Syro-Oriental Christianity supports trinitarian theology with a decidedly panentheistic nuance. It's one of a handful of churches that can claim an unbroken transmission from Christ & the Apostles to today's faithful with any credibility. Although not always above sectarian fanaticism, the Syro-Oriental churches can safely wash their hands of the massive institutional corruption that struck their western counterparts. No slavery, was never the government, no armies, no colonialism- No rivers of blood to whitewash. Few churches can say the same. Not sure what my point in writing this was but I just thought it was interesting that I ended up here long before I heard of the CTMU.

The most useful CTMU resource I had when I was learning the CTMU was the CTMU Knowledge Base. Full stop. Seriously, you have to try this out. It has a catalog of almost 1000 answers that Langan has given on topics ranging from politics to physics to rodeo. Literally, there have been times when I’ve asked such a random, weirdly specific question and it had EXACTLY the answer I was looking for. Not only that, but it has every paper/essay ever written by Chris Langan and you can read them all on the website. It also has helpful resources such as a glossary of CTMU terms (can be VERY helpful for some people) and a list of recommended books to understand the CTMU. Much of what I know about the CTMU, I know because of the Knowledge Base. So how can you sign up? You don’t have to. Just go to http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/. The password is CTMU2025 🤫 Don’t say I never gave you anything! Comment below what the first question you searched on there was! →→

Carlos Farias, a YouTuber with 47k subscribers has briefly reviewed the CTMU. It begins at 3 minutes 46 seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaql9BQWN_c He describes it as "lacking empirical support". He then says "the CTMU lacks formalism or testability". Obviously these criticisms are beneath us. But they are a sign that we're failing to get the message across clearly enough, for some people.

I just had an encounter with a gentleman at my building. He was attempting to break into my parking garage. I later saw him attempting to break into a friend's truck. I engaged him along side security, and I have my security license, for that matter. Further, these were cars/vehicles/property that belonged to me and my friends. However, my roommate being a hyper religious, very strict catholic, follows rules as if they are God's word, itself. He does not question the morality of anything legal, stipulated in contract form, or protocol. He is all about protocol. He feels laws are just and should be obeyed, always. Accordingly, I was scolded for having done what I did, and that I should not have done it. That there were a trillion ways for this to have gone better. We all share this building, and I felt a duty to step in. Was I wrong? I feel incredibly guilty regarding all of this and I desire to understand the morality of this occasion from a teleological point of view. Should I NOT have gotten involved being a tenant of the building? I am aware of the legal ramifications of all of my actions, (or arguably HER actions, as she allowed me to accompany her). Yes, security was female and fairly small. I'm simply interested in the morality regarding all of this. Thanks.

This is my first post here, thank you for inviting me. For those of you who don't know who I am, I run the @CTMUist YouTube account. This has been a thought of mine I’ve wanted to share for a while. Because I’ve noticed that one of us has called into a YouTube podcast to present the CTMU, I’ve decided to chime in. I’d like to make my stance clear on how CTMUers are to engage with atheist talk shows. We have a teleological impulse to share the truth. Being CTMU-literate, we’re privy to absolute truth and we know we can ultimately come out on top of any adversarial ideological exchange, if we are careful enough and have done enough studying. Arguing with atheists in parts of the internet that receive a lot of traffic therefore is tempting. There is a pull factor for calling into to such talk shows; they get a lot of views, so they are effective platforms from which to reach truth-seeking minds. If you run a YouTube channel, then calling in, arguing and posting the exchange to your channel is also a fast way to generate content that both covers the subject matter and, hopefully, paints you in a better light than our adversaries. As some of you may know, I have called into atheist talk shows. But I haven’t presented the CTMU in any such call. There is nobody in our community who is ready to attempt this (besides Chris Langan). What I have done, is present the ideas present in the CTMU as part of an “argument” for God, or brain-independent consciousness (in terms converted to layman’s language, without mentioning CTMU neologisms). See below for links, if you’re interested in hearing the manner in which I did this. Calling in to these shows and making a good job of it is highly challenging as it is. You have to avoid fumbling your words. You have to avoid having mental blanks. You have to be extremely polite and not get angry when your opponent refuses to see the point (or engages in other forms of irrational denial). Now imagine that on top of that, you’ve got to explain what your CTMU neologism of choice is, to someone who most likely is going to shake their head, come up with some lame excuse not to accept the meaning of the word and say you’re talking word salad. It’s only going to make you flustered and less able to prove whatever point you’ve chosen to make.