Hi there,
After he had rejected several therapists (claiming each one incompetent or in some other negative judgement), my husband finally stuck to one and had been seeing that psychologist for several weeks until she diagnosed him with BPD. Promptly after that diagnosis, he stopped seeing her and denied the diagnosis. He has instead likened to the idea of being autistic without a professional evaluation and for sure has adhd though I understand all three can often coexist/be confused for one another etc etc. My issue lies in his inability to coherently comprehend what I say without perceiving it as an attack or manipulating it as if I am saying something else entirely. Additionally, he gets violent and hurts himself or damages property while he blames me for something as seemingly harmless as me asking if he added water to a recipe or casually asking if he’d done a task he said he’d do two weeks ago (that made him flip a chair and also threaten to stab himself with a steak knife). I think I need more resources to understand if reactions like this is common in BPD, or if this is even what he has because I feel like i’m the one who is crazy. I’ve neutrally brought up a conversation about how he might reconsider his medication because of his outbursts (lots of broken glass in our house lately, and he even punched the screen of my imac, my traumatized brain can’t even begin to tell you what triggered that) but now he dismisses me and then walks away and then screams “Don’t talk at my back!” or reengages in the conversation by making up what I said and when I correct him, he yells “I don’t want to talk to you! Stop baiting me into conversation!” and i’m left baffled and at a complete loss. He also has had trouble holding down jobs (he’ll make up a reason why it’s suddenly abhorrent then jump ship) and recently admitted to “his dreams of wanting to be a teacher” and went on to say he has “connections to teach a college course” and when I asked if he’s ever taught before (which, to my knowledge, is a big no), I suggested maybe he should try and get more opportunities to do that, to which he responded, screaming that I was “belittling his dreams”, and the next day he argued that he meant PLANS and not DREAMS, but there already was a hole in the wall and the actual topic didn’t matter anymore because he didn’t hear me when I voiced that I felt scared or that he was denying and accusing me of things that weren’t accurate (which I learned recently is DARVO, and he does it all the time). Deepest apologies for the immense detail but my current dive to find solace and resources about NPD (because after that episode, I get love-bombed) OR BPD and my spouse’s ability to pedantically take “clinical information” and vocabulary and use it out of context or in sentences to defend or deny and reverse it on me is truly making me question myself, like, is this my fault? 7 years of marriage and I’ve tried all the ways to speak to him kindly, patiently, directly, use a neutral tone - everything I say, he’ll try to tone police or question as if it’s an attack or entirely fabricate and avoid the point. Even if it’s something about how I’m feeling, suddenly we’re having a therapy session about him. I really want to bring him in to somewhere so he can get some professional insight where a space can be held where I don’t have to referee for both of us and someone else can point out the ways he’s communicating in unhealthy ways and call out things that are triggering (Space hasn’t been held for me for so long and the stress and pain is finally metaphysically showing up as nerve damage in my body. When he shows up in public, he acts as if he’s normal and charismatic and fine and I just feel like the out of context scorned wife, when for example, prior to us arriving, he’s just punched a hole in the wall before we left the house. Any resources would help. I am personally a high functioning and award-winning in my career with goals of becoming a pilot to fight fires and do rescue (which has entirely been put on hold because we seem to be tending to him a lot lately) and the more accolades, and goals I plan out and the more I achieve in my own personal career, the more my spouse seems to act terribly towards me. Despite me trying to encourage him to look inwards and seek his own purpose. Lots more details to divulge but the intention is the same, to gain resources in how common his reactions are, how one keeps themselves sane if or when their partner is like this, if you noticed almost parabolic mood swings (he was the perfect husband two weeks ago) and ultimately, for me not be overcome by whatever it is he has. Thanks for your time.

I asked my Husband (M35), what made him support me (F27) in a mean way during my depression episodes (Bipolar 2 disorder, ADHD, ocd), he responded “I thought that lightening the atmosphere and reducing the extent of the problem might help you”
I asked myself, why would you do this and you know it hurts me a lot, when I was at my lowest he kept saying “oh no, stop being dramatic”, He keeps telling me that he’s deeply in love with me, But why would treat me this way If you love me. I tried to explain to him that is mean and hurting me multiple times. I just don’t trust him anymore. He lack social and emotional intelligence. We’ve Known each for 8.5 years and married for 5 years now.
Can anyone explain why did he kept joking about my mental illness. I’m on meds now and feel so much better. When I got better he said “I’m so proud of you, you’re getting so much better and you got to lnow yourself more” and he is supportive and sweet right now, I just can’t trust him anymore. Why are you happy when I got diagnosed, while at my lowest you didn’t help.
Help for me is: physical touch and words of affirmation (I told him about it)

8 months pregnant. Husband was killed while I was 2 months pregnant. He has a daughter he was paying child support for, but baby mom and him were in the process of stopping it before he was killed. I had 10k in savings, 5k taken out today for child support. I was never involved in that aspect. Pregnancy and stress - not a good combo.. We have a joint account. All the money I've put in since his death has been from myself, working my ass off while pregnant. Baby mom and I are waiting for probate court in July to get husband's stock money disbursed evenly.
I need this money back or I'm/baby and myself are fucked. I have been budgeting my money in order to have time off with my baby.
Please help. I can't sleep.

Okay, I'm going to be real. I stopped at Chapter 9, because I feel like I'm going insane here. This fic is... unlike anything I've ever really seen in this fandom. And I just really needed to talk about it with someone.
There's this distrust of 'civilians' in this, that goes beyond the usual dislike of the villagers ignorance towards Naruto. It starts spilling over into a general distrust and disdain for 'civilian-born' shinobi.
Even going so far as to imply that 'civilian-born' students being accepted is something that only happened after Minato's death and is an attempt to weaken Konoha.
Around chapter 8 there's a walkout of 'clan-born' students at the Shinobi school, that seems to conflate clans with shinobi families as a whole?
At which point Hiruzen walks into a class of 11 yr olds and 'tells them what their in for' which is implied to be completely new information & something that leaves them green. That they all just kind of retreat between their tails between there legs at the first notion they could die.
~~~
Like swing back to shinobi families vs. clans, this isn't just me right? The general implication in canon is that Genma and the rest, probably even Hiruzen are not from storied clans. That any one of them might be from a civilian family? That if not them, then the shinobi tradition in their families might only go back to their grandparents?
Have I just been misreading the subtext of Naruto this whole time or...?
~~~
Also, this fic has 65 chapters. I'm wondering, should I keep going? Where is this going?
I'm actually really fond of the underlying concept of 'Naruto & Sasuke gain Asura & Indra's memories' & I'm always on board for more 'lil Naruto is safe and loved' fic, which most of the above have been so far (yet to find one where they remember like, post-4th War or whatever?)
^P.S. I will happily talk just about the last part if anyone wants to^
Edit: should probably put a link? https://archiveofourown.org/works/38044144/chapters/95026165

If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).

Kansas

Despite voters overwhelmingly rejecting a constitutional amendment that would have allowed abortion restrictions in the state, Kansas Republicans passed several anti-abortion bills into law late last month, overriding the governor’s veto.
The first bill, HB 2436, makes it a crime to “coerce” someone into having an abortion. Democrats attempted to widen the scope of the bill to include all kinds of reproductive coercion, like pressuring someone to become or stay pregnant and prohibiting their access to birth control, and enshrine a right to “reproductive autonomy.” Republicans voted down the amendment.
The second bill, HB 2749, requires medical facilities and providers to (1) ask patients their reason for having an abortion and (2) report the data, including personal information about the patient, to the legislature every other year. Gov. Laura Kelly (D) agreed with the objections of Democrats and reproductive rights advocates, saying when she vetoed the bill that there is “no valid reason to force a woman to disclose to the legislature why she is seeking an abortion.”

• Democrats offered numerous amendments to HB 2749, including one to require men to report to the legislature their reasons for having a vasectomy and another requiring men to report why they are seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction. Republicans rejected all of them.

Finally, the Republican legislature overrode Kelly’s line-item veto allocating $2 million to the Pregnancy Compassion Awareness Program, created last year with a different veto override. The program is run by an anti-abortion group called the Kansas Pregnancy Care Network, which refers pregnant people to crisis pregnancy centers designed to use misleading information to discourage them from obtaining an abortion.

Louisiana

Louisiana’s legislature is doubling down on its anti-abortion laws, passing bills to increase criminalization and refusing to add exemptions to its abortion ban.
Earlier this month, the Louisiana House took up a bill passed by the Senate that would make it a crime, punishable by jail time, to possess abortion-inducing medication. SB 276, sponsored by 23 Republicans and one Democrat, was initially written to create a punishment for coercing someone into an abortion without their knowledge or consent (e.g. spiking a drink). However, House legislators recently added an amendment to the bill that classifies mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV substances alongside some opioids and benzodiazepines. A pregnant person possessing the drugs for their own use could not be charged, but others who intend to distribute them to pregnant people seeking an abortion or store them for their own potential future use would face up to ten years in prison.

“Neither is a drug of abuse or dependence, and that is what the controlled drug schedule is for,” said [emergency room Dr. Jennifer] Avegno of the abortion drugs. “It makes no scientific or medical sense to put these drugs in the same category as Xanax or Valium.”
Mifepristone is a drug that blocks a hormone called progesterone, which is necessary for a pregnancy to continue. Misoprostol causes uterine contractions, causing the body to expel the pregnancy tissue. Mifepristone is also used to treat Cushing’s disease, a hormonal disorder. Misoprostol is also used to induce labor, manage a miscarriage and in the treatment of ulcers. Neither are addictive. “People do not go around taking them and getting dependent and having bad outcomes because of it,” said Avegno. “It’s like saying your blood pressure medicine or insulin is a drug of abuse.”

A week later, Republicans on the House Criminal Justice Committee voted 7-4 to reject a bill to add rape and incest exceptions to the state’s total abortion ban. House Bill 164, written by Democratic Rep. Delisha Boyd, would have allowed girls younger than 17 to have abortions if they became pregnant as the result of sexual assault.

“That baby [in the womb] is innocent … We have to hang on to that,” said committee member Rep. Dodie Horton, R-Haughton, who voted against the bill. Rep. Lauren Ventrella, R-Greenwell Spring, also voted against the legislation, saying the proposed law would be difficult to enforce. Teenagers who had consensual sex might feign rape or incest in order to get access to abortion services, she suggested…
Dr. Neelima Sukhavasi, a Baton Rouge doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, also implored the lawmakers to approve Boyd’s proposal. She and her colleagues have delivered babies for pregnant teenagers, including mothers as young as 13, since Louisiana’s abortion ban went into effect two years ago. These young pregnant people can experience health complications that affect them for the rest of their lives, Sukhavasi said, and sometimes don’t have the mental capacity to handle the births. “One of these teenagers delivered a baby while clutching a teddy bear,” she told the committee.

The Committee also killed three other bills: HB 56, to allow abortions in cases of spontaneous miscarriage or nonviable pregnancy; HB 63, to clarify that the removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion under state law; HB 293, to add protection for physicians who do not intend to induce abortion by prescribing certain medications.

Texas

Meanwhile, in Texas—a state that pioneered the war on women and reproductive rights—a man initiated legal action to sue people who helped his former partner obtain an out-of-state abortion.
The man, Collin Davis, filed a petition in a state district court seeking permission to launch legal depositions to collect evidence for a potential lawsuit under a Texas law that contains civil liability for anyone who “aids and abets” an abortion. According to his lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell (who crafted the anti-abortion law), Davis is seeking to sue “co-conspirators and accomplices…involved in the murder of [his] unborn child.”

“Fathers of aborted fetuses can sue for wrongful death in states with abortion bans, even if the abortion occurs out-of-state,” he wrote. “They can sue anyone who paid for the abortion, anyone who aided or abetted the travel, and anyone involved in the manufacture or distribution of abortion drugs.”
Molly Duane, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, described Mitchell’s statement and general approach as misleading “fearmongering.”
“People need to understand that it is not a crime to leave Texas or any other state in the country for an abortion,” said Duane, who is working with lawyers from the firm Arnold & Porter to represent the woman and others targeted in the Davis case. “I don’t want people to be intimidated, but they should be outraged and alarmed.” Duane described the woman’s relationship with Davis as “toxic and harmful.”

Mitchell also represents a different man who pursued a similar claim last year: Marcus Silva engaged Mitchell to sue the friends of his estranged wife for allegedly helping her obtain abortion pills. Evidence later revealed that Silva knew about the plans beforehand and did not intervene, likely intending to use the threat of legal action as a way of forcing his partner to halt divorce proceedings.

Monday’s counterclaim illustrates, in painstaking detail, exactly how Silva—aided by Mitchell—allegedly deployed this tactic. It was only after Brittni’s abortion was complete that Silva revealed he knew about the plan and, according to the lawsuit, threatened to turn her in if she didn’t submit to his continued abuse. He even showed the police photographs of messages discussing the possibility of an abortion. “Once I finally got home with the girls he had been drinking and he told me that he knew,” Brittni texted one friend. “He’s using it against me.” In another message, she wrote, “Now he’s saying if I don’t give him my ‘mind body and soul’ until the end of the divorce, which he’s going to drag out, he’s going to make sure I go to jail for doing it.” […]
The counterclaim points out another flaw in his argument: Silva himself “is responsible for the alleged injury for which he seeks to recover.” He “knew that Brittni planned to terminate her alleged pregnancy and acquiesced in accepting Brittni’s actions,” so “it would be unconscionable to permit him to benefit by changing his position now.” His claims, in short, are barred “by unclean hands,” because he effectively entrapped his estranged wife—covertly discovering her plan to terminate the pregnancy, then allowing her to go through with it for the express purpose of blackmailing her into staying with him.

Indiana

A three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals last month unanimously recognized a religious freedom challenge to the state’s complete ban on abortion.
The case, brought by Hoosier Jews for Choice and four anonymous women of various faiths, alleges that the ban interferes with “their sincere religious beliefs that require and direct them to obtain abortions” criminalized since the law took effect in 2023. According to Jewish law, a fetus does not have personhood until birth, and abortion is required if the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the mother.

Brief of Hoosier Jews for Choice (and other plaintiffs): As indicated by the declarations of numerous rabbis, Judaism teaches that a fetus becomes a living person only at birth, and prior to that is considered part of the woman’s body, without independent rights. Abortion should occur and is mandated to end a pregnancy that may cause serious consequences to a woman’s mental or physical heath. Judaism also recognizes that physical health risks are not limited to those likely to cause substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. Judaism stresses the necessity of protecting the physical and mental health of the woman—a life—over the potential for life present in a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Therefore, restrictions that prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion where compelled by Jewish law, which mandates that the woman act to protect her physical or mental health, impose a substantial burden on that person’s religious exercise.

Under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), “a governmental entity may not substantially burden a personʹs exercise of religion,” defined to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” This means that arguments about whether plaintiffs are strictly observant are irrelevant; the law protects sincerely held religious views regardless of whether that view is idiosyncratic or unorthodox. However, even a law that imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion can be enforced if it is “the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest” (the strict scrutiny test).
The state argued that abortion does not carry “religious significance” and, even if it did, the abortion ban satisfies strict scrutiny because it is “sufficiently narrowly tailored” to “further the State’s interest” in “protecting human lives in the womb.” Throughout Indiana’s brief, the state attempts to use science to back up fetal personhood, extending developmental physiology to make unfounded claims that protected life unquestionably begins at conception:

In lower courts, the State’s compelling interest is not up for debate. In Cheaney v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the State’s interest in protecting unborn children is “valid and compelling” from “the moment of conception.” …A basic understanding of biology supports these holdings. “That human fetuses are human beings is a scientific fact, not a theological claim.” Regardless whether an individual person believes this, “the scientific consensus” is that “[d]evelopment begins at fertilization,” after which the newly created “unicellular zygote divides many times and becomes progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth, and differentiation.” …. Science thus tells us that “[t]he act of performing an induced abortion during any stage of pregnancy, from fertilization up to birth, ends the life of an innocent human being.” The State’s interest in protecting unborn fetal life at any stage from intentional destruction accordingly is nothing less than “compelling.”

A panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals—made up of a Republican appointee and two Democratic appointees—unanimously ruled against the state, upholding a lower court’s injunction against the abortion ban as it applies to the plaintiffs. In the process, the court laid out a path for religious freedom challenges to abortion bans in other states and at the federal level.

The trial court found that absent a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed by the loss of their religious freedoms guaranteed by RFRA. A loss of First Amendment freedoms, which include the right to free exercise of religion, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”... Without a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs will suffer the loss of their right to exercise their sincere religious beliefs by obtaining an abortion when directed by their religion and prohibited by the Abortion Law. They also have shown their sexual and reproductive lives will continue to be restricted absent the injunction and as a result of the Abortion Law.

• Briefs can be found under case number 22A-PL-2938 on Indiana’s Appellate docket

My German grandmother and grandfather migrated to Namibia in the 1900, my father was born in 1927 in namibia, which was during the time germany had a treaty with south africa, and Namibia then was known as South-west Africa.
My father still retained this german citizenship. But here is the dilemma. I’m 20, I was born out of wedlock. My father was married to another woman when I was born. I didn’t grow up with my father only with my mother (who is a namibian citizen) Early 2023, I wanted to meet my father so that I can apply for a german passport, but I wasn’t able to get through him, so I contacted my brother from my father side, but he lied that my father lost his german citizenship, a month after my father died. So I got my lawyers involved. Fast forward this year, I received a letter from my brother’s lawyer claiming that after the death of my father, the german embassy invalidated the passport but they don’t know who is in possession of the passport.
I’m currently in Germany. Due to unforeseen circumstances I had to file for family court in germany as I can’t return to my home country. I currently have my grandmother’s birth certificate, my father’s birth certificate (but its not a german birth certificate).
My father never lived in Germany but he used to visit, and he would stay his eldest son in Hannover.
Is there any way that I can proof that my father was a german citizen?

I hate my life, I wish someone loved me. Not pretend to love me. Or only when it’s convenient.
I am alone and I blame everyone else for it, yet it’s my fault.
I am alone because I have no girlfriend nor friends. I have a great family yet it isn’t enough. I value them, but my thoughts and experiences grow worse over time. It isn’t enough. I need another type of love.
I am alone and I feel alone all the time. The only reason I don’t feel alone is because of school and a job I barely work. I have a lot of ‘friends’ who think they are there for me, but aren’t. They pretend to be and only talk to me when they need something. An example, I was friends with a girl for one year and we were talk a lot we flirted and then she ghosted me and then she got a boyfriend and all of a sudden she turned out like all the others. I wish I had a girlfriend. I am so tired of people saying that. I wish I was good looking. I wish that I had that. Let me tell you something, if every time you met someone and you asked them to hang out and be your best friend/girlfriend and they told you ‘oh sorry, no but you can find it in somebody else’, if everyone tells you that it’s a cycle and you will never ever get it; that’s the issue I’ve had for the past four years. I just want affection. I’m tired of feeling this way.
I reach out in college. At work. Attempt to make friends. I bet whatever solution is to be told, I’ve fucking tried it. Maybe I’m meant to be this way. Wow. That sounded so corny. But it feels the truth. I’ve broken out of my shell and went into it multiple times. I think the longest streak I’ve had being myself and loving life was two years until I was told I wasn’t good looking and would be this way forever, and even if I didn’t let that get to me, in that entire year, I felt alone.
I don’t want to live my life like this. Some days I want to block all the ‘friends’ who say they’re there for me, but they aren’t. I wanna be an asshole but I can’t. I have no friend group. I have no true friends. Nobody ever reaches out to me. Sometimes I want to die. But I don’t mean. 1% out of 99% I do. Other times, I want them to love me and care for me. But I know you can’t force that on someone, so why don’t I just get rid of them first good? Block them. Unfriend them. They pretend to care yet love another and love others. They only care for me because they don’t want my death on their conscious. Honestly, that’s how I feel.
All I want is for someone to love me.
And I’m jealous, envious, and cocky. I used to not be, I’ll admit that. I used to selfless and always care for others and be kind, and then realty I stopped. Two years of me just being a kind man, and getting nothing out of that. See? Look how selfish that sounds.
I was born to live and enjoy life. Not to be other people’s pleaser. To not be your rebound. To not be your convenience friend. To not be someone you can talk to every 6 months when you feel pity for me because you’re the one who made me feel the way I am.
I feel like I know the solution. Suck it up. Cherish what I have. Be the better man. But what if I don’t wanna be? I’ll be left behind and cast out. Or maybe, I’m just rambling. I’ve never been so 50 / 50 split of getting rid of all of those people, telling them the truth (what I say here), or not.
What do I do? Get rid of them? Ignore it all? Be a better person? Suck it up? I truly don’t know. So many things.

I’m not gonna lie, I’m just posting this to vent, and maybe get some validation and encouragement.
My ex and I broke up last year, May 2023. I know deep down it needed to happen because we were together 7.5 years and had nothing together. I spent the last couple years constantly asking wth we’re doing. We’d have breakups and then he’d tell me he wants to have babies and wants to take care of me. That never happened. We never lived together. The final breakup was because I finally hit that point of resenting him. I gave him my best years because I truly thought we were gonna make it. He got me a ring in the end, but it felt like a “here ya go, this’ll shut you up” ring. And just didn’t feel like what I know I deserve.
When I’m in a relationship, I’m loyal to a fault. I saw no one else but him. Truly TRULY deeply loved him. Really believed he’d be my husband and the father of our future kids. He was my absolute best friend.
Mind you, he tried to come back and make it work. But there’s just this weird distance between us now. And I can’t get rid of it. He took me on dates and bought me flowers to make up for a lot of the ways he took me for granted… and I just felt numb. So we “tried” and it just felt like it needed to end.
But now I’m alone and miss the great parts of us. I lay here and keep seeing the moments of us CRACKING UP at stupid things and inside jokes. I wish I still had that. He was truly the love of my life.
I hate that I’m alone now. I know ppl don’t like to admit that, but I don’t care. I hate that he let it go so easily when we did end it. I truly miss him as my counterpart. I feel so broken. It’s been a year and I really don’t know how people get through this.
I’m constantly told I’m beautiful, “gorgeous”, funny, intelligent, in shape, loving, sharp, great with kids, all of these great qualities that ppl follow up with “you’ll find someone”… but I HAD him and I don’t understand how I’m supposed to just accept that I’ll never cuddle with him again, go to his house after work, lay in bed watching movies, go to concerts together, family parties, make future plans etc.
Everyone around me thinks I’m okay but I’m really not.
I’ve also been going on dates, and I have fun and I can be in the moment. But then I have a breakdown (like right now as I’m typing this) and I don’t get it. I really thought he would be my husband and we’d just live a quiet simple life.
TL;DR: I miss my ex and idk how im going to survive this.

TW: death and dying
Hi! I’m an American living in Berlin with a permanent resident visa for over a decade. I’m also an artist and freelancer (or was) with mainly clients in the US, so I never properly learned deutsch past a conversational A2. My husband and family are all US citizens. I know a lot about how the system works here, but my language struggles sometimes make it hard for me to research and learn things I’m unaware of.
I’m currently on my third line of treatment in only 4 months for TNMBC (mets to most of my bones, liver, and chest wall where my primary cancer was originally) and things are not looking so positive at the moment.
I’m wondering if anyone here is in Germany and can give me advice on: palliative care options I might not be aware of, hospice and end of life care, what to sort out legally before death, and anything else you can think of — basically how to prepare for death from a bureaucratic perspective (as you can see I may not speak the language that well but I am quite otherwise assimilated 😂).
Thank you!! ❤️

I’m 26M and a NYC native so I’m open to people from the area obviously but also open to everywhere else it’s a big world after all so why limit the possibilities.
I enjoy: Reading * tell me the character death you still can’t get over * Sports Hiking Just discovered the world of comics Running And being horrible at describing my interests without sounding cliche.
I’m not super particular though when it comes to people so come as you are, I don’t have many deal deal breakers but I’d love to hear yours.
I’m 5’9 “if that matters “ and around 155 lbs. happy to send a photo of myself if we message.
Also I love a good flowing conversation but I know they can be hard to start so even a small hey works for me I’ll gladly reply or you can hit me with whatever else!

I met this guy friend (26M) at uni and we have been friends for 4ish years now. There was a short period we were very very close. Just over a year ago, I was going through a breakup, and he hosted a party. I got very drunk and we slept together. It was the only time this has happened, but he had kissed me previously and I turned him down. In the middle of us sleeping together, he gave a speech which I thought was a bit weird at the time. It was about how I was the “perfect girl, smart, funny and good looking and would find someone amazing but it wasn’t him”, and went on for a while. I told him that was fine and didn’t really get why he was saying it. We have never ever talked about it. However, at the party, he had invited this girl who I hadn’t met before, and she is now his GF. They started dating shortly after this party, so I assume they must have been talking at the time, and he must have known he was interested. I had no idea that he was in a thing with her at the time, and I didn't find out they were dating until a while later.
On principle the situation kind of pissed me off a bit, as it felt like he’d wanted to sleep with me for a bit, and had wanted to check the box off before he got into a committed relationship. That kind of fucked with me mentally, as I felt like I was hook up but not dating material. I’m absolutely over it now though. I’ve never wanted to date him and honestly, I would not even think about sleeping with him again, even if he was single.
When he got his girlfriend, I took a huge step back from the friendship, I don’t message him to start random convos, and will catch up with him once every so often but mostly in a group. I would never dream of crossing any kind of line or boundary and absolutely respect their relationship. I think they’re a really good match and would never want to do anything to affect that. I also decided that I wouldn’t try and be besties with his GF, and have always been nice to her but have never hung out with her one on one or tried to talk to her about their relationship.
However, there’s been a few occasions which are innocent but if I was his GF I would not be comfortable with. For one, he got drunk at a party and gave me a speech about how beautiful, smart, funny, amazing and wonderful I am and told me I am “any man’s dream girl”. I repeatedly assured him I didn’t need validation, especially from him, and left the conversation. Further, we went on a trip with another friend (which was planned well before they started dating), and he got me to help him pick out a necklace for his gf for their anniversary. He even wanted to try it on me first but I shut it down.
Recently, her and I hung out one on one and we got on really well. I honestly like her better than him and think that we could be super close friends in any other circumstance. Some of my friends think it’s a bad idea to get closer with her because I would be keeping him and I hooking up a secret.
I know he’s never told her about the two of us (he’s never told anyone), and she’s made comments about how it would make her really anxious if she found out he was hooking up with someone or dating someone right before her. I’m not sure if I should tell her - on one hand, I think I would want to know if my BF had slept with one of his girl friends, but on the other hand I think I’d want to know that so I could keep and eye on the situation, and I’d want to hear it from him. I know that I would never even flirt with him let alone sleep with him again and I also wouldn’t want to interfere in their relationship for no reason. If he ever came onto me I’d definitely say something.
Tldr; i slept with one of my guy friends right before he started dating his current girlfriend. I am getting closer with her, and she has no idea that it happened.
Should I say something to her, or distance myself, or is it okay to get closer to her and not tell her?

Not gonna say she handled it the best but she wasn’t exactly the worst. She was 16 and had the chance to do something she loved. It was awful the way she left Nathan but I think it was hella important to her character (even though it doesn’t matter in the next season). Her whole character was her doing stuff for other people. She was seen as this stable girl who had the best grades and didn’t have to make her parents worry like her sisters. But then she did something for herself like go on tour and all she does is suffer for it. Like ik it’s fucked up with what happens with Nathan but also as a teen that must be so much pressure to have someone depend on you so much, that once you leave their whole world goes to shit. She doesn’t do anything for herself for the next 2 seasons. It’s constantly abt Nathan, she gave up Stanford and didn’t sing so Nathan can play basketball. I wish they let her do more for herself after she came back from the tour or just didn’t have them get married so quickly
Also I don’t think she really liked Chris. She was young, married, and as far as we know didn’t really have any romantic connections before Nathan. So to have someone new be into you because of a shared passion that you don’t share with ur husband can really fuck with your head. Of course Nathan’s suspicions are valid, but he was also hella flirty with Taylor at the same time.

Insurance plays a crucial role in managing risk and providing financial protection against unexpected events. Two main categories of insurance are life insurance and general insurance, each serving distinct purposes and covering different types of risks. In this article, we will explore the key differences between life insurance and general insurance to help individuals make informed decisions when selecting insurance products.
Life Insurance:
Life insurance provides financial protection to individuals and their beneficiaries in the event of the policyholder's death or, in some cases, disability or critical illness. The primary purpose of life insurance is to provide financial security to dependents and loved ones by replacing lost income, paying off debts, covering funeral expenses, and supporting ongoing living expenses. ( Read more on Life Insurance: https://www.reddit.com/growthman/s/9Jhw3CI0ZN ) Key features of life insurance include:

1. Coverage Period: Life insurance policies typically provide coverage for a specified term (term life insurance) or the policyholder's entire life (whole life insurance). Term life insurance offers coverage for a specific period, such as 10, 20, or 30 years, while whole life insurance provides lifetime coverage with a cash value component that accumulates over time.
   
2. Death Benefit: The death benefit is the amount paid to the beneficiary upon the policyholder's death. Life insurance policies offer a predetermined death benefit amount, which is paid out tax-free to the beneficiary upon the policyholder's passing. The death benefit helps ensure financial stability for dependents and loved ones after the policyholder's death.
   
3. Premiums: Premiums for life insurance policies are based on factors such as the policyholder's age, health status, lifestyle, coverage amount, and the type of policy selected. Premiums for term life insurance are typically lower than whole life insurance premiums due to the limited coverage period and absence of a cash value component.
   

General Insurance:
General insurance, also known as non-life insurance, provides coverage for a wide range of risks and perils other than death or disability. General insurance policies protect individuals, businesses, and assets against various risks, including property damage, liability, accidents, and natural disasters. Key features of general insurance include:

1. Coverage Types: General insurance policies offer coverage for different types of risks, including auto insurance, homeowners insurance, health insurance, travel insurance, business insurance, and liability insurance. Each type of general insurance policy provides protection against specific risks and perils relevant to the insured's needs and circumstances.
   
2. Indemnity: General insurance policies typically provide indemnity or compensation to the insured for financial losses resulting from covered events or perils. In the event of a covered loss, the insured receives payment from the insurer to restore them to the same financial position they were in before the loss occurred, up to the policy's coverage limits.
   
3. Premiums: Premiums for general insurance policies are determined based on factors such as the insured's risk profile, coverage amount, deductible, location, and claims history. Premiums may vary depending on the type of insurance policy and the level of coverage selected.
   

Differences Between Life Insurance and General Insurance:

1. Purpose: Life insurance provides financial protection to beneficiaries in the event of the policyholder's death or disability, whereas general insurance offers protection against various risks and perils other than death.
   
2. Coverage Period: Life insurance policies may provide coverage for a specified term or the policyholder's entire life, while general insurance policies typically provide coverage for a specific period.
   
3. Death Benefit vs. Indemnity: Life insurance policies pay a predetermined death benefit to beneficiaries upon the policyholder's death, while general insurance policies provide indemnity or compensation to the insured for covered losses.
   
4. Premiums and Factors: Premiums for life insurance are based on factors such as age, health status, and coverage amount, while premiums for general insurance are determined by factors such as risk profile, coverage type, and claims history.
   

Life insurance and general insurance serve different purposes and offer distinct types of coverage to individuals and businesses. While life insurance provides financial security to dependents and loved ones in the event of the policyholder's death or disability, general insurance protects against various risks and perils other than death. By understanding the differences between life insurance and general insurance, individuals can make informed decisions when selecting insurance products to meet their financial needs and mitigate risks effectively.

The sentence is at the end of chapter 55 in Lethal White. Robin has just left Matthew, she's in a taxi where the driver hands her a tissue branded “Dr Blanc”. That’s when she makes the connection between “Blanc de Blanc” and Le Manoir aux Quat’ Saisons where she went for her wedding anniversary with Matthew.
Now to the sentence: “Now she remembered exactly where she had seen the phrase “Blanc de Blanc”, but it had nothing to do with the case, and everything to do with her imploding marriage, with a lavender walk and a Japanese water garden, and the last time she had ever said “I love you”, and the first time she’d known she didn’t mean it.”
So, the last time she said “I love you” was during their anniversary, but it was the first time she knew she didn’t mean it. Is this a reference to future instances when she will say ILY knowing she doesn’t mean it? We’ve seen her saying it in TRG but simply wondering whether what she felt was love.
Or am I over-thinking? Can this sentence be understood in any other way? English is not my first language so I can easily miss some subtleties.

Currently under Death Mountain in the depths. There’s some kind of dark power here. Probably awakened by either us obtaining Br’oug or the Lanternbearer.
Time to find out what this is.
*You hear a loud sound, as you see a gate sealed by chains. There seems to be something behind it.
*The transmission abruptly cuts off.

Introduction

In this post, we'll be discussing something called "Virtue Ethics." This is a normative theory of ethics that's most associated with Aristotle, though has in recent times experienced a resurgence of sorts from modern philosophers, some of whom have tweaked and modified it, and in doing so have created different branches on this tree of moral theory. We will be comparing these different flavors of Virtue Ethics to that of the New Testament's, pointing out where they're similar, as well as highlighting where the NT differs (and is actually superior) from the heathens' views.
I want to preface all this with a verse and a warning:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

The entire Bible, over and over again, warns against syncretism. It's a running theme throughout to condemn the practice, with this verse being one of the more explicit ones to do so.
Mapping the ideas of Pagans (and especially Greek philosophers) onto the Scriptures has always resulted in people severely misinterpreting the Bible, as looking at the Word of God through a Hellenistic lens is and always has been extremely innapropiate to the author's original intent.
Whenever Greek philosophy or ideas are referenced, they're always portrayed in a bad light or otherwise used to make a point. Examples of the latter could be found in the apostle Paul's writings, as he was a fully educated Roman citizen of his day, and so he made use of known Hellenestic philosophy and literature (that he would have been familiar with) by redefining their terms and ideas in a way that would be consistent with the theology of his own religion. The apostle Peter did the same within his own epistles whenever he mentioned "Tartarus," the abyss/prison for certain disobedient angels that rebelled against God, despite the fact that the word has its roots in Greek mythology and not Hebrew religion (though, the belief that there were a group of spiritual beings that rebelled against the highest authority in the heavens was one technically shared between the two ancient cultures; even if the parties involved were vastly different, as well as the contexts of the rebellion itself).
The affect Hellenstic philosophy has had on the way people think (even subconsciously) can still be felt to this day, and can be seen in the confusion modern "Christianity" has brought on through its adoption of Gnostic teachings such as Dualism or the inherently fatalistic views that many unknowingly hold due to the error of Classical Theism.
While yes, I will be commending the heathen (unbeliever) whenever they are right with their ideas as pertaining to this subject, I will also show where they are wrong.
Let's begin.

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

First, we need to define some terms and point out the differences between this view and others within the larger debate of normative ethics.
There are three major approaches in normative ethics, those being: Consequentalism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. The following are definitions of the terms:
Consequentialism – a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Deontology – theories where an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Virtue Ethics – theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. The virtue ethicist would argue that actions themselves, while important, aren't as important as the character behind them. To the virtue ethicist, consequences are also important, but they would say that good consequences ultimately flow from a virtuous character who has made virtuous decisions. Theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation, instead teaching that the best decisions can vary based on context, and that there are only some actions that would be universally evil, only because those actions could never flow from a virtuous character in the first place (e.g., rape).
Aristotle's idea of ethics is in an important respect different from most people's, especially today. Heirs as we are to Kant’s idea of duty – there is a right thing that one ought to do, as rational beings who respect other persons – and to Mill’s idea of utility – the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number – most of us see ethics as concerned with actions. "The function of ethics is to help me see what I ought to do in a given situation," the modern says. Aristotle’s approach was different. His ethic is not so much concerned about helping us to see what we ought to do, as about what sort of person we ought to be.
Aristotle was concerned with character, and with the things that go to make up good and bad character; virtues and vices. His sort of ethic does not look at our action to see if it fulfils our duty, or produces a certain outcome, such as the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore merits approval. Instead, it looks at us; at the character behind the actions, to see whether we merit approval.
Comparing Virtue Ethics with philosophies such as Deontology and Consequentialism, we are able to divide ethical theories into two kinds; act-centered theories and agent-centered theories. Kant’s (Deontological) and Mill’s (Utilitarian) approaches are act-centered, because they concern themselves with our actions, whilst Aristotle’s is agent-centered because it concerns itself with the character of a person, which in his view was ourselves and our own dispositions that prompt our actions.
Both approaches have ardent present-day advocates, and so both are alive and well. Virtue Ethicists are dissatisfied with the answers ‘modern’ act-centered philosophy offers, and look for a more flexible, person-centered approach that takes more account of the subtle varieties of human motivation. Those in this camp see ethics as being about people – moral agents – rather than merely about actions. Of course, your actions matter. But, for Aristotle and his present day advocates alike, they matter as expressions of the kind of person you are. They indicate such qualities as kindness, fairness, compassion, and so on, and it is these qualities and their corresponding vices that it is the business of ethics to approve or disapprove.
All this seems simple and uncontroversial; there are two ways of looking at an action to evaluate it morally. You can take the action in isolation and judge it, or take the agent and judge him or her.
Virtue ethicists argue that act-centered ethics are narrow and bloodless. What is needed is a richer moral vocabulary than just ‘right and wrong’. There are subtle but important differences between actions that are good because they are kind and those that are good because they are generous, and those that are good because they are just. Likewise, there are subtle but important differences between actions that are bad because they are selfish and those that are bad because they are cruel and those that are bad because they are unfair. These, and many other, distinctions are lost when we talk simply about doing one’s duty, or promoting utility. Questions of motive and of character are lost, in these asceptic terms. Modern moral philosophy won’t do: it is cold, technical and insensitive to the many kinds and degrees of value expressed in human actions. Ethics is more than just thought experiments and hypotheticals about what would be the right course of action to take in any given situation we might conjure up from the comfort of our armchair. Ethics is about doing, and about context and character.

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

Virtue Ethics has has been developed in two main directions: Eudaimonism, and agent-based theories.
Eudaimonism (Aristotle's view) bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one’s distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life “worth living” is one which we reason well. He also believed that only free men in the upper classes of society (i.e., the aristocrats) could excel in virtue and eschew vice, being that such men had greater access to the means in accomplishing this task as they had the wealth and resources to better perform their distinctive function of 'reasoning,' and thus "live well." For the Eudaimonian, inner dispositions are what one ought to focus on in order to cultivate virtuous traits, and thus a virtuous character.
In contrast, an agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc., and we can identify these by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. Agent-based theories also state that the motivations and intentions behind an action are ultimately what determine whether or not said action is actually virtuous. Whereas Eudaimonism understands the moral life in terms of inner dispositions or proclivities to act in certain ways (whether righteous or wicked, just or unjust, kind or cruel, etc.), agent-based theories are more radical in that their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions, that is, what the motivations and intents are of a person.
[Note: While both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories are both agent-centered, Eudaimonism is not to be confused with an agent-based theory. Both branches concern themselves more with agents rather than acts themselves, but Eudamonism focuses on the self to improve whereas the agent-based theory focuses on others to improve.]

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

Firstly, Eudaimonism provides a self-centered conception of ethics because "human flourishing" (here defined as simply fulfilling our base function as humans, which is "reason" according to this view) is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier or "reason well."
Secondly, both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories also don't provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Who is a virtuous person? Who is the first or universal exemplar?
Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person? For the Eudaimonian, one ought to be born into a status of privilege if they wish to excel in being virtuous. For the proponent of an agent-based theory, one ought to be born into a society or family with good role models and preferably be raised by such, else they have no moral exemplars to emulate.

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

The New Testament authors didn’t sit down and do a self-consciously philosophical exercise, for this was not what they were concerned with. They were concerned with giving practical instruction to disciples of the faith, and merely trying to express the ethical implications of their spiritual experience. That being said, we know the apostle Paul was familiar with the writings of Aristotle. We can actually identify places where Paul displays knowledge of Aristotle and incorporates some of the philosopher's ideas into his own epistles. Before we do this, however, it's important we refute common misnomers about what the Bible teaches concerning ethics in general.
You probably have heard many attack the ethics of the New Testament as being primitive and simplistic. "God dictates universal commands to follow: 'do not lie,' do 'not divorce,' 'do not insult.' And the only motivating factor is escaping hellfire and obtaining the reward of eternal pleasure." But in reality, this is a gross misrepresentation of the ethics laid out in the NT. I will argue the NT advocates for a form of virtue ethics, instead of claiming the NT contains a form of deontic ethics, as it is so often assumed.
Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the most influential virtue ethicists of the 20th century. Her work helped to revive virtue ethics in the modern era, however she also criticized the ethics of the Bible for promoting a form of ethics different than what Aristotle promoted:
"...between aristotle and us came Christianity, with its law conception of ethics. For Christianity derived its ethical notions from the Torah. (One might be inclined to think that a law conception of ethics could arise only among people who accepted an allegedly divine positive law..." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
We've already dealt with the issue of the Torah in another post. The Torah is not laying down moral laws, but describing justice in the form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. But does the New Testament teach a deontic form of ethics? Anscombe might appear justified in her claim, as some "Christian" theologians have explicitly taught the ethics of the NT is deontic.
However, other theologians have argued the ethics of the NT is best characterized as a form of virtue ethics. In a study of the NT, we'll support this notion. As noted earlier, one of the central features of this approach to ethics is that the aim of ethics should be on living a virtuous life. Other forms of ethics focus on directing actions when confronted with a moral dilemma, but for virtue ethics every action is a moral or immoral action because all of our actions contribute or do not contribute to living a virtuous life. In other words, for a virtue ethicist, everything we do will contribute to living a fulfilled life. Now, the NT promotes a similar idea with a slight modification. The NT changes the distinctictive function and purpose for man in Eudaimonism from "reasoning" to loving God and others instead, and thus "living well" is changed from self-centered 'flourshing' (as defined by Aristotle) to glorifying God instead. The apostles taught everything we do contributes to living a life that glorifies God:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."-Colossians 3:17

So we see the same idea in Paul, that everything we do can be seen as a moral or immoral action. Everything we do should be seen as contributing to living a life that glorifies god or not. As a believer, the aim is not just doing good actions to avoid punishments, but to see everything we do as glorifying God. On secular virtue ethics, all our actions are either advancing a good life or not: nourishing your body contributes to living a good life. In a Biblical context: taking the time to properly dress contributes to living a good life, and not giving into the sin of sloth. So all our actions can be moral actions in this context, and so likewise for Paul and Jesus, all we do can contribute to living a life that glorifies God.
Since God made our bodies to thrive and enjoy life, we should nourish our bodies so we can thrive as God intended for our bodies to do, thus ultimately glorifying Him. Since we were created to experience and feel enjoyment, laughing and enjoying things throughout life glorifies God as well since we're experiencing emotions that God created to be experienced. Everything we do should be to glorify God, and often all that is is living our lives in the way that they were intended to be lived. Biblical ethics is very much more than merely performing right actions, but living a virtuous life that brings glory to God.
As Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."-Matthew 22:37b

It is also important to focus on what it means to love, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a believer. Paul makes the radical claim that to love is the entirety of the law of God:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

Jesus also taught that to love God and love others were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31, Matt. 22:34-40). He also extends the commandment to love beyond one's brethren, and to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Loving those around us is central to what it means to be a believer (John 13:34; 15:12-17, Rom. 12:10; 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1-8; 16:14, 2 Cor. 8:8, Eph. 4:2; 5:2, Phili. 1:9, Heb. 10:24, Jam. 2:8, 1 Pet. 1:22, 1 John 2:10; 3:23).
One might suggest this is no different than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," or a Kantian rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, "to live well is to perform good deeds or actions and nothing more." But an important point about loving someone is it cannot be done through actions alone. For example, one could buy a gift for their spouse to cheer them up. However, one could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions without any love for the person. One could donate to charity because it is the right thing to do, and not because she cares for the people who would benefit. In such scenarios, they can be seen as idolizing moral laws, not necessarily caring about helping others.
But to love someone requires more than merely performing right actions. You cannot love someone and not care about who they are as a person and where they are heading in life. To love is to will the good of the other. Jesus chastised the Pharisees of his day for only performing right actions, but not loving their brethren in their hearts. His criticism follows Matthew chapter 22, where Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love. The implication is the Pharisees perform proper actions, but have the wrong motivations for doing so. James Keenan puts it like this:
"Essential to understanding this command is that we love our neighbors not as objects of our devotion, but rather as subjects; that is, as persons. Thus, we cannot love others only because God wants us to do so, since then we would love them as means or as objects and not as persons. We can only love one another as subjects, just as God loves us." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 86)
A critic may bring up that verses of the NT are still phrased as commands, and therefore the structure implies duties were the central aspect of Christian ethics. But the importance of duties is not foreign to Virtue Ethics. Instead of being central to the ethical framework, duties flow from a virtuous character. Virtues are active and have certain demands for which a person must fulfill in their active behavior.
According to Aristotle, knowledge of the virtues gives us practical wisdom in how to properly act. Duties flow from the understanding of the demands of virtues. To put it another way, for virtues to manifest in persons, they have certain demands that must be fulfilled. For the believer, the command of love flows from being virtuous and aligning oneself with the character of God. Commitment to the character of Christ, who perfectly carried out the will of the Father, allows us to perform right and proper actions.
The NT also contains lists of virtues the believer ought to emulate, the most famous of these is in Galatians chapter 5:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (vss. 22-23)
Now, the connection with Aristotle cannot be more pronounced. The Greek phrase "against such there is no law" is almost identical to what we find in Aristotle's politics (3.13.1284a). It seems clear Paul is teaching a similar ethical framework to what Aristotle advocated for. Paul is teaching that the believing community ought to be persons who display key virtues, and that their conduct would not need to be regulated by a law. Instead, their character should be the standard others can measure themselves by. Romans chapter 2 is also a place we see references to Aristotle, where Paul notes that when Gentiles do what the law requires, they are "a law unto themselves" (vss. 14-15). In other words, they do not need to be told to act a certain way. They have the proper virtuous character that directs their actions, to do the good the law requires. Paul is advocating in Galatians that believers should think in a similar way.
So in Galatians 5, we have affinity with the teachings of Aristotle, and in other lists of virtues throughout the NT we see a similar idea, which is that Christians were meant to display virtues primarily (Rom. 5:3-5, 1 Cor. 13:1-8, Col. 3:12-17, 1 Tim. 3:2-3; 4:7-8, Jam. 3:17-18, 2 Pet. 1:5-8). From that, good deeds will properly manifest in our actions.
Anscombe made a great point on what the focus of ethics should be:
"It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', 'unjust'. We should no longer ask whether doing something was 'wrong', passing directly from some description of an action to this notion; we should ask whether, e.g., it was unjust; and the answer would sometimes be clear at once." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
Interestingly enough, Paul lays out a similar idea in explaining Christian ethics:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."-Philippians 4:8-9

In other words, the central aspect on living a Christian life was on what is virtuous, not on what is lawfully right or wrong. Right actions flow from whatever is honorable, true, and pure. Correlating with this is how Paul responds to the Corinthians who claimed that "all was lawful." Paul reminded them the emphasis is not on what is lawful, but on what is good for building a virtuous character:

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."-1 Corinthians 10:23

One's main focus ought to be on what is good, not on laws that dictate behavior.
One of the key aspects of Virtue Ethics is the idea we ought to learn from virtuous teachers and imitate them. A virtuous character is obtained by imitating what a virtuous person does. This parallels a key aspect of Christian ethics. Imitating Christ was (and still is) crucial to living a virtuous life:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"-1 Peter 2:21

Paul says in Romans 8:29 that Christians were predestined "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Jesus often taught his followers to do as he does (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 6:40; 9:23, John 13:15, 34). Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11: Be ye followers [i.e., imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (vs. 1). Hebrews 13:7 says to imitate the faith of the patriarchs. 1st Thessalonians 2:14 says to imitate each other. And jesus taught to imitate the good Samaritan from his parable (Luke 10:37). Imitating virtuous teachers was key for Christian ethics.
Aristotle tended to compare acquiring virtues with that of learning a practical skill, like playing an instrument or learning how to become a builder. Such practical skills are best picked up when trained by a master of that particular skill, because a teacher can always provide more insight through lessons they learn from experience. For example, an expert salesman can provide examples from his experience of what works with specific customers that a sales textbook could never provide. Many professions today require on-the-job training or experience before even hiring an applicant. The reason is: experience is key to learning a profession. Merely acquiring knowledge from a textbook or an instruction manual is often insufficient to master a skill, so why would mastering the skill of virtue be any different?
In the NT, a believer is to see the world through the eyes of Christ and to love as he loved. One cannot learn how to be a virtuous person without knowing what that life would look like. A key component of Christian theology is that the Messiah perfectly represented the Father and His will on earth, to show us how to properly live as God intended for man. This central tenet of the NT aligns well with agent-based theories of Virtue Ethics, and modifies it so that the person of Jesus Christ is the universal exemplar that one is meant to emulate. We are called to imitate him through our actions, thoughts, and desires, and to conform ourselves to the way he lived. As Paul said:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."-Galatians 2:20

If learning from Christ is key, we should briefly take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, which is said to be one of Jesus' most important series of teachings. Daniel Harrington notes:
"The sermon begins with nine 'beatitudes' (see 5:3–12) in which Jesus declares as 'happy' or 'blessed' those who practice certain virtues, and promises them an eternal reward and the fullness of God's kingdom." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 62)
Jesus laid out what a life for those that follow him look like in detail. One ought to be merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, thirst for righteousness, etcetera (Matt. 5:2-10). The Sermon does not merely include what right actions are, but includes sections on proper desires. Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder or wish ill on someone (Matt. 5:22). Avoiding adultery is good, but one also should not covet after another man's woman in their heart (Matt. 5:28). In other words, merely avoiding immoral actions is not enough. One must also not desire vices. A believer is called to desire what is good.
The Sermon is not necessarily laying down universal moral commands. For example, Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," but this doesn't imply absolute Pacifism, as it would contradict passages in the Old Testament where it explicitly says there is a time for war (Ecc. 3:8). The point of the Sermon is to teach what a virtuous life ought to look like. A follower of Christ ought to use reason to know what is proper to do in various circumstances. For example, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus offers guidance on how one ought to pray by presenting the Lord's prayer (vss. 9-15). This is a model of how to pray. It's not a command for followers to always pray in this exact way.
In reality, the Sermon on the Mount mixes in exhortations, parables, hyperbole, declarations, commands, etc. It is best understood as displaying what a virtuous life ought to look like. It's not a law code. Building on this, it's important to understand a proper action is context sensitive. Under Virtue Ethics, one should not necessarily apply a universal maxim to every situation. Sometimes the proper action will depend on what is at stake, who is involved, what is the background, etc. Aristotle advocated against the idea there were fixed universal laws that dictate actions, and instead he argued the right action would depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Although the ethics of the NT may be a bit more strict, it still places an emphasis on being sensitive to the context of situations.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 8, Paul lays out instructions on how to deal with meat that has been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Instead of stating an absolute prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols, Paul instructed Christians to use reason to come to the proper ethical decision based on context. In other words, the right action is not determined only by a law. Instead, the Christian had to make the proper decision based on the context: if eating caused another to stumble, then you ought to abstain; if not, then there's no harm done. The value of the action depends on the context.
A Deontologist might reply that there's still a universal law given here: that one should always abstain if it's going to cause another to stumble. This objection can be addressed by asking: how are we to know if eating the meat will cause another believer to stumble? To answer such a question, one must be sensitive to the context, which in this case would be knowledge of the fellow believer and your relation to him. It is the context that determines the right action, not a universal law. Moreover, Paul states that the primary goal for the believer should be to love (1 Cor. 13). The first consideration is once again not the rightness of action, but having love for one another. From this, knowledge of the proper action will follow.
Paul often explains that living a proper life as a believer will take work and practice. He reminded Timothy to attend readings, practice what these things mean, and keep a close watch on himself (1 Tim. 4:13-14). Elsewhere, he directs that all believers must work on their faith (Phili. 2:12). Beyond this, he also noted that not all Christians would have the same gifts, and to accept that this was normal (1 Cor. 12). For some, certain things may be a hindrance, whereas for others it is acceptable (Rom. 14:2-4). What matters is that we love and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11). Right actions flow from love and knowledge of virtue. Rules are not the primary motives that dictate our actions; rules are secondary in this regard.
An interesting case can be studied with regards to divorce in the Gospels. Jesus preaches against divorce (Mark 10:7-9) and it is often interpreted to mean "divorce is always wrong, regardless of circumstances." However, it should be noted the prohibition on divorce is not a universal law. The context can affect whether or not a divorce is permissible. Jesus says that one can divorce over sexual immorality. Paul also has a situation where divorce is permissible, namely if one spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave (1 Cor. 7:15). The implication one can derive is divorce is not ideal, but there are circumstances where it may be the proper action to take. Given the other features of Christian Virtue Ethics we already covered, the proper action to take will depend on the circumstances and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do. A universal prohibition on divorce is not a Christian ethic. Instead, one ought to discern the proper action from circumstances. However, it's clear in most cases divorce would not be the virtuous thing to do.
Building on this, it's important to note that within NT ethics, certain acts are always wrong. For example, idolatry and sexual immorality are always wrong (1 Cor. 10:14, Col. 3:15, 1 Pet. 4:13). There are no possible scenarios where it would be okay to rape, because such an act would never flow from a virtuous character. But this concept is not foreign to theories of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle noted that for some actions, no qualifications could make them virtuous. Actions such as rape or murder are always wrong, because they would never flow from a virtuous character. So it's not as if a Virtue Ethicist cannot claim that some actions are always wrong. They simply are qualified as being unable to flow from virtue, whereas actions like lying or waging war could be considered virtuous for the right reason.
Now, despite Christian Virtue Ethics having many similarities with Eudaimonism (Aristotelian ethics), there are also numerous differences beyond what we've already noted. One of the deficiencies of how Aristotle lays out his ethical theory is that it is essentially an all-boys club. Aristotle writes mainly to aristocratic men, excluding women and slaves. In his view, women were inferior to men and slaves lacked the necessary rational faculty. But the Christians rejected this mentality, as the teachings of Christ and the apostles were available to all (Matt. 28:19). Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Peter wrote that all Christians were part of the priesthood of Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus had women followers (Luke 8:2-3), and they were entrusted with delivering revelation (Mark 15:40–16:8). What we find throughout the NT is a radical change to how women were viewed in the ancient world. Paul is also likely building on Aristotle's household structure and refining it. David deSilva says the household codes of the NT are "...following the pairs laid out as early as Aristotle to such a degree as to suggest that these were standard topics in ethical instruction" (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 231). But Paul adds an important preface: submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:20-21). DeSilva says:
"...husbands, we cannot then ignore the distinctively Christian addition they bring to this arrangement; husbands are to be subject to their wives as well." (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 233)
Thus Paul doesn't break down the traditional perspective on the structure of the family, but he does add the idea that we all must submit to each other in reverence, love, unity, and cooperation because all are equal before God. There is no explicit mention in the NT calling for the abolishment of slavery, but it should be noted that Paul taught that slaves should be seen as equals. In the letter to Philemon, Paul is clear that his slave is no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved" (vs. 16). Thus, within Christian ethics class distinctions were supposed to evaporate. All were brothers and sisters of one family.
An important aspect of Christian ethics is that it wasn't a standalone ethical theory. It's embedded in the larger Christian worldview. The ethical framework is dependent on Christian doctrines. For Aristotle, his ethical theory is for men who were raised well. This is why these specific men desire to be virtuous and perform right actions. As for why the believer does good and desires to be virtuous, it's not because one was raised well, but because they have been activated by the power of God's Spirit (John 3:6, 1 Cor. 12:13). For believers, the reason as to why we desire to be good and virtuous is because the Spirit of God has regenerated us. He loves us so we can love others (1 John 4:19). One is meant to look to the life of Christ and what he has done by dying on the cross, to know that we are loved and forgiven. This in turn is meant to activate a good life, having seen what we have gained and been forgiven of. He calls and activates us to do similar to those around us. This is a more open system for people of all groups and classes. One only has to call upon the name of the Lord to be included. It does not require a specific gender or to be raised a certain way.
The goal of Aristotelian ethics is to achieve 'eudaimonia.' However, within the Bible the goal is as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." Since the central aspect of Biblical Eschatology is that humans will continue on forever in resurrected bodies, the aim of ethics is more than living a good life presently. Living a good life now is important, but it was only one aspect in the Christian worldview. Humans are meant to live beyond this life, so the aim is also about building virtuous souls that will continue on. The importance of this is more crucial than it may seem at first. Paul said that we must all appear before judgment, so that "every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 15:10).
Being a virtuous person requires integrity, because one will still have to answer to God after death. If one can commit an evil act and no one finds out, then from the outside perspective he or she may still appear virtuous. Culturally speaking, the ancient world was very different from our own. All wrongdoings centered around public honor and shame. One did good to receive public honor, and one did not do what was bad to receive public shame. Right and wrong were connected to one's public honor and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Thus good and evil were public ideas, not personal ideas. Ethical demands were grounded in the community in one's public appearance
The Biblical idea of an omniscient God who cared about our ethical status laid a foundation for integrity and personal guilt to emerge. Now one ought to do good because he is beholden to God, not just the community. Believers are to remain focused on God's approval and on the actions that lead them, regardless of the world's response. This lays down fertile ground for integrity to emerge. So the Biblical worldview has another important element built in that encourages ethical behavior, regardless of the honor it brings. One ought to do good because of a commitment to God not, because it might bring honor to one's name publicly.

Implications for Preterists

Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his generation, and prescribed certain things in the NT on the basis of that belief. An example of an exhortation that would no longer apppy to us today would be 1st Corinthians 7:24-29, where Paul argues that the times him and his fellow Christians were in called for celibacy, being that the Lord was fast approaching. It wasn't a sin if you did get married, of course; it was just harder to serve the Lord in this context if you had a family to worry about. Thus, Paul encouraged being single.
So, we need to be careful when reading the NT and determining what prohibitions or exhortations are still applicable to us today. Context is key.

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7pLmLrldPQYbRwT3ghszLC?si=e7STQq1CRRCwGRM0rlf6dg&pi=e-c_EMNWelQZGi
It’s split into sections; her human life, the issues she faced (perverts etc), her sex life/libido, the music from her time/her rave selection (vibes from her life in 1991-2010), her early life in hell, her denial of romance, the fears then acceptance of death she had, her angsty section, her unhealthy relationships, and her slightly darker past!

In the fascinating realm of numerology, every number carries its unique vibration and significance, influencing our lives in myriad ways. The number 10000, with its repeated zeros amplifying the energy of the single 1, holds a powerful message from the universe, beckoning us to understand its profound implications on our spiritual journey, divine purpose, and everyday existence.

What is the Meaning of number 10000

Table of Contents
The number 10000 symbolizes infinity, wholeness, and the beginning of a spiritual journey leading to personal development and enlightenment. It encourages individuals to seek balance and harmony in their lives while emphasizing the importance of self-expression and the pursuit of one’s higher self. This number serves as a reminder of the sacred connection between the physical and spiritual worlds, urging us to align our actions with our divine purpose.

Meaning of 10000 in Numerology

In numerology, the number 10000 is seen as a potent symbol of creativity, potential, and new beginnings. The digit 1 represents leadership, ambition, and initiative, while the zeros amplify these qualities and introduce the concepts of wholeness, infinity, and comprehensive development. This combination encourages individuals to embrace their uniqueness and express their creativity, leading to fulfillment and bliss.

10000 in Relation to Horoscopes

When the number 10000 appears in relation to horoscopes, it suggests a period of significant spiritual growth and transformation. This number encourages individuals to seek harmony and balance in their astrological influences, promoting health, happiness, and good fortune. It serves as a divine sign to trust in the universe and the path it lays out, ensuring that luck and prosperity are on their way.

The Meaning of the 10000 Angel Number

The 10000 angel number is a powerful message from the spiritual realm, signifying support, encouragement, and divine guidance. Seeing this number repeatedly suggests that your guardian angels are reminding you to focus on your spiritual journey, emphasizing personal development and enlightenment. It also symbolizes the presence of divine forces in your life, offering protection, love, and guidance toward achieving your true potential and soul mission.

What Does the 10000 Number Mean for Your Career?

In the context of career, the number 10000 signifies growth, advancement, and the manifestation of your dreams into reality. It encourages you to maintain a balance between your professional ambitions and your personal development, ensuring that your work aligns with your divine purpose. This number is a sign of good fortune, suggesting that your efforts will lead to success, financial stability, and fulfillment in your chosen field.

What Does the number 10000 Mean for Love?

For love and romance, the number 10000 brings messages of hope, renewal, and divine timing. It encourages individuals to open their hearts to love, fostering deep connections and harmonious relationships. Whether you are seeking a new partner or aiming to strengthen your bond with your wife or husband, this number signifies that love is on the horizon, promising bliss and happiness in your romantic endeavors.

Spiritual Energy of the number 10000

The spiritual energy of the number 10000 is both transformative and enlightening, guiding individuals on their path to discovering their higher self and true purpose. It encourages a journey of self-discovery, personal growth, and spiritual awakening, promoting a deeper understanding of the universe and our place within it. This number carries a vibration of healing, offering peace, balance, and harmony to those who embrace its energy.

Things You Need To Know About number 10000

Understanding the number 10000 involves recognizing its potential to influence various aspects of your life, from personal growth and spiritual development to career success and romantic relationships. It is a reminder to maintain balance and harmony, to trust in the divine timing, and to stay open to the messages and guidance offered by the universe and your guardian angels.

Facts about number 10000

The number 10000 is often associated with completeness, infinity, and the start of a new cycle. In various cultures, it symbolizes endless potential and the ability to achieve greatness through perseverance and faith. It also represents the interconnectedness of all things, reminding us of our collective journey towards enlightenment and universal harmony.

Biblical Meaning of the number 10000

In the Bible, the number 10000 is used to represent a vast multitude, signifying completeness and divine perfection. It is often mentioned in the context of God’s infinite power and the countless blessings bestowed upon His followers. The biblical interpretation of this number encourages believers to have faith in God’s plan for their lives, assuring them of His guidance, protection, and love on their spiritual journey.
In conclusion, the number 10000 carries a profound spiritual significance, offering guidance, encouragement, and divine wisdom in all aspects of life. Whether encountered in numerology, horoscopes, or as an angel number, it serves as a powerful reminder of our potential for growth, happiness, and fulfillment when we align ourselves with our divine purpose and the universe’s infinite energy.

Probably asked to death, what’s best to upgrade the HiFi system? I see plenty of HK speaker sets on eBay, I’ve googled and looks like I can’t just swap out the amp but would swapping out the speakers with existing amp make any improvements? Or is there a better option for that ~£500?
Cheers