I'm walking through a bustling underground train station. I push and shove my way through all the other commuters onto the platform. As I look around, there seems to be endless rows of platforms in both directions, stretching well into a dense fog. Further ahead, neat lines of railway tracks extend out from the fog and through the platforms. I instinctually look up at the info screen
Next train in ### minutes
I furrow my brow, squint to try and focus on the numbers but they're heavily pixelated and illegible. I look around at the other commuters, who stream onto the platform completely unaware of the anomaly. Most people are on their phone, or wearing headphones while some are talking to each other. No one seems to notice the malfunction with the screen.
That's when the absurdity of the situation clicks for me. Endless platforms, a wall of fog, unreadable numbers and people that don't care. It's all a dream. I bring my hand up to my face and pinch my nose, trying to breathe through it. An old reality check I remembered from back when I was trying to learn to lucid dream.
My heart rate jumped when I realised, that I couldn't breathe through my nose. Before I could even process this, another problem presented itself. I didn't know why I was here. I didn't know where I was going and I definitely did not know how I even got here. It seems as if reality ceased to exist right before I walked onto this platform. Just like it typically feels in a dream, you spawn in out of nowhere and don't really know what happened prior - except this wasn't a dream.
I knew I was sure of it because deep inside my bones I felt this anxious urgent message. I need to catch this train. It was a primal feeling.
At this point, my head is spinning and I need to sit down somewhere. I choose a silver bench with a middle aged woman sitting on it. She shuffles further to the left as I sit down next to her clutching my head and racking my brain to try and figure out what it is happening. This is what amnesia feels like, I thought to my self as I gnawed at scraps of messy muddled memories. Each image that came into my mind was just a fragment - A school, a library, sickeningly white walls. It hit me that I didn't even know my name. I was starting to hyperventilate but then my body kicked into autopilot. I started to take deep breaths, focusing on my diaphragm and calming myself down. It felt like I was trained to do this. I started to focus on the current situation.
Where was my ticket? Instinctually, I knew I had to have gotten one on my entry to the train station. I reached into my pockets and pulled out a scrap of paper. Scrawled in very familiar cursive:
*In case of memory loss, read the journal in your backpack*
Strange message but I didn't have any choice then to at least give the instructions a try. I removed my backpack and rummaged through it for the journal. I wouldn't really call it a backpack - more a tattered and frayed bundle of cloth that was reminiscent of a backpack. I finally found a series of small thick journals, bundled in cloth with their leather covers on the verge of disintegration. The pages still seemed in good condition though. Each cover was sequentially labelled which I'm guessing corresponded to the chronological order of the writings within.
The lady next to me was weirdly getting agitated. She kept stealing glances, her body shaking and eyes burning with a fierce rage. I slowly got up from the bench and began to step backwards. My backpack bumped into a pillar. The dull thud it made seemed to cause a drastic change to everyone around me though. They all snapped their heads, locking eyes on me and staring through my very soul. I felt exposed.
The rumble of an arriving train stole away their attention and within a split second everyone was ignoring me again, going back to their usual activities. It seriously felt like I had just imagined it and it was becoming more and more clear that I was having some sort of mental breakdown. Nevertheless, as the train slowed to a stop on the platform, I walked into it and found a seat. The train seemed to be old and new at the same time. Typical blue seats with abstract dirty patterns complete with a modern sleek interior of gentle curves clashing with a boxy dull metallic exterior and doors that looked like they belonged on a rusty submarine.
I opened the first of the journals and began to read. I soon realised that the handwriting was mine and within the next few moments I was attacked by a barrage of memories that had remained repressed and buried in the back of my mind.
*
My name is Jacob and I have been stuck here in this place called *The Limbo* for an eternity. When I say 'eternity', I don't mean it lightly. Back when I used to keep track I counted over 500 years through my wristwatch that never seemed to run out of battery. Now I know counting is meaningless. There have been periods like this where my mind falls into a deep trance and I lose my whole identity as I mindlessly wander in this place much like the entities that inhabit it. Occasional periods of lucidity breach this trance and then I find myself lost and confused. It's why I keep the journals with me. I think its some sort of psychological survival mechanism that human brains develop when faced with the infinite vastness of The Limbo.
Speaking of The Limbo, I've come to learn a few things about its nature through my stay here. Some of its been through people that I've come across (Yes others are also stuck here) and some has been through my own experiences. Perhaps the most important is the question of where I get my food and water. The answer is weird. I have never felt hungry or thirsty. The sensation of having cool water slide down my throat remains a memory so distant that it feels like the snippet of a childhood dream.
I guess the next natural topic about this place would be time. Through various experiences of mine (that you'll get to read about) and discussions with others, the leading theory of mine is that The Limbo exists outside of time itself. While I myself have fallen here sometime during 2001, I've met many others from various years like the 80s, 90s and even one recent fellow from 2043.
Most people in The Limbo eventually fall into a trance, withering away until they become one of the entities or become mere tools for them. It's probably naive but I keep going through this place with only two hopes. The first is to somehow get out of here at the right time point and see my son, who I never got to see. The second is to come out of this place and die so that I no longer have to live out the empty agony of eternity (I'll explain how you can't age or die in The Limbo later). Perhaps my hopes will dwindle as the centuries pile and I will become just like those who I look upon in pity now.
I am writing this consolidated diary of my experiences for several reasons. I'd like someone to know of my unending journey in this place. To be aware of the capacity of the human spirit to keep going in the worst of situations. I have never had a long term friend in The Limbo, but know that I consider you the reader a dear friend even if I never get to meet you because you will know my story. I'm also sharing this in hopes that there is more awareness of The Limbo. Perhaps the military and scientists can actually figure out what it is. Perhaps all of us can be brought home. Or maybe this can serve as a survival guide to those who may be unfortunate enough to fall through.
There are small holes in The Limbo. Most of them are barely large enough for a pinkie finger to fit in let alone a person, but sometimes I've come across one large enough for this journal to go through. I'm not sure what time or place these holes lead to, so the safe passage of this book into a person capable of reading it has about the same chances as me ever leaving this place.
The train I'm on supposedly leads to the edge of The Limbo, where the holes are large enough for humans to fit through. It's really more of a legend amongst the poor souls that are trapped here and I've followed trails and clues for a long time to even find this train.
There are only two ways this goes. Both outcomes would lead to you reading this book in your hands. I'll either find my way out of this hell or give up hope and slip this journal through a Hole. You will find my fate at the end.
I should stop rambling now though. It would be best to start at the very beginning.
*
I was rushing out of work in pure ecstasy. My wife had gone into labor while I was at work and been rushed to hospital. I needed to get there fast. People were glancing over at me over their cubicles in confusion as I packed up my work bag and rushed out to the elevators. I couldn't stop thinking about seeing my first son as the elevator made its way down. The elevator doors finally opened and I rushed out.
The ground entrance of the building I worked at, particularly near the lobby, is an intersection of various hallways. I was already walking to close to the wall when someone came rushing around the corner and bumped me right into the wall. I was only able to hear half their apology when I fell *through* the wall like it was just a holographic projection. In hindsight, I find it oddly funny how easy it is for a life to get ruined. Just when you think you've got it all, when everything is going smoothly, a small incident like that is enough to take it all away.
I found myself in a room that resembled a classroom. It looked as if someone who had never stepped inside a classroom was asked to imagine the space. Desks were arranged in messy uneven rows with the chairs facing various directions. The board at the front of the room was a seamless patchy mixture of both chalk and modern whiteboard and mounted way too low on the wall, nearly hugging the floor. A large teachers desk sat in the front of the room. The walls were filled with posters of absolute gibberish along with diagrams and pictures that seemed like they showed something tangible but no matter how close you looked you could never identify anything in the picture.
The initial confusion was replaced by an immense panic. My heart was drumming against my chest as I searched the room for a doorway to exit it. My mind was trying to rationalise the situation. I was trying to convince myself that this was just some old part of the building and I had fallen into a hallway instead of the wall.
I ran through the doorway at the far end of the room and found myself in a large hallway that seemed to extend forever in both directions. The walls were a muted grey and the floors were that typical dirty linoleum. Soon I would find out that the regularly spaced doorways on either side of the hall led to other nonsensical classrooms.
I ran down the hallway screaming for help in pure panic, which was a terrible mistake in hindsight. I stopped running down the hallway when I suddenly heard the distinct scratch of chalk against board. In this large empty space, the sound echoed and boomed. Since I was still refusing to buy in to the reality of the situation, my hopes were momentarily increased by the supposed presence of another person here.
I slowly walked over to the doorway that the sounds were coming from. My stomach filled with an uneasy dread. This deep primal instinct within me urged me to hold back. I peeked carefully in the classroom and saw a woman with their back turned to me drawing something on the chalkboard.
It took me a few moments to notice that it was a very realistic portrait of my face.
She was drawing lines across my throat, her long dark hair swaying as she drew in the details. The drawing was completed with a terrible slash across the throat, blood gurgling out. I was frozen in place, transfixed on the hauntingly beautiful realism of the picture.
She began to turn around slowly while humming a high pitched tune. To this day I can't describe the face I saw. It is still etched into my mind. A face full of so much hatred, so much anger that I don't think its possible for a human to make that face. It expressed an emotion beyond human understanding. No artist in the world could ever render the expression on the paper. No words could describe the pure fear that coursed through my veins as she stared at me and began to approach.
I turned around to run, only to realise that a bunch of school children had gathered around me. They were headless, the bleeding stumps dripping thick blood onto the floor in a rhythmic patter. Somehow they were laughing.
I shoved through the group and ran down the hallway. I wasn't sure where I was going. My whole world had shattered and now I was completely aimless in some nonsense dimension with horrors beyond imagination that wanted me dead.
*
The extract above is from this journal I found at the foot of a large tree on a hiking trail. It's a miracle that I spotted its faded leather cover given that it was almost buried under rotting leaves. I really don't know what to make of what I'm reading, so I'll be slowly transcribing bits of it in separate posts over the next few days.
I know this subreddit is good for this sort of stuff. I'd love if someone else could share anything they know about The Limbo. This whole journal feels like some sort of prank, but the words and memories within feel way too real.
I can't help but feel a connection to this story. My mum doesn't speak much of my Dad, who I know left before I was born. No one ever found out where he went.
I was born in 2001
X

Happy May/June! In honor of the upcoming Pride month, we'll be having a Pride themed comp!
As always, we'll give you a little scenario or a line of dialogue to get you started on a one-shot, and then let your imagination run wild! To enter, upload the fic to AO3 and link it in the comments on this post.
Rules:

• Must be uploaded to AO3 and linked in these comments by the deadline.
• Soft limit of 7.5k words (we won’t squabble over a sentence or two extra).
• Author’s note should be attached at the beginning, must include - “Monthly prompt competition from on Reddit.”
• One-shots only. If you wish to continue your story, please do so after the next prompt has been posted.
• Must not be a one-shot you’ve previously posted that happens to fit the bill.

Prompt: Write a fic with an LGBTQ+ character
Deadline: (June 19, 2024 at midnight GMT)
The winner will be determined by a poll vote after the deadline has passed. Feel free to encourage your readers to vote for yours!
The main thing to remember is that this is just a bit of fun. The winner will receive glory(!) and a ⭐️ in their user flair, because we’re just lowly mods and we can’t afford a cash prize.
Be as creative as you like, and enjoy it!

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.

Titled "today". I take back everything I said there. I like this be the last time I ever get frustrated and speak out about you like that. You've done me tremendous service throughout my life. Our children too. I thank God for being humbled because as soon as I wrote that I went straight to the Bible. Looking for guidance on how bad this hurts not being able to see the kids not even being on decent talking terms with you. And the first thing I opened up to was a smack in the face and a wake-up call and I will tell you exactly what the verse said.
Isaiah chapter 10 verse 1-4 it gave me cold chills.
Whoa unto them the decree unrighteous decrees. And that write grievousness which they have prescribed. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, the widows may be their prey and that they may Rob the fatherless. And what will you do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your glory? Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the Slain. For all this his anger is not turned away but his hand is stretched out still.
I'm going to leave that last post up titled today.
As a mark of my ignorance. Let us be the last time I ever speak in dark terms of the woman that took care of my children and gave them life. I thank God and the word that I read of the Lord for pulling my own head out of my butt when I can't see that I'm acting ignorant myself. Super grateful for the correction that comes with my spiritual beliefs personally. Because when I pull it all on me nothing comes out right. I can't remember what the verse says exactly I think it says something like there's a way of a man that seems right to them yet in the end it leads to destruction. I don't want destruction I want healing. I'll leave that Mark of my ignorance up there so I can be reminded not to be a fool

Hey, there! I often come back to places like these in hopes to try and write to others. I don't care where in the world you're from; I like all good people who wish to connect to others around the Earth.
I want to try writing again because I feel I'm better mentally than how I was since a couple years now. If you're still reading, let me introduce some things about me and you can see if we're compatible.
I like:

1. Horror films or suspenseful things and thrillers or psychological horror.
2. Drawing, digital art, crafting stuff for cosplays, and writing stories/role plays.
3. To cosplay in my city whenever there's an event.
4. Karaoke and singing.
5. Collecting Pokémon plushies and figures.
6. Learning other languages and teaching them as well.

There's a lot more I'm sure, but maybe so far if you're interested you can send me a DM or invitation to chat!
I ask only a couple things please:

1. Don't use cursive too much as it's difficult to read unless your penmanship is spectacular (mine isn't so great).
2. Write as clearly as you can as I have poor sight.
3. I'm not looking for anything other than friendship.

Thank you! I hope we can write together!

Reddit Account: u/stealthship1
Discord Tag: Ben
Name and House: Alaric Stark
Age: 45
Cultural Group: Northman
Appearance: Long hair that has begun to grey, the traditional grey Stark eyes, and a grim expression. The Lord of Winterfell has not given up his northern attire for southern comforts
Trait: Just
Skill(s): Two-Handed Weapons, Tactician, Cunning, Architect, Investigator
Talent(s): Hunting, Brooding, Meditating
Negative Trait(s): N/a
Starting Title(s): Lord Paramount of the North, Lord of Winterfell, Warden of the North, Master of Laws
Starting Location: King's Landing
Alternate Characters: N/a
***********
Born in 20 BC, Alaric Stark was the second son of King Torrhen Stark and his wife Gilliane Mormont. As a Prince of Winterfell, Alaric was raised in the ways of his people. He was raised in the shadow of his older brother Brandon, who was always bigger, faster, stronger, and better at most things. Competition was constant between them, as well with their younger brother Roderick.
Still, the young prince flourished in his own way, preferring to spread his knowledge instead of focusing on a singular thing. He enjoyed hunting in the Wolfswood and helping improve the castle.
When Aegon the Conqueror arrived in Westeros, his father called the banners and the Kingdom of the North marched south to face the Dragonlord. At the Trident, they were met with three dragons and the combined armies of the Trident, West, Reach, Stormlands, and Blackwater. His bastard uncle, Brandon Snow, offered to slay the dragons, while Brandon and Roderick urged an immediate attack, while Alaric was of the mind to retreat back to Moat Cailin. Instead, King Torrhen would negotiate with King Aegon and the following morning, he would bend the knee and suddenly was Lord Torrhen Stark and Alaric and his brothers lost their titles as princes. The Lords of the North were enraged at the idea, but the King would hear none of it as he refused to let his people die to dragonflame.
The following year, Queen Rhaenys Targaryen arranged a betrothal of his sister Serena to the old King of the Vale, now Lord of the Vale, Ronnel Arryn. Alaric himself would marry in 2 AC and his son Benjicot was born near the end of the year. Alaric and his brothers refused to attend the wedding of Serena and Ronnel, their anger about the Dragonlords and their interference.
In 5 AC, Calon Bolton, a son of Lord Bolton, lead a rebellion of nobles against Lord Torrhen for his kneeling to the Targaryens. For all their differences in opinion, the Stark brothers stood behind their father and his loyal bannermen. Tragedy would strike and Brandon was slain in a hail of arrows near the Dreadfort and Lord Torrhen would take Calon's head with Ice after forcing his surrender. Hostages and wards were taken after the rebellion and the North returned to a sense of normalcy, though Alaric would strike out to the south. He blamed the Targaryens for his brother's death and the rebellion as a whole. He would strike out with a small group of companions for King's Landing and would arrive with the intention of killing the King. That was until he actually met King Aegon and spoke with the man. That meeting would change his entire perspective on the man. Aegon was not just doing this for glory and his own power and that day he gained a new ally. He would serve time as a justiciar for the Master of Laws Dannis Darklyn.
Two years later, Aegon would be assassinated by a conspiracy of men and would fall along with six of his seven Kingsguard. House Tully was extinguished by Queen Visenya and Vhagar for their part in the assassination, though it never quite sat right with Alaric that the Tullys were the only ones named in the investigation but there was nothing else he could have done. Orys Baratheon took up the regency of the realm with both of the Queens pregnant with Aegon's children. He would return to Winterfell in 13 AC at the request of his father. It was then he spoke to his children about his wish to choose one of the queens to formally back, having maintained neutrality in the politics of the realm. The next few weeks would be a blur and as the new year dawned, there was a scream in the morning as Lord Torrhen Stark was found dead in his chambers and a catspaw was killed attempting to flee Winterfell. Rumors swirled as Alaric and his family attempted to find the culprit behind them. Some claimed one of the rebels killed him, others stated that a member of the Company of the Rose did it, and others said that one or more of Torrhen's children killed him. The murder case would go cold and leave more questions than answers.
The next year, Lord Regent Orys Baratheon called a grand hunt in the Kingswood. Lord Alaric arrived with his family in tow to partake in the activities. This would end in disaster as bandits would descend upon the hunting parties and kill or carry off many nobles. Lord Alaric and his brother Roderick would defend their families but their brother's oldest son, Gregor Snow, was killed defending his brother Royce and Brandon Snow was also killed as the Starks retreated back towards King's Landing, bleeding out from arrow wounds on the edge of the Kingswood. The disaster in the Kingswood would eventually lead to most of the Starks returning to Winterfell but Lord Alaric remained with a few members of the family to root out the bandits and get revenge for their fallen family. By the following year, Alaric was named Master of Laws, replacing Lord Triston Massey.
From there, he would remain in King's Landing, making the infrequent trip to Winterfell for various occasions. His family would also go between the capital and Winterfell. As the years passed, Alaric has done much to aid the Queens and Lord Regent Orys in the ruling of the realm. Ice was used for countless executions of noble and common criminals alike. Alaric held a respectful rapport with both queens and their sons, but refused to publicly back either one of them, hoping that Aegon's will that Orys spoke of would give a better understanding of the situation. He even replaced his brother as the Stark in Winterfell, when he felt that Roderick's support for Queen Rhaenys would disrupt the politics of the North and installed his son Benjicot instead. That time is approaching, but there is no answer yet.
**********
AC
Name and House: Roderick Stark
Age: 40
Cultural Group: Northman
Appearance: Black of hair just beginning to grey at the roots and the typical grey Stark eyes, Roderick is the quiet wolf of his family
Trait: Hale
Skill(s): Axes, First Man Warrior, Vanguard
Talent(s): Hunting, Woodworking, Writing
Negative Trait(s): N/a
Starting Title(s): Scion of Winterfell
Starting Location: King's Landing
Alternate Characters: N/a
************
Timeline
20 BC: Born to King Torrhen and Queen Gilliane Mormont
1 BC: Travels south with his family to confront Aegon the Conqueror and his father bends the knee.
1 AC: Married to Lady Dustin
2 AC: Son Benjicot born
5 AC: Daughter Jocelyn born amid the rebellion against his father. His brother Brandon is killed and Alaric becomes the Heir of Winterfell. He later travels south to King's Landing and meets King Aegon and stays in the capital.
7 AC: King Aegon is assassinated and Alaric aids in the investigation but fails to uncover any additional information.
8 AC: Son Domeric born
14 AC: Lord Torrhen Stark dies from an assassin but the culprit is unknown.
15 AC: The Kingswood disaster happens, Alaric's nephew and uncle are killed in the chaos.
16 AC: Alaric is named Master of Laws
25 AC: Lord Regent Orys calls another massive hunt to celebrate the birthdays of the sons of the Dragon
************
NPCs
Benjicot Stark - Tourney Knight
Dalton Stark - Huntsman
************
Household
The Stark in Winterfell - Benjicot Stark
Maester - Archibald
Master at Arms - Ser Clarence Whitehill
Captain of the Winterfell Guard - Eddard Cassel
Steward - Rickard Ironsmith
Castellan - Benjen Poole
Master of Horse - Hallis
Captain of the Guards in King's Landing - Torrhen Long

The argument is the fact Jesus did not come back in the first century as scripture said he would.
Firstly let's define some ideas and get some timelines straight; in what manner will Jesus appear for his second coming? According to the Mathew 24:29-31 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." This verse makes it clear that the "Son of Man coming on the clouds" refers to the second coming as the entirety of chapter 24 discusses what will be experienced during the tribulation before he returns and gathers his elect. This is made clear here and in the other gospels such as Mark 13:24-27: "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven."
This does not refer to the transfiguration or any other event as Jesus is not “coming down” or in any way that is described by the verses above. Again the verses are clear, Jesus will return coming on the clouds to gather his elect, after the tribulation. But now when does Jesus and his followers believe this will happen? Jesus in the preceding verse 23 after explaining the pain the disciples will have to endure through the tribulation says "But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand." And in Mathew 24:28 "See, I have told you beforehand." Jesus was warning his disciples of what would happen to them but there's more; Mark 14:61-62 "But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Jesus makes it clear that the high priest will see him coming on the clouds, an event that would take place after the tribulation. This obviously does not happen.
Revelation 1:7 "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." Revelation is writing to the 7 churches on "what soon must take place" and how all the tribes of earth will see the Lord, even those who pierced them. This does not happen.
Mathew 16:27-28: "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Jesus has obviously not come back to give judgment on what people have done and nobody has seen Jesus coming in his kingdom
Thessalonians 4:17-18: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: And the dead Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: And so shall we ever be with the Lord." If the scriptures are inspired by God why would he have Paul write down that there'd be people alive during his time when Jesus returned?
1 Corinthians 7:27-31 "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman [i] marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealir with it. For the present form of this world is passing away." Paul instructs people to literally not seek a wife because the end is near. It does not get much more clear
Now for those who think this is somehow metaphorical or anything other than the plain reading of the text Acts 1:9-11 makes it clear Jesus will return on the clouds just as he asscended (but don't confuse this with him being seen on the clouds in the sense of the verses earlier because the earlier verses talk about him returning on the clouds after the tribulation).

Hey y'all, thanks for being here, I want to thank my parents, my friends.. Oh, sorry, I dont know how to start writing those things, so I guess I should start from the beginning? Here i go:
It was a sunny day in 1996, when a sweet young lady had a contraction and... Oh gosh, sorry again. I will fast forward a bit.
Well, as the title says, I am 28, and I'm brazilian. Let me cut the chase and answer the top 3 questions I get all the time.

1. Yes, we are forced to play soccer from an early age. You need to play at least 1 soccer game every week or else... oh boy, things get messy
   
2. Yes, all South Americans learn how to dance at the age of 2, I may have missed a few classes, tho.
   

3 No, not every brazilian has a big booty, I know you weren't ready for that, I'll give you some minutes to process it, and then we can go on.
Ok, now a bit about me, what do I like? Great question, let's see, I love movies, specially thriller, some of my favorites are Shutter Island, final destination, the pursuit of Happiness, inception and a lot more, we can talk about movies for, like, 30 minutes then I will get bored and change the subject but you got the idea.
I love series too, especially comedy, Friends are my favorite ones, and Ross and Rachel shouldn't end up together. Do you think you can change my mind? Try it, I dare you!
I like to work out and stay active, probably because of all those years forced to play soccer at school, now my body needs it. I have a cute border collie too so if you read all this and thought "omg he is so boring, I can't stand anymore" then just bear with me a little longer and you can see Loki in all his glory once you pm me.
I like to go out with my friends, and play some games together, I own a small collection of boardgames so if you are into that we have something to talk about too, my favorites are single player rpgs but I love playing coop games as well.
If you want to get an idea of what I look like, I'm 5'10 (177cm), brown eyes, and hair, and we can exchange pictures at any time.
You read this far? OMG, ME TOO! Send me a chat request, and let's see how it goes. Just behave yourself cause I am legally allowed to handcuff you.
See you soon! :)

it was a jolly morning in my household as I arose from my slumber to go take the AP Lang exam. Having practiced MCQs and writing the night before, I felt well prepared and went into the exam prepared to knock out the MCQs, slay the day with the writing, and get a five.
and then all hell broke loose. The MCQs seemed like they came straight from hell. I pondered for far too long over each question- what was the answer to what? I completely blacked out on all meaning of all words and stared mindlessly at the words as the words stared back. I was dead.
Oh well!! I would make up for my failed effort of the MCQs on the writing. Excited to see the argument prompt, I opened my packet to see… selfies. fucking. selfies. i gasped aloud, turned in my seat to see if anyone else was as horrified as I. But no! all seemed well!! was i just…. dumb? I started in perplexity at my argument prompt, wondering what the the fuck i could even begin to muster up as evidence for such a prompt.
what i came up with?
hockey. because apparently, the second something gets difficult, my brain goes to haha ice sport and all else goes out the window. ladies and gentlemen, I wrote a total of six pages using hockey to explain the value of selfies. So much so, in fact, i forgot about the concept of a counterargument until the exam was over and i had to ask for extra paper to continue my endless yap session on the glories that is the NHL.
i stare into the horizon now, tears streaming down my face. a year of preparation, boiled down to a mega yap session about a sport that chances are the the reader knows nothing about. all that preparation, for what? i might as well have gone in when i was a stupid little infant dumb baby and maybe i would have done better than what is the shitshow hockey dump that was my argument essay. as a dumb dumb stupid ugly fat baby.
i hear the universe mocking me, collegeboard ridiculing me for ever thinking i could excel at one of their mind games designed to torture us naive high schoolers who simply hope to get college credit by putting up with their bullshit.
who knows? maybe they’ll just cancel all our scores because the exams got leaked! maybe none of this will ever even matter anyways!
i’m going to go find a cliff to jump off as i weep silently to myself, mourning what could have been a beautiful argument essay but ended up being a hockey yap sesh.
fml i hate collegeboard

I really love english, im familiar with all the texts ive read and have tried my hardest all these years.. english comes naturally to me and i know most of everything however my biggest issue is writing speed.. it got so bad i begged for extra time instead i only recieved rest-breaks and they are literally useless (at least for me) i know im really high ability and my target grade is a whole 8.. but with essay based subjects like english history (and sometimes business studies) i can never bloody finish in time (i also naturally write neat in cursive and this may be a reason why i write slower??) This aggravates me sm and im so upset with my english literature paper 1. I knew everything but couldn’t finish in time, i had like 3 rest-breaks but as i said earlier theyre useless.. im guessing i literally got a grade 3-4 on that paper, i had component 1: macbeth and component 2: poetry anthology (exam board: Eduqas) and was wondering if i could make up for it in english literature paper 2 (20th may) or not..? Whats the highest grade i could boost up to? im really upset but i really will put effort in for this, i really underestimated english.. if you know any ways to help speed up my writing time then please send

Barron, Laird. “Jaws of Saturn.” The Beautiful Thing That Awaits Us All. Night Shade Books, 2013.

Summary

Carol is Franco’s girl, and when he learns a two-bit stage magician is practicing hypnotism on her, Franco goes to pay the old man a visit. But Phil Wary is no mere purveyor of parlor tricks. The line between dreams and waking, between our reality and one of monstrous dimensions, erodes, as Franco and Carol find themselves ground to bits between the “Jaws of Saturn.”

Characters

• Franco - a private security attache and enforcer. Well groomed, well read, well armed.
• Carol - Franco’s lover and resident of The Broadsword Hotel.
• Phil Wary - an elderly resident of The Broadsword and career stage magician; also a powerful practitioner of the Black Arts.

Story

In the lounge of the Broadsword Hotel, Carol tells Franco of a dream she had of her former lover Marvin Cortez. Franco tries to explain it away as mere messages from her subconscious, but he’s also jealous. In her room, they engage in vigorous sex and Franco observes that, for a moment, one of her irises is inhumanly oblong. He doesn’t know what to make of this and presses Carol on her current state of mind, especially her recent weird dreams. She admits she’s been visiting old Phil Wary in his apartment upstairs, paying him for hypnosis sessions to help kick her smoking habit. That’s all Franco needs to know. This old sheister is trying to get into Carol’s pants and he’s screwing with her head. He’ll pay Phil Wary a visit. But first, he falls asleep and dreams of lovely, voluptuous Carol standing frozen in the Broadsword lobby as a shadow of “colossal dimensions” looms over her.
Franco is a bodyguard/enforcer for millionaire Jacob Wilson and is no stranger to intimidation, violence, and murder. He ferrets out Wary’s number and rings him up. Wary dismisses Franco contemptuously over the phone (“You sound like an oaf, a knuckle dragger.”) so Franco breaks into his apartment where he confronts the old man about making moves on Carol under the guise of therapeutic mesmerism. Phil Wary is both sardonically condescending and oddly patient with Franco, giving him more than one opportunity to walk away. But Franco is consumed with (perhaps nurses) his jealousy and strikes Wary across the face with a belt, ordering him to stay away from his girlfriend. Franco’s action does not have the intended effect. Wary shakes off the blows and effortlessly subdues Franco.
Wary stows the bound Franco in a closet, on tiptoes with a belt tightened around his neck, and leaves the door ajar so he can watch as Carol enters for her hypnosis session. Something’s wrong about the closet: he can’t see its ceiling. The dimension of height goes up and up into darkness. Franco struggles to maintain consciousness and can only watch as Wary entrances Carol then guides her to his apartment wall where he pulls back a flap of old wallpaper and has her look through a hole at… Franco doesn’t know what she could possibly be seeing other than the back lot of the Broadsword. Wary releases Carol from the trance and sends her on her way. Now Wary leads Franco to the wall, telling him, “All this flesh is but a projection. We are the dream of something greater and more dreadful than you could imagine. To gaze into the abyss is to recognize the dreamer and in recognition, to wake.” He forces Franco’s eye against the hole in the wall. Franco passes out. When he comes to, he receives a call on Wary’s phone from his boss Jacob Wilson, who fires him on the spot. Wary offers tepid consolation before ejecting Franco into the hall. Franco suddenly wakes in Carol’s bed, screaming.
Franco and Carol’s nightmares intensify as the boundary between dreaming and waking life erodes. Their nightmares increasingly feature familiar locations distended into cyclopean dimensions, and threats from above - at first tendrils descending from the sky, then the hand of a giant. In desperation, Franco returns to the Broadsword, packing his pistol, but the opportunity to kill Phil Wary has passed if it truly ever existed. He has a vision of Carol in the vaulted hotel lobby and, above them, Wary - now a colossus like the titan Saturn in de Goya’s famous painting - towers above them. The giant picks up Franco and raises him to its face - but Franco “had a long, agonizing moment to recognize his own face mirrored by the primordial aspect of the giant.” Franco is devoured.
There’s a brief coda where Franco (?) wakes, a giant in an ancient or future world, and is joined by his titanic lover. Together they loom over “all the tiny houses and all the tiny works of men.”

Analysis

As I write this, I have just woken from a dream. In the dream, I am asleep and dreaming of looking at a reproduction toy catalog and, sure enough, there are three pages of the old Micronauts toy line with which I am still obsessed. I wonder if these toys will ever be reissued. Then I wake up. There’s a book at the far end of the bed. It’s out of reach and I’m still sleepy and don’t want to stretch to grab it. I wonder, as I so often have: if I focus on that book and believe that waking reality is mine to shape as I do in dreams, can I make that book really leap into my hand? I do, and it does! I double-check to be sure I’m really awake. Yes - yes, I’m awake! This is finally, really happening! I try it again, pulling a rock from the ground through telekinesis. It’s easy. I have come into my own, a demigod among men. Then I wake up, for real this time.
My subconsciousness giggles. Pwned again.
All this to say: it’s disconcerting when the line between dreaming and waking consciousness breaks down, which is what’s happening for Franco and Carol, and at a scale that defies Euclidian geometry.
In fact, Franco’s experience is like stumbling onto the Devil’s Narnia. The closet in Phil Wary’s apartment - like C.S. Lewis’ coat-filled wardrobe - opens onto an impossibly large dimension, one lighted not by a snow-strewn lamppost but a hideous red light. For both Franco and Carol, the gulf between dreams and waking reality is melting away. The dreaminess/nightmarishness doesn’t make their experiences of this other (truer?) world any less real. Again, the occultist tells Franco, “We are the dream of something greater and more dreadful than you could imagine. To gaze into the abyss is to recognize the dreamer and in recognition, to wake.”
In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the Pevensie children’s true identity is revealed as the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve. Franco and Carol’s journey in “Jaws of Saturn” makes them a kind of Adam and Eve, but of a titanic cast. Their early sex scene shows Franco on the verge of an atavistic state, nearly unbridled from the abstraction that is modern human consciousness. The knowledge he seeks - what is Wary doing to Carol? - opens the door on a transformation that grounds him, bringing him closer to the true, perilous state of being alive, an atavistic state that finds its ultimate form as a titan in the post-civilization world of the coda. And herein we see a common journey for the Barronic hero: the search for Cursed Knowledge begins the Unraveling/Unveiling of Reality culminating in a Hideous Fate which leads to one’s Ultimate Form. (Note: Laird has a story titled "Don't Make Me Assume My Ultimate Form.”)
As I write this, my daughter has just called me from DC, upset by terrible dreams of a book that looks like the Bible, but it’s not the Bible, and our cat Izzy who died a few weeks ago has returned, but she keeps fading in and out of view. In her dream, my daughter is scared to get on an elevator because she’s on roller skates and the people in the building say the elevator is really slow, but the doors open, she gets in and the elevator moves so fast she’s floating. When it stops, the doors open onto a garden filled with people who want her to read a passage from the book that’s not the Bible: it’s Zanderthonis, book 2, chapter 3. And she keeps trying to wake up from the dream so she can tell someone about it but she can’t escape the building.
All this to say: Watch out, friends. The dreams, they’re catching.
Connections to other stories:

• The setting of “Jaws of Saturn” is the Broadsword Hotel, seen previously in “The Broadsword.”
• Carol’s former lover is Marvin Cortez, protagonist of “The Imago Sequence.” She mentions him to Franco, and Franco knows who he is. Franco works for Jacob Wilson, nephew of Teddy Wilson whose disappearance is mentioned in “The Imago Sequence.”
• “Hand of Glory” - Phil Wary - under his pseudonym Helios Augustus - sets Johnny Cope on the trail of Conrad Paxton.
• It’s not insignificant that “Jaws of Saturn” clearly ties together the transhumanism stories of The Imago Sequence to the Old Leech stories of Occultation by placing Franco’s and Carol’s conversation about Marvin Cortez in the Broadsword Hotel where Pershing Dennard ran afoul of the Children of Old Leech.

In part VI, the doctor examining Franco checks his eyes and says “something about coloboma.” ClevelandClinic.org notes: “The most recognizable and common colobomas affect your iris (the colored part of your eye) and cause your pupil (the dark center of your eye) to have a keyhole shape.” In other words, what was happening to Carol is now happening to Franco, and the change is the key to unlocking the underlying reality of the world.

Discussion

1. What did Franco see through the hole in the wall in Phil Wary’s apartment?
2. What’s the significance of Saturn, and specifically the de Goya painting of Saturn eating his children?
3. Did I miss connections to any other Laird Barron story?
4. Which Broadsword resident has the worse fate? Pershing Dennard (“The Broadsword”) or Franco (“Jaws of Saturn”)?
5. Which other Barronic heroes undergo the ordeal of Cursed Knowledge > Unveiling Reality > Hideous Fate > Ultimate Form?

Timestamp/photos/writing samples: https://imgur.com/a/ZhlQBxf
Discounts available for bundles!
Selling two Franklin-Christoph Model 31s I just don't reach for. Both include converters.
FC31 Blue Nebula SOLD
This is a gorgeous pen turned from a special Stormwinds blank. Lovely mix of teal, purple, and Tsutsiju pink with color-changing sparkles. Bought new, only inked twice, so it's in A2 condition. Asking $130 shipped CONUS
FC31 Copper Rising
Gorgeous pen with beautiful chatoyance. B-/C+ condition. Opus branded nib. Asking $105 shipped CONUS SOLD
Also selling two FC/Nagahara Jowo #6 nibs:
Franklin-Christoph Nagahara Needlepoint Used but in great shape. SOLD
Franklin-Christoph Medium Cursive Italic Barely used.
$75 each or $135 for both

Eivor is a bit of a strange protagonist.
She’s basically flawless and without blame. She’s brash and bold, proud and unashamed — brave and wise far beyond her years, yet able to be soft and compassionate when not brandishing spears. She’s got a knack for leadership, a strong moral compass and an even stronger muscular system with which to enact justice.
And she’s got bars?
As someone not deeply versed in medieval European histories, imagine my shock and confusion upon discovering that Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla included rap battling.
My first experience with Flyting had me asking so many questions about what I just witnessed that I couldn’t wait to begin Googling. I figured flyting probably was historically accurate, but if that’s the case, then what else can it tells us about the medieval warrior and about Eivor’s characterization?
I set off to find out.
--
Wikipedia and howstuffworks combined gave me a robust definition of flyting.
A ritual, poetic exchange of insults practiced mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. Examples of flyting are found throughout Scots, Ancient, Medieval and Modern Celtic, Old English, Middle English and Norse literature involving both historical and mythological figures. The exchanges would become extremely provocative, often involving accusations of cowardice or sexual perversion.
The idea behind flyting was to influence public opinion of the participants and raise both of their profiles. And each participant wanted to make himself look better than the other, even if they were friendly.
Not only that, but flyting’s also the first recorded use of shit as an insult. That right there is worth this whole essay and then some.
--
I came away from those definitions with some small Euphoria, as they reinforce what I already expected from Ubisoft — historically accurate and (arguably) immersive side activities grounded in realism.
Unfortunately, none of the flyting foes that Eivor faces in this fantasy are founded in any real-world flyters. I was particularly frustrated when I realized Fergal the Faceless and Borghild the Alewife’s Bane were fictional features, not real historical fiends of rhythm and rhyme.
Two of Eivor’s syntax competitors are “real” in some sense, however.
In Norse mythos, Odin, Thor, Loki, Freyja and more would handle their Family Matters over a flyte from time to time, dueling wits and words as competition and entertainment.
In fact, one flyte we do see in game — Odin as he flytes over the river with Thor in the Asgard Arc — is likely a reference to a real medieval Norse poem; The Hárbarðsljóð.
In it, Thor jaunts back to Asgard after a journey in Jötunheim. He comes to a junction in which he must jump a large river, and thus hunts down a ferryman to shepherd him across. The ferryman, Hárbarðr, is Odin in disguise. He then begins to diss guys.
Ahem. ‘Guys’ being Thor, obviously.
First, Odin drops a yo-mama joke:

Of thy morning feats art thou proud, but the future thou knowest not wholly; Doleful thine home-coming is: thy mother, me thinks, is dead.

He keeps going, taking more shots than a First Person Shooter, this time saying Thor dresses like a girl:

Three good dwellings methinks, thou hast not; Barefoot thou standest and wearest a beggar’s dress; Not even hose dost thou have.

Thor says watch your mouth before I clap back:

Ill for thee comes thy keenness of tongue, if the water I choose to wade; Louder, I ween, than a wolf thou cryest, if a blow of my hammer thou hast.

Odin replies by saying Thor’s wife is fucking another dude:

Sif has a lover at home, and him shouldst thou meet; More fitting it were on him to put forth thy strength.

The version we play out in game isn’t identical to the real-world poem, but carries some similarities; Thor’s threatening to cross the river to fight Odin as well as his boasting of slaying giants are present in each.
Ratatosk is the only other ‘real’ flyting enemy in Valhalla. While Odin doesn’t flyte with Ratatosk in Norse myth to my knowledge, the flyting against the squirrel is thematically accurate, at least.
Ratatosk’s purpose is to scramble up and down Yggdrasil, scurrying spoken messages from the eagle that sits at its peaks to the snake that slithers at its base. The nature of Ratatosk’s messages is in line with the act of flyting — the mischievous rodent carries falsehoods and aggressive statements to stir up drama and distrust between bird and serpent.
Flyting took place not only in poems and folklore, but in town squares and royal court. It was a facet of medieval life and social interaction. This weaving of prose then, in this time period, seemingly was just about as much of an admired skill as the swinging of a sword. It’s no wonder our unbreakable warrior Eivor is so proficient with word.
--
Like, really proficient with word.
I mean, I know it’s me choosing the dialogue options, but sheesh, is there anything she can’t do?
Actually, Eivor’s expertise in flyting is strange to me. It feels random and unearned — out of character, even. It comes more unexpectedly than Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us.
It probably only feels out of character, however, due to our modern understanding of proficiency with words versus proficiency with might. Our current interpretation of verbal ability compared to physical ability would perceive verbal ability as the ‘softer’ of the two skillsets. Physical strength is typically interpreted as tough and more dominant. You don’t expect to see an MMA fighter composing poetry, do you? The qualities that modern thought attributes to writing and physicality don’t mesh.
But in reality — and historically accurately in Valhalla — medieval warriors weren’t just blind berserkers. They were actually artists, poets and writers.
We’ve already demonstrated how Odin and Thor — Norse myth’s most famous warriors — carried out flyting. Thus, medieval Vikings would’ve surely done the same. Beyond Vikings though, the Illiad contains instances of public, ritualized abuse. Taunting songs are present in Inuit culture while Arabic poetry contains a form of flyting called naqa’id. Further, Japanese Samurai were known to be frequent composers of haiku, while Japanese culture also gave birth to Haikai, poetry in which vulgar satire and puns were wielded.
This historical accuracy ends up eliminating the randomness of Eivor’s flyting ability. Despite her verbal finesse feeling unearned, we can surmise historically that Eivor has practiced the wielding of words plenty in her life before we take over as the player. She’s dedicated time to this.
Now that we know why she has it, we can take a closer look at what it does for her.
--
So, Eivor can rap. She can match you with her axe or she can match you with her words. She’s just about unbeatable.
Her mastery of words demonstrates on some level that she’s not all Push Ups and might is right. She’s not all bruiser and bluster, burn and berserk. She’s an appreciator of the finer things — the more abstract, mental skills that require brain power, deftness and finesse.
This duality of strength and genius rounds out Eivor into a deeper, richer, more admirable character. More than just raw muscle in pursuit of glory, Eivor’s mastery of verse demonstrates her prioritizing not just her body, but her mind.
And it goes a long way for her.
Eivor can use her prowess with prose to progress past pointless plot points throughout Valhalla’s plethora of arcs and missions. It’s just a stat check in the end, but with enough practice flyting and enough charisma gained, Eivor unlocks new dialogue options that bend the world around her to her will.
Witch hunters in Eurvicscire on the brink of terrorizing Moira can be dispersed verbally rather than brawled or killed. There’s an entire riddle-solving fetch quest in Wincestre that can be skipped completely by telling King Aelfred’s abbot fuck off (figuratively). Eivor’s sharpening of her mind protects her body, saves her time, and allows her to frictionlessly fell her endeavors.
Her articulate advances don’t just alter her into admirability, they allow her to influence people and progression. With semantics from her mouth and twists from her tongue, Eivor can have her way whenever she wishes. In a game this large, I’m only left longing that the opportunity to make use of this charisma wasn’t relegated to niches.
Regardless, if medieval England is butter, Eivor’s tongue is the hot knife that behooves her move through her subduing more smoothly.
It all just goes to show that ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ flyte is right.

Hello! Just to get some maintenance out of the way: my name is Alice, and I've been rping for upwards of 7 years now. I'd like to think I'm rather experienced and detailed, and I ask potential partners to be okay with writing at least two 'good' paragraphs per reply (I can easily do more and will match your length!). Aside from that, I rp in 3rd person exclusively and am looking for someone interested in heavy worldbuilding and a somewhat cheesy romance! Now, onto the plot!
-
In this alternate universe, Japan did not win World War 2, but they were not bombed. Avoiding this cataclysmic setback in their growth has led it to once again operate as a potential global superpower, however due to their involvement in the war they are essentially cut off from the rest of the world, forcing them to rely on their own power. Nuclear energy runs the city, but thanks to the setbacks endured by losing the war, the already-conservative Japan has fallen back into a futile government, led over by an unseen Emperor ruling with a rumored band of secret police. Most of the buildings have not been updated since the war, and societal gender rolls have been enforced to an almost draconian degree in an attempt to restate Japan with its former glory and life. Rebellions are everywhere, but the Shogun is maintaining order... for now.
None of this matters much to your character though. They're too busy finding books to sell to the pretty young lady who runs the book shop- the one who cares for her young sister and the elderly neighbors next door, the one with a stony face that's so scary it keeps most others away, the one who isn't even married yet! In their eyes she's the perfect wife for them, and so they keep bringing her books with the hopes that one of them will be the one which will melt her heart. She always seems rather reserved, like she's hiding something, but she's so beautiful they have to at least try!
What will happen when this hopeless romantic accidentally gets sucked into her double life she's tried so hard to hide away? With tensions rising and their country on the verge of collapse, will they finally get this scary, pretty girl scary girl agree to get married? Or will they both die without ever being given the chance?

Recently, I have been enjoying reading Indian regional writing translated into English. I'm amazed with the richness and diversity of stories. There is something very attractive in reading stories about relatable characters and known settings. I'm so enamoured with these that, unconsciously, I read only Indian books in the past 1.5 years.
The increased popularity of Indian regional writing is also reflected in contemporary publishing scenario. Major publishers are bringing out the translations more. Even in JCB prize for literature, arguably India's foremost literary recognition today, most of the nominations and winners are from translated works. I hope more people read and appreciate the richness of Indian writing.
List of books which I read:
Assamese: 1. Written in tears by Arupa Patangia Kalita (trans. by Ranjita Biswas)
Bhojpuri: 1. Phoolsunghi by Pandey Kapil (trans. by Gautam Choubey)
Bengali: 1. Picture imperfect and other Byomkesh Bakshi stories by Sharadindu Bandyopadhyay (trans. by Sreejata Guha) 2. Chowringhee by Sankar (trans. by Arunava Sinha)
Gujarati: 1. Glory of Patan by K.M. Munshi (trans. by Rita Kothari and Abhijit Kothari)
Hindi: 1. Tamas by Bhisham Sahni (trans. by Daisy Rockwell) 2. Nirmala by Munshi Premchand
Kannada: 1. Ghachar Ghochar by Vivek Shanbaug (trans. by Srinath Perur) 2. No presents please by Jayant Kaikini (trans. by Tejaswini Niranjana)
Malayalam: 1. Bhima: a lone warrior by M.T.Vasudevan Nair (trans. by Gita Krishnankutty) 2. Delhi: a soliloquy by M.Mukundan (trans. by Fathima and Nandkumar)
Marathi: 1. Cobalt blue by Sachin Kundalkar (trans. by Jerry Pinto)
Odiya: 1. Six and a third acre by Fakir Mohan Senapati (trans. by Leelavati Mahapatra, Paul St. Pierre, K.K.Mahapatra)
Punjabi: 1. A life incomplete by Nanak Singh (trans. by Navdeep Suri)
Rajasthani: 1. Timeless tales from Marwar by Vijayan Detha (trans. by Vishes Kothari)
Tamil: 1. Heat by Poomani (trans. by N.Kalyan Raman) 2. Poonachi by Perumal Murugan (trans. by N.Kalyan Raman) 3. Stories of the true by Jeyamohan (trans. by Priyamvada) 4. Ponniyin selvan 1, 2 by Kalki (trans. by Pavithra Srinivasan)
You can suggest me more, especially from your own language.

Hi all. I would like to recommend the most interesting work by Ernst Axel Knauf. I will quote the most interesting quotes (from my point of view) here. But I still advise you to read the entire article, as it is written in a very accessible and understandable language.
author's profile at the academy: https://unibe-ch.academia.edu/ErnstAxelKnauf?swp=tc-au-28366493
read the article: https://archive.org/details/arabo-aramaic-and-arabiyya-from-ancient-arabic-to-early-standard-arabic-200-ce-600-ce
"Nabatean Arabic became some sort of standard Arabic as early as the second century bce, but it was a spoken, not a written language, and it was, in the beginning, of no interest to anyone outside the relatively small circle of Arabian international traders and shippers. It became a written language between the third and fourth century ce in post-Nabatean texts.96 500 years of Old Arabic–Ancient Arabic coexistence and/or diglossia can now be considered."
"The Nabatean script is a cursive script. It was developed for writing on “paper” or its ancient equivalents. It reflects the needs of a society of traders who had to keep accounts and set up contracts. Only secondarily, with the onset of conspicuous architectural consumption at the end of the first century bce, their utilitarian cursive script was put to lapidary, epigraphic use. Unfortunately for the perception of Nabatean society through modern eyes, it is their “luxury” (and basically non-essential) written record which dominates the data base, whereas the main output of Nabatean scribal activities, the papyri, have only survived in meager installations, like the Nabatean papyri from the Babatha archive.106"
"With the imperial crisis of the second half of the third century, Greek lost its splendor in the East: the Parthians' Sasanid successors wrote Middle Persian (and Aramaic, for that was the language of their economical powerhouse, the Iraq); Arabs ( if not Christianized) turned away from both Greek and Aramaic."
"Aramaic, no longer in use for written business transactions among the Arabs themselves, remained present in pre-Islamic Arabia from the fourth through the sixth/seventh centuries through the Jewish and Christian communities which felt no urge to translate their scriptures into Arabic; a fact which one day early in the seventh century ce would instigate a failed merchant from Mecca to give his fellow Arabs a “liturgy” or “recitation” (in Arabic: qurʾān) in plain Arabic, obviously being of the opinion that the other monotheistic religions had failed, or neglected, to do so."
"From time to time the assumption resurfaces that the Arabic script did not develop from Nabatean Aramaic but from Syriac. It can be traced back to early Muslim scholarship,128 but it has no other argument in its favor than the relationship of the written word to the line: while Nabatean is sublinear (the letters are hanging from the line), Syriac and Arabic are supralinear (the letters are standing on the line). This feature can be explained by the easier assumption that Nabatean writing (the origin of all individual letters) was influenced by a Syriac adstrate in Arabian scribal practice during the fourth and fifth centuries ce. (Hoyland, “Language and Identity,” 196, with n. 50.)"
"Cursive writing with diacritical points indicates that throughout the fourth through sixth centuries ce Arabian merchants continued to trade merchandise and to keep records of their business in the Early Standard Arabic which they had inherited from the Nabateans.144"
"The cultic origins of Poetic Old Arabic with its archaic and, in prose and everyday speech quite superfluous case-endings are, especially since the discovery of Avdat 1, no longer questionable. On the other hand, Luxenberg has reopened the question of how pagan (instead of non-standard Christian) pre-Islamic Arabic really was.151"...
I’ll stop at the most interesting point, the article is very informative, be sure to read the footnotes and bibliography. Good luck.

,, The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him, to show His servants what will soon be, and showed by sending an angel to His servant John, Who testifies the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and whatever they see. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep what is written therein; for the time is near"
Rev. 1:1-3
John received the Revelation from an angel sent by the Lord Jesus because angels are official spirits who help people:
"Are not all ministering spirits sent to minister to those who will inherit salvation?"
Hebrews 1:14
and we read about it in the first verse, and in the second verse we see what John testified about:
"Who bear witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and whatever they see."
Rev. 1:2
Here we first notice that John is a witness, but immediately afterwards we also see what he testified to. He did not testify to some of his thoughts or ideas or some teaching of some "wise teacher", but it is clearly written that he testified to "the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and whatever they see.". Jesus sent him a revelation and John is now testifying and this is the characteristic of born-again people who are sent by God to testify to what God has revealed and shown them.
"For whom God sends, he speaks the word of God: for God does not give the Spirit by measure."
John 3:34
As a rule, this testimony of theirs does not have to be aesthetically beautiful, the witness does not have to be a trained preacher or a super eloquent speaker, it is important that he conveys what God wants, "the Word of God". There are examples of this in the Bible and we can read about it, for example for this are: Moses, who was slow to speak, even complained to God:
"And Moses said to the Lord: I pray to You, Lord, I am not a eloquent man, neither was I before nor have I been since you spoke to your servant, but I am slow of mouth and slow of tongue."
Gen. 4:10
the prophet Jeremiah was young:
,, And I said: Oh, Lord, Lord! Here, I don't know how to speak, because I'm a child."
Jer. 1:6
Well, both Peter and John were uneducated, but they were exceptional witnesses of God who were born again, filled with the Holy Spirit, faith and the science they preached, and that science is "the word of God".
Here is what Peter said to Timothy:
,,I adjure you, therefore, before God and our Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead, at His coming and His kingdom: Preach the word, strive in good times and in bad times, rebuke, threaten, plead with all bearing and teaching; Because the time will come when they will not listen to sound teachings, but according to their desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves, as their ears itch, And they will turn their ears away from the truth, and will turn to soothsayers."
2 Tim. 4:1-4
He advises him to preach the "Word" even though he knows that the vast majority of people will not listen to him or will not understand what he is saying. People will always find some more popular topics to listen to, and they will ignore the word of God or find some common sense answer and justification to justify themselves and disobey. And it's no wonder because the Word of God is the truth:
"Avenge them with your truth: your word is your truth."
John 17:17
and Satan fights against the truth and tries to present a lie as the truth and now he markets his truth nicely packaged and many are inclined to believe him and ignore God's truth. ignores.
"As born again, not from the seed that rots, but from the one that does not rot, by the word of the Living God, which remains forever."
1 Peter 1:23
God's servants listen to the Word of God, believe what God said and practice the word, and for those who listen to Satan, it is written that they are not God's.
"He who is of God listens to the words of God; therefore you do not listen, because you are not of God."
John 8:47
and this is what will happen to them one day as they persistently reject the Word of God:
"And that's why God will send them the force of deception, to believe lies; Let all those who did not believe the truth, but loved unrighteousness, receive judgment."
2 Thess. 2:11-12
John proclaimed the word of God but also the "testimony of Jesus Christ" and that is why John was thrown on Patmos.
"I, John, who am both your brother and friend in trouble, and in the kingdom and suffering of Jesus Christ, was on the island called Patam, for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
Rev. 1:9
John was announcing what would be, so he had the spirit of prophecy with which he announced Jesus in the glory in which he will come and the events that will take place:
,, And falling at his feet I worshiped him; and he said to me: Look, do not, I am a servant like you and your brothers who have the testimony of Jesus. Bow down to God; for the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy.""
Rev. 19:10
Therefore, the Holy Spirit announces future events to us through John, and about these promises, the Lord Jesus said:
"And when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to every truth; for he will not speak of himself, but will speak what he hears, and will tell you beforehand what will happen."
John 16:13
The central person of this prophecy is in fact the Lord Jesus who is the "Spirit of Prophecy" i.e. the "Testimony of Jesus" about whom John testified because of which he ended up on the island of Patmos. John was transferred to the future and an angel showed him future events because it says,,And whatever they see". And this implies a very large number of events that John saw, about which the Revelation writes to show us what will happen until the very end of the world and the beginning of the new heaven and the new earth until eternity.
"Blessed is he who reads and those who listen to the words of the prophecy, and keep what is written in it; for the time is near"
Rev. 1:3
The continuation begins with bliss because it says "blessed" and that means happy, blessed is the one who listens to what the Lord Jesus Christ says. Here is what the Lord Jesus said:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kindom of heaven; Blessed are those who weep, for they will be comforted; Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth; Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be filled; Blessed are the merciful, for they will be pardoned; Blessed those who are pure in heart, because they will see God; Blessed are those who build peace, because they will be called sons of God; Blessed are those exiled for the sake of justice, because their kingdom is heavenly. Blessed are you if they embarrass you and ostracize you and say all sorts of bad things about you while lying, for my sake"
Mtt. 5:3-11
"Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on..."
Rev. 14:13
"Blessed is he who is awake and keeps his clothes, so that he does not walk and his shame is not seen."
Rev. 16:15
"Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb. And he said to me: These are the true words of God."
Rev. 19:9
"Blessed and holy is he who has a part in the first resurrection; over them the second death has no domain, but they will be priests of God and Christ, and they will reign with Him for a thousand years."
Rev. 20:6
"Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book"
Rev. 22:7
"Blessed is he who does His commandments, that they may have authority over the tree of life, and that they may enter the gate into the city."
Rev. 22:14
From this verse we see "Blessed is he who reads" and that is God's promise intended for all those who read Revelation and the other books that God sent us and the next thing we notice is that it says "Blessed is he who reads" so he reads constantly and does not read once and thinks he has learned everything. This book is read, studied and analyzed because that is how God gives us information every time we do this.
In addition to reading about this book and the publication that was written, it can also be listened to, and we read for the listeners. Blessed are those who listen to the words of prophecy. This was written in a time when many people were illiterate and did not know how to read, so it is the only the way to find out what is revealed in the Revelation is listening to what people who knew how to read interpreted or read the original text. So from these verses we see that it does not matter whether someone reads or listens to the revelation the blessings are the same.
At the end of the verse, it says "blessings for those who keep what is written in it"; because the time is near" and here is a normal sequence of events because the one who reads or listens is vindicated by the announcement:
"Whoever wants to do His will will understand whether this teaching is from God or I am speaking from myself."
John 7:17
and they will try to keep and want to practice what God expects of them. because they recognized Jesus as the savior:
"Kind! Now we are children of God, and it has not yet been revealed what we will be; but we know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."
1 John 3:2-3
And we have reached the end of the verse where it says that "the time is near" which means that we should read, listen and practice science because the time described in the Revelation is very close especially for us because we can clearly see based on the signs of the times that it is the last the time is very close so close that we can see the signs being fulfilled before our eyes in real time, for us it is no longer a prophecy but events that are happening and confirm the truth of what was published in the last book of the Bible Revelation.
The events that are taking place and the warning "that the time is near" should only strengthen us in faith and we should practice what is written in the second epistle of Peter.
"And we have the most reliable prophetic word, and you do well to pay attention to it, like a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the dawn is born in your hearts."
2 Peter 1:19