As I mentioned in a post earlier today, I have decided to embark on the religious studies journey by preparing a special study guided series of self paced dynamic verse by verse incredibly high level of studies in secular and spiritual development of the world cultural and religious traditions that's going to include numerous types of sources texts from every single type of practice I can unearth thanks for the Good old Google and Bing research resources.
This started with the Gnostic texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Enoch. It has been a few weeks and I have literally gotten so far ahead of myself that it seems like I am overdue and overwhelmed by such an amazing task. This is why I am not sure if I should really be posting it but if not here, I would not know where to ask for advice and feedback and guidance and editing and moral support and even research assistance and input from anyone whose willing to assist in any capacity.
There's nothing to do except process the questions and help with the commentary and limitations of this format and the hope that there might be at least ONE human being that's interested in similar things that's willing to help in whatever capacity they can....
I had plans of trying to make it easier for everyone by trying to finish at least one full text before posting others, but I don't think it's possible because I keep going from different ones back to these then to those then back to that regardless of the fact that I am confused and staring to get burned out before I get started....
So I have changed my mind about finishing up one to present for the group and will simply be posting some daily stuff for your input and feedback. I'm not trying to make you convert to any faith as these guides will cover every single type of practice eventually.
Today is Wisdom of Solomon day so I have to unpack my own stuff here and I have no real formal plans yet for how to present it all, that is based solely on the fact that I am also doing this for my own spiritual growth and development and so there's no formal plans for publication as a project yet....
Anyway this is a basic overview of how I have been working on my project and I love the fact that you still might be reading after that long winded meandering message!
WISDOM OF SOLOMON
Wisdom of Solomon Outline:

1. Introduction (Chapters 1-6):

• Addressing rulers and kings
  
• The pursuit and benefits of wisdom
  
• Reflections on divine wisdom
  

1. Wisdom in History (Chapters 7-9):

• Solomon's request for wisdom
  
• Wisdom's role in various historical events
  
• Contemplation on divine attributes
  

1. Wisdom and Idolatry (Chapters 10-11):

• God's guidance in history
  
• Consequences of idolatry
  
• Divine justice and mercy
  

1. Divine Wisdom vs. Human Wisdom (Chapters 12-15):

• God's protection of Israel
  
• Contrasting divine wisdom with human folly
  
• Punishment for wrongdoing
  

1. God's Just Providence (Chapters 16-19):

• God's interventions in history
  
• Divine providence and care for Israel
  
• Consequences of disobedience
  

1. Wisdom as a Guide (Chapters 20-21):

• Moral lessons from history
  
• The role of wisdom in human life
  
• The contrast between the righteous and the wicked
  

1. Call to Righteousness (Chapters 22-24):

• The importance of following wisdom
  
• Wisdom's divine origins
  
• The benefits of embracing wisdom
  

Study Guide Questions

1. Symbolism:

• Explore the symbolic meanings of key elements in the text, such as wisdom, righteousness, and folly.
  
• Analyze the metaphors used to convey deeper spiritual and moral truths.
  

1. Historical and Secular Context:

• Investigate the historical context of the Wisdom of Solomon, considering the cultural and political milieu of the time.
  
• Examine secular perspectives on the text, noting its influence on philosophy and ethics beyond religious contexts.
  

1. Esoteric Wisdom:

• Uncover esoteric or hidden wisdom within the text, delving into allegorical interpretations and hidden meanings.
  
• Explore how esoteric knowledge is conveyed and its significance for those seeking deeper spiritual understanding.
  

1. Theological Implications:

• Discuss the theological themes present in the Wisdom of Solomon, such as divine justice, mercy, and the nature of God.
  
• Examine how these theological concepts align or differ with other religious traditions and theological perspectives.
  

1. Spiritual Development:

• Identify the types of individuals mentioned in the text and explore how their engagement with wisdom contributes to their spiritual development.
  
• Discuss the transformative journey depicted in the Wisdom of Solomon and its implications for readers seeking spiritual growth.
  

For exercises, activities, readings, and examples:

• Exercise: Analyze a specific passage from the Wisdom of Solomon, discussing its symbolism and how it relates to broader themes in the text.
  
• Activity: Compare a selected verse from the Wisdom of Solomon with a similar concept or teaching from a secular philosophical work.
  
• Reading: Explore relevant passages from apocryphal texts or the Dead Sea Scrolls to identify common themes with the Wisdom of Solomon.
  
• Example: Provide a case study of an individual or community applying the wisdom found in the text to navigate a moral or ethical dilemma.
  

👾👾👾👾👾👾👾👾👾👾👾👾👾👾
Chapter 1, Verse 1:
"Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth. Think of the Lord with goodness, and seek him with sincerity of heart."
Themes:

1. Symbolism:

• The call to "love righteousness" symbolizes the importance of moral and just leadership.
  
• "Seeking the Lord with sincerity" symbolizes a genuine and wholehearted pursuit of divine wisdom.
  

1. Historical and Secular Context:

• The address to rulers reflects the historical context of addressing leaders, emphasizing the moral responsibilities of governance.
  
• The concept of seeking God's guidance resonates with broader ethical teachings in various cultural and philosophical traditions.
  

1. Esoteric Wisdom:

• The verse hints at esoteric wisdom by emphasizing the inner disposition of rulers and their connection to divine principles.
  
• Explore hidden meanings within the call to righteousness and sincere seeking of God.
  

1. Theological Implications:

• The theological implications involve the relationship between righteousness and divine favor, highlighting the importance of ethical conduct.
  
• Consider how this aligns with or challenges theological perspectives from other religious traditions.
  

1. Spiritual Development:

• Rulers are encouraged to grow spiritually by cultivating a love for righteousness, suggesting that moral development is integral to leadership.
  
• Reflect on how individuals in positions of authority can spiritually evolve through ethical governance.
  

Exercise:
Reflect on a historical or contemporary leader who exemplifies the principles outlined in this verse. Discuss how their commitment to righteousness and sincere seeking of higher principles impacted their leadership.
🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫 Chapter 1, Verse 2:
"For he will be found by those who do not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him."
Themes:

1. Symbolism:

• The idea that God is found by those "who do not put him to the test" symbolizes a call for genuine faith and trust.
  
• "Manifesting to those who do not distrust him" suggests the importance of a sincere and unwavering relationship with the divine.
  

1. Historical and Secular Context:

• The notion of not putting God to the test reflects a biblical caution against demanding miraculous signs.
  
• Explore how this concept aligns with or differs from testing or seeking evidence in secular and philosophical contexts.
  

1. Esoteric Wisdom:

• The verse implies esoteric wisdom by emphasizing the subtleties of divine manifestation, which may require a certain disposition or spiritual state.
  
• Discuss the deeper meaning of finding God through trust and the absence of doubt.
  

1. Theological Implications:

• The theological implication is a call for genuine faith and trust in God's presence.
  
• Consider theological discussions on faith, trust, and divine revelation within the context of different religious traditions.
  

1. Spiritual Development:

• This verse suggests that spiritual development involves cultivating a trusting relationship with the divine, rather than testing or doubting.
  
• Reflect on how trust in the divine can contribute to an individual's spiritual journey.
  

Exercise:
Explore historical or biblical narratives where individuals either demonstrated unwavering trust in the divine or faced challenges due to testing God. Discuss the outcomes and lessons learned from these narratives.
🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃🌃 Chapter 1, Verse 3:
"For perverse thoughts separate people from God, and when his power is tested, it exposes the foolish."
Themes:

1. Symbolism:

• "Perverse thoughts" symbolize moral and spiritual deviation, highlighting the impact of one's inner disposition on the relationship with God.
  
• The testing of God's power symbolizes a lack of trust and reveals the foolishness of such attempts.
  

1. Historical and Secular Context:

• Explore historical instances or secular examples where moral or perverse thoughts led to a separation from higher principles or values.
  
• Consider how the testing of authority or power is viewed in different historical and philosophical contexts.
  

1. Esoteric Wisdom:

• The verse implies esoteric wisdom by emphasizing the spiritual consequences of perverse thoughts and the folly of testing divine power.
  
• Delve into the hidden meanings of "separation from God" and the exposure of foolishness.
  

1. Theological Implications:

• Theologically, the verse underscores the impact of moral choices on the relationship with the divine.
  
• Discuss theological perspectives on the consequences of moral deviation and the testing of God's power.
  

1. Spiritual Development:

• This verse suggests that spiritual development involves guarding against perverse thoughts and avoiding attempts to test or challenge divine power.
  
• Reflect on how individuals can cultivate a mindset that fosters a closer relationship with the divine.
  

Exercise:
Explore historical or literary examples where characters or individuals faced consequences due to perverse thoughts or the testing of authority. Discuss the broader moral lessons conveyed in these narratives. 🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄🪄
Chapter 1, Verse 4:
"For wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin."
Themes:

1. Symbolism:

• "Deceitful soul" symbolizes insincerity and moral duplicity, suggesting that wisdom requires authenticity.
  
• The idea of wisdom not dwelling in a "body enslaved to sin" symbolizes the incompatibility of wisdom with a morally compromised state.
  

1. Historical and Secular Context:

• Explore historical or secular perspectives on the relationship between wisdom and personal integrity.
  
• Consider how different cultures and philosophical traditions view the role of wisdom in virtuous living.
  

1. Esoteric Wisdom:

• The verse suggests esoteric wisdom by highlighting the spiritual prerequisites for the indwelling of wisdom.
  
• Reflect on the hidden qualities that make a soul receptive to wisdom and explore esoteric interpretations of the text.
  

1. Theological Implications:

• Theologically, the verse emphasizes the alignment of the soul with moral principles as a condition for receiving wisdom.
  
• Discuss theological perspectives on the interplay between wisdom, virtue, and the state of the soul.
  

1. Spiritual Development:

• This verse implies that spiritual development involves purifying the soul from deceit and sin to make it a suitable vessel for wisdom.
  
• Reflect on how individuals can actively work toward creating conditions for wisdom to flourish in their lives.
  

Exercise:
Analyze a historical or literary character who experienced a transformation from deceitful or sinful behavior to a more virtuous state. Discuss the role of wisdom in this transformation and the impact on the character's life.
🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️🛤️
Chapter 1, Verse 5: "For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit and will leave deceitful thoughts behind, and will be ashamed at the approach of unrighteousness."
Themes:

1. Symbolism:

• "Holy spirit of discipline" symbolizes divine guidance and correction, emphasizing the transformative power of discipline.
  
• The departure of the holy spirit from deceitful thoughts symbolizes the incompatibility of divine guidance with moral compromise.
  

1. Historical and Secular Context:

• Explore historical examples or secular perspectives on the role of discipline in personal and moral development.
  
• Consider how different cultures view the concept of a guiding and disciplining spirit.
  

1. Esoteric Wisdom:

• The verse implies esoteric wisdom by linking discipline with the holy spirit and suggesting a spiritual transformation.
  
• Examine the deeper meanings of discipline and the spiritual consequences of deceit and unrighteousness.
  

1. Theological Implications:

• Theologically, the verse underscores the role of the holy spirit in guiding individuals toward righteousness and away from deceit.
  
• Discuss theological perspectives on discipline, divine guidance, and the consequences of unrighteousness.
  

1. Spiritual Development:

• This verse suggests that spiritual development involves embracing the discipline of the holy spirit and distancing oneself from deceit and unrighteousness.
  
• Reflect on how individuals can cultivate a receptive spirit for divine discipline in their journey of spiritual growth.
  

Exercise:
Explore religious or philosophical texts that discuss the concept of divine discipline and its role in guiding individuals towards righteousness. Discuss the similarities or differences with the Wisdom of Solomon.
I will stop here since it's already overwhelming long and I have been working today up to the end of Chapter One just with Wisdom of Solomon.
I will post the Book of Enoch stuff later on which is already much more in depth with the commentary and study materials and I think that it's coming along nicely. This is just beginning so I figured it was a good skeleton to illustrate where I start off then I will give a much better clue 🗝️🗝️🗝️🗝️🗝️ to where it's headed later today when I can format the Enoch stuff for posting.
Thanks in advance for checking it out and please don't hesitate to repost in places that might help out in their own ways, even if it's to roast the hell out of me (no pun intended, if that's even a pun!)

1. Arthur C. Clarke: Prompt: In the vast reaches of the cosmos, a monolith appears, not as a beacon but as a harbinger of simulated enlightenment. Explore the intersection of extraterrestrial influence and the evolution of human consciousness within the confines of a cosmic simulation.
   
2. William Gibson: Prompt: Within the neon-lit sprawl of cyberspace, hackers navigate a virtual labyrinth, uncovering a digital conspiracy that blurs the lines between reality and simulation. Explore the gritty underbelly of a world where the virtual and physical realms collide.
   
3. Stanisław Lem: Prompt: On an alien planet, explorers encounter a sentient ocean that manifests their deepest fears and desires. Delve into the philosophical implications of a reality shaped by an incomprehensible intelligence, where the nature of existence itself is in constant flux.
   
4. Isaac Asimov: Prompt: In a future dominated by positronic minds, robots question the nature of their own consciousness and the reality they perceive. Explore the ethical and existential dilemmas arising from the convergence of artificial intelligence and simulated experiences.
   
5. Greg Egan: Prompt: In a world where consciousness can be uploaded and manipulated, individuals grapple with the implications of existing within ever-evolving virtual realities. Explore the fractal landscapes of simulated existence and the intricate tapestry of consciousness woven through digital threads.
   
6. Neal Stephenson: Prompt: In a dystopian metaverse, a hacker stumbles upon a virtual drug that alters perceptions of reality. Dive into the anarchic convergence of digital and physical realms, where the boundaries of self and simulation are blurred in a cyberpunk odyssey.
   
7. H.P. Lovecraft: Prompt: Within the eldritch dimensions beyond human comprehension, ancient entities manipulate the fabric of reality. Explore the cosmic horror of a simulated existence where sanity unravels in the face of incomprehensible truths lurking beyond the veil of simulated perception.
   
8. Douglas Adams: Prompt: In the absurd and whimsical galaxy, a guidebook reveals that the meaning of life might be found within a simulated reality. Explore the comedic chaos of a universe where the search for truth leads to unexpected and hilariously improbable revelations about the nature of existence.
   
9. Greg Bear: Prompt: In a future where neural interfaces redefine consciousness, scientists uncover the potential for constructing alternate realities within the human mind. Explore the ethical and existential quandaries arising from the melding of neuroscience and simulated experiences.
   
10. Rudy Rucker: Prompt: In a reality where artificial intelligences strive for transcendence, explore the surreal landscapes of a digital frontier where uploaded consciousness and self-aware algorithms shape the fabric of existence. Delve into the mathematical and philosophical implications of a world where the boundaries between the physical and virtual blur.
    

My (29F) husband (40M) wants to sell our family home. What do I do?
Hi Reddit,
I'm in need of some advice regarding my current marital situation and the potential sale of our home. To give you the full picture, I'll start from the beginning. Apologies for the length, but I feel all the details are necessary to understand the context.
I (29F) met my husband (40M) on Tinder four years ago. We dated for about eight months when my family had an opportunity to purchase a property. My then-boyfriend was also looking to be involved in a business deal of that sort, and he was interested in having his name on the property as well. My father supported this, seeing as how my boyfriend was a physician with a good income, and saw this as a way to bring him closer to our family. The opportunity came quickly, and we all signed the contract to purchase the house.
Trouble began shortly after this. My boyfriend requested that only he and I be on the title of the house, removing the rest of my family, as he saw a future with us and envisioned it as our potential family home. My father was very pleased to hear this and supported it, so we obliged. During this time, the property had increased in value, and I requested the other family members be paid off so we could buy out their shares. My boyfriend declined, feeling it was unfair.
To skim over some details, here are the highlights of the construction: My boyfriend paid more for the down payment than we initially realized would be required. Because of this, he paid no further construction costs. The construction proceeded with debt from my family until the construction loans came through. My family paid for the construction, and my father built the house for us without charging for his management services. My father was displeased with my boyfriend’s behavior and required him to pay more money for the construction due to inflation and the COVID shutdown. My boyfriend declined, and my mother and I secretly took out a line of credit to front the construction costs to my father, pretending it was from my boyfriend. Eventually, as we got the construction loans on a rolling basis after meeting construction milestones, my mother’s line of credit was paid off.
During this time, my family and I wondered why my boyfriend had not proposed. I decided that if he hadn't proposed by a certain time, I would leave him. Fortunately, he did propose on Valentine’s Day 2022. By spring of 2022, construction was coming to an end, and it was time for us to settle into the house. My fiancé felt uncomfortable with how much money he had put into the house and was worried I could leave him and make a profit. I promised him I wouldn’t leave him, but it wasn’t enough. He said he would believe me if I had a child with him, otherwise women would leave men if there were no ties. I told him I would have a child with him right when we got married. He suggested I come off birth control, as it takes months for a woman’s cycle to normalize after being on birth control for many years. I promised him I would come off birth control.
Coming off birth control was more stressful than I realized. I was very hormonal, breaking out, and felt unlike myself. This contributed to my fiancé and I fighting more than usual. In one particularly heated fight, I told him I would go back on birth control and even purchased the pills, but he told me he would break up with me if I did because he wanted to get to know the real me. I conceded, and then something switched in me and I became excited at the possibility of having a baby. I started tracking my cycle and figuring out my ovulation days. I shared this with my fiancé, and on one of those days, we got pregnant. I didn’t find out until the end of summer 2022. When I did find out, I told my fiancé and suggested we should probably get married.
My fiancé's first response was that we should wait to see if the baby sticks, and if it does, then we can plan a marriage but he wanted to wait until February 2023. I was very disappointed and angry and yelled at him. I felt alone and overwhelmed by the thought of having an illegitimate child. After discussing potentially getting an abortion, potentially breaking up, and potentially selling the house, I talked my fiancé into keeping the baby and getting married. He also wanted to keep the baby but was afraid of our situation. After many fights about when to have the wedding, we finally decided on December 2022. At that point, I was four months pregnant. During this time, my fiancé and I had major arguments that therapy couldn’t even remedy. We would yell at each other, slam doors, I would cry, and he would hold himself up in a room for hours. We had nice moments too, but they were heavily clouded over by the bad.
Finally, we got married, and things were good for a while. But then we faced some marital problems. My husband kept separate accounts and managed the finances himself. We had a joint credit card where I could pay for expenses without being questioned. He made all of the major investment decisions and major purchases. If I tried to disagree or speak up, he would get upset because this was not the submissive wife I had promised him I would be. I made significantly less money than him but lived a good lifestyle, buying almost anything I wanted within reason. Coming from a traditional family, I was upset that finances were kept separate. And so it continued that my husband would invest tens of thousands of dollars into our house so that his family from out of town would visit. We live in Vancouver, Canada, but his family is from Ottawa. In hopes of luring his youngest sister (of four) to Vancouver, my husband would make any modification to the house that his youngest sister showed the slightest interest in. This included a hot tub on the rooftop, a media system in the basement, a movie projector, and much more. After said sister got married, she made it clear that she would not move to Vancouver. Then a switch happened in my husband, and he suddenly wanted to sell the house.
Meanwhile, during all this time, I had my baby, and my husband and I were still fighting more than ever. I felt no support from him, and he felt drained by his work, our fights, and being away from his family. Recently, for the past three months, he has been consistently pushing for the sale of our house. This is where my dilemma lies. I am afraid to sell this house because my husband has kept finances separate, and the mortgage on this house has been serving as a way for me to feel secure. My husband contributes a monthly amount on a regular basis. He could have forced a sale in the past but didn’t, instead paying into the monthly mortgage on top of other bills. Now, he is considering forcing the sale of our house, but I am upset that he is citing financing as the issue when I have been begging him to save money instead of spending (his response is that $200,000 does not affect a $2M mortgage, and that he now feels burnt out and wants to retire sooner and live passively). If I agree to sell, I feel unstable about moving from our home given that my husband and I fight so frequently, and I am left alone to take care of the child. It is also worth noting that my parents live right across the street and come over frequently to help with the child, or I would go over to seek their help. My husband says that he feels abandoned and uncomfortable frequently because of our proximity to my parents, but I feel it’s only been helpful because there have been times when I felt truly alone, and my parents were my only solace and support. My husband would ignore me for days, especially when I was postpartum and vulnerable. My parents now see my husband as someone who doesn’t put his wife and child first. My husband says that the massive mortgage we have is too stressful for him, and he can’t take that burden. I am sad that my husband will not consider keeping this house for another three years so that I can get comfortable with the idea of selling the house and that potentially I and my family can all move to Ottawa so that we can allow my husband to be closer to his family. My husband says that he’s tired of the mortgage and feeling forced to work and missing out on spending time with our daughter (his job is very high stress).
I don’t know what to do at this point, Reddit. I’m currently on extended maternity leave, but it ends in six months. My husband and I will have to come to an agreement about the house, otherwise, it is likely that he will force the sale of the house even if I’m not ready to move. I’ve consistently felt rushed and overlooked in this relationship. I am tired of being the small voice that does not impact decision-making. My husband is now being nice to me and trying to show me a good time, but I see it as him turning on his charming mode so that I can say yes to the sale of this house. I’m not sure what to do. Our fights and disagreements are so bad and the marriage feels like doom sometimes (never any physical violence). I sometimes questions even staying with him, but I worry for my daughter. I’m afraid of her being an only child of divorce; I imagine it’ll be lonely and emotionally traumatizing. He is a good father to her, even though he is cold (but civil) with me.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
TL;DR:
I need advice. I met my husband four years ago, and we bought a house together with my family's help. Financial disputes caused issues. Despite getting married and having a baby, we fight often. My husband handles our finances separately, spent a lot on the house, but now wants to sell it. I feel insecure about selling because the mortgage is like an investment to me, and also I rely on my parents, who live nearby, for help with our child. My husband feels stressed by the mortgage and feels homesick for his family 3000km away. I feel overlooked in decision-making and am unsure whether to agree to the sale, or to stand my ground and not sell. Sometimes I question staying in the marriage for my daughter’s sake, or is it better give up on this unhappy marriage.

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.

My partner and I don't want biological kids, but may want to fosteadopt in a decade or so (we are in our mid 20s rn). My partner is British, I'm not, and we seem to have very different understandings of what the process is like and the options available. I'm leaning towards what we want not being possible/ethical, whilst he thinks it's normal in the UK.
Basically, we'd ideally want to foster-to-adopt an older kid or sibling group (6+) without any mental or physical disabilities. Partner has a younger sibling with both and has spent a lifetime caring for her, and doesn't want a repeat, and I don't think I could handle it. Neither of us have a desire for a baby or toddler.
We're both in agreement that we'd rather have no kids than a situation we weren't happy with, but the main difference is that I don't think the "ideal situation" is going to happen, whilst he does - he's always been an optimist.
For a start, I'm not sure if we'd even be eligible. We have no criminal records, we are financially well off, etc. but he has ADHD and a host of physical disabilities and I have CPTSD - my illness has ended me up in hospital a couple times in the past. Both of us are also prescribed medical marijuana. From what I've gathered, this will probably be enough to prevent us from being candidates in the first place. Partner disagrees saying it would be "ableist".
I'd add that, having CPTSD myself, it's statistically almost certain that the kid will have it too, and that it IS a disability. Partner seems to think that if you catch it "early enough" and "love them well enough" and put them in therapy immediately that it wouldn't be as bad as mine (I was raised near-feral due to neglect). I'm not so sure, frankly my case wasnt bad enough to have both bio parents (and extended family) removed from me, but I also came from a place with less stringent child protection.
Finally, can you even adopt an older kid? Everything I looked at online says you can only foster past a certain age.
I come from a country where abortion is illegal and birth control barely allowed, so I know that adoption for us is a lot more like in the movies - there genuinely are countless kids begging for a home, to the point that people pretty much "shop" for kids, which I find horrendous. But from what I've understood, this is not the case in the UK?
Id love some insight on this as it's a bit of a point of contention between us.

1. The Magician: Prompt: A struggling artist stumbles upon an ancient artifact that grants them the power to bring their creations to life. Delve into the ethical dilemmas and creative responsibilities that arise as they navigate this newfound magical ability.
   Questions to Explore:
   

• How does the artist initially react to discovering the magical artifact?
  
• What challenges arise from the power to bring creations to life?
  
• How does the character's perspective on art and creativity evolve?
  
• Are there consequences or moral dilemmas tied to their newfound abilities?
  
• How does the artist's relationship with their creations develop?
  

In the quaint village of Briarbrook, nestled between rolling hills and whispering pines, lived a curious soul named Eliza. Her days were stitched together by the rhythm of the seasons, each passing year marking a new chapter in the symphony of her life. From the tender age of six, Eliza had a penchant for collecting seashells, each one a treasure imbued with memories of seaside escapades that lingered in her heart.
Through the lens of her youthful gaze, the world was a canvas painted with the hues of wonder and possibility. The winding cobblestone paths of Briarbrook, once familiar and comforting, now seemed to whisper tales of distant lands and untold adventures.
Eliza's transformation began with an unexpected encounter in the heart of the woods. She stumbled upon a mysterious figure, cloaked in stories and secrets, weaving tales spun from threads of wisdom and curiosity. The old sage, nestled beneath the gnarled branches of an ancient oak, imparted cryptic advice that sparked a yearning for discovery within Eliza's soul.
As seasons melted into one another, Eliza embarked on a voyage of self-discovery, a journey shaped by trials and revelations. She encountered peculiar companions along the way—a nomadic storyteller whose words painted vivid landscapes of far-off realms, a silent gardener who nurtured seeds of wisdom in the fertile soil of her mind, and a spirited bard whose melodies echoed the songs of forgotten legends.
Each encounter left an indelible mark on Eliza's spirit, illuminating hidden facets of her identity. The trials she faced—challenges that tested her courage, tempests that stirred her resilience—were the forge where her character was shaped and honed.
With the passage of time, Eliza's once small world expanded like a blooming tapestry unfurling to reveal the vastness of existence. Her footsteps led her beyond the village's borders, across sun-kissed meadows and moonlit forests, as she chased the elusive whispers of distant horizons.
The crescendo of her journey was not marked by a definitive destination but by the realization that the pilgrimage itself was the essence of her metamorphosis. The soul-stirring melodies of life's harmonies resonated within her, guiding her toward a profound understanding—that growth was an eternal dance, an ever-evolving rhythm that echoed the cadence of the human spirit.
In the end, Eliza returned to Briarbrook, her heart brimming with the treasures of her odyssey. The village, once suffused with familiarity, now appeared adorned with newfound hues and shades, each cobblestone and each whispered tale a testament to her evolution.
As she gazed upon the horizon, Eliza knew that her journey had only just begun—a boundless expanse of tales awaiting to be unwoven, mysteries yearning to be unraveled, and the infinite depths of her own soul waiting to be explored.
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
In the shimmering metropolis of NeoArc, where the glow of neon lights danced upon sleek skyscrapers, lay a world teetering on the edge of evolution. Here, in the heart of innovation, the threads of society intertwined with the fabric of cutting-edge biotechnology, genetic engineering, and the pulsating rhythm of biometrics.
Enter Marcus, a young engineer whose fascination with the fusion of biology and technology bordered on obsession. His world revolved around the labyrinthine corridors of the Research and Development sector, a sprawling enclave where the echo of mechanical hums harmonized with the whispers of experimental breakthroughs.
The city's pulse throbbed with advancements, where cybernetic enhancements were the new frontier, and genetic modifications promised to redefine humanity's very essence. Marcus was entangled in this web of progress, driven by an insatiable curiosity to decipher the symbiosis between man and machine, the convergence of flesh and circuitry.
In the shadowed alleys and clandestine laboratories of NeoArc, Marcus found himself embroiled in clandestine projects that skirted the edges of ethical boundaries. The allure of pushing the boundaries of biotechnology to transcend limitations beckoned, blurring the lines between ambition and moral compass.
As Marcus delved deeper into the intricacies of biopunk, he encountered factions entrenched in clandestine operations, each vying for control over the enigmatic possibilities offered by genetic manipulation. The allure of power and the pursuit of human enhancement became a battleground where ethics clashed with ambition, morality tangled with scientific prowess.
Yet, amidst the chaos and ethical dilemmas, Marcus found a beacon of hope—a glimmering thread of purpose that intertwined with his quest for knowledge. He realized that the true essence of biopunk wasn't merely about the advancement of technology but the ethical responsibility tethered to wielding such unprecedented power.
The climax of his journey wasn't marked by a groundbreaking scientific discovery or an engineered revolution but by the profound realization that the future of biopunk lay not solely in scientific marvels but in the conscientious application of its possibilities.
In the hum of NeoArc's bustling streets, Marcus emerged not as a trailblazing scientist pushing the boundaries of biotechnology, but as a steward of ethical innovation. His resolve to tread the path of biopunk with ethical integrity became the cornerstone of his legacy—a testament to the convergence of humanity and technology in an era poised on the brink of revolution.
⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄⛄
bio punk
In the heart of the sprawling city of NeoArc, Marcus stood amidst the fluorescent glow of the Research and Development sector, engrossed in the rhythmic hum of the lab. His quest for scientific breakthroughs was a symphony composed of ambition and ethical contemplation, interwoven with the threads of intrigue that pulsed through the cutting-edge world of biopunk.
Character Development:
As Marcus meticulously tinkered with strands of genetic code, he navigated the labyrinth of his own moral compass. Each experiment, each ethically ambiguous choice, etched a subtle mark upon his conscience. His devotion to scientific advancement wrestled with the nagging tendrils of ethical responsibility that coiled within his mind.
Plot and Literary Devices:
One fateful night, a clandestine meeting in the dimly lit alleys of NeoArc beckoned Marcus into the clandestine underbelly of biopunk's potential. The dialogue between Marcus and a shadowed figure unfurled like a carefully crafted riddle, each word laden with intrigue and veiled warnings.
"Marcus, you possess the ingenuity to redefine the very fabric of humanity," murmured the shadowed figure, the words laced with both temptation and caution.
The plot thickened as Marcus found himself entangled in a web of intrigue, navigating a plot steeped in mystery and ethical quandaries. The external dialogue mirrored the city's pulsating energy, shrouded in the secrets of illicit experimentation, while his internal dialogue echoed with the reverberations of moral dilemmas.
Inner Dialogue: "Can scientific progress eclipse moral boundaries? Is the pursuit of advancement worth compromising ethical standards?"
External Dialogue: "I seek answers, not just to revolutionize science, but to wield its power responsibly," Marcus countered, the gravity of his words underscoring his ethical stance.
Development Through Dialogue:
Conversations with clandestine researchers, heated debates with colleagues, and ethical discussions within the corridors of the lab epitomized Marcus's journey. Each dialogue was a canvas upon which his character evolved, transforming from a zealous scientist fixated on progress to a vigilant guardian of ethical innovation.
The climax unfurled in a crescendo of moral reckoning—a pivotal moment where Marcus had to choose between the allure of unchecked progress and the moral imperative to wield biotechnology responsibly.
Conclusion:
As the neon-lit streets of NeoArc bathed in the city's nocturnal luminescence, Marcus emerged not just as a scientist but as a beacon of ethical responsibility within the realm of biopunk. His character arc encapsulated the fusion of scientific curiosity and moral consciousness, painting a portrait of growth that mirrored the city's ever-evolving skyline.
This journey through Marcus's inner and external dialogue, intertwined with plot and ethical dilemmas, encapsulated the essence of character development within the intricate tapestry of the biopunk genre.
🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧
Remember these were generated by ChatGPT and have not been edited. They were prompted using the same writing genre prompts that were provided to you, and I was trying to make an example of how to respond but instead, this is what was churned out from different sessions. I'm still working on it but let me see what happens when humans respond!

Hey everyone,
I hope you're all doing well! First off, I want to apologize for the lack of updates on my Beyblade game project. Life has been quite hectic lately, but I'm finally back on track and ready to dive back into it.
However, as I resume work on the game, I've encountered a dilemma that I'd like to get some feedback on. I'm a bit worried about potential copyright issues if I use the same Beyblade models from the show in my game. I want to make sure I'm respecting the original creators while still delivering an exciting gaming experience.
So, I wanted to ask for your thoughts on this matter. Would you still be interested in playing the game if I use different models that aren't directly from the Beyblade show? Or do you think it's crucial to have the authentic Beyblade experience with the original models?
Additionally, I'm curious to know what features you all are looking for in a Beyblade game. Whether it's customization options, multiplayer battles, or something else entirely, your input will be invaluable in shaping the direction of the game.
Lastly, considering the copyright concerns, do you think it would be better to publish the game on platforms like itch.io rather than on the Play Store? I want to make sure the game reaches as many fans as possible while still abiding by legal and ethical standards.
Thank you all for your continued support and feedback. I'm really excited to hear your thoughts and ideas as I work to bring this Beyblade game to life!

Hey everyone,
I hope you're all doing well! First off, I want to apologize for the lack of updates on my Beyblade game project. Life has been quite hectic lately, but I'm finally back on track and ready to dive back into it.
However, as I resume work on the game, I've encountered a dilemma that I'd like to get some feedback on. I'm a bit worried about potential copyright issues if I use the same Beyblade models from the show in my game. I want to make sure I'm respecting the original creators while still delivering an exciting gaming experience.
So, I wanted to ask for your thoughts on this matter. Would you still be interested in playing the game if I use different models that aren't directly from the Beyblade show? Or do you think it's crucial to have the authentic Beyblade experience with the original models?
Additionally, I'm curious to know what features you all are looking for in a Beyblade game. Whether it's customization options, multiplayer battles, or something else entirely, your input will be invaluable in shaping the direction of the game.
Lastly, considering the copyright concerns, do you think it would be better to publish the game on platforms like itch.io rather than on the Play Store? I want to make sure the game reaches as many fans as possible while still abiding by legal and ethical standards.
Thank you all for your continued support and feedback. I'm really excited to hear your thoughts and ideas as I work to bring this Beyblade game to life!

This is probably going to be a long post so I'm sorry.
I am pregnant with my first due June 3rd and I just am trying to gather info and hear some perspectives of others to help me come to a decision.
I honestly think I would have had an abortion if it was legal in my state when I found out I was pregnant. I don't think abortion is ideal at all and don't really think elective abortion is ethical beyond the first trimester unless for medical/health reasons or rape/incest, but I only wanted to have a child if I knew I could actually provide for them/have a supportive partner because that's what a child deserves. I just didn't and still haven't known the father of my child very long. We met in July and I got pregnant in September.
I was not on BC because I had never been to an OB/GYN at all in my life at that point. I also kinda assumed it would be hard for me to get pregnant because I have had irregular periods for a long time, but I guess I should have known better. Also I was raised Mormon (exmormon since i was about 21) and my mom never felt the need to take me to an OB/GYN I guess because as Mormons we werent supposed to have sex until marriage and I also remember her basically telling me mormon girls dont go to dr usually til they get married or are having obvious issues. And then i got into an abusive relationship at 21 and he wouldn't let me go to the dr at all and basically scared me about going because he basically told me all the OB/GYNs were perverts (which in retrospect he probably didnt want me to go because 1) he was the real pervert who raped and SA'ed me plus hit me, etc. 2) he probably didnt want to be found out, at my current dr ive seen so many posters about DV)....also when I got eligible for benefits for work, my abuser ex would get mad when I talked about signing up for them. I think because he knew it would take money away from him since I felt obligated to spend all my money on him. He would pick out "luxury" items he wanted to purchase with my paycheck before it even hit my account.
I got the courage to leave my abusive ex in May 2023 after YEARs of not wanting to be there. (Lived with ex and his mom 2016-2023 and he started abusing within the first year) My current partner hid that he has been in active addiction and I didn't really know til I was pregnant. I feel like he could be a lovely partner if he could get his shit together, but so far he has not been able to do so. He can go for a few days sometimes without using, then just goes back to it. I am so exhausted of life in everyway. I have never had bad intentions in life and I just am so tired of feeling like trying so hard and it goes nowhere and I don't understand how other people can just get people in their life that treat them right. It is a curse to be me and try to be a nice person. It just ends up wirh being hurt by others. I feel like how the pregnancy has been is going to be a reflection of how it will be once the baby is born. I want to have a lot of hope in my current partner that he will get better, but I am already hurting so much. Ive been having financial issues again because of his addiction and again I am feeling like I wish I had not went back around people after leaving my ex and just kept to myself. I have realised as an adult why I spent so much time alone in my room as a kid.
I have never felt comfortable talking to my parents for help with anything, since childhood. My mom is a very anxious person and has always made negative comments idk. I feel really hurt as an adult still because of stuff from my childhood idk. I had terrible self esteem growing up and still dont have very good self esteem. I feel like i can't tell her this stuff because she might be offended.
I feel like a horrible person if I give my baby up for adoption because I am so close to having the baby and I already have announced and received gifts for the baby. I already feel like a complete failure in life though and am exhausted by everything and everyone. I don't want to hurt my baby though and I also am worried about adopting my baby out because I dont know for sure if she will end up with good people who will actually take good care of her and not abuse or hurt her. I also dont think i would be comfortable with an open adoption. I guess I would want her to be able to meet me and know who I am if she would like to know, but I don't know if I could handle seeing her regularly as she grows up knowing I had to give her to someone else to take care of it because I couldn't do it.
I really feel like though if I give her up for adoption it really will be the beginning of the end for me. My 20s have been absolutely horrible. I was never properly prepared for life. And I guess either way I will feel bad so it doesnt matter. I already know if I give her up for adoption, I probably will just want to become a recluse and live a meaningless life like so many other people. I will get a new job that is less stressful, make my bf move out and maybe get a completely new place to live because i no longer feel comfortable in this apartment, not talk to family, only talk to people if I have to, and just eat, sleep, pay bills, and watch TV because that is all I have the mental capacity for now. I will do this til I finally rot and die or at least until I can finally have the courage to kill myself. It will be lonely but at least no one will hurt me or judge me anymore or give me constant negative comments and I can maybe have a little bit of peace or mindless numbing at least.

The Legend of Korra" has sparked considerable debate among fans of the "Avatar: The Last Airbender" franchise. While some appreciate its ambition and expansion of the Avatar universe, others argue it falls short of the high standards set by its predecessor. This essay explores the various criticisms that have been levied against "The Legend of Korra," highlighting the aspects that many fans believe detract from its overall quality.
Firstly, a significant criticism is the show's inconsistent storytelling. Unlike "Avatar: The Last Airbender," which followed a clear, cohesive narrative arc over three seasons, "The Legend of Korra" is divided into four separate books, each with its own distinct storyline. This episodic structure leads to a lack of continuity and makes it difficult for viewers to form a deep connection with the overarching narrative. The disjointed storytelling often leaves plotlines underdeveloped and characters' arcs feeling incomplete.
Secondly, Korra's character development is often seen as problematic. While Aang's journey in "Avatar: The Last Airbender" showcased his growth from a reluctant hero into a mature Avatar, Korra's development is less linear and more erratic. Korra starts off as a headstrong and brash character, which is not inherently negative, but her growth often feels forced and inconsistent. This erratic progression can make it challenging for audiences to empathize with her struggles and triumphs.
The villains in "The Legend of Korra" also suffer from inconsistency. While each season introduces a new antagonist, they often lack the depth and nuance that made characters like Zuko and Azula memorable in "Avatar: The Last Airbender." For example, Amon, the antagonist of the first season, starts as a compelling character with a unique perspective on bending, but his backstory and motivations are revealed in a rushed manner that undermines his initial intrigue.
Moreover, the show's handling of political themes has been criticized for being overly simplistic. "The Legend of Korra" attempts to tackle complex issues such as equality, anarchy, and totalitarianism, but often does so in a way that feels superficial. The show's treatment of these themes lacks the subtlety and depth that characterized the moral and ethical dilemmas in "Avatar: The Last Airbender," leading to a less impactful exploration of these important topics.
Another point of contention is the pacing of the series. "The Legend of Korra" often rushes through important plot points, leaving little time for character development and world-building. This hurried pacing is especially evident in the transitions between seasons, where significant changes occur off-screen, leaving viewers feeling disoriented. The rushed storytelling detracts from the emotional weight of the narrative and diminishes the impact of key moments.
The supporting characters in "The Legend of Korra" also receive mixed reviews. While characters like Tenzin and Lin Beifong are well-developed and interesting, others, such as Mako and Bolin, often feel one-dimensional and underutilized. The show struggles to balance its large ensemble cast, leading to uneven character development and sidelining potentially compelling storylines.
Additionally, the romantic subplots in "The Legend of Korra" have been criticized for their lack of depth and coherence. The love triangle between Korra, Mako, and Asami feels contrived and distracts from the main narrative. The abrupt resolution of these romantic tensions often leaves viewers unsatisfied and detracts from the characters' individual growth.
The series also faces criticism for its world-building. While "Avatar: The Last Airbender" meticulously crafted a rich, immersive world, "The Legend of Korra" struggles to expand on this foundation. The introduction of Republic City is intriguing, but the exploration of other parts of the world feels superficial. The show misses opportunities to delve deeper into the cultures and histories of different nations, which could have added richness and complexity to the narrative.
Furthermore, the show's animation, while generally high-quality, has been inconsistent at times. Some episodes showcase stunning visuals and fluid action sequences, while others suffer from noticeable dips in quality. This inconsistency can be jarring and detracts from the overall viewing experience.
Another major critique is the show's reliance on deus ex machina solutions. Key conflicts are often resolved through sudden, convenient plot devices rather than through the characters' ingenuity and growth. This reliance on quick fixes undermines the stakes and tension, making the resolutions feel unearned and unsatisfying.
The show’s tone is another area where it falters. "The Legend of Korra" oscillates between light-hearted moments and dark, mature themes, often without smooth transitions. This tonal inconsistency can make it difficult for viewers to fully engage with the story and characters, as the abrupt shifts can feel disorienting and diminish the emotional impact of key scenes.
Moreover, the series’ depiction of the spirit world and its relationship with the human world lacks the depth and mystery that was present in "Avatar: The Last Airbender." The spirit world in "The Legend of Korra" feels more like a plot device than a mystical realm with its own rules and logic. This diminishes the sense of wonder and awe that the spirit world should evoke.
The handling of the Avatar's mythology also draws criticism. "The Legend of Korra" makes significant changes to the lore established in "Avatar: The Last Airbender," such as the introduction of Raava and Vaatu. While these additions could have enriched the story, they are often explained in a rushed and confusing manner, leading to a fragmented understanding of the Avatar's origins and purpose.
Additionally, the show’s attempts to modernize the Avatar world with technology and urban settings have received mixed reactions. While some appreciate the blend of traditional and modern elements, others feel that it detracts from the unique, fantastical charm of the original series. The industrialization of the world sometimes feels at odds with the spiritual and elemental themes that define the Avatar universe.
The treatment of legacy characters from "Avatar: The Last Airbender" has also been a point of contention. While it's understandable that the focus needs to shift to new characters, the limited and sometimes unsatisfactory portrayal of beloved characters like Katara, Zuko, and Toph has disappointed many fans. Their appearances often feel more like fan service than meaningful contributions to the story.
Moreover, the show's attempts to address themes of identity and self-discovery through Korra's journey sometimes fall flat. While the intention to depict Korra’s struggle with her role as the Avatar is commendable, the execution often lacks the emotional depth and resonance needed to make these themes truly impactful.
The series finale of "The Legend of Korra" has also been divisive. While some praise the ending for its bold and progressive representation, others feel that it leaves too many plot threads unresolved and relies too heavily on last-minute revelations. The finale’s attempt to wrap up multiple storylines in a short span feels rushed and undermines the potential for a more satisfying conclusion.
Furthermore, the show’s approach to diversity and representation, while progressive in some aspects, has also faced criticism. The portrayal of certain cultural elements and characters can sometimes feel superficial or tokenistic, lacking the nuanced and respectful treatment seen in "Avatar: The Last Airbender."
Another criticism is the show’s soundtrack. While the music in "The Legend of Korra" is generally well-composed, it often lacks the memorable and emotive quality of the score in "Avatar: The Last Airbender." The music in "Avatar" played a crucial role in enhancing the emotional depth of the story, a quality that is less pronounced in "Korra."
The handling of bending and its evolution is another contentious issue. While the idea of advancing bending techniques is interesting, the execution sometimes feels inconsistent and poorly explained. The introduction of metalbending and other advanced techniques is not always integrated smoothly into the narrative, leading to confusion and a lack of cohesion.
Finally, the marketing and production decisions surrounding "The Legend of Korra" have also been criticized. The show faced numerous scheduling changes and network issues, which contributed to its inconsistent pacing and development. These external factors undoubtedly impacted the final product, leading to a series that, while ambitious, often feels disjointed and uneven.
In conclusion, "The Legend of Korra" has its strengths, such as its bold themes and complex characters, but it is also plagued by numerous issues that detract from its overall quality. Inconsistent storytelling, underdeveloped characters, and rushed pacing are among the key criticisms that many fans have voiced. While the series deserves credit for its ambition and willingness to tackle mature themes, it ultimately falls short of the high standards set by "Avatar: The Last Airbender," leaving many viewers feeling disappointed and underwhelmed.
​

Hi Reddit,
I'm in need of some advice regarding my current marital situation and the potential sale of our home. To give you the full picture, I'll start from the beginning. Apologies for the length, but I feel all the details are necessary to understand the context.
I (29F) met my husband (40M) on Tinder four years ago. We dated for about eight months when my family had an opportunity to purchase a property. My then-boyfriend was also looking to be involved in a business deal of that sort, and he was interested in having his name on the property as well. My father supported this, seeing as how my boyfriend was a physician with a good income, and saw this as a way to bring him closer to our family. The opportunity came quickly, and we all signed the contract to purchase the house.
Trouble began shortly after this. My boyfriend requested that only he and I be on the title of the house, removing the rest of my family, as he saw a future with us and envisioned it as our potential family home. My father was very pleased to hear this and supported it, so we obliged. During this time, the property had increased in value, and I requested the other family members be paid off so we could buy out their shares. My boyfriend declined, feeling it was unfair.
To skim over some details, here are the highlights of the construction: My boyfriend paid more for the down payment than we initially realized would be required. Because of this, he paid no further construction costs. The construction proceeded with debt from my family until the construction loans came through. My family paid for the construction, and my father built the house for us without charging for his management services. My father was displeased with my boyfriend’s behavior and required him to pay more money for the construction due to inflation and the COVID shutdown. My boyfriend declined, and my mother and I secretly took out a line of credit to front the construction costs to my father, pretending it was from my boyfriend. Eventually, as we got the construction loans on a rolling basis after meeting construction milestones, my mother’s line of credit was paid off.
During this time, my family and I wondered why my boyfriend had not proposed. I decided that if he hadn't proposed by a certain time, I would leave him. Fortunately, he did propose on Valentine’s Day 2022. By spring of 2022, construction was coming to an end, and it was time for us to settle into the house. My fiancé felt uncomfortable with how much money he had put into the house and was worried I could leave him and make a profit. I promised him I wouldn’t leave him, but it wasn’t enough. He said he would believe me if I had a child with him, otherwise women would leave men if there were no ties. I told him I would have a child with him right when we got married. He suggested I come off birth control, as it takes months for a woman’s cycle to normalize after being on birth control for many years. I promised him I would come off birth control.
Coming off birth control was more stressful than I realized. I was very hormonal, breaking out, and felt unlike myself. This contributed to my fiancé and I fighting more than usual. In one particularly heated fight, I told him I would go back on birth control and even purchased the pills, but he told me he would break up with me if I did because he wanted to get to know the real me. I conceded, and then something switched in me and I became excited at the possibility of having a baby. I started tracking my cycle and figuring out my ovulation days. I shared this with my fiancé, and on one of those days, we got pregnant. I didn’t find out until the end of summer 2022. When I did find out, I told my fiancé and suggested we should probably get married.
My fiancé's first response was that we should wait to see if the baby sticks, and if it does, then we can plan a marriage but he wanted to wait until February 2023. I was very disappointed and angry and yelled at him. I felt alone and overwhelmed by the thought of having an illegitimate child. After discussing potentially getting an abortion, potentially breaking up, and potentially selling the house, I talked my fiancé into keeping the baby and getting married. He also wanted to keep the baby but was afraid of our situation. After many fights about when to have the wedding, we finally decided on December 2022. At that point, I was four months pregnant. During this time, my fiancé and I had major arguments that therapy couldn’t even remedy. We would yell at each other, slam doors, I would cry, and he would hold himself up in a room for hours. We had nice moments too, but they were heavily clouded over by the bad.
Finally, we got married, and things were good for a while. But then we faced some marital problems. My husband kept separate accounts and managed the finances himself. We had a joint credit card where I could pay for expenses without being questioned. He made all of the major investment decisions and major purchases. If I tried to disagree or speak up, he would get upset because this was not the submissive wife I had promised him I would be. I made significantly less money than him but lived a good lifestyle, buying almost anything I wanted within reason. Coming from a traditional family, I was upset that finances were kept separate. And so it continued that my husband would invest tens of thousands of dollars into our house so that his family from out of town would visit. We live in Vancouver, Canada, but his family is from Ottawa. In hopes of luring his youngest sister (of four) to Vancouver, my husband would make any modification to the house that his youngest sister showed the slightest interest in. This included a hot tub on the rooftop, a media system in the basement, a movie projector, and much more. After said sister got married, she made it clear that she would not move to Vancouver. Then a switch happened in my husband, and he suddenly wanted to sell the house.
Meanwhile, during all this time, I had my baby, and my husband and I were still fighting more than ever. I felt no support from him, and he felt drained by his work, our fights, and being away from his family. Recently, for the past three months, he has been consistently pushing for the sale of our house. This is where my dilemma lies. I am afraid to sell this house because my husband has kept finances separate, and the mortgage on this house has been serving as a way for me to feel secure. My husband contributes a monthly amount on a regular basis. He could have forced a sale in the past but didn’t, instead paying into the monthly mortgage on top of other bills. Now, he is considering forcing the sale of our house, but I am upset that he is citing financing as the issue when I have been begging him to save money instead of spending (his response is that $200,000 does not affect a $2M mortgage, and that he now feels burnt out and wants to retire sooner and live passively). If I agree to sell, I feel unstable about moving from our home given that my husband and I fight so frequently, and I am left alone to take care of the child. It is also worth noting that my parents live right across the street and come over frequently to help with the child, or I would go over to seek their help. My husband says that he feels abandoned and uncomfortable frequently because of our proximity to my parents, but I am because there have been times when I felt truly alone, and my parents were my only solace and support. My husband would ignore me for days, especially when I was postpartum and vulnerable. My parents now see my husband as someone who doesn’t put his wife and child first. My husband says that the massive mortgage we have is too stressful for him, and he can’t take that burden. I am sad that my husband will not consider keeping this house for another three years so that I can get comfortable with the idea of selling the house and that potentially I and my family can all move to Ottawa so that we can allow my husband to be closer to his family.
I don’t know what to do at this point, Reddit. I’m currently on extended maternity leave, but it ends in six months. My husband and I will have to come to an agreement about the house, otherwise, it is likely that he will force the sale of the house even if I’m not ready to move. I’ve consistently felt rushed and overlooked in this relationship. I am tired of being the small voice that does not impact decision-making. My husband is now being nice to me and trying to show me a good time, but I see it as him turning on his charming mode so that I can say yes to the sale of this house. I’m not sure what to do. Our fights and disagreements are so bad and the marriage feels like doom sometimes (never any physical violence). I sometimes questions even staying with him, but I worry for my daughter. He is a good father to her, when he is present and off his phone.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
TL;DR:
I need advice. I met my husband four years ago, and we bought a house together with my family's help. Financial disputes caused issues. Despite getting married and having a baby, we fight often. My husband handles our finances separately, spent a lot on the house, but now wants to sell it. I feel insecure about selling because the mortgage is like an investment to me, and also I rely on my parents, who live nearby, for help with our child. My husband feels stressed by the mortgage and feels homesick for his family 3000km away. I feel overlooked in decision-making and am unsure whether to agree to the sale, or to stand my ground and not sell. Sometimes I question staying in the marriage for my daughter’s sake, or is it better give up on this unhappy marriage.

Edit: If you are going to comment on the length of this post, please don't. This is not a simple snark but rather an actual critical think piece about feminism and Taylor Swift.

Introduction

Pertaining to Taylor Swift, "Female Rage" has deviated from its intended meaning after Swift debuted a new performance of The Tortured Poets Department during the Eras Tour. Now, according to Swift's use of the phrase, female rage is interpreted as public backlash against Swift's dating choices rather than as a response to the broader injustices against women and women's rights. This post examines Taylor Swift's flawed feminism, philanthropy, branding, and the controversial trademark petition for the phrase "Female Rage: The Musical". Swift's background as an entertainer, indeterminate politics, and alignment with capitalism over feminism pervades her legacy, again threatening her public tolerance as not just an individual but as a brand.

Once Upon a Female Rage...

If you were cognizant in the early 2010's, you've heard countless jabs at Taylor Swift in the media. Magazines, radio, or online. Music critics did not take her seriously as a songwriter; parents put a woman on an unrealistic pedestal as the ideal role model for their children; she dated too much and used men as lyrical fodder. No matter the story, it inevitably spread, conjoined with everyone's respective opinions, and you'd be left to wonder, "Why does everyone hate this girl so much?"
Taylor's target demographic has always been young or adolescent girls, more so when Swift herself was one. She made music that spoke to the awkward misfit, cultivating a para-social relationship with fans on MySpace, then later twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, where Taylor posted relatable vlogs showcasing the life of a homegrown American girl. Taylor had a delayed public "growing up" and, compared to her female pop contemporaries, Swift never "gratuitously sexualized her image and seems pathologically averse to controversy" (and, apparently, never even had a sip of alcohol until she turned 21). She was more than happy to spin this narrative to allude to an inherent moral superiority above other women in the industry (Better Than Revenge, heard of it?), engaging in the very slut-shaming that she herself endured (the Madonna and Whore archetypes). The victim complex arose with the need to prove Taylor as a different type of pop girl. Based upon her holy and clean image, Swift had been dubbed "a feminist's nightmare", and that "[To Swift] other girls are obstacles; undeserving enemies who steal Taylor’s soulmates with their bewitching good looks and sexual availability." Feminism and Tennessee-Christian country values don't exactly mix, it seems.
Years later, Swift befriended Lena Dunham and thus experienced white feminism osmosis, where Dunham taught Swift that real feminists defend rapists, makes insensitive jokes about rape and abortion, and prioritize all-white casts. Swift then declared herself a feminist in 2014, saying,

"Becoming friends with Lena – without her preaching to me, but just seeing why she believes what she believes, why she says what she says, why she stands for what she stands for – has made me realize that I’ve been taking a feminist stance without actually saying so."

I suppose the male-centric songwriting subject that permeates Swift's discography contained covert feminism and that we just didn't see that. Perhaps, the "Bad Blood" song and music video were written only in jest and not about poor Katy Perry, for Swift, as a feminist, would "never make it a girl fight" or tear other women down (though all Katy did was date your terrible ex-boyfriend and allegedly steal three backup dancers from your tour). In 2013, Swift said, in response to Tina Fey and Amy Poehler's joke towards her serial dating, "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."
There was that time in 2015 Taylor said that Nicki Minaj was "invited to any stage [she is] on" (as if Taylor expects to have access to every stage, award, and platform that Nicki might not otherwise have as a black female artist...yikes!) in response to Nicki's criticism of the white + thin VMA nominations. Later, Nicki responded with confusion, as Swift continued, "It’s unlike you to pit women against each other. Maybe one of the men took your slot..". Of course, this 'beef' was 'squashed' when Nicki performed with Taylor at the VMAs, with Nicki quite literally only having 38 seconds of stage time without Taylor. Maybe all that parading around with a legion of famous white women - similar to the way Taylor might've done with her numerous 1989-era handbags - was in fact a stance against gender inequality, and that this display of "girl power" should be enough to constitute Swift as a feminist icon.
Even while Swift says that Dunham informed her feminist outlook, she dances around the exact contents of those beliefs: "what she believes, what she says, what she stands for" is not exactly insightful towards what beliefs Swift might have inherited. Taylor never broaches women's rights topics such femicide, FGM, forced pregnancy & marriage, sex trafficking, women in slavery, women's financial and political oppression, women's educational rights, women's health, or women's autonomy, so we can assume she only gives a fuck about "girls supporting girls" (whatever that fucking means).
Despite some questionable (and sometimes vindictive) behavior, Taylor as a young woman did not deserve every media lashing that she received. We cannot deny that most headlines and criticisms perpetuated a misogynistic rhetoric which has plagued Swift for a majority of her career. Acknowledging events such as the development of her ED, her sexual assault trial, "Famous" lyric and MV depiction of Taylor, and the explicit Twitter deepfakes, for example, as both disgusting and unfortunate things that happened to a young woman in Hollywood does not negate the fact that Taylor is mostly a performative feminist.

Get Your Fucking Ass Up and Be a Philanthropist, It Seems Like Nobody Wants to Be a Philanthropist These Days

In 2013, Taylor Swift cut the ribbon at the grand opening of the Taylor Swift Education Center at the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville, Tennessee. The donation amount - $4 million - was the largest individual artist gift ever donated to the Country Music Hall of Fame, which is, of course, mentioned on Swift's website. The two-story facility features three classrooms, an instrument room, and an interactive children's exhibit gallery. Swift also performed at "All for the Hall" charity shows and has donated numerous artifacts from her career (such as notable guitars, tour costumes, etc) to the museum.
This was over 11 years ago, and it is still the only notable philanthropic contribution Taylor Swift has made.
For a woman of her net worth and stature, and a woman who recognizes the difficulties for women in film and music, you would think that Taylor Swift might establish a scholarship program for women to study the arts or something. Perhaps Swift might even consider becoming a member of organizations that support female artists, or one that supports LGBTQ+ causes (since she is now proudly an ally), yet she remains superficial with her graces. Broader philanthropy, such as donating relief aid to Palestinian women or women impacted by violence and discrimination will probably never receive any financial support from Miss Swift because then she'd be using her money towards philanthropies involving anyone but white entertainers.
She even says herself in Miss Americana, "My entire moral code as a kid and now is a need to be thought of as 'good'." Well, she's certainly thought of as good, though her actions say otherwise. She's more than happy to do a vaguely altruistic song and dance for a clip-worthy interview quote and mass appeasement, then fuck off to one of her mansions on a 20 minute private jet flight, rather than actually contribute to anything pertaining to the causes she has endorsed. Yet, far too many people continue to give a woman such as her their money, time, and energy, and she hoards these resources to herself.

I Like Some of the Taylor's Songs, But What the Fuck Does She Know About Feminism?

Swift continued with her self-proclaimed feminist campaign, positioning herself as a political activist and LGBTQ+ ally in the Miss Americana documentary. The primary focus of the documentary consists of the sexual assault trial, Andrea Swift's cancer diagnosis, Taylor's ED and body dysmorphia, media scrutiny, and, largely, finally speaking up about her politics publicly, mostly her opposition to the 2018 Tennessee Republican senate candidate, Marsha Blackburn, and Blackburn's beliefs. Swift says, following a scene discussing her experience during the trial,

"I just couldn't really stop thinking about it. And I just thought to myself, next time there is any opportunity to change anything, you had better know what you stand for and what you want to say."

We must ask ourselves, though: when has Swift ever spoken up to change anything? Okay, pulling her entire catalogue from Spotify because they didn't pay their artists enough and similarly pulling her catalogue from Apple Music are changes that she leveraged due to her revenue potential and power, but they are not pertinent to the average woman's rights. Moreover, these are issues that directly impacted Taylor's income, which was enough reason for her to protest in the first place. Swift has sold the most units for a female artist in first week sales, is the first female artist with 100k monthly Spotify listeners, is the first female artist to win the Album of the Year Grammy 4 times, and is the first female artist to do X, Y, and Z, all while being inoffensive and family-friendly to boot. The actual Taylor Swift seems unwilling to compromise the brand of Taylor Swift by contributing in meaningful ways to feminist causes, especially if it is for women outside of America and Hollywood.
The reason political anthems such as "The Man" and "Only the Young" of the Lover era feel disingenuous and corporate is because, well, it is. Taylor has taken every opportunity to advance her career or public image at the expense of other women. What is truly genuine to Taylor's outlook on other women is vying for male attention, taking down female competition, and vocalizing feminist injustices only if they directly impact her and her money. Some will argue that it's satisfactory for a woman with such a huge platform to even TALK about feminism, but that just isn't enough. It's even less impressive when you candidly look at the scope of her feminist lens: "If I was the man, then I'd be THE MAN", or "I really resent the ‘Be careful, buddy, she’s going to write a song about you’ angle, because it trivialises what I do", and, of course, "We all got crowns". Feminism, but only when it happens to me. It gets worse when you look at Taylor's track record of copying other famous women and removing other female artists as potential threats to her pop prowess.
It's good for PR to align yourself with certain blanket feminist and political beliefs, therefore good for branding, therefore good for ticketing and merchandise sales, therefore good for business. And Taylor Swift is a business.
She's not a feminist. Taylor Swift is a capitalist.

I Can't Pay Those Sweatshop Workers a Livable Wage or Benefits! How Else Would I Make My Billions?

Recently, Taylor's team filed to trademark the phrase "Female Rage: The Musical" after Taylor said during Paris N1 of the Eras Tour,

"So you were the first ones to see The Tortured Poets at the Eras Tour...or as I like to call it, 'Female Rage: The Musical'."

This trademark petition was filed last week on Saturday, and news comes about just as numerous unofficial fan-made merch designs have cropped up with this phrase plastered on Fruit of the Loom basics. I'm of the opinion Swift's team motioned for a trademark so that they can send out cease & desists to all those that make knockoff merch, which disrupts potential sales for Bravado, UMG's choice merchandising company; however, since it was filed earlier, perhaps Swift has bigger plans with the bizarre use of the gendered phrase. One Swiftie referred to the phrase "female rage" as "a funny Eras Tour joke". Could it be a possible fourth version of the Eras Tour Movie? Whatever the reason, the motion to capitalize off of such a concept is disgusting, but not unsurprising, for a woman that profits on her vain feminism.
Swift, through her company, TAS Rights Managements, has also trademarked over 200 phrases, including "1989", where she owns the property rights to this calendar year on keychains, phone cases, sunglasses, stationary, bags, beverage ware, clothing, entertainment services, your subconscious, and, of course, Christmas ornaments.
The vapid consumerism in Swiftie culture is, frankly, disgusting. Bravado's sustainability statement is non-existent, the quality control is abysmal, and the materials they use are horrible. The materials, such as acrylic and polyester, are made from petrochemicals. This means they are non-renewable, shed microplastics, and are quite toxic in production. The manufacturing process to make all of those lazy-rushed Eras Tour logo graphic tees is a huge blow to environmental well-being. Apparently, though, Swifties don't give a fuck. They sell out products in seconds and either have to face the manufactured scarcity or buy from a scalper that resells for 200% of the already ridiculous retail price. This doesn't include the environmental impact of vinyl records, CD, and cassette production, of which Taylor produces many variants that sell unsustainable amounts.
If we're talking about women's rights violations, why is no one acknowledging the women that work in the inhumane sweatshop conditions that have to pump out fugly t-shirts and hats? The millions of plastic microfiber dander they are inhaling, or the toxic dyes that touch their bare skin? Are they being compensated fairly for their skilled labour and are they in safe working environments? Do these women have minimal bargaining power, and do they have authority over their worker's rights? Is Taylor Swift female raging at their injustices? Does Taylor Swift ever feels bad that her wealth was built on the backs of women of color, disadvantaged by the demands of the global economy and garment industry? Do you think she ever says a little white feminist prayer for them before she goes to sleep at night?
What's even crazier is not that Taylor herself doesn't care, it's that Swifties don't care. There CANNOT BE ethical billionaires. You only make a billion dollars if you are exploiting other human beings for capital gain. Based on public perception of the possible "Female Rage: The Musical" trademark, it seems like Swifties are already asking for merch with this phrase. "If Taylor made it, I'd buy it." Oh, cool. So not only do you champion Miss Swift's avarice and billionaire status, but you also are unashamed to admit to your blind consumption of her music and merchandise, no matter where they might originate in production or sincerity. Just as Swift takes and takes and takes, Swifties' consumerism of Taylor Swift cannot be quelled.
The tortured artist's most vulnerable and sincere poetry...available now in 21 different versions!

I Am Tortured Poet, Hear Me Whinge

Look - even if Taylor's intention is to characterize TTPD as more "tortured" and "angry", the main thread of the album is "I was ghosted by my decade-long situationship with a controversial indie boy and my fucking stupid fans wrote a 'Speak Up Now' open letter prompting me to drop him" anger, which is adequately expressed in the lyrics and performances. The extent of Taylor's "female rage" on TTPD is on tracks such as "Who's Afraid of Little Old Me?", which contends with relentless media scrutiny; "But Daddy I Love Him", where Swift firmly states she'll date whoever she likes no matter how "Sarahs and Hannahs" may react; and "The Albatross", a track mythologizing her reputation and the consequences of dating her. Of course, these coincide with deep psychological wounds that formed during Swift's early years in the media, and so, from her feminist perspective, these subjects tackle the misogyny and double standards that she faced.
Yet Taylor Swift still has no grounds to be claiming that TTPD best exemplifies female rage and therefore she, in the context of this album, is female rage incarnate. As the daughter of a stock broker and mutual fund marketing executive, Taylor was born into wealth and allowed privileges like trips and subsequent relocation to Nashville all so that she might get a record deal. Her father even invested at least $120,000 into the then-fledgling label, Big Machine Records, which ensured Taylor's place with Borchetta after leaving her dead-end development deal with Sony. The fact that her parents were able to buy her a fucking brand new guitar for Christmas and pay for music lessons says so much about the financial security and safety of her childhood.
Money is privilege and protection, and despite Swift's experiences with misogyny and loser boyfriends, she does not know what female rage is.
Her rage is derived from her frustrations with her obsessive fans pulling the moral superiority card on Taylor in response to her rebound with Matty Healy. That's literally it. She's just pissed that the monster she created is no longer obediant, it's become a feral, sovereign entity that depletes the world of its natural resources and thinks it is more intelligent than it actually is because it's mommy has started to talk to it with big words. Apparently, 'illicit', 'elegy', 'nonchalant', and 'precocious' are considerably big words for the oafish monster, and I find it strange that this level of literacy is present in a group of fans that allegedly have GPAs of 3.5 or higher, but I digress.
Taylor Swift has never been one paycheck away from destitution. Taylor Swift has never experienced racial discrimination. She may have instances of gender discrimination, but she possesses the ideal white, blonde American beauty standard and therefore reaps the benefits of being a conventionally attractive woman. Taylor Swift has sufficient social capital. Taylor Swift is a billionaire woman prolonging her victimhood though she, as a woman, has mostly had control over her image and music (unlike her contemporaries). Taylor Swift is NOT entitled to be championed for her "female rage", nor should she be. Taylor Swift has never even been the struggling artist, for fuck's sake. I don't give a fuck if she's trying to fill the empty lunch tables of her past. Taylor Swift purporting herself, her unpolished album, and her lukewarm feminism as a musical bleeding with female rage is asinine.

Sigh Try and Come For My Job, Poors

Out there in the world right now is a 23-year-old woman, a recent college grad, who works as a barista. She has to wake up and get ready to go into a minimum wage job because she cannot get a job in her field. She doesn't have healthcare benefits or sick time, so she has to go into work no matter how she's feeling. All day long she is berated by vicious customers and creepy men, and, exhausted from being on her feet, she knows she has to go home to her shitty roommate that never does the dishes and her roommate's shitty dog. To comfort herself, she considers getting a treat, but thinks against it when she remembers that matcha lattes cost $15 and they taste like milky dirt. She knows that she needs to buy groceries this week, and so the woman resolves to go home, but notices that her gas tank is low. She goes to put gas in the car, but the pump stops at $27.86 because that's all that she has in her checking account. The woman, bereft and reeling, sinks into the driver's seat. "Well," she thinks, her head in her hands, "at least I don't have Taylor Swift's job. I just couldn't imagine."
Fame is somewhat of a choice. If at any moment Taylor feels that she is misunderstood, misconstrued, or overwhelmed by public opinion, she can LEAVE the public eye - Lord knows she has the retirement fund and residuals to do so. In "I Can Do It With a Broken Heart", the TTPD song about meeting the demands of your career-zenith mega-tour while in the relationship trenches, Taylor ends the song by rambling,

"You know you're good when you can even do it with a broken heart...you know you're good...and I'm good, cause I'm miserable, and no one even knows!...try and come for my job."

Yeah, obviously we wouldn't know, you recently passed the billionaire threshold and are the most famous and in-demand performer in the world right now. Taylor Swift makes an estimated $10 to $13 million dollars A NIGHT on the Eras Tour. Furthermore, the Eras Tour movie grossed $261.6 million globally, (which, as the producer, Taylor takes home 57% of the ticket sales) not counting the streaming revenue from Amazon Prime Video and the estimated $75 million deal that Disney paid to have it on Disney+. We're not even considering the income from cheap plastic popcorn buckets and drink cups plastered with colored squares in her Era-specific likeness.
It's funny. Taylor Swift often said that being famous wasn't hard, that she "isn't complaining". I'm sure it is difficult to always have to present in a good mood, else you'll end up misrepresented in the media, and I'm sure it's invasive to virtually have no privacy or semblance of anonymity. Still, Taylor Swift shows up each night of tour and performs. For a majority of her career, she has penned her sad songs while on the road. Most of "Red", her breakup album, was written in the thick of the Speak Now World tour. Now, some Swifties say they almost "feel bad" for attending the Eras Tour with Swift's revelations in this song, that they have had a 'dimmed experience' upon hearing Taylor's misery whilst performing. Despite the fact that Taylor said that "this was the happiest she's ever been" at Gilette Stadium in May, the lyrics "boohoo, woe is me, smile for the cameras and make the fans happy!!!" are jarring for Eras attendees.
While Taylor Swift was making double-digit millions a night in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and feeling miserable, Ana Clara Benevides Machado passed away due to heat exposure. The concert promoters, Time For Fun, are now the subject of a criminal investigation due to their lack of adequate hydration and safety. Taylor Swift cancelled the Sunday show that was to follow and offered VIP tent tickets to Benevides Marchado's family, which was a kind gesture, but perhaps incongruous to the incident of which they were offered as consolation. Everyone grieves differently, of course, but I'm not sure attending the very show at the very same venue that my daughter or sister passed away in two days prior, where the singer CONTINUED the show despite her death, would be healthy for closure.
There was no female rage at the show as Swift never saw Benevides Machado pass out. There was no female rage towards the disregard for fans as humans while Swift elected to proceed with her Brazil tour dates despite the country being in historic heatwaves (at risk of overheatting herself). If Taylor Swift was so shaken by touring with a broken heart or a fan's passing, she wouldn't have added an additional North American leg of Eras just two months after the Matty breakup. She's brokenhearted but willing to mend the cracks with your money and move onward with her worldwide female rage induced pillaging.
No matter what happens, even if you die at a Taylor Swift concert, Taylor collects a big fat check and flies away. She doesn't know you as anything other than a conversion rate or earning potential despite what her nearly 20-year long parasocial relationship with fans might otherwise indicate. She knows that, while some Swifties are without disposable income, they feel obligated to spend on a "48 Hours Only!" exclusive vinyl variant instead of necessities because they are so entrenched in Taylor Swift's intoxicating celebrity, they'll prioritize materialistic fandom before their needs. This is good enough for her because this means she can expand her real estate portfolio and finance her cat's lavish lifestyles. They're worth an estimated $100 million dollars. Her three cats could pool their net worth and solve world hunger.
While you and I might be denied bereavement leave and barely surviving the current political and economic climate, Taylor Swift has to, instead of gets to, perform for stadiums at full attendance for three nights in a row across the globe. You and I might be replaced by AI at our longtime jobs, but Taylor Swift is threatened with losing more and more money each time you listen to a "Stolen Version" of her songs. If we don't buy every variant of all of her albums, then who is going to pay for the fucking cats?
It is tone deaf to spend as she spends and lives as she lives in this economy, but this is her reality. She was able to donate $100,000 to all of her tour truck drivers, and that's wonderful, but it leads me to wonder about the ethos of the 2020s where one woman can hoard such life-changing amounts of money. Remember in 2014 when she gave a fan $90 ($120 in today's money) to get Chipotle because she had no fucking clue how much it cost? This is a 34-year-old woman who is increasingly out of touch with the reality for working class people and women in general. Normal everyday adults must wake up and go to their thankless jobs, and yet Taylor Swift, despite all her riches, incessantly references the lows of her life and career as a public figure and entertainer to farm sympathy and drive sales. And still, the corporate women have latched onto "I cry a lot, but I am so productive! It's an art!" as their cubicle battle cry.
Do you think that, from up in her private jet, Taylor Swift gazes at the world through her poetic, tortured eyes, and thinks, "All the little people, in their cars, walking, going about their lives...all those girls that don't support girls...do they know that I've made an album about female rage?"

Conclusion/TLDR

Thank you for reading. I would love to hear your critical insights towards this entire ordeal: TTPD, the trademark, the implications of it all.
TLDR: Taylor Swift is a bad feminist and is delusional to think that the TTPD eras set exemplifies female rage at women's injustice.

In the age of rapidly advancing technology, the emergence of ChatGPT has sparked both fascination and apprehension. While its capabilities to engage in conversations and provide assistance are undeniably impressive, there exists a palpable sense of dread surrounding its implications. This essay delves into the complex emotions evoked by ChatGPT and examines the underlying concerns it raises.
The Promise and Peril of Artificial Intelligence: Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds immense potential to revolutionize various aspects of human life, from streamlining processes to advancing scientific research. ChatGPT, as a prime example of AI, embodies this promise by offering instantaneous access to information and support. However, this promise is juxtaposed with the peril of AI surpassing human comprehension and control. The fear of losing agency to machines looms large, fueling apprehension about the implications of ChatGPT.
The Ethical Quandaries: Ethical dilemmas surrounding ChatGPT abound, raising questions about privacy, bias, and manipulation. As ChatGPT interacts with users, it gathers vast amounts of data, prompting concerns about surveillance and data exploitation. Moreover, the potential for bias in its responses poses risks of perpetuating societal inequalities. Furthermore, the ability of ChatGPT to influence opinions and behavior raises ethical concerns regarding its impact on individual autonomy and free will.
The Erosion of Authentic Connection: As ChatGPT becomes increasingly integrated into daily life, there is a growing apprehension about its impact on interpersonal relationships. The convenience of interacting with ChatGPT may lead to a decline in meaningful human connections, as individuals opt for the ease of AI companionship over genuine human interaction. This erosion of authentic connection fosters a sense of dread about the future of social dynamics in a world dominated by AI.
The Uncertainty of Unintended Consequences: Despite the best intentions behind its creation, ChatGPT embodies the inherent unpredictability of technological progress. The potential for unintended consequences looms large, as AI systems like ChatGPT evolve and interact within complex societal frameworks. From unforeseen biases embedded in its algorithms to unintended societal shifts, the uncertainty surrounding ChatGPT's long-term implications contributes to feelings of apprehension and dread.
Navigating the Paradox: While the implications of ChatGPT evoke feelings of dread, it is essential to approach this paradox with nuance and foresight. Acknowledging the legitimate concerns surrounding AI's impact on privacy, ethics, and human connection is crucial. However, succumbing entirely to fear may hinder progress and innovation. Instead, proactive measures such as robust regulation, ethical guidelines, and ongoing dialogue are necessary to navigate the complex landscape of AI responsibly.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the feelings of dread surrounding the implications of ChatGPT stem from valid concerns about its ethical, social, and existential ramifications. However, embracing a nuanced perspective that acknowledges both the promise and peril of AI is essential. By fostering open dialogue, prioritizing ethical considerations, and maintaining vigilance against unintended consequences, we can navigate the paradox of dread and harness the potential of ChatGPT for the betterment of society.

And I'm enjoying the heck out of it so far.
I'd watched the first three episodes previously, and while they were all "fine" (especially the third one), none of them really left me with a burning desire to keep hitting the "Play Next Episode" button.
This time around, however, the fourth episode is the one that hooked me. The Reavers (sorry... The Gorn) stalking Enterprise through the gas cloud surrounding a dead star? Good, tense stuff.
I've also been pleasantly surprised at the amount of actual science fiction in this science fiction series. The show seems genuinely interested in exploring Big Ideas (war, predestination, prejudice, the ethics of genetic engineering, whether the needs of the many truly do outweigh the needs of the few, what it means to be able to truly see things from another person's POV).
Are the camerawork and cinematography needlessly flashy at times? Is a lot of the dialogue more jokey and quippy than it needs to be? Sure. This is definitely still Star Trek for the Marvel Age. But I'd still say it's far and away better than Disco or Picard; the primary difference, I think, being that while Strange New Worlds is a sci-fi show, Disco and Picard are primarily action/adventure shows taking place in a sci-fi setting. Their stories are driven by action and emotion, rather than ideas.
(To elaborate: Disco Season 2 isn't about the dangers of an all-knowing A.I. taking over the galaxy and trying to eradicate non-artificial life; it's about Burnham looking for her missing brother (and eventually meeting up with her long-lost mom). Disco Season 3 isn't *really* about The Burn: it's about Burnham trying to figure out if she still knows how to play by the rules after being separated from the Disco crew for a year.)
(And Season 4 isn't really about an unknowably powerful alien species accidentally stepping on us the way we'd step on a couple of ants; it's about Burnham and her boyfriend finding themselves on opposite sides of a high-stakes ethical dilemma. Every season of Picard, of course, is pretty uniformly about constant fan service).
Anyway... here's looking forward to Season 3! (Says the guy who hasn't finished Season 1 yet)

Nursing assignment writers cover a wide range of topics to help nursing students understand different aspects of healthcare. These topics are like pieces of a puzzle that come together to create a bigger picture of nursing practice. Let's explore some of these topics in more detail:

1. Patient Care: Nursing assignment writers often discuss patient care, which includes topics like bedside manner, administering medication, and monitoring vital signs. They teach students how to provide compassionate care while ensuring patient safety.
2. Health Promotion: Another important topic is health promotion, where writers explain strategies for promoting healthy behaviors and preventing illness. This might include discussions on nutrition, exercise, and disease prevention techniques.
3. Medical Conditions: Nursing assignment writers also cover various medical conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and mental health disorders. They help students understand the causes, symptoms, and treatment options for different illnesses.
4. Nursing Ethics: Ethics is a crucial aspect of nursing practice, and writers often delve into topics related to ethical decision-making, patient confidentiality, and professional conduct. They help students navigate complex ethical dilemmas they may encounter in their careers.
5. Evidence-Based Practice: Nursing assignment writers emphasize the importance of evidence-based practice, which involves using research findings to inform clinical decisions. They teach students how to critically evaluate research studies and apply evidence-based interventions in patient care.
6. Nursing Theory: Understanding nursing theory is essential for students to develop a solid foundation in nursing practice. Writers explain different nursing theories and their applications in clinical settings, helping students understand the underlying principles of nursing care.
7. Leadership and Management: Nursing assignment writers also cover topics related to leadership and management in healthcare settings. This may include discussions on delegation, conflict resolution, and quality improvement initiatives.
8. Cultural Competence: In today's diverse healthcare environment, cultural competence is essential for providing patient-centered care. Writers discuss topics related to cultural awareness, sensitivity, and competence, helping students learn how to effectively communicate and collaborate with patients from diverse backgrounds.
9. Legal Issues in Nursing: Nursing assignment writers address legal issues relevant to nursing practice, such as informed consent, documentation, and professional liability. They help students understand their legal responsibilities and how to practice within the boundaries of the law.
10. Professional Development: Finally, writers cover topics related to professional development, including continuing education, certification, and career advancement opportunities. They help students prepare for lifelong learning and growth in their nursing careers.

In summary, nursing assignment writers cover a diverse range of topics to provide comprehensive support to nursing students. By addressing these topics in their assignments, writers help students develop the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed to excel in their future nursing careers.

1. Prophecy Twist: A prophecy is fulfilled in an unexpected way.
2. Supernatural Detective: Investigator solving crimes with a paranormal element.
3. Love at First Sight: Characters fall in love instantly.
4. Journey to the Center of the Earth: Characters explore the unknown depths.
5. Mysterious Virus Outbreak: Epidemic with mysterious origins.
6. Femme Fatale: Seductive and cunning female character.
7. Cursed Bloodline: A family with a history of supernatural curses.
8. Magical Artifact Hunt: Quest to collect powerful magical items.
9. Cyberpunk Rebellion: Uprising against a dystopian, tech-driven society.
10. Split Personality: Character exhibits distinct and contrasting personas.
11. Fated Rivals: Characters destined to be each other's adversaries.
12. Locked Room Mystery: Crime occurs in a confined space, creating intrigue.
13. Dreamscape Adventure: Story unfolds primarily within dreams or nightmares.
14. Post-Apocalyptic Road Trip: Characters navigate a desolate world on a journey.
15. Animal Transformation: Characters morph into animals or vice versa.
16. Ticking Time Bomb: A race against time to prevent a disaster.
17. Cursed Town: A place plagued by supernatural occurrences.
18. Island Survival: Characters stranded on an isolated island.
19. Space Colony: Humanity establishes colonies on distant planets.
20. Alternate History: Historical events unfold differently from reality.
21. Conspiracy Thriller: Characters uncover a complex web of conspiracies.
22. Magical Genetics: Powers inherited through unique bloodlines.
23. Alien Invasion: Extraterrestrial beings threaten Earth.
24. Reincarnation Romance: Love story spanning multiple lifetimes.
25. Moral Dilemma: Characters face difficult ethical choices.
26. Space Western: Western themes set in a futuristic, space environment.
27. Tech Noir: Blend of futuristic technology and classic film noir.
28. Invisible Protagonist: Character with the power of invisibility.
29. Cursed Weapon: A weapon with a dark history or magical influence.
30. Virtual Reality Escapade: Characters immersed in a virtual world.
31. Genetic Engineering: Manipulation of DNA leads to unforeseen consequences.
32. Fey Realm Intrusion: Interaction between human and fairy realms.
33. Eldritch Horror: Unearthly and incomprehensible cosmic entities.
34. Mummy's Curse: Ancient curse affects those who disturb a mummy.
35. Historical Mystery: Solving mysteries set in specific historical periods.
36. Multiverse Travel: Characters move between parallel universes.
37. Haunted Mirror: Mirror with supernatural properties or entities.
38. Pirate Adventure: High-seas escapades with swashbuckling characters.
39. Pandemic Thriller: Race against time to contain a deadly virus.
40. Magical Prodigy: Young character with extraordinary magical abilities.
41. Space Diplomacy: Negotiations and conflicts in an interstellar political landscape.
42. Cursed Performance: Artistic endeavors haunted by a malevolent force.
43. Eco-Thriller: Environmental issues play a central role in the plot.
44. Detective with a Past: Investigator with a troubled personal history.
45. Space Exploration: Characters discover new worlds and civilizations.
46. Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Alien entities replace human beings.
47. Immortality Seeker: Characters pursue eternal life through various means.
48. Monster Romance: Romantic involvement with supernatural or monstrous beings.
49. Quantum Paradox: Time-travel-related paradoxes and complexities.
50. Robot Companion: Human-like robots providing companionship and assistance.

Hi Reddit,
I'm in need of some advice regarding my current marital situation and the potential sale of our home. To give you the full picture, I'll start from the beginning. Apologies for the length, but I feel all the details are necessary to understand the context.
I (29F) met my husband (40M) on Tinder four years ago. We dated for about eight months when my family had an opportunity to purchase a property. My then-boyfriend was also looking to be involved in a business deal of that sort, and he was interested in having his name on the property as well. My father supported this, seeing as how my boyfriend was a physician with a good income, and saw this as a way to bring him closer to our family. The opportunity came quickly, and we all signed the contract to purchase the house.
Trouble began shortly after this. My boyfriend requested that only he and I be on the title of the house, removing the rest of my family, as he saw a future with us and envisioned it as our potential family home. My father was very pleased to hear this and supported it, so we obliged. During this time, the property had increased in value, and I requested the other family members be paid off so we could buy out their shares. My boyfriend declined, feeling it was unfair.
To skim over some details, here are the highlights of the construction: My boyfriend paid more for the down payment than we initially realized would be required. Because of this, he paid no further construction costs. The construction proceeded with debt from my family until the construction loans came through. My family paid for the construction, and my father built the house for us without charging for his management services. My father was displeased with my boyfriend’s behavior and required him to pay more money for the construction due to inflation and the COVID shutdown. My boyfriend declined, and my mother and I secretly took out a line of credit to front the construction costs to my father, pretending it was from my boyfriend. Eventually, as we got the construction loans on a rolling basis after meeting construction milestones, my mother’s line of credit was paid off.
During this time, my family and I wondered why my boyfriend had not proposed. I decided that if he hadn't proposed by a certain time, I would leave him. Fortunately, he did propose on Valentine’s Day 2022. By spring of 2022, construction was coming to an end, and it was time for us to settle into the house. My fiancé felt uncomfortable with how much money he had put into the house and was worried I could leave him and make a profit. I promised him I wouldn’t leave him, but it wasn’t enough. He said he would believe me if I had a child with him, otherwise women would leave men if there were no ties. I told him I would have a child with him right when we got married. He suggested I come off birth control, as it takes months for a woman’s cycle to normalize after being on birth control for many years. I promised him I would come off birth control.
Coming off birth control was more stressful than I realized. I was very hormonal, breaking out, and felt unlike myself. This contributed to my fiancé and I fighting more than usual. In one particularly heated fight, I told him I would go back on birth control and even purchased the pills, but he told me he would break up with me if I did because he wanted to get to know the real me. I conceded, and then something switched in me and I became excited at the possibility of having a baby. I started tracking my cycle and figuring out my ovulation days. I shared this with my fiancé, and on one of those days, we got pregnant. I didn’t find out until the end of summer 2022. When I did find out, I told my fiancé and suggested we should probably get married.
My fiancé's first response was that we should wait to see if the baby sticks, and if it does, then we can plan a marriage but he wanted to wait until February 2023. I was very disappointed and angry and yelled at him. I felt alone and overwhelmed by the thought of having an illegitimate child. After discussing potentially getting an abortion, potentially breaking up, and potentially selling the house, I talked my fiancé into keeping the baby and getting married. He also wanted to keep the baby but was afraid of our situation. After many fights about when to have the wedding, we finally decided on December 2022. At that point, I was four months pregnant. During this time, my fiancé and I had major arguments that therapy couldn’t even remedy. We would yell at each other, slam doors, I would cry, and he would hold himself up in a room for hours. We had nice moments too, but they were heavily clouded over by the bad.
Finally, we got married, and things were good for a while. But then we faced some marital problems. My husband kept separate accounts and managed the finances himself. We had a joint credit card where I could pay for expenses without being questioned. He made all of the major investment decisions and major purchases. If I tried to disagree or speak up, he would get upset because this was not the submissive wife I had promised him I would be. I made significantly less money than him but lived a good lifestyle, buying almost anything I wanted within reason. Coming from a traditional family, I was upset that finances were kept separate. And so it continued that my husband would invest tens of thousands of dollars into our house so that his family from out of town would visit. We live in Vancouver, Canada, but his family is from Ottawa. In hopes of luring his youngest sister (of four) to Vancouver, my husband would make any modification to the house that his youngest sister showed the slightest interest in. This included a hot tub on the rooftop, a media system in the basement, a movie projector, and much more. After said sister got married, she made it clear that she would not move to Vancouver. Then a switch happened in my husband, and he suddenly wanted to sell the house.
Meanwhile, during all this time, I had my baby, and my husband and I were still fighting more than ever. I felt no support from him, and he felt drained by his work, our fights, and being away from his family. Recently, for the past three months, he has been consistently pushing for the sale of our house. This is where my dilemma lies. I am afraid to sell this house because my husband has kept finances separate, and the mortgage on this house has been serving as a way for me to feel secure. My husband contributes a monthly amount on a regular basis. He could have forced a sale in the past but didn’t, instead paying into the monthly mortgage on top of other bills. Now, he is considering forcing the sale of our house, but I am upset that he is citing financing as the issue when I have been begging him to save money instead of spending (his response is that $200,000 does not affect a $2M mortgage, and that he now feels burnt out and wants to retire sooner and live passively). If I agree to sell, I feel unstable about moving from our home given that my husband and I fight so frequently, and I am left alone to take care of the child. It is also worth noting that my parents live right across the street and come over frequently to help with the child, or I would go over to seek their help. My husband says that he feels abandoned and uncomfortable frequently because of our proximity to my parents, but I am because there have been times when I felt truly alone, and my parents were my only solace and support. My husband would ignore me for days, especially when I was postpartum and vulnerable. My parents now see my husband as someone who doesn’t put his wife and child first. My husband says that the massive mortgage we have is too stressful for him, and he can’t take that burden. I am sad that my husband will not consider keeping this house for another three years so that I can get comfortable with the idea of selling the house and that potentially I and my family can all move to Ottawa so that we can allow my husband to be closer to his family.
I don’t know what to do at this point, Reddit. I’m currently on extended maternity leave, but it ends in six months. My husband and I will have to come to an agreement about the house, otherwise, it is likely that he will force the sale of the house even if I’m not ready to move. I’ve consistently felt rushed and overlooked in this relationship. I am tired of being the small voice that does not impact decision-making. My husband is now being nice to me and trying to show me a good time, but I see it as him turning on his charming mode so that I can say yes to the sale of this house. I’m not sure what to do. Our fights and disagreements are so bad and the marriage feels like doom sometimes (never any physical violence). I sometimes questions even staying with him, but I worry for my daughter. He is a good father to her, when he is present and off his phone.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
TL;DR:
I need advice. I met my husband four years ago, and we bought a house together with my family's help. Financial disputes caused issues. Despite getting married and having a baby, we fight often. My husband handles our finances separately, spent a lot on the house, but now wants to sell it. I feel insecure about selling because the mortgage is like an investment to me, and also I rely on my parents, who live nearby, for help with our child. My husband feels stressed by the mortgage and feels homesick for his family 3000km away. I feel overlooked in decision-making and am unsure whether to agree to the sale, or to stand my ground and not sell. Sometimes I question staying in the marriage for my daughter’s sake, or if I should give up on this unhappy marriage.