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for “Jews” is: “Giwis,” “Giws,” “Gyues,” “Gywes,” “Giwes,” “Geus,” “Iuys,” “Iows,” “Iouis,” “Iews,” and then, finally, in the 18th century, “Jews.”” – http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/origin_of_the_word_jew.html
“Strong’s Concordance more or less defines the words “Jew” and “Jews” as: “in the sense of a country, i.e., a Judean.” The word “Jew” is used 22 times in the King James Version of the Bible in the New Testament, and the word “Jews” is used 172 times and 170 times of those are from the same #2453 as the above “Jew” definition. There are another 6 times the plural word “Jews'” is used and all but one of these is this #2454. So for the 200 times, the words: “Jew, Jews, and Jews'” are used in the New Testament, at least 197 occasions are referring to a Judean in the sense of from a place, i.e., as from a country.
The question still haunts many and they have often asked just who are these people the Bible calls “Jew, Jews, and Jews'”? Why were these people not just simply called “Judeans,” “Israelites,” or “Judeans whose religion was Judaism?” This is the age old word problem of society problem that is surrounded with so many, many, lies and deceptions. “THE FEAR OF THE JEWS” syndrome that plagues society today.” – http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/OriginoftheWordJew.htm
https://comparet.christogenea.org/sermons/bible-not-jewish-book
“If “jew” is a legitimate synonym for Judahite then why in your Bible don’t you see Ephraimites called “efrays”, Simeonites called “simeys”, Danites called “dans”, Naphthalites called “nafts”, Asherites called “ashes”, Reubenites called “rewbs”, Zebulunites called “zebewls”, Gadites called “gads” Issacharites called “issachs” Benjamites called “benjams” and Mannassehites called “manasses”? …I’m aware of the fate of the northern house, but I would have to dispute the translator’s choice of “jew” as a proper rendering of Yehudi/Judahite or Ioudaios/Judaean.”
“When the Israelites moved into the land of Canaan, they were instructed to destroy all of the Canaanite peoples. They failed to do this, and were warned that harm would later come to them because of this failure (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Jdg. 2:3). It is evident that both in Jerusalem and elsewhere, the later Israelites did indeed have a problem with infiltration and race-mixing by the Canaanite tribes (Jer. 2:13, 21-22; Ezek. 16:3, 45 et al.). This was one of the chief reasons for their chastisement and removal.
…Judaea from 130 BC forward was a multiracial polyglot of a nation. The first Herod, an Idumaean by race who usurped power from the Maccabees, bribed the Romans for the kingship and from that time the temple priesthood at Jerusalem was used as a political tool. Both Josephus and the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius admit that many of the priests were not worthy of the distinction under the former Levitical traditions…
…It can be shown from the New Testament that many of the original Israelites of Judaea converted to Christianity during the ensuing years, losing their identity as Judaeans. The Edomites never converted, clinging to their traditions found in the Talmud – which has absolutely no authentic connection to the ancient Hebrew religion. Today these people, and all of their many proselytes and those whom they have intermarried with, are known as Jews.”
https://christogenea.org/overview/concise-explanation-creation-jewish-people
John 10 22:30 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and my Father are one.
^In these verses Jesus is talking about the modern day Jews, or the bloodline of Satan.
In the following verses Jesus (Yahshua) is talking about the true “Jews”, better known as Judahites (descendants of Judah), or pure blooded Judeans (Judahites who lived in the land of Judea).
He’s talking to his sheep, not “jews”. He’s talking about modern day Israel. He’s talking about White people. He’s talking about Judahites when he says “jews” here, not today’s “jews”.
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Hi. I'm trying to get back into reading Pali after a long hiatus, but I'm really rusty.
This line is from the chant of the Five Recollections here. I feel fairly confident about the rest of the text of the chant, but am unsure about the how the plural ablatives(?) and the compounds ending in -bhāvo work together to create the sentence below. Any help would be much appreciated.

Sabbehi me piyehi manāpehi nānā-bhāvo vinā-bhāvo.
I will grow different, separate from all that is dear & appealing to me.

My main questions are: How does this mean what it means? And what is the significance of using -bhāva here insread of -dhamma, as in the preceding three lines?

Jarā-dhammo'mhi jaraṁ anatīto.
Byādhi-dhammo'mhi byādhiṁ anatīto.
Maraṇa-dhammo'mhi maraṇaṁ anatīto.

In case it's of interest, here's how I've been trying to work it out more specifically:
Are the -ehi endings ablative plurals here?
Is the particle "me" a genitive or dative ("my" or "to me") modifying the whole phrase "sabbehi piyehi manāpehi". So "from all (sabba) my (me) dear and pleasing [things] ? Or is this particle serving som other function?
And are the -bhāvo compounds bahubbihi (exocentric) compounds with the implied subject "I"? So, "I am someone with the nature/condition (bhāva) to be/become different from (ablative -ehi), separate from, all that to me is dear and pleasing?
If so, is the subject "I" understood because that was the explicit subject of the three preceding lines?
And if so, what is the significance of using "bhāva" here instead of "dhamma", as in the three preceding lines?
Is the use of bhāva related to why this in translated in the future tense, unlike in the three preceding lines which are translated in the present tense?
Or am I way off base and there is another way to parse this?
The preceding three lines had an explicit first-person singular verb form "amhi" ≈ "asmi"
Jarā-dhammo'mhi
Literally "I am one whose nature (dhamma) is aging

I was listening to a podcast that commentates on newspapers(British). And I got confused because sometimes it treats the name of a newspaper as singular sometimes plural.
For example, the podcaster would sometimes say “The Times leads with…”
Other times, they say:”Then the i have led with a big interview with…”

Alright. I last discussed Câynqasang here, where I covered noun case and quirky subject. Also, here's the first overview post. This time, I'm going to give an overview of verbs in the language. I'll touch on the major points, but there might be a good deal of detail that ends up being beyond the scope of this. I intend to cover the auxiliary verbs, other methods of tense marking, and, by nature of the basic tenses, person marking. Also, I've already discussed the verb classes in a previous post because they're linked to some functions of the case system, but I'll cover that briefly again here. Participles and other features derived from them, however, are mostly beyond the scope of this post, though some will appear in example sentences because both can appear in constructions involving auxiliary verbs.

Verb Classes

Câynqasang verbs belong to four classes, largely (though not exclusively!) determined by their meaning. As I detailed in my most recent post, they trigger a good deal of quirky subject, which I will briefly touch on again here. All may take subjects in the vocative case for imperative constructions, and I will briefly detail other options below.
Action verbs include most verbs in the language. These typically deal in concrete actions and in senses which don't fit in one of the other three categories. The subject of a sentence containing them may take case marking for reflexive constructions or volition marking. Examples:

• nyu [ŋo] "to have" (This is the alienable form. The inalienable "have", ê [eː], is a stative verb.)
• gno [ɣno] "to drink"
• sman [smɐn] "to dig"
• cûl [t͡ʃɪːl] "to bite"

Motion verbs typically deal with motion, though this operates in some broad senses, as we'll see. The subject of a sentence containing them takes prepositional cases to indicate the direction of the motion. Examples:

• lan [lɐn] "to sit"
• ngûyinytinyu [ˈŋɪːjiŋtiŋu] "to inject"
• hînû [ˈxɪːniː] "to fight"
• lâmvu [ˈlɐːmu] "to cross, traverse"

Stative verbs most often deal with states of being, though some irregularity can occur within this class as well. The subject of a sentence containing them takes case marking to indicate volition. Examples:

• gla [ɣla] "to sleep"
• kalîng [kaˈlɪːŋ] "to hydrate" (This has an additional sense as a noun, "waterfall")
• îny [ɪːŋ] "to pray" (one of the wilder examples)
• calom [t͡saˈlɔm] "to rain" (also the noun "rain"; yes, weather is often handled with stative verbs)

Perception verbs typically deal with the senses, though especially this class has some unexpected things and fun exceptions. The subject of a sentence containing them is actually unable to take the nominative case, mandating other marking to indicate reflexives or volition. Examples:

• tiptâ [tiptaː] "to learn"
• sunyu [suŋo] "to love" (considered an act of perception rather than a state! Many emotional states are handled this way)
• tkâranco [tkɐːrant͡su] "to sabotage" (one of the wilder ones, this one explained by semantic drift from "to deceive")
• mngôny [mŋɔːŋ] "to know"

Agreement and the Basic Tenses

Verbs mark for singular, paucal, and plural number and first, second, and third person. Here is a table of the basic endings:
https://preview.redd.it/ndrsdre6l40d1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=0164ebde6d9c6657589ea6422de9ae1a512d6ce2
The basic past and future tenses are marked with suffixes -tûl- and -nqi- respectively, attaching before the person agreement (and in some cases here, though not many in this case, sound changes have eroded the original form). The basic stem of verbs is considered to be perfective. The imperfective is marked with what once was a simple reduplication of the onset and nucleus of the first syllable, though that relationship has been heavily obscured by sound changes in many verbs. I'll give a few examples of reduplicated stems from the verbs I listed above, as well as one more:

• memngôny- [memˈŋɔːŋ] IPFV-know
• kakllîng- [kakˈlɪːŋ] IPFV-hydrate
• hîyînû- [ˈxɪːjiːniː] IPFV-fight

These are relatively straightforward reduplicated stems, though that last does retain a /j/ lost in the original stem and each example here has a vowel that's unpredictable from the remaining stem. However, a lot worse is possible. For example:

• ti [ti] "to dream" > koti- [kuti] IPFV-dream

Câynqasang's sound changes make things weird sometimes.
I'll give a couple quick example sentences to show how this all works in context:
Mka mngônytûlvu nê cêh. [mka ˈmŋɔːŋtiːlvu neː t͡ʃɛːx] 1S.DAT know-PST-1S DEF.SPEC.P 3P "I always knew these things against my will". (Dative case here means unwilling.)
Vo amdî titkârancomdû i êlak. [vo amˈdiː titˈkɐːrant͡sumdiː i ˈɛːlak] INDEF.NSPEC 3S.INS IPFV-sabotage-3S DEF.SPEC airlock "Someone is sabotaging the airlock." (Here, the indefinite nonspecific article means this is an unknown party; if it was one of a known group of people doing this, definite nonspecific ve would take its place.)
Moving on.

Auxiliary Verbs, Tense, and Other Stuff

Câynqasang has an extensive set of auxiliary verbs that handle more complex tense, aspect, and mood in addition to negation and the passive voice. These are one of the areas where the differences between the formal and informal registers are most visible. I'll give the formal and then the informal forms:
Formal:
Main Auxiliary
https://preview.redd.it/8mivjgfpp40d1.png?width=1221&format=png&auto=webp&s=c7782643b3a8aa68519a94eda8ff3601295d910e
Negative Auxiliary
https://preview.redd.it/1hzmiy7tp40d1.png?width=1228&format=png&auto=webp&s=c74a5edcb34618b5c3da140763f07a72acd557e6
Passive Auxiliary
https://preview.redd.it/0atqspxwp40d1.png?width=1228&format=png&auto=webp&s=a8b8696f3d3996766dd49ef7c5f563907b9ae6bd
Main auxiliary (informal)
https://preview.redd.it/xmuvwfe0q40d1.png?width=1236&format=png&auto=webp&s=a705b0c340c5acfe2fd4d1d43daade0e75379348
Negative auxiliary (informal)
https://preview.redd.it/oglmiic2q40d1.png?width=1222&format=png&auto=webp&s=b6675c0f29082e79d2559c84bdd50e2803bede1b
Passive auxiliary (informal)
https://preview.redd.it/ssxjxya4q40d1.png?width=1211&format=png&auto=webp&s=651ad5fa11c313b54bc485c6b5a0a73ac6341044
Note the additional degree of fusion in the informal register, and the reduction of some syllables such that none of the informal register forms are more than disyllabic.
In constructions, these precede the lexical verb, and the lexical verb takes a participle or a converb. Again, couple of example sentences:
No ôngsa sîtêla no, nang ôngsa vînray kîvrongtadêv nê cêh. [no ˈɔːŋsa ˈʃɪːteːla no, nɐŋ ˈɔːŋsa ˈvɪːnraj ˈkɪːvruŋtadeːv neː t͡ʃɛːx] 2P.DAT NEG.2P see-CONV.GEN 2P.DAT 2P.INS NEG.2P HORT confirm-PTCP DEF.SPEC.P 3P "Not having seen these things for yourselves, you ought not to confirm them."
This example has one clause that uses a converb with the negative auxiliary and one that uses the present participle with the hortative form of the negative auxiliary, in the formal register this two-part ôngsa vînray situation. Another example:
Ye i côl sanqe kamesîtêl, yâkînghê ola lamnyunqicêh, [je i t͡sɔːl saˈɴe kameˈʃɪːteːl ˈjɐːkiːŋxeː uˈla lamŋuɴiˈt͡ʃɛːx] And DEF.SPEC 3P.GEN PERF.3P happen-CONV.GEN soul-P 1P.GEN peaceful-FUT.3P "And having felt all of these things come to pass, our souls will know peace,"
The broader work I pulled this from uses the informal register just about exclusively despite some of its other formatting. This example here includes a converb clause with an auxiliary.
So, that's a quick and dirty overview of verbs in Câynqasang, Sometime in the future I'll dive into converbs, relativization, derivational morphology, or some other feature of the language, or maybe I'll get more specific about the lexicon or about some of the uses of a feature I've already covered. Thanks for reading!

If you google the history of Mother’s Day, the internet will tell you that Mother’s Day began in 1908 when Anna Jarvis decided to honor her mother. But “Mothers’ Day”—with the apostrophe not in the singular spot, but in the plural—actually started in the 1870s, when the sheer enormity of the death caused by the Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War convinced writer and reformer Julia Ward Howe that women must take control of politics from the men who had permitted such carnage. Mothers’ Day was not designed to encourage people to be nice to their mothers. It was part of women’s effort to gain power to change society.
The Civil War years taught naïve Americans what mass death meant in the modern era. Soldiers who had marched off to war with fantasies of heroism discovered that newly invented long-range weapons turned death into tortured anonymity. Men were trampled into blood-soaked mud, piled like cordwood in ditches, or withered into emaciated corpses after dysentery drained their lives away.
The women who had watched their hale and healthy men march off to war were haunted by its results. They lost fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers. The men who did come home were scarred in both body and mind.
Modern war, it seemed, was not a game.
But out of the war also came a new sense of empowerment. Women had bought bonds, paid taxes, raised money for the war effort, managed farms, harvested fields, worked in war industries, reared children, and nursed soldiers. When the war ended, they had every expectation that they would continue to be considered valuable participants in national affairs, and had every intention of continuing to take part in them.
But the Fourteenth Amendment, which established that Black men were citizens, did not explicitly include women in that right. Worse, it introduced the word “male” into the Constitution when it warned states against preventing “male inhabitants” from voting. In 1869, the year after the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, women organized two organizations—the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association—to promote women’s right to have a say in American government.
From her home in Boston, Julia Ward Howe was a key figure in the American Woman Suffrage Association. She was an enormously talented writer who in the early years of the Civil War had penned “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” a hymn whose lyrics made it a point to note that Christ was “born of woman.”
Howe was drawn to women’s rights because the laws of her time meant that her children belonged to her abusive husband. If she broke free of him, she would lose any right to see her children, a fact he threw at her whenever she threatened to leave him. She was not at first a radical in the mold of reformer Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who believed that women had a human right to equality with men. Rather, she believed strongly that women, as mothers, had a special role to perform in the world.
For Howe, the Civil War had been traumatic, but that it led to emancipation might justify its terrible bloodshed. The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 was another story. She remembered:
“I was visited by a sudden feeling of the cruel and unnecessary character of the contest. It seemed to me a return to barbarism, the issue having been one which might easily have been settled without bloodshed. The question forced itself upon me, ‘Why do not the mothers of mankind interfere in these matters, to prevent the waste of that human life of which they alone know and bear the cost?’”
Howe had a new vision, she said, of “the august dignity of motherhood and its terrible responsibilities.” She sat down immediately and wrote an “Appeal to Womanhood Throughout the World.” Men always had and always would decide questions by resorting to “mutual murder,” she wrote, but women did not have to accept “proceedings which fill the globe with grief and horror.” Mothers could command their sons, “who owe their life to her suffering,” to stop the madness.
"Arise, women!” Howe commanded. “Say firmly: ‘We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We, women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country, to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.’”
Howe had her document translated into French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Swedish and distributed it as widely as her extensive contacts made possible. She believed that her Women’s Peace Movement would be the next great development in human history, ending war just as the antislavery movement had ended human bondage. She called for a “festival which should be observed as mothers’ day, and which should be devoted to the advocacy of peace doctrines” to be held around the world on June 2 of every year, a date that would permit open-air meetings.
Howe organized international peace conferences, and American states developed their own Mothers’ Day festivals. But Howe quickly realized that there was much to be done before women could come together on a global scale. She turned her attention to women’s clubs “to constitute a working and united womanhood.”
As Howe worked to unite women, she came to realize that a woman did not have to center her life around a man, but rather should be “a free agent, fully sharing with man every human right and every human responsibility.” “This discovery was like the addition of a new continent to the map of the world,” she later recalled, “or of a new testament to the old ordinances.” She threw herself into the struggle for women’s suffrage, understanding that in order to create a more just and peaceful society, women must take up their rightful place as equal participants in American politics.
While we celebrate the modern version of Mother’s Day on May 12, in this momentous year of 2024 it’s worth remembering the original Mothers’ Day and Julia Ward Howe’s conviction that women must have the same rights as men, and that they must make their voices heard.
—
Notes:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbpe/rbpe07/rbpe074/07400300/07400300.pdf
Julia Ward Howe, Reminiscences, 1819-1899 (Boston: 1900).
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-11-2024

I'm trying to understand the usage of reflexive and interrogative pronouns, and I'm confused comparing LLPSI and Wheelock. From Wheelock, chapter 19, p. 125,
Quem librum tibi dedit? Which book did he give you?
From LLPSI, chapter 8, p. 60
Quid est anulus? Anulus est ornamentum. Quod ornamentum? Anulus est ornamentum quod digitum ornat. [My translation:] What is a ring? A ring is an ornament. Which ornament? A ring is an ornament that adorns the finger.
According to Wheelock's interrogative pronoun table on p. 124, in which the neuter accusative singular is quid, shouldn't LLPSI's 'Quod ornamentum?' be 'Quid ornamentum?' Or is LLPSI's 'Quod ornamentum' supposed to be operating as an example of a subordinate clause's beginning rather than as a true question?
Similarly, on p. 59 of LLPSI, there are the sentences
Quis saccum portat? Servus saccum portat. Qui servus? Servus qui saccum portat est Syrus.
But Wheelock says that 'qui' can only be a plural interrogative pronoun. It seems to me that 'Qui servus?' is asking 'Which slave?' and should take the singular accusative interrogative pronoun 'Quem' instead of 'Qui.'
I'll be grateful for clarifying remarks or corrections regarding my understanding of the cases in play here.