This morning I went to the site. It is only a few miles from where I live, and I went there to pray. The scene was much as you would expect after such a tragedy. Camera crews lined the streets, their vans parked shoulder to shoulder. In front of the church, hundreds of bouquets and stuffed animals had been laid down in tribute. Many people had gathered there to pray, their faces wet with tears, their grief heavy and visible.
On the side of the building, I noticed the half dozen narrow windows the shooter had fired from. They were now boarded up, each one covered with chalk writing. Around the back of the church, where the shooter’s life had ended, another set of windows was sealed with boards. There, a single bouquet had been left, though I do not know by whom or why. Two women who appeared to be a couple were writing gun control messages on the boards. Unlike those mourning in the front, they did not seem weighed down by sorrow. Part of me wished there were more care in how messages were allowed at the site.
Not long after, I saw the priest. I have known him for thirteen years, since my kindergarten days, when he was serving at a different school parish. Unlike many priests today who lean liberal, he is deeply conservative and outspoken on issues like abortion and LGBT matters. Earlier, I spoke with a woman there who said she was glad to finally have a priest unafraid to take such stands. He has only been here three months, but it is clear he has already made an impression.
When I spoke with him briefly, he seemed worn but steady. He told me he has been busy visiting victims at the hospital. He had not seen the shooter during the chaos, but he did see the body afterward. I asked him how I should pray, and his response was simple: “Pray as the Holy Spirit leads you.”
Absolutely high value information/report. Counters the theory that this was somehow a 'psyop' by the good guys. The evil cabal are happy to sacrifice lives, but its anathema to what the white hats need to achieve.
One thing I’ve had some trouble with, as I’ve been psyop adjacent to a few of these myself, is conveying claims to the hardline skeptics.
Justifiably, they don’t necessarily believe “some account from the internet”, even though I’ve had comments with them for some time before the statements.
Fair. I could be a “sleeper”, or whatever. Frankly, their claims of being a bot could even be true, but I feel like that one can be overcome in some situations. I could be lying for whatever reason, etc.
Point being, it ironically can be as hard to convey truth into pure skepticism as it is to convey it into pure liberalism, which, I have a hunch that they both grow out of the same thing - a refusal to accept the current accepted standards/claims through having witnessed the flaws in them.
Providing credibility to the epistemological nature of “evidence” is absolutely going to be a very tricky thing moving forward, both on the internet and in person. I’ve tried to qualify my claims as best as I can to show only the very limited things I can verify, and their nature of reliability (firsthand, secondhand, etc), but this has ended up with “my neighbors third wive’s cat heard someone say…”.
While a certain poster on here is a bit excessively confrontational, and one to whom I’m not sure the objections above don’t apply, he did make valid posit the other day of “you eventually have to accept something.” To date, I’ve gone with the NT example of “I professed to know nothing except Christ and Christ crucified.” Adding to that may or may not be a good idea.
Just a funny situation I’ve run into, if you have any constructive thoughts.
“Welcome to the Post-Fact World.”
[<gun pointed at astronaut> “Always has been.”]
The "question everything" ideology take to its natural conclusion can be something of a paradigm shift, equivalent to military boot camp. There they tear down a person both physically and mentally, down to their core. This is done to remake the soldier, to be able to cope with the physical and mental ardue of war.
.
Questioning everything will do the same thing to your fundamental truth base, and philosophical understanding of the world. The teardown process is fairly easy. The problem with doing it hear is the latter half, the rebuilding.
With no "drill seargent" to properly guide you through, that rebuild process can get all kinds of screwed up. There has to be some truth claims in your life. Without them a person simply has no way to function. You did great holding on to Christ, but be wary that a teardown like this without assistance leads to allowing all kinds of things into your life. From fringe conspiracies and paranoia, to irl demons and other issues, such as now increased susceptibility to external manipulation, such as MK Ultra and the like.
Study and understanding are good. Losing yourself, or worse your faith, along the way are not good things.
1 Corinthians 6:12
1 Timothy 4:2-5
It’s a lot easier to deal with paranoia if you’ve always been a bit paranoid from having been betrayed even as a child. It’s just like any other exercise after a while.
What is the guidance for rebuilding? The wise man builds his house upon The Rock.
Oh but how does one find the bedrock when there’s still soil above it?
Still, not really the question I was looking to address. Dealing with hard skepticism for for oneself is one thing, but the immediate question was how to convey known information to a hard skeptic? A good comment, though!
Personally, I think you're a sleeper. Had my suspicions a looooong time.
:D
Beh. That doesn’t help much with the ability to testify to simple things like “yeah uh, that thing exists” while people are questioning if it does.
It’s fine if they want to keep questioning in that direction, but when it does exist, it’s probably not fruitful to do so…
The same issue would apply to me when I’m questioning some of the things I do, or also with regard to things like testimony on the existence of God based off observations and experiences.
It’d be nice if people other than maybe law schools taught how to reliably establish facts … except that we’re in a war against false “reliably” established facts, or maybe that ability would have helped fend this situation off.
um, what's the 'that' here?
<slightly confused iron>