iStock is a premier online source for high-quality stock photos, illustrations, and video clips. They cater to businesses and creatives looking for diverse, royalty-free imagery to enhance their projects. Now, iStock is offering exclusive promo codes to help you save on your next purchase.
Now, you can enjoy significant savings with these iStock coupons:

• Save 10% on Credit Packs with discount code: PIXABAY20
• Enjoy 20% Off Your Order with discount code: PEXELS20
• Get 25% Off on Select Items with discount code: FREEIMAGES15.

Check out the link for Free Country Discount Code for May 2024. Once on the website, you'll have access to a variety of coupons, promo codes, and discount deals that are updated regularly to help you save on your purchase.

Hi everyone, this is my first post here!
I really need to talk to someone about my situation, I appreciate any feedback, encouragment, tools, book suggestions, etc.
Summary: I am low-contact (almost NC) with my parents and I feel very guilty about it.
How can you stay firm in your decision and find comfort in your friends? I feel I am the only person going through something this massive and I cannot stop thinking I am a horrible person for doing this to my parents.
Context:
I have been going low-almost no contact with both of my parents since July 2023 after something pretty bad happened.
Our relationship was always pretty bad, but in the past I have tried so hard to "fix myself" to make things work between us. I started to go to the school therapist at 14 (on my own, my parents never suggested it).
I am now 41.
From the outside, I had everything (financially we were pretty OK), but inside the house it was hell: screaming, shouting, loneliness. I was my mom's therapist from a very young age. My needs and my personal opinions were never considered.
I was scapegoated pretty early because I never complied to their view of the world (I am unmarried, atheist, no childred) and I had pretty "radical" views at the time (I now live in the UK, but I originally come from a very catholic country...).
I was the problem in my family, the only thing that was bad according to them.
I was not able to express my interests or my personal preferences, because they were "bad" and I was labelled as being the bad one ("why you are not like the other kids, what is wrong with you").
I was a very diligent student (classic over-achiever), but very lonely and had pretty severe anxiety (about school, about what was going home at home, etc...) and some learning difficulties, for which I never received any help for.
I discovered three years ago after a pretty severe burnout that I have ADHD and 6 months ago that I am also autistic. Very high-masking. My life collapsed after this burnout: I understood my job and working environment were pretty toxic, lost a bunch of friends, discovered I also had C-PTSD.
I am now in recovering and trying topivot to a new career path: I feel very privildged that I can count on my savings to sustain my recovery, though it is still pretty hard.
Problem:
My mother definitely needs mental health support (she never wanted to get help), she drinks and she has very violent ourbursts. She also lies and manipulates people (including my dad and I of course). She plays the victim, but in reality she controls the family. She is really unhappy and she cannot keep any friendships, she needs someone that will not
My dad's power is money. My mom stopped working when she met him, and of course she couldn't leave him and find a job. My dad also controlled me with money, but not anymore.
Even though over the past 6 years I started to go low contact (gradually, it took me many years to process their narcissism), last year one was my last straw: I asked my mom help for my autistic assessment (not telling her what was the form was for, I had to protect myself ) and she became incredibly angry and nasty at me, starting describing me as the most horrible child on earth (for the UK ASD assessment, they ask you a lot of info about your childhood, etc).
That was my last straw. I went no contact after that. I was going through an incredibly stressful moment in my life (burnout, 2 ND diagnoses, 2 intercontinental moves in less than 1 year and a half, losing friends and my job, etc) and still you don't want to help me. I never asked for help from her for anything, but I needed this and still she used it to remind me "what a difficult child I was". Well, I was neurodivergent, of course I needed help!!
They tried to contact me a couple of times, my dad defended her (despite the fact he was not present) and again telling me I was a horrible child and human being ("you have no compassion, we are old, you will regret it, you would have never get so far in life without our help, you are so ungrateful, etc....").
We had a conversation without her and he confessed me that my mom has severe mental health problems, and that I needed to live my life and be happy.
I managed to stay no contact, only talked to them for some burocratic things. I felt better and free for the first time.
The previous Sunday it was Mother's day, and I didn't call my mom. This is the first time I decided not to do it.
My dad called me the day after and he went so mad, accusing me again of being ungrateful and a horrible human being ("the other children are so lovely with their parents, why you are not like them", "you never hugged us", "therapy made you worse than before").
I am not copying well.
This is not obviously the first time they said these things (they were pretty regular growing up), but they still hit hard.
I know I am doing the right thing, but I feel very lonely and guilty. I love my parents, and I feel for them: they need help. I offered multiple times to go to therapy with them, to help to find therapy for them, any kind of help but my parents refused and still refuse it. My dad says that therapy is useless and made me worst.
He doesn't want to acknowledge my mom is an alcoholic. He doesn't want to get help for himself. He of course does not remember the conversation we had about my mom mental health, and negates she has problems.
I am worried for them, and I want to help, but I need to help myself first.
I have no words left, I just want to be OK and happy.
I know it is a very long post, but if you managed to stick with me, thank you!
P.s. I have been to therapy, I have plenty of tools. I just feel awful and I needed to vent because my support system is not enough and I feel I am the only one going through this. I know I am not.
P.s.1 I hope I didn't left any incompleted sentences: if I'll spot one, I'll edit it, and please let me know!

As the sun shines brighter and the days grow longer, summer beckons students with its promise of freedom from textbooks and lectures. It’s the perfect time to unwind, do your assignements, explore, and perhaps most importantly, earn some extra cash. Whether you’re saving up for tuition fees, planning a trip with friends, or simply looking to pad your wallet, there are numerous ways for students to make money during the break. Fear not! We’ve got you covered with a rundown of ways to hustle during the break.

1. Freelance Gigs

Freelancing is the ultimate summer hustle. Whether you’re a wordsmith, a graphic designer, or a coding wizard, there’s a gig waiting for you. Websites like Upwork, Fiverr, and Freelancer connect you with clients seeking your skills. Write blog posts, design logos, or build websites—all from the comfort of your beach towel.

2. Part-Time Jobs

Traditional part-time jobs are still a solid choice. Retail, food service, and customer service positions abound during the summer. Not only do you earn money, but you also gain valuable experience in teamwork, communication, and problem-solving.

3. Camp Counselor

Remember those carefree days at summer camp? Now you can be the one creating those memories for others. Camp counselor gigs involve leading activities, supervising kids, and making s’mores by the campfire. Plus, you’ll get a healthy dose of nostalgia.

4. Lifeguarding

If you’re a strong swimmer, consider lifeguarding. You’ll save lives (no pressure!) while soaking up the sun. Plus, the tan lines will be epic.

5. Research Assistantships

Channel your inner Hermione Granger and assist professors with research projects. Not only will you learn about your field, but you’ll also build connections that could lead to future opportunities.

6. Social Media Management

Turn your Instagram addiction into a money-making venture. Businesses need social media managers to handle their online presence. Post witty captions, engage with followers, and watch those likes turn into dollars.

7. Resident Assistant (RA)

Living on campus? Become an RA! You’ll guide fellow students, plan events, and mediate roommate squabbles. Plus, free housing and a stipend—score!

1. Delivery Driver

With the rise of food delivery services like UberEats, DoorDash, and Postmates, becoming a delivery driver has never been easier. Whether you prefer driving, biking, or even walking, delivering food offers flexible hours and competitive pay, allowing you to earn money on your own terms.

1. Creative Ventures

Do you have a passion for crafting, photography, or handmade goods? Channel your creativity into a side hustle by selling your creations on platforms like Etsy, Instagram, or at local craft fairs. From handmade jewelry to custom artwork, there’s a market for every niche, allowing you to turn your hobbies into a profitable business venture.

1. Food Service Fanatic

Restaurants, cafes, and ice cream parlors are booming in the summer. These jobs offer flexible hours (perfect for that spontaneous beach trip!), and the fast-paced environment keeps things interesting. Plus, free (or discounted) food is a major perk!

Bonus Tips for the Savvy Student:

• Leverage Your Skills: When searching for gigs, think about your existing skills and experiences. Can you translate languages? Offer graphic design services? Highlight your strengths to stand out from the crowd.
• Network Like a Boss: Tell your friends, family, and professors that you're looking for work. You never know who might have a lead!
• Be Responsible: Remember, earning money is great, but don't let it interfere with your studies or relaxation time. Plan your schedule wisely and prioritize!

Remember:

• Safety First: Always prioritize your safety when meeting with clients or working independently.
• Be Clear on Pay: Discuss payment terms upfront to avoid any misunderstandings.
• Taxes, Taxes, Taxes: Depending on your earnings, you might need to file taxes. Research tax requirements for freelance income.

Conclusion

Summer isn’t just about lazy afternoons; it’s a chance to hustle and pad your wallet. Whether you’re freelancing, guarding pools, or leading campfire sing-alongs, embrace the summer hustle. Your bank account—and your future self—will thank you.
In addition, you can also join our community at 911papers_homworkhelp for more tips or need help, and also to connect with other students who share similar academic experiences.
911papers.com

Updated list as of 15. May 2024
💪OLD CODES FOR NEW PLAYERS💪
🔥New codes included🔥
First, enter the settings (the gear in the top right on the home screen), then go to "Refer a friend", and input:
SOY-38-RED
For 100 free blackstone!
This is a one time use code!
Next, go back to the previous screen and input:
WARHAMMER
AHEM
CAPS
SRSBSNS
GALAXY
SUMMON
YOU
TOUCHGRASS
FRIENDLESS
Sp really had fun with these last 3 lol
TAKETHIS
TYPHUSJACK
DARKSTRIDER
HELBRECHTJACK
MAGNUSMONDAY
NOX1KSONS
ADMECH
SKULLS23
ENHANCE
SLINKYSBACK
SKULLS24
Knights3k
Enjoy your free stuff and lmk if you pulled something good! Should any of the codes not work anymore tell me so I can update the list
Have some helpful info as well since we're already at it. It always pays off to try and unlock as much of a campaign as possible. The higher level of upgrade farming node unlocked means less energy used meaning faster roster progression.
The following are some of the strongest choices for each campaign:
CAMPAIGN MVP's
Indomitus - Bellator, Isabella, Calgar
Indo mirror - Aleph-null, Anuphet
Octarius - Gibba, Snot
Oct mirror - Burchard, Godswyl
FoC - Angrax, Rotbone, Abraxas
FoC mirror - Thaddeus, Kut, Yarrick
Saim-hann - Calandis, Eldryon, Maugan Ra
Saim-hann mirror - Abraxas, Archimatos
I recommend focusing on Bellator aiming to get him to gold gear rank.
Many new players make the mistake of trying to upgrade lots of different chars at once. In this game it pays to focus on one at a time.
The reason Bellator is the best char to upgrade at the start is because his active will not only carry you through 3 different campaigns(Indom, FoCM, OctM) but also its very useful in every other content in the game.
A good Indom elite team would be: G1 Bellator (active 36+) S2 Certus S2 Varro
I recommend the last two members should be imperials from another campaign, will give you a headstart when it comes to doing there's. Since elite might still be a bit out of reach tho its not a priority yet. Feel free to ask me if you need anything else!

Hello there! Currently with Verizon 2 lines and 5G home Internet for $133/mo. Have the student discount applied.
Here are the stats: Line 1: byod device (iPhone 12) Line 2: 23/36 month paid off on an upgrade. (iPhone 13) Home Internet: 5G Internet for $35/month it’s been pretty shit for me
Any advice on switching? We have Costco and Sam’s club membership. Asked around chat for insider codes but no dice.
I’m looking at something like Go5G plus plans within the same range. Somewhat value the in flight Wi-Fi and the 3rd free line. Thanks in advance.

I currently have 3 grinders in my coffee setup. I’m moving house soon and want to consolidate my setup - ideally into one grinder.
TL;DR - too many grinders in my setup, only want one ideally for both espresso and pourover. Is the Varia VS3 the right choice?
I use a Mignon Facile for espresso on my Bezzera Unica, with the large dial for adjustment and a bellows but the amount of retention is so frustrating even with RDT etc I just can’t seem to take a liking to it. I previously had a very low budget flat burr grinder and also didn’t like it. Also tried this with pourover and not sure it was to my liking.
I also use an Encore with M2 burrs as a daily driver for V60 with the odd aeropress or French press. Which I find reasonable but I think I could do better.
Also have a flair royal which I pair with a flair neo and bpf, generally only used for travelling, doesn’t get much use otherwise as I’m not a major fan of manual grinding.
I’m hoping to pick up something for circa €400 and think I’ve convinced myself that flat burrs are not for me so I’ve ruled out a df54/df64.
I am very close to settling on the Varia VS3 V2, with stock burrs for now, and I’m not too concerned with reliability as the V2 seems to have solved the issues from the V1. I have a 5% discount and free shipping to my country which is coming to €360 which I think is a decent deal. I’m based in Europe.
Would the Varia VS3 be a solid choice here for me to get the best taste out of my coffee for espresso given the budget? I know it will in be the mid range tier but I’m happy with that, I have no current intentions to go for an “end game” grinder. If needed I can upgrade the burr set in the VS3.
Any feedback or suggested alternatives would be much appreciated? Have I missed any obvious choices?
Some of the help and advice on this sub is fantastic but I’m a bit overwhelmed trying to make a choice with what to get!

Hello,
I moved to the UK 5 years ago so I’m not familiar with all the savings accounts etc available in England.
I currently have 3 savings accounts used for different reasons: - deposit savings with 1.74% interest rate. No withdrawal as I am looking to buy my first house within a year or two. - regular savings with monthly top up capped at £150 (standing order set up once I get paid) with 6% rate. I never touch this account either as it’s an emergency fund for car or vet bills. - vacation/day out savings: I top up once a month and withdraw money if I ever need to book a holiday or day out. 1.74% rate. I could technically transfer to the mortgage savings account but I’d rather allocate a specific budget to vacation than overspending my deposit savings.
My salary went up in January 2023 from 26k to 35k. I changed employer in February 2024 and I now earn about £37k. I have been savings as much as possible since April 2023. For the first time my tax code has changed due "untaxed interest on savings" with a value of £29.
I checked my interests on the 3 accounts for the last year 23/24 but combined it is still below £1,000, which from what I understood is the allowance for interests made from savings account. I tried to google more information but based on what I found, it doesn’t make sense to pay taxes on such low interests unless it’s linked to my salary increase?
Would it be more interesting to transfer my deposit savings to an ISA or another type of account? I always had "basic" savings accounts and I didn’t realise it could impact my tax free allowance.
Any advice is much appreciated.
UPDATE: I currently have £15k in my deposit savings account, and I top up between £300 and 500 a month in case this might be an issue to open an ISA?

I currently have 3 grinders in my coffee setup. I’m moving house soon and want to consolidate my setup - ideally into one grinder.
TL;DR - too many grinders in my setup, only want one ideally for both pourover and espresso. Is the Varia VS3 the right choice?
Currently use an Encore with M2 burrs as a daily driver for V60 with the odd aeropress or French press. Which I find reasonable but I think I could do better.
I use a Mignon Facile for espresso on my Bezzera Unica, with the large dial for adjustment and a bellows but the amount of retention is so frustrating even with RDT etc I just can’t seem to take a liking to it. I previously had a very low budget flat burr grinder and also didn’t like it. Also tried this with pourover and not sure it was to my liking.
Also have a flair royal which I pair with a flair neo and bpf, generally only used for travelling, doesn’t get much use otherwise as I’m not a major fan of manual grinding.
I generally use light/medium roast beans and make a couple of v60s most days and the odd espresso/milk drink when I can get over the frustration of the facile.
I’m hoping to pick up something for circa €400 and think I’ve convinced myself that flat burrs are not for me so I’ve ruled out a df54/df64.
I am very close to settling on the Varia VS3 V2, with stock burrs for now, and I’m not too concerned with reliability as the V2 seems to have solved the issues from the V1. I have a 5% discount and free shipping to my country which is coming to €360 which I think is a decent deal.
Would the Varia VS3 be a solid choice here for me to get the best taste out of my coffee for pourover and espresso given the budget? Would it be a reasonable step up? I know it will in be the mid range tier but I’m happy with that, I have no current intentions to go for an “end game” grinder. If needed I can upgrade the burr set in the VS3.
Any feedback or suggested alternatives would be much appreciated? Have I missed any obvious choices?
Some of the help and advice on this sub is fantastic but I’m a bit overwhelmed trying to make a choice here!

Hello, I'm in need of some anecdotes and examples for a talk. It's about developing more robust and maintainable systems. I developed and presented it for Tableau Conference but plan to present it at SF events as well. The concepts are pretty generic and apply to anything that can be developed. What I need is examples from the Salesforce world, the kind of bad practise you see out there in the wild, usually because somebody is not familiar with other, more robust ways of doing things:
Things like:

• Free text fields without validation or instead of picklists
• Duplication of reports for different regions instead of one report with a region filter
• A gazillion home page layouts when you could use just one with a few widgets being displayed dynamically
• Hardcoding values in flows and scripts when they really should be dynamic

Any example that would get an audience nodding in agreement is great. The overall topics I cover are:

• DRY (don't repeat yourself) Don't do the same thing multiple times (do it differently instead so you don't need to maintain multiple version)
• Think ahead (anticipate what users and systems might do and make sure your system can react gracefully to it)
• Try to break things (if you can think of a way your system could break, chances are something like that will happen. Fix it right there and then)

It also doesn't need to be only code focused. As some of my examples above show, these concepts also apply for admin tasks.
Appreciate any input and examples you might have, thanks!

Check out the link for Free Tax USA Discount Code for May 2024. Once on the website, you'll have access to a variety of coupons, promo codes, and discount deals that are updated regularly to help you save on your purchase.

Visit this page for FreeTax USA Discount Code for May 2024. The website offers a wide selection of coupons, promo codes, and discount deals that are updated regularly, just visit the website to find the perfect one for you.

Follow this link for FreeTaxUSA Discount Code for May 2024. Access the latest deals and promotions by visiting the link, featuring a constantly updated list of coupons, promo codes, and discounts.

I happen to be in a relationship for a period of 7 years now. It started when I was in college and everything was smooth. Though we did have the right amount of breakups in between, but it all made sense, to stick by her and rise in my career and she also felt happy. I am into teaching youngsters in a school and parallely have some online classes as well. She is currently doing her graduation and busy in college life and I too, owing to work, had to discount some of our time together to make up for the rise in career which I am currently seeing. I mean I am in the peak of my career(to be honest). The time which I am not giving her currently is due to the fact that I want her to give everything. I had a fairly poor financial background but there was never fancy dates etc but I do value her as something which is beyond the normal. I have made self made gifts too when I had financial problem so to make her feel warm and happy.
However there are certain instances which I have observed.
I. Once we were in a temple and like good guys, I wished she would be mine. The same day I found out she was texting her ex on the same temple premise. After a fight it was okay.
II. She will give her number to random guy she met on bus or train and confront me saying that I couldn't say no.
III. In the beginning of our relationship, I was little over protective like Baat mat karo kind of.. Which i later ended completely and have her full freedom.6 Montgs ago, she told me she was going to dinner with some friend in college. I said it's alright and didn't bother much.
IV. Recently during our recent meetup, she was behaving differently, like she mentioned that she is seeing someone but still kissing me while saying it. I thought she was joking and later she denied. But she will not make eye contact while saying that. During those days my work was coming too much in between and I trusted her so I didn't say anything.
V. Recently I came to know that she is dating a guy from college and they kissed and stuff. Initially I couldn't tolerate. Tried to talk to her but she won't listen to meet. I went to meet her and found out that it was too late. Now she is throwing everything about it on me. Like you didn't give time etc. Dude I had a future planned. I was working to have our first house together. Sent her pics of apartments etc. She said she announced it to me and hence it's not cheating. How should I take it.
I am currently not able to think straight and the thoughts of it is ruining everything. Even my career. I feel as if my left side of chest is having a sinking feeling. There is pain and it's never ending.
Please tell me what I should I do.
Ignore typos if any.

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.

Use the link for Free People Discount Code for May 2024. The website features a wide selection of coupons, promo codes, and discount deals that are updated regularly for you to choose from and make your purchase more affordable.

The other day, I was just wandering around the shopping mall, not really paying attention to anything. Out of nowhere, this pushy salesperson starts waving at me like a lunatic, trying to reel in a customer. I ignored him, not even giving him eye contact, but before I knew it, he yanked me over to his booth. Without a second of hesitation, he started his spiel about some facial cream, shoving a brochure in my hand. I was pretending to listen, but in my head, I was plotting my escape.
Then, out of the blue, this guy opens the cream and slathers it on my left fist WITHOUT ASKING! He had the nerve to compare it to my right fist, all excited, saying, “See, it looks lighter now!” Like I’m some idiot who doesn’t know that any lotion would do the same thing. I kept a fake smile plastered on my face, but inside, I was boiling.
Clearly seeing I wasn’t buying his BS, he squeezes out more cream and, get this, HE FUCKING SMEARS IT ON MY FACE! I jerked my head away, trying to signal my absolute refusal, but he had the audacity to tell me to keep still while he smeared that crap on my cheek. Then, he hands me a mirror and does his little sales pitch again, “Your left cheek looks smoother now, even the acne is less visible!”
At this point, I wanted to punch him square in the face, but I held back, trying to stay calm and think of an exit strategy. Before I could react, he bags up the cream and hands it to me, saying there’s a promotion: RM 75 for the container and a free tube. I was screaming inside, HELL NO! I’m not blowing RM 75 on some shady, no-name cream. I told him I didn’t have any cash, thinking that would end it. But no, he pulls out a QR code and says, “We accept QR pay.”
The whole situation was so awkward because I was too damn polite to just walk away. Sensing my frustration, he dropped the price to RM 25 for the tube alone. I was fuming. Why should I pay when I never asked for any of this? Then he asked how much money I had, which I misheard as my age. I said 18, hoping he’d back off. But no, he offers it for RM 18, “Only for you!”
I’d had enough. I pretended to get a call, saying “sekejap, sekejap” and bolted. I ran out of there as fast as I could. Looking back, I was way too nice to that aggressive jerk. Next time, I swear I’ll scream or flip them off if they try touching me without permission. Who the hell would buy from someone so damn rude? Thanks to this, I now dread going to the mall, worried some other pushy salesperson will do the same thing. Maybe I should just wrap my head in bandages and avoid all eye contact from now on.