I put quotations on “fostering” because he calls it that but to me it just seems like co parenting a puppy at this point lol.
For background, he (22m) had told me (21f) that his friend was moving out her apartment to live back with her parents and wouldn’t be able to take the puppy with her. She was trying to find someone to adopt it and he offered to “foster” it until she can have it back. However no one knows when that will be and he claims it’s his puppy but also hers? I didn’t really mind it when he told me about it until he started mentioning how she will be over at his place to take the puppy sometimes or just even hang out with it in his place.
I had mentioned how I don’t feel comfortable with him and her being alone at his place and he basically just said “well it’s her dog she can see it whenever she wants.” I know it’s her dog, yet he says it’s also his and that he’s a “dog dad”now? He keeps saying how he’s only doing it to help her out because he knows how painful it is to give your pet away which I completely understand. I just wish it didn’t have to be all the time with him constantly texting her updates about the puppy at 2 am lol. I have a feeling he’s just using it as a way to be closer with her since I know sometimes she goes ghost on him for periods of times.
Kind of related but this is all happening while my cat of 18 years may pass soon and it feels like he’s more empathetic to his female friend’s situation but has barely even comforted me with my situation. All he says is he’s sorry then goes on to gush about his new puppy that’s also her puppy ? I know I sound so selfish but it’s just hard to deal with it on top of losing my own pet that I grew up with. It constantly feels like he’s more understanding to other people especially his female friends than to me who has always been there for him. I feel kind of dumb to be upset over a dog but it just hits more deeper than that. Am I wrong for being upset about something like this?

I've written a very big 'defense' of Erendis because I've encountered a lot of vitriol and hatred for Erendis from 'The Mariner's Wife'. I only put defense in quotations because my point is to show how I believe this tale is meant to be a tragedy rather than an indictment on Erendis, and why Erendis' point of view is actually very important to the story.
Aldarion and Erendis get married in 871 and Ancalimë is born in 873. By that time, Erendis is just over 100 years old being born in 771 and Aldarion is over 170 years old. This was not an abnormal age for Aldarion to get married but definitely very late for Erendis. In Númenor, the most common trends in marriage were as follows:

A Númenórean woman might marry when 20 (marriage before full-growth was not permitted); but most usually she married at about 40 to 50 years (‘age’ 24 to 25). Marriage was considered unduly delayed in her case if postponed much beyond her 95^th year (‘age’ about 35).
In the Line of Elros (especially among the children of actual kings), which was somewhat more lengeval than the average and also provided many duties and opportunities (both for men and women), marriage was often later than normal: for women 95 (age 35) was frequent; and for men might be as late as the 150^th year (age 46) or even later.

The Fall of Númenor. The Life of the Númenoreans: Of marriage and child raising (p. 32-34)
Thus, for those in the line of Elros, marrying those outside the line of Elros would cause clear problems with fertility periods. There is probably a good reason why they wouldn’t intermingle very much, particularly in the case of a man of the Line of Elros and a common Númenórean woman.
There was a customary period in Númenor called ‘Days of the Children’ lasting typically 50 to 75 years:

Like the Eldar [the Númenóreans] tended to make the period of parenthood (or as the Eldar called it, the ‘Days of the Children’) a single connected and limited period of their lives. This limitation was regarded as natural. The connexion, the treating of the period of child-bearing as an ordered and unbroken series, was considered proper and desirable, if it could be achieved. That the married pair should dwell together, with as few and short times of separation as possible, between say, the conception of their first child to at least the seventh birthday of the latest, was held to be the ideal arrangement. It was particularly desired by the women, who were naturally (as a rule) less engrossed in lore or crafts; and who had far less desire for moving about...
Thus the Númenóreans, who seldom had more than four children in each marriage, would frequently produce these within a period of about 50 to 75 years (between the first conception and the last birth).

The Fall of Númenor. The Life of the Númenoreans: Of marriage and child raising (p. 32-34)
After Aldarion returns from a nine-year voyage in 869, even his mother Almarian, who had always been supportive of his voyages and passions unlike his father, was displeased with him:

He found even Almarian the Queen colder in welcome, and the Venturers were fallen out of esteem; for men thought that he had treated Erendis ill.

Why would people think he had treated Erendis ill? Because he had betrothed her in 858, when she was already 87, and they were both already approaching the higher bounds of the age where it was considered customary to start their ‘Days of the Children’. Instead, after their betrothal, Aldarion takes a nine-year voyage. After his nine-year voyage, even Aldarion tells Erendis that he would understand if she decided to leave him:

‘Your green bough did not go into the bitter cold by will,’ (Aldarion) answered. ‘But dismiss me now, if you will, and I think that men will not blame you. Yet dare I not to hope that your love will prove stronger to endure even than fair oiolairë?’
‘So it does prove indeed,’ said Erendis. ‘It is not yet chilled to the death, Aldarion. Alas! How can I dismiss you, when I look on you again, returning as fair as the sun after winter!’

Instead Erendis (probably mistakenly) forgives him and they finally get married. So by this time, it would be normal for Aldarion to start his ‘Days of the Children’, but absolutely necessary for Erendis. It would also probably be expected that they produce more than one child, being the heir to the king, he would ideally want several children in case a disaster fell on one.
Ancalimë is born in 873, and soon Aldarion is back to building ships, which in turn makes Erendis nervous. Sure enough, he is set on travelling again and leaving his wife and daughter. He sets off in 877, four years after Ancalimë is born. As cited before, the ‘Days of the Children’ in Númenor is typically a period of at least 50 years where children are raised, and this custom was inherited by the Eldar, meaning probably a good custom. At the bare minimum, there should be seven years of uninterrupted care between two parents of a single child, and Aldarion couldn’t even manage this.
Before his 877 voyage, Aldarion says to Erendis:

‘Eight years I have stayed. You cannot bind for ever in soft bonds the son of the King, of the blood of Tuor and Eärendil! And I am not going to my death. ‘I shall soon return.’
‘Soon?’ she said. ‘But the years are unrelenting, and you will not bring them back with you. And mine are briefer than yours. My youth runs away; and where are my children, and where is your heir? Too long and often of late is my bed cold.’
‘Often of late I have thought that you preferred it so,’ said Aldarion. ‘But let us not be wroth, even if we are not of like mind. Look in your mirror, Erendis. You are beautiful, and no shadow of age is there yet. You have time to spare to my deep need. Two years! Two years is all that I ask!’
But Erendis answered: ‘Say rather: “Two years I will take, whether you will or no.” Take two years, then! But no more. A King’s son of the blood of Eärendil should also be a man of his word.’

Aldarion came back after 5 years – a full 3 years late. This was not his fault, and something happened that prevented him from coming back and keeping his word to Erendis. All the same to Erendis, he did break his word, and that was final straw for her.
Erendis moves to Emerië and had the house in Armenelos shut, and develops her bitterness towards men which she taught Ancalimë. When Aldarion finally returned and came to Emerië, Ancalimë is now about 11 years old and doesn’t even know what her father looks like. When Aldarion arrives at Emerië, Aldarion and Erendis are both extremely stubborn and non-communicative during their final exchange:

But as he went out towards the doors Erendis came forward. She had not lain in bed that night, and she stood before him on the threshold. ‘You leave more promptly than you came, my lord,’ she said.
‘I hope that (being a mariner) you have not found this house of women irksome already, to go thus before your business is done. Indeed, what business brought you hither? May I learn it before you leave?’
‘I was told in Armenelos that my wife was here, and had removed my daughter hither,’ he answered. ‘As to the wife I am mistaken, it seems, but have I not a daughter?’
‘You had one some years ago,’ she said. ‘But my daughter has not yet risen.’
‘Then let her rise, while I go for my horse,’ said Aldarion. Erendis would have withheld Ancalimë from meeting him at that time; but she feared to go so far as to lose the King’s favour, and the Council had long shown their displeasure at the upbringing of the child in the country.

Erendis actually seemed to want a resolution to their conflict, but would not receive it:

Erendis alone at a window watched him riding down the hill, and she marked that he rode towards Hyarastorni and not towards Armenelos. Then she wept, from grief, but still more from anger. She had looked for some penitence, that she might extend after rebuke pardon if prayed for; but he had dealt with her as if she were the offender, and ignored her before her daughter. Too late she remembered the words of Núneth long before, and she saw Aldarion now as something large and not to be tamed, driven by a fierce will, more perilous when chill.

So why did Aldarion break custom of the ‘Days of the Children’ to go on the 877 voyage? What was so important? Gil-galad’s letter clearly insinuates a very important role that Aldarion has in Middle-earth, and that he isn’t just travelling for fun. But in the motivations we get of Aldarion throughout ‘The Mariner’s Wife’, we know that Aldarion gets longings for the Sea and doesn’t like feeling bound to the land. Around 800 we get this description of him:

Life on land was irksome to him, for aboard his ship he was subject to no other will, and the Venturers who accompanied him knew only love and admiration for the Great Captain.

Right before the 877 voyage, we also have this:

For as Núneth had said to Erendis long before: ‘Ships he may love, my daughter, for those are made by men’s minds and hands; but I think that it is not the winds or the great waters that so burn his heart, nor yet the sight of strange lands, but some heat in his mind, or some dream that pursues him.’
And it may be that she struck near the truth; for Aldarion was a man long-sighted, and he looked forward to days when the people would need more room and greater wealth; and whether he himself knew this clearly or no, he dreamed of the glory of Númenor and the power of its kings, and he sought for footholds whence they could step to wider dominion.

So who was ultimately at fault? Erendis never understood Aldarion’s voyages, but loved him anyway. Even if Aldarion explained to her what happened when arriving in Emerië, she probably wouldn’t understand and wouldn’t pardon him, at least not immediately. Erendis certainly deserved an apology or at least an attempt at an explanation from Aldarion. He had broken his word, even if it wasn’t his fault, and he had interrupted their ‘Days of Children’ for reasons she didn’t understand. He doesn’t offer anything to her when arriving in Emerië and is offended that she’s offended.
Aldarion is too proud to seek Erendis when he comes back from his 14-year voyage in 843:

Aldarion was grieved to find Erendis gone from Armenelos, but he was too proud to seek her; and indeed he could not well do so save to ask for her in marriage, and he was still unwilling to be bound.

This likely a character flaw. Aldarion's pride would also lead him to being unable to approach Erendis again after he returns in 882 and admit he did wrong, thus beginning the healing process with Erendis. And this conflict would spill over onto Ancalimë. To be fair to Aldarion, Erendis probably also suffered from this from her end, for she only had to go to Armenelos and ask Aldarion (if he wasn't away on a voyage) why he was gone for so long.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, I believe this is a tale about why the marriage of two people with very different life spans was doomed to fail. But you could also read it as a tale of doomed incompatibility between Aldarion, who is from a big city and who has had many experiences and travels, and Erendis from the enclosed and traditional countryside, or ‘the Shire’ of Númenor.

My lists are always being updated and expanded when new information comes in—what did I miss or am I unaware of (even if the thread predates my membership in Reddit), and what needs correction? Even (especially) if I get a subreddit or date wrong. (Note that, other than the quotation marks, the thread titles are "sic". I only change the quotation marks to match the standard usage (double to single, etc.) when I add my own quotation marks around the threads' titles.)
The lists are in absolute ascending chronological order by the posting date, and if need be the time of the initial post, down to the minute (or second, if required—there are several examples of this). The dates are in DD MMMM YYYY format per personal preference, and times are in US Eastern Time ("ET") since that's how they appear to me, and I'm not going to go to the trouble of converting to another time zone. They are also in twenty-four hour format, as that's what I prefer, and it saves the trouble and confusion of a.m. and p.m. Where the same user posts the same request to different subreddits, I note the user's name in order to indicate that I am aware of the duplication.
Thread lengths: longish (50–99 posts)/long (100–199 posts)/very long (200–299 posts)/extremely long (300–399 posts)/huge (400+ posts) (though not all threads are this strictly classified, especially ones before mid?-2023, though I am updating shorter lists as I repost them); they are in lower case to prevent their confusion with the name "Long" and are the first notation after a thread's information.
See also The List of Lists/The Master List of recommendation lists.

• "Good military sci fi books or series like Starship Troopers or Old Man's War." (scifi; 8 July 2013)—extremely long
• "Space Naval Combat Suggestions?" (printSF; March 2014)
• "Medieval/fantasy war" (booksuggestions; August 2021)
• "Series similar to Jack Campbell's The Lost Fleet or William R. Forschtens Lost Regiment?" (printSF; 1 February 2022)
• "looking for recommendations" (printSF; 7 April 2022)
• "Looking for books about Modern military against magic" (printSF; 13 April 2022)
• "military scifi without the alpha male b.s ?" (printSF; 25 April 2022)—very long
• "Books about training kids for war?" (printSF; 15 May 2022)
• "any good post-apocalyptic military stories?" (printSF; 16 May 2022)—longish
• "Smart military leaders in fiction?" (Fantasy; 8 June 2022)—extremely long
• "Thalassocracy SF?" (printSF; 21 June 2022; i.e. maritime/naval)
• "Looking for military SF that features a siege" (printSF; 22 June 2022)
• "Stories about conflict between Dwarves & Humans?" (Fantasy; 9 July 2022)
• "Military fantasy suggestion rome/dark ages, little to no religion" (Fantasy; 13 July 2022)
• "Any military sci-fi by people who understand the military? Preferable Stand-alone." (printSF; 21:01 ET, 23 July 2022)—longish; standalone works
• "Any good fantasy books about army building or leading an army?" (Fantasy; 16:45 ET, 23 July 2022)
• "Glen Cook Appreciation Club" (Fantasy; 2–3 August 2022; three-post subthread)
• "Military Sci fi but i read most of the well known ones :S" (booksuggestions; 27 July 2022)
• "Read a Man in a Powered Suit Series and Can't Remember the Title or Author." (printSF; 09:34 ET, 4 August 2022)—powered armor
• "Fantasy book with magic and large-scale medieval war in a realistic-ish setting." (OPost archive) (Fantasy; 18:34 ET, 4 August 2022)
• "Books where mc is a new recruit" (Fantasy; 6 August 2022)
• "Space war book with ships based on purpose, not size?" (printSF; 10 August 2022)
• "Military Sci-Fi recommendations?" (scifi; 16 August 2022)—longish
• "Recommendations for Mercs/mechs/power armor" (printSF; 17 August 2022)
• "Series with a human-dwarf war?" (Fantasy; 24 August 2022)
• "What's the best space-ship battle you've ever read?" (printSF; 08:50 ET, 25 August 2022)—very long
• "Unconventional military sci-fi?" (printSF; 10:18 ET, 25 August 2022)—long
• "Any near-future military science fiction that doesn't involve aliens?" (OPost archive) (printSF; 27 August 2022)
• "Anything out there that portrays realistic military life?" (Fantasy; 18:34 ET, 4 September 2022)—long
• "What are the best fictional military units?" (Fantasy; 01:17 ET, 4 September 2022)—huge
• "MilSF for my dad undergoing chemo" (printSF; 20 September 2022)—long
• "Looking for Military Sci-Fi that isn’t totally mindless or really problematic" (printSF; 17 October 2022)—long
• "Sci-Fi/Fantasy War Novels?" (booksuggestions; 17 October 2022)—long
• "Fantasy series with well-written battles and impressive/unexpected tactics and war strategies?" (Fantasy; 30 November 2022)
• "SF story recommendations" (printSF; 06:35 ET, 2 January 2023)—"epic space battles, especially big fleet vs fleet combat"
• "Recommendations for military fantasy" (Fantasy; 12:52 ET, 2 January 2023)—very long
• "ship to ship battles" (printSF; 7 January 2023)—longish
• "Looking for some heroic military scifi" (suggestmeabook; 10 January 2023)
• "Culture or Xeelee with action" (printSF; 11 January 2023)
• "Communist Military Scifi?" (printSF; 13 January 2023)—long
• "Military sci-fi recommendations? (Star Wars, Halo, other alternate sci-fi universes)" (booksuggestions; 19 January 2023)—longish
• "SciFi books like Red Storm Rising and Team Yankee" (printSF; 21 January 2023)
• "Military Sci-Book Recommendedations? (Other than Starship Troopers as I've already read it)" (scifi; 24 January 2023)—huge
• "Military SciFi Books Recommendations" (scifi; 0:18 ET, 6 February 2023)—long
• "Best military and military themed fantasy series written by authors who have actually seen combat?" (Fantasy; 09:53 ET, 6 February 2023)—long
• "Hard SF about the very early days of a space Navy?" (printSF; 28 February 2023)
• "What to read - I'm a bit lost" (printSF; 1 March 2023)
• "Books with good battle scenes?" (suggestmeabook; 1 March 2023)
• "Military SciFi where two human factions fight against each other, but with both factions being relatable to" (suggestmeabook; 06:31 ET, 12 March 2023)
• "Are there any modern WW3 books?" (printSF; 22:27 ET, 12 March 2023)
• "Mil Sci-Fi with common Gigaton weapons" (printSF; 22:27 ET, 12 March 2023)
• "Military SciFi recommendations?" (printSF; 12 April 2023)—long
• "Looking for a Sci-fi fantasy book very similar to the Gears of war series" (booksuggestions; 27 April 2023)
• "Mil Sci fi with horror elements." (printSF; 30 April 2023)—longish
• "Fantasy-Based Military Books?" (suggestmeabook; 6 May 2023)
• "Looking for specific kind of military fantasy" (Fantasy; 11 May 2023)—World War II or similar
• "Searching for an alien invasion book mil sci-fi where the humans are willing to fight dirty." (printSF; 18 May 2023)—longish
• "Interesting(?) space battles" (scifi; 19 May 2023)
• "Looking for military SF, but not..." (printSF; 23 May 2023)—longish
• "Military fantasy recommendations" (Fantasy; 24 May 2023)—longish
• "Best reluctant military leader in fantasy?" (Fantasy; 12:59 ET, 4 June 2023)—very long
• "Space opera and/or military sci-fi that have an emphasis on the emotional impacts of the conflict." (printSF; 16:13 ET, 4 June 2023)
• "Looking for some light military sci-fi or fantasy recs." (printSF; 20 June 2023)—longish
• "Fantasy books with charismastic, genius leaders like Napoleon?" (booksuggestions; 23:35 ET, 20 June 2023)—u\Hiretsuna_Ketsuruki
• "Fantasy books with charismastic, genius leaders like Napoleon?" (suggestmeabook; 23:34 ET, 20 June 2023)—u\Hiretsuna_Ketsuruki
• "[REC] Fantasy books with charismastic, genius leaders like Napoleon?" (Fantasy; 23:38 ET, 20 June 2023)—u\Hiretsuna_Ketsuruki
• "Any good books like the Mass Effect series?" (printSF; 22 June 2023)—long
• "Recent events of the western world notwithstanding, what are some of the best rebellions in fantasy?" (Fantasy; 24 June 2023)
• "Any WW1/WW2 inspired fantasy recommendations?" (Fantasy; 25 June 2023)
• "Books Where Following The Chain of Command Is a Good Thing" (printSF; 8 July 2023)—longish
• "Looking for a Sci-Fi book where Humans are at war with terrifying aliens" (printSF; 11 July 2023)
• "Story about rebellion or overthrowing an empire like Andor?" (Fantasy; 16 July 2023)
• "Hopeless War books?" (printSF; 31 July 2023)
• "Recently blew through the Honor Harrington series and loved it. Looking for similar." (printSF; 1 August 2023)—longish
• "Book Advice: Looking for military sci-fi" (scifi; 1 August 2023)—longish
• "Looking for military SF with marines inspired by Roman legions" (scifi; 1 August 2023)—identification request
• "I've finished Shadow Campaigns, Powdermage + Sequel, Guns of the Dawn, any suggestions for what to read next?" (Fantasy; 8 August 2023)
• "Military Book Recs" (scifi; 9 August 2023)
• "I want to get into reading again! Suggest me some good rebellion stories please!" (suggestmeabook; 27 August 2023)
• "Military/general sci-fi with tragic themes or tones?" (printSF; 29 August 2023)
• "Stories (preferably on KU) where humanity genocides back" (printSF; 10 September 2023)
• "Looking for a book example of realistic space battles" (scifi; 27 October 2023)—extremely long
• "Best Fantasy Series with brilliant strategist/military general MC?" (Fantasy; 6 February 2024)—very long
• "How would you do war against a post scarcity civilization?" (scifi; 25 February 2024)—long
• "Books with a war against extragalactic invaders" (printSF; 20 March 2024)
• "Standalone military sf book" (printSF; 26 March 2024)
• "Books about human rebellion after Earth has been conquered by extra terrestrials?" (printSF; 25 March 2024)—extremely long
• "Need book recommendations" (printSF; 14 Ma7 2024)

Related:

• "Military Scifi fans, what do you want to see more/less of in the genre?" (printSF; 25 February 2024)—longish; discussion
• "What are your favourite battles in Sci-Fi across any media?" (scifi; 04:55 ET, 8 May 2024)—huge; u\UniversalEnergy55; discussion
• "What are your favourite battles in Sci-Fi across any media?" (sciencefiction; 04:57 ET, 8 May 2024)—u\UniversalEnergy55; discussion

And I am not even talking about the akgaes of the other members.
Yes, they do exist too. I know that there were some who celebrated their bias getting more chance to showcase their skills while covering his lines and I knows there are government shippers who are happy that he can no longer interfere with those "moments" but honestly, I have to dig through the searches in order to find them. Maybe it's because I've utilized my mute and block function on them a long time ago hence why they don't even cross the "for you" section of my feed or maybe it's because Renjun is one of my biases in NCT Dream that's why his fans appear more on my timeline.
I get it. It's a tough time to be a Renjun stan. There were so many things about their recent comeback that I wish didn't happen. I wish people were kinder to him. I wish he didn't miss their concert because he worked hard for it. I wish he wasn't hurting because of things that aren't even his fault.
I get being sad. I get being angry. What I don't get is directing those emotions to the other members.
It was crazy. Jaemin got hated on for "lying" during a fansigning event, for telling a fan who asked him that Renjun caught a flu. This was before official announcement was made, and in that official announcement, SM cited poor health condition and symptoms of anxiety as the reason. It means, Jaemin may not be lying. He's just in a position where he can't talk about the other reason yet.
The days before the concert kicked off in Seoul were tough. People who are trying to go the rational routes were automatically harassed for "defending" SM. For example, when rumors of rerecording Renjun's A.R., when fans were citing Chenle and Haechan as example (they both missed a few cities during tour due to poor health condition), when people pointed out that the case is different because Chenle and Haechan had to be pulled out while the tour is already starting, thus no time to make adjustment, akgaes deemed it as "normalizing mistreatment towards Renjun". They said the same thing when people pointed out that others in SM (and even in some other companies) were excluded on the MD during their hiatus.
It reached a point where akgaes were already directing their frustrations towards the other members. "Why aren't they talking about him when they usually say 'we'll come back here as 7Dream' whenever someone misses their schedule". It wasn't true because the other members were talking about him, just not in the specific manner they wanted. When people pointed out it's easier to predict how long a flu will last and that "promising to comeback as seven" can be burdening to someone who had to take a break for issues relating to mental health, akgaes deemed it as ONLY being sympathetic towards the other members and not towards Renjun. Because for some reasons they believed it's mutually exclusive. Whatever. Anything that doesn't agree with their agenda of proving that the six members are erasing Renjun's existence in NCT Dream were treated as something that's antagonizes him. This "why aren't they talking about him", we'll get back to later as it reached an unfortunate development.
The concert in Seoul finally happens. People can still hear his voice in the AR and it's very noticeable whenever members were late covering his parts. While there's also a possibility that the rumor of rerecording was true, it's obvious that they didn't rerecord every single part. For those not following NCT Dream, they have this song called ANL (All Night Long) which they've already performed during their previous tours. In The Dream Show 2, during the bridge which is Renjun's part, the other members would sit around him as he sings his part. Now for The Dream Show 3, instead of having anyone cover that part, they decided to play his AR, yellow planet was shown on the screen during this time, yellow butterfies (confettis) rained down, and the colors of the lightstick turned yellow. Yellow is Renjun's favorite color.
Haechan dedicated part of his ending ment towards Renjun, how Renjun practiced until the very end because he really wanted to be there but unfortunately couldn't because he needed to rest, and how they reassured him that Dream is a strong team who will hold on until he's finally ready to come back. We had Chenle and Jisung emphasizing how important Renjun is and that they wanted to go on stage as seven again. We had Mark who's wearing and three injeolmis (Renjun's doll) attached to his robe for encore, because he's the older and he's the leader, thus it's he's responsibility to make sure that in some ways 7Dream is complete on stage, while making sure people will also clap for Renjun during concerts because he worked hard for it too. We had Jeno who's lowkey wearing a Renjun danji keyring attached to his pants for the entirety of Seoul concerts and telling Renjun, whom they knew were watching, that Dream is okay as long as he's okay so he can come back anytime. Jaemin may not have talked about him in the concert, but he, in his own ways in his bubble expressed missing Renjun and wanting to hear his voice again because to him it was the best.
Before the Seoul concert, akgaes "wanted" the other members to talk about Renjun. Quotation because obviously, that's not really what they wanted. They just latched on to the idea that the other members are excluding him because it feeds the agenda that everyone is out to get him. During the days prior to the concert, they were citing other groups as examples and how much better they were at including a member who went through hiatus. Now, the narrative has changed.
Suddenly, the other members talking about Renjun "feels" like a duty, basically accusing the other six of faking their concerns. Members appreciating him as being the glue of the group is now something offensive to him. Jisung appreciating how serious Renjun is about NCT Dream is causing annoyance to them. Fans being reassured that Renjun is resting well is ticking them off.
The length they'll go through to prove this narrative is crazy. I even saw some using a fancall footage where Renjun cited talking to Yangyang, and his frequent visits to the WayV dorm as proof that NCT Dream don't care about him. Because apparently, having more friends mean that the ones you already have aren't genuine. Ironic because just before something like this happened, Renjun made it a point to fans to not question their relationship as they know each other more. Granted that he talked about it for a different issue, when fans where expressing worries that he might have offended Jeno for saying he'd be awkward eating alone with Jeno but the point still stands.
No, them playing his bridge during ANL wasn't enough. Mark still wearing his injeolmis during the Osaka leg of their tour is still not enough even if that's basically the equivalent of other groups bringing a plushie representative to fansigning events. No, it's not enough that banners dedicated for Renjun were highlighted and shown on the screen. Mark, Jeno, Haechan, Jaemin, Chenle and Jisung were still not doing enough because THEY'RE NOT BRINGING A CARDBOARD CUTOUT OF RENJUN WITH THEM.
It's crazy. Akgaes always find a way to invalidate opinions that are not in line with theirs. You like 7Dream? Then you don't really care about Renjun, you're only using him to feed your 7Dream friendship agenda. You're a shipper? Nevermind that you spent so much money to go overseas and attend a concert wearing his merch and raising his banner when he's not even going to person, you don't care about him beyond RPS.
Well, I guess akgaes don't really like their bias beyond having someone to project their thoughts and feelings on because for people who are supposed to be fans of someone who expressed appreciation towards the members of his team and what they do for him, you certainly have no qualms in accusing him of lying during one of his lowest points in time. So much for being "the only ones" who truly loves him. Honestly, if we go by akgaes logic, then I'm going to assume that them being pissed whenever members reassure fans that Renjun is resting well and getting better means they don't want him to heal at all.

The House of the Undying has been puzzling readers since 1998. The "slayer of lies" portion has fermented countless theorizing:

Glowing like sunset, a red sword was raised in the hand of a blue-eyed king who cast no shadow. A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd. From a smoking tower, a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire. . . . mother of dragons, slayer of lies. (Daenerys IV, ACOK)

Today, I propose a new interpretation for this storied section. These three portions of the "slayer of lies" vision do not refer to three separate, individual lies, but rather three incarnations of one central falsehood, repeated on three different people: each man in the vision seeks to be a dragon, both the reincarnation of Aegon the Conqueror and his heir and successor. However, all three men are false dragons. Daenerys is the true dragon; her destiny is to be Aegon the Dragon, come again, to bring Fire and Blood to Westeros. These three men's false claims of dragonhood stand in her way in pursuit of her fate.

Here Be False Dragons

Let us set aside any consideration of the identities of who is specifically is being referenced the Undying visions for a moment, and focus on the text and context of the visions themselves and their imagery.
Dragons are at the core of the events at the House of the Undying. Daenerys is in Qarth because Pyat Pree, Xaro, and Quaithe seek dragons, and she goes to the Undying to seek their counsel, inevitably involving her dragons. Drogon accompanies her, helps her find the way to the Undying, dragons appear in the visions several times (and Daenerys is often called “mother of dragons” in them), then Drogon fries the Undying. But not all dragons are the same:

"Dragons. Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark.” (Tyrion VIII, ADWD)

Much has been written about the dragons Moqorro sees in fires. Dragons “true and false” is of most interest for us. What actually constitutes a "false dragon" and a "true dragon" is broadly ambiguous, but the text does have some suggestions. In AGOT, there is a juxtaposition between Dany’s unborn son Rhaego and her brother Viserys, the former literally called a true dragon…

She was lying there, holding the egg, when she felt the child move within her … as if he were reaching out, brother to brother, blood to blood. "You are the dragon," Dany whispered to him, "the true dragon. I know it. I know it." (Daenerys IV, AGOT)

…and the latter naming himself a dragon often, only for his death to prove the falsehood of those claims:

He was no dragon, Dany thought, curiously calm. Fire cannot kill a dragon. (Daenerys V, AGOT)

The idea that there are “true dragons” and “false dragons” is interesting in-and-of-itself, and the fact that Moqorro sees them in his fires means that they do, in fact, exist. Where do these true and false dragons be found?
Disregarding — for now — the intricacies of what makes someone a figurative “dragon,” no character in the main series comes close as to being “true dragon” as Daenerys. She is the last Targaryen, the mother of dragons, the rider of Drogon. This is known. She is a true dragon. But what about the false dragons?
In the House of the Undying, the Undying call Daenerys the “slayer of lies” after showing the three visions to her. In a vacuum that may mean that Daenerys a) will slay whatever or whomever the three lies represent and/or b) she will prove the lies false by her actions. That suggests that Dany represents the truth opposing the falsehood of the three lies.
So have the fact that Dany is a true dragon and that the Undying vision suggests Dany is true and the three lies are, well, lies. Let’s merge those ideas together — Dany, a true dragon, is the slayer of three false dragons — and see whether the visions themselves support this marriage. In the chapter after the visit, Dany describes the “cloth dragon” as a “mummer’s dragon”:

"A dead man in the prow of a ship, a blue rose, a banquet of blood . . . what does any of it mean, Khaleesi? A mummer's dragon, you said. What is a mummer's dragon, pray?"
"A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight." (Daenerys V, ACOK)

Dany’s description of the mummer’s dragon suggests that the vision represents one that uses trickery and mummery to appear as a dragon. The mummer’s dragon is no real dragon, but it serves for the purposes of the performance. In other words, a mummer’s dragon is the metaphorical representation of a false dragon.
Now consider the "great stone beast”, a flying stone creature that lurks near smoke and breathes shadow fire. As described, the beast sounds awfully like a dragon — but moreso like an imitation of a dragon, a gargoyle, mayhaps — and an imitation is inherently false. Shadow fire is extra fake because "[s]hadows only live when given birth by light" (Davos III, ASOS). The stone beast is another representation of a false dragon.
If the two parts of the vision are false dragons, it would suggest the blue-eyed king is too. On passing glance, it does not seem like it is. However, consider this quotation from Maester Aemon:

"The sword is wrong, she has to know that . . . light without heat . . . an empty glamor . . . the sword is wrong, and the false light can only lead us deeper into darkness, Sam. Daenerys is our hope." (Samwell IV, AFFC)

False light leads to darkness. The blue-eyed king’s sword is “[g]lowing like sunset”; sunset heralds the arrival of darkness. Moreover, the king casts no shadow. As we noted for the stone beast, shadows cannot exist without light, meaning that the king creates no light. Dragons, on the other hand, create light and shadow by their mere existence. The blue-eyed king is figuratively a false dragon.
Therefore, Dany being the slayer of lies means that the true dragon Dany is the "slayer of false dragons" makes sense. While most popular interpretations of slayer of lies put each lie as separate from each other (i.e. the blue-eyed king being a false Azor Ahai, the cloth dragon being a false Targaryen, etc.), it makes just as much sense — arguably more sense — that the three lies are all incarnations of one central falsehood.

The Dragon: Aegon the Conqueror, Come Again

But what exactly is a dragon? Dragons are flying fire-breathing reptiles, sure, but the word “dragon” is used figuratively extensively. One of its most popular uses is to mean a Targaryen or Valyrian, those with “the blood of the dragon.” What that phrase means is under dispute — some think it means that Valyrians are literally descended from dragons. The word "dragon" is also often incorporated in nicknames, like Daemon Blackfyre’s "the Black Dragon". However, there are only two characters referred to as The Dragon: Aegon I Targaryen and Daeron I Targaryen.
The Dragon is a fitting epithet for Aegon I, the man known as the Conqueror and Aegon Dragonlord, he who (mostly) conquered Westeros atop Balerion the Black Dread through fire and blood. Aegon I chose the three-headed dragon as his banner, married his sisters in Valyrian fashion, and with an ancestry full of incest to keep the blood of the dragon pure. He seemingly even had dragon dreams. He wore a crown and bore a blade of Valyrian steel. Dangerous to his enemies but fair to vassals, Aegon embodied everything House Targaryen aspired to be — a true dragon — and many, some bearing his name, attempted to be Aegon the Conqueror, Come Again, a true dragon too.
Daeron the Dragon was amongst the most ambitious of the Targaryens who sought to be Aegon the Conqueror, Come Again. He worn the Conqueror's crown and bore his sword. He was determined to finish what Aegon I started in Dorne. Daeron named himself a dragon:

Few foresaw that Daeron, the First of His Name, would cover himself in glory as did his ancestor Aegon the Conqueror, whose crown he wore. (His father had preferred a simple circlet.) Yet that glory turned to ashes almost as swiftly. A youth of rare brilliance and forcefulness, Daeron at first met resistance from his uncle, his councillors, and many great lords when he first proposed to "complete the Conquest" by bringing Dorne into the realm at last. His lords reminded him that, unlike the Conqueror and his sisters, he had no more dragons fit for war. To this Daeron famously responded: "You have a dragon. He stands before you." (TWOIAF, The Targaryen Kings: Daeron I)

And yet, Daeron failed, just as Aegon did, and at much greater cost — while Aegon lost a wife and a dragon, Daeron lost his own life, and 50,000 others. His conquest accomplished nothing; his successors’ diplomacy bore fruit and it was, very pointedly Daeron II, who shared a name and little else with Daeron I, who welcomed Dorne under the Iron Throne. Was Daeron I a false dragon? In-so-far as that he attempted to and failed at capturing Aegon the Conqueror’s legacy, yes, he was.
Daeron is not the only character compared to Aegon the Conqueror or hyped up as his successor who failed to reach his heights. Numerous historical figures — mostly Targaryens — were compared to Aegon I including Baelor Breakspear, Daemon Blackfyre, and Rhaegar Targaryen. None lived up to his legacy. Several main series characters are compared to Aegon or described as his heir — Drogo, Joffrey, Robb, Renly, and Rennifer Longwaters — but their claims to be Aegon the Dragon false. Just sitting the Iron Throne, having Targaryen ancestry, or being a warrior-king doesn’t make Aegon the Dragon:

"King Joffrey sits where Aegon the Dragon once sat, in the castle built by his son," Ser Arys said. "He is the dragon's heir—and crimson is the color of House Lannister, another sign. This comet is sent to herald Joffrey's ascent to the throne, I have no doubt. It means that he will triumph over his enemies." (Sansa I, ACOK)
"She gave their son the bastard name of 'Waters' in honor of his father, and he grew to be a great knight, as did his own son, who put the 'Long' before the 'Waters' so men might know that he was not basely born himself. So I have a little dragon in me."
"Yes, I almost mistook you for Aegon the Conqueror," Jaime had answered. (Jaime I, AFFC)

Stannis, Aegon, and Euron as False Dragons

Returning to the House of the Undying, I believe the three false dragons referenced in the House of the Undying are Stannis I Baratheon, Aegon VI Targaryen/Young Griff, and Euron III Greyjoy. The reader consensus is that the blue-eyed king is Stannis and that the mummer’s dragon is Aegon. The stone beast is speculated on far more contentiously. Euron Greyjoy is probably the most popular option for this, but Jon Snow and Jon Connington are also often raised. I believe it is Euron because of what kind of character is he and because the dragon has three heads.
Recall earlier that the slayer of lies vision was not three separate lies, but three incarnations of false dragons. If that interpretation is correct, then all three of the lies should have things in common, and Stannis, Aegon, and Euron share quite a few similarities, too many to highlight here. But there is one key one: All three seek the Iron Throne through fire — dragons — and blood — Targaryen heritage — and in doing so draw inspiration and comparisons to emulate Aegon the Conqueror. All three want to become king and dragons. This is known. But realizing that “fire and blood” is basically the foundation of their claim is subtler.
How do they seek the throne through blood? Well, the blood of inheritance is intrinsic to their claims. Stannis does so as Robert’s heir, and House Baratheon's claim to the throne is based on its Targaryen heritage. Aegon does so as House Targaryen’s heir, reinforced by marriage to his (alleged) aunt Daenerys. Euron, as far as we know, has no Targaryen blood, but like Aegon, via marriage to Daenerys, Targaryen blood is the means to the throne. In effect, all three men are seeking to use blood to justify their claims as the heir to House Targaryen, the blood of the dragon.
How do they seek the throne through fire? All three are dragon-seekers. Stannis covets a stone dragon to win his kingdom, his temptation to commit a horrible evil to wake one only tempered by Davos for now. Aegon and Euron seek Daenerys for her dragons, for her dragons will allow them to complete their dreamed conquests. Through dragons, these three men will bring fire to Westeros and claim their throne.
*But these men also *plan to use blood to get fire, and then fire for blood, following the cyclical mantra of Blood for fire, fire for blood. * Those words are written on Euron’s Valyrian hellhorn, Dragonbinder:

Moqorro pointed to the band of steel. "Here. 'Blood for fire, fire for blood.' Who blows the hellhorn matters not. The dragons will come to the horn's master. You must claim the horn. With blood." (Victarion I, ADWD)

Stannis’s (near) use of blood to get fire is obvious: Melisandre and her followers push for him to sacrifice those with kingsblood — Edric Storm, Mance Rayder and his son — to wake a stone dragon. Aegon’s is subtler: his case to marry Daenerys and thus claim her dragons is because of his blood, as her nephew. In order to claim Dragonbinder, Euron must have claimed the horn with blood in the past to fit its instructions of “blood for fire”. Whatever sacrifice seems to involve blood he has planned at Oldtown as well. That blood will unlock fire, and with the dragons they will conqueror Westeros and bring blood to it.
Now, let us briefly look at how each man parallels or is compared to Aegon:
Stannis Baratheon is a direct descendant of both the Conqueror and his bastard half-brother Orys Baratheon. Both Stannis and Aegon are described as tall and broad-shouldered. Both were Lord of Dragonstone and shared the same original bannermen. Stannis sits at the same Painted Table that Aegon used to plan his conquest of Westeros. Aegon was the middle child, as is Stannis. Like Aegon, Stannis has “two queens”, one whom he sleeps with far more often than the other. While Visenya was rumored to practice dark arts, Melisandre does, in fact. Aegon was a solitary man, just as Stannis is: both of their only true friends are men of uncertain birth who were their Hands of the King and who each had their hands permanently damaged. Aegon and Stannis both invaded Westeros from Dragonstone. Aegon’s first defeat during his conquest (though he was not present) was a naval battle that destroyed his fleet, as was Stannis’s first defeat during his conquest. Aegon followed the Faith of the Seven for political reasons as Stannis does for R’hllor. Aegon had a dragon dream that inspired his conquest — to protect Westeros from the Others — while Stannis saw in Melisandre’s fire the Others’ attack at the fist of the First Men, inspiring his sail north. Lastly, both have famous swords, dark Blackfyre and bright Lightbringer.
There are a number of times where characters directly compare Stannis to the Conqueror, and specifically how he needs dragons to finish the comparison and become Aegon the Conqueror 2.0:

"Look out your windows, my lord. There is the sign you have waited for, blazoned on the sky. Red, it is, the red of flame, red for the fiery heart of the true god. It is his banner—and yours! See how it unfurls across the heavens like a dragon's hot breath, and you the Lord of Dragonstone. It means your time has come, Your Grace. Nothing is more certain. You are meant to sail from this desolate rock as Aegon the Conqueror once sailed, to sweep all before you as he did. Only say the word, and embrace the power of the Lord of Light." (Prologue, ACOK)
Ser Axell went to one knee. "On bended knee I beg you, sire. Wake the stone dragon and let the traitors tremble. Like Aegon you begin as Lord of Dragonstone. Like Aegon you shall conquer. Let the false and the fickle feel your flames." (Davos V, ASOS)
"Lord husband," said Queen Selyse, "you have more men than Aegon did three hundred years ago. All you lack are dragons." (Davos V, ASOS)
"It glimmers prettily, I'll grant you, but on the Blackwater this magic sword served me no better than any common steel. A dragon would have turned that battle. Aegon once stood here as I do, looking down on this table. Do you think we would name him Aegon the Conqueror today if he had not had dragons?" (Davos V, ASOS)

Aegon “Young Griff” Targaryen, no matter if he is truly Rhaegar and Elia’s son, a Blackfyre, or a Brightflame (just not a random kid) is also a direct descendant of the Conqueror, who is his namesake. Like the Conqueror, Young Griff had a sister named Rhaenys — both associated with Dorne — and a bastard brother. Aegon claims the Iron Throne as a Targaryen, heir to the dynasty that Aegon created, and displays the Conqueror’s banner. He seeks to practice the Valyrian tradition of incest as Aegon did, becoming a dragon-rider together with his bride. Like the Conqueror, Young Griff’s Hand of the King is a great lord and warrior of the stormlands, one who had to seize their seat. Jon Connington and Orys Baratheon both have hand infirmities that call into question their suitability for the office of Hand. Young Griff invades Westeros by sea, as Aegon did, and the Conqueror’s forces (but not the conqueror himself) fought a battle north of Storm’s End, which Aegon seems poised to do in TWOW.
A number of characters compare Young Griff to the Conqueror, even calling him (or him calling himself) a dragon. But, like Stannis, Young Griff still seeks dragons to become Aegon the Conqueror 2.0:

"Do you want to wager your throne upon a woman's whim? Go to Westeros, though … ah, then you are a rebel, not a beggar. Bold, reckless, a true scion of House Targaryen, walking in the footsteps of Aegon the Conqueror. A dragon." (Tyrion VI, ADWD)
And then Prince Aegon spoke. "Then put your hopes on me," he said. "Daenerys is Prince Rhaegar's sister, but I am Rhaegar's son. I am the only dragon that you need." (The Lost Lord, ADWD)
"The first Aegon took Westeros without eunuchs," said Lysono Maar. "Why shouldn't the sixth Aegon do the same?" (The Lost Lord, ADWD)
"Storm's End." Lord Mace Tyrell grunted the words. "He cannot take Storm's End. Not if he were Aegon the Conqueror." (Epilogue, ADWD)

Also, it is worth noting that Aegon is directly called a “false dragon” at one point:

"Then let me prove the truth of them with my sword." The light of the torches made a fiery blaze of Ronnet Connington's long red hair and beard. "Send me against my uncle, and I will bring you back his head, and the head of this false dragon too." (Epilogue, ADWD)

Euron is (apparently) not a direct descendant of the Conqueror, but he does seek to marry and breed with one, putting himself into Aegon’s line and ruling with Daenerys’ dragons. Aegon and Euron are both the second child of their mothers. Aegon the Conqueror was the sovereign ruler of Dragonstone and a number of other islands. Euron Greyjoy is the sovereign ruler of the Iron Islands. None of that is especially compelling, but what is significant is that the Conqueror (and his sister-wives) were the last dragonlords, and Euron all but states that he intends to be the next dragonlord, having gone to Valyria, armored himself in Valyrian steel, wielding a Valyrian hellhorn, and soon riding a dragon. While Euron seeks dragons, he does already have a “mount” even without them: his ship, the Silence, which has a red hull and black sails, the Targaryen colors. Aegon’s mount, Balerion was a black dragon with fearsome black wings; the sails of the Silence make men pray in the same way Balerion’s black wings made men dread. His personal coat-of-arms of the Crow’s Eye is of a black flying animal, just as Balerion. Aegon had two sister-wives. Euron (falsely) tells Falia Flowers that she will be his salt wife and that Daenerys will his rock wife, with Falia believing the “two of us will be as close as sisters” (The Forsaken, TWOW). Aegon was generous to those who joined him and vengeful to those who defied him; Euron is much the same, giving wealth and honors to those who follow him but brutal punishments for those who oppose.
Euron has only physically appeared in four chapters (if including TWOW’s The Forsaken), so there is less to say about him. Still, the kingsmoot speech conveys Euron’s ambition to be the Conqueror 2.0.:

"Crow's Eye," Asha called, "did you leave your wits at Asshai? If we cannot hold the north—and we cannot—how can we win the whole of the Seven Kingdoms?"
"Why, it has been done before. Did Balon teach his girl so little of the ways of war? Victarion, our brother's daughter has never heard of Aegon the Conqueror, it would seem."
"Aegon?" Victarion crossed his arms against his armored chest. "What has the Conqueror to do with us?"
"I know as much of war as you do, Crow's Eye," Asha said. "Aegon Targaryen conquered Westeros with dragons."
"And so shall we," Euron Greyjoy promised. "That horn you heard I found amongst the smoking ruins that were Valyria, where no man has dared to walk but me. You heard its call, and felt its power. It is a dragon horn, bound with bands of red gold and Valyrian steel graven with enchantments. The dragonlords of old sounded such horns, before the Doom devoured them. With this horn, ironmen, I can bind dragons to my will." (The Drowned Man, AFFC)

Stannis, Aegon, and Euron may seek to be Aegon the Conqueror, Come Again, but they are false. The House of the Undying vision tells us as much, and our interactions with them suggest their fraudulence. Stannis particular is just as much a blue-eyed king as he is a mummer’s dragon and a beast that breathes shadow fire because of Melisandre, the de facto mummer and shadow-binder, false in many ways. Aegon may be false because he is not even Aegon, he claims to be a dragon that he is not. Euron’s falsehoods are harder to discern at this point in the story, but there is simply no way he is a true dragon. There is only true dragon, whose claim and destiny conflicts with all three of these men; she must prove them false to complete it:

Daenerys: Aegon the Conqueror with Teats

Daenerys is the true dragon, the rightful heir and successor of Aegon the Conqueror through fire and blood. Dany is a direct descendant of the Conqueror, born on Dragonstone, as he was, and is the rightful heir of House Targaryen and thus the throne that Aegon forged. She was the only daughter of Aerys and Rhaella as Aegon was the only son of Aerion and Valaena, and each had two opposite-sex (full-blooded) siblings. She is the mother of dragons, three dragons as the three-headed dragon on the banner that Aegon designed. Her mount. black-scaled Drogon, is “Balerion, come again." (Daenerys I, ACOK). Her destiny is to invade Westeros and complete Aegon’s dream of defending it from the Others.
Daenerys is often compared to the Conqueror, both as his heir and blood and as the Conqueror 2.0. There are too many to list all, but here are some choice ones:

I am blood of the dragon, she told herself. I am Daenerys Stormborn, Princess of Dragonstone, of the blood and seed of Aegon the Conqueror. (Daenerys II, AGOT)
No one was calling her Daenerys the Conqueror yet, but perhaps they would. Aegon the Conqueror had won Westeros with three dragons, but she had taken Meereen with sewer rats and a wooden cock, in less than a day (Daenerys VI, ASOS)
The dragon has three heads. There are two men in the world who I can trust, if I can find them. I will not be alone then. We will be three against the world, like Aegon and his sisters. (Daenerys VI, ASOS)
"Must?" Tyrion made a tsking sound. "That is not a word queens like to hear. You are her perfect prince, agreed, bright and bold and comely as any maid could wish. Daenerys Targaryen is no maid, however. She is the widow of a Dothraki khal, a mother of dragons and sacker of cities, Aegon the Conqueror with teats. She may not prove as willing as you wish." (Tyrion VI, ADWD)
Part of her would have liked nothing more than to lead her people back to Vaes Tolorro, and make the dead city bloom. No, that is defeat. I have something Viserys never had. I have the dragons. The dragons are all the difference. (Daenerys III, ACOK)

Dragons are all the difference, and that is fundamentally why she is true and everyone else is false. That and one other thing: everyone else is a man, Daenerys is a woman. In their sexism, people in Westeros see the next Aegon as a man, but fail to realize the truth:

"No one ever looked for a girl," he said. "It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought . . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it." (Samwell IV, AFFC)

TL;DR The slayer of lies in the House of the Undying is about three false dragons whose claims to the Iron Throne as Aegon the Conqueror’s heir conflicts with her own. Dany, through her true fire and true blood, is the true dragon, a worthy successor to Aegon destined to repeat what he did.

Hello! Hope you enjoy this script. This one is short and sweet! As always my scripts are free to use however you want and feel free to Gender swap or change certain aspects of it too. Just remember to credit me in the description and we are all good. If you have any questions feel free to dm me. I hope you enjoy

Editors note: words in brackets () are sfx or non dialogue noises. Words in quotation marks are to be emphasized “”


(footsteps followed by a door opening)
ah~ good morning sunshine, I'm quite pleased to see you finally waking up at a reasonable hour.
I'm sure that it was perfectly acceptable for you to wake up at 3pm everyday back when you weren't here, but I'm glad I finally helped you kick that bad habit.
You know, it's quite detrimental to your health!
really! I looked it up and the symptoms were very extensive.
but anyway, I just got out of the shower and I had some breakfast for us cooking upstairs.
I bet you can smell it, it's bacon and pudding! your favorite.
ooooooh~ was that a smile I just saw? is my little sunshine excited for his favorite meal?
haha, wow you're so adorable, like a little puppy wagging his tail for a treat.
well, don't get too excited, puppy, it's still going to take at least a few minutes for everything to be ready.
but I'm sure you don’t mind, right?
good!
Now while we wait, I wanted to talk to you about a few things, ok?
ok. well, uhm...
(sigh)
it's been about a month since your last little "escape attempt" and ever since then I've kept your ropes tight and well...
I was thinking as a reward for your good behavior I could... loosen them up a bit.
yeah... I'm serious, I think you've earned it. I know it's been hard not being able to sleep in your bed I made you and having to sit still for days straight, but you've handled yourself well, all things considered
and well, with your hands all... mangled from your punishment, there isn't any chance you could find a way to untie yourself.
o-oh...? What's with that reaction?
oh no... I didn't upset you by bringing that up, did I?
oh, I'm sorry pet, that really wasn't my intention, y'know?
I know how hard that was on you. and I'm sorry I had to do those "things..." to you but, you didn't leave me any choice.
I couldn't risk you escaping and leaving our home. the thought of you being outside in that big cruel world, all alone...
it almost makes me want to cry...
You're just too precious for the real world, it isn't as simple out there as it is in here.
but still, I think you've earned this luxury so here...
(pulls out knife)
woah woah hey! calm down! I'm not going to hurt you, I'm just going to cut the arm restraints, ok?
shhh shhh it's okay, calm down, I'm not going to do anything bad...
shhh... shh... there you are... see? it's fine...
ok... just sit still, I don't want to nick you by accident.
(cuts the rope)
that's one
(cuts the last arm restraint)
that's two.
There you go, is that better?
aww you look so happy!
oh, I love your sunshine, you're so adorable.
and your hands look like they've healed well enough.
I mean your fingers are still well, uhh (sucks in air through her teeth)
they could use a bit longer I think haha..
but besides from that everything seems well.
Try not to move your arms too much; the muscles will need time to adapt to being used again.
I can't stop looking at your little smile; it's so precious.
ooh I could just "eat" "you" "up!"
ehhh.. not though, haha.
I think if we just give you a few more weeks to adjust, I can put you back in the straight jacket and you can sleep in your bed again!
I really can't wait to cuddle with you like before all this.
and after that, we could maybe, possibly... go outside...?
and well, I don't know, have a picnic or something. like a normal couple.
Wouldn't that be nice?
...
w-what...?
no...?
You don't want to ever leave here? you just want to stay in the basement with me, forever?
but I don't understand...
why?
(GASP!!!)
oh... oh my god! really! you really love me!?
oh, its finally happening! I've waited so long to hear you say those words!
oh, I love you I love you iloveyouiloveyouiloveyou!!!!
yes, no that's fine! We don't must go anywhere!
We can just stay here, together forever!
I don't really care where we are, as long as we are together sunshine!
You've just made me the happiest girl in the whole world!
oh wow, this is all just so much at once... I think I need to sit down haha.
well, we've got to think about the bigger picture now, right?
like what dress I'm going to wear at our wedding, and where we should hold it and when, and, and, and-
oh, I am sorry am I taking this too fast?
sorry i do not mean to overwhelm you. It is just that I have truly been waiting for this moment for months now.
and now that is it here well, i guess I am a bit overwhelmed too.
..
hmm? What is wrong?
you smell something burning?
that is weird, what could be bur-
oh shit, the bacon!
hold on sunshine I will be right back!
love you! see you in one minute, ok?
(footsteps followed by a door closing)

Christian doctrine can be better understood by examining sets of opposite errors and finding the biblical truth that lies between them. By carefully studying these errors and their corresponding truths, believers can develop a more balanced perspective of their faith that is consistent with the teachings of the New Testament and the ante-Nicene Church Fathers (50-200AD). I will quote these early church bishops alongside scripture to demonstrate this was their understanding and not some novel invention. Below is a high level outline of the errors I will address.
Summary:

A. Forgiveness Errors 1. Merit - Forgiveness by works (either religious ceremonies or moral achievements) 2. Cheap Grace - Salvation in willful unrepentant sin B. Rule of Life Errors 3. Legalism - Chrisitans must obey the law of Moses 4. Antinomianism (Lawlessness) - As Christians are freed from the law of Moses, they are free from all moral obligation. C. Relationship to the World Errors 5. Asceticism - Pleasure and enjoyment is sin. 6. Hedonism - Pleasure and enjoyment is the highest good. D. Relationship to Sin & Righteousness Errors 7. Mistakelessness - Its impossible for genuine christians to sin or stumble, obedience is inevitable. 8. Inevitability of Sin - Its impossible for genuine Christians to obey God and live righteously, sin is inevitable. 

A) Forgiveness Errors

1. Merit (Forgiveness/Justification by works): This error promotes the idea that salvation (forgiveness of sins) can be earned through good works and obedience, or religious ceremonies and performances neglecting the simplicity of faith and Gods grace. In Pauls time, this was faith in sacrificing bulls and animals to pay for their sins. In modern times its things like penance "do x y and z, and only then will you be forgiven". While repentance does include restoration of the wrong where possible, high church traditions do not normally mean returning a stolen good to someone if you were a thief, they mean do "x" religious practice "x" amount of times to be forgiven. This is not biblical and goes against the concept of being forgiven by Gods grace freely without needing to merit it.
2. Cheap Grace (Salvation in wilful deliberate sin): This error separates faith from works, suggesting that one's actions have no bearing on their final salvation. "Once saved always saved" is a facet of this error. So also is treating sin as a transactional thing (eg a mentality of "I will sin then repent later"). People who hold this error often separate Christians into two classes, "carnal" Christians who believe in Jesus for forgiveness but don't want to obey him, and "mature" Christians who do obey him. There is no distinction like this in historical Christianity. There are immature Christians, and mature Christians but anyone who rejects submission to the teachings of Jesus is outside the faith. Jesus clearly warned about these people being wolves amongst sheep, for by their fruits we will know them. Bad trees bring forth bad fruit.
The biblical truth that balances these errors is that forgiveness (justification in Paul's usage) is by faith alone

Romans 3:28 - For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
1 Clement 32:4 (LSV - Clement was a hearer of Paul and Peter, a bishop of the Roman church in the 1st century) 4 And we who through His will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory through the ages of the ages. Amen.

but genuine faith will inevitably result in a life of loving obedience to Christ through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, leading to ultimate salvation.

James 2:14-26 - What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. ...
Galatians 5:13-14 - For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Christians are justified (ie "forgiven and reconciled to God" in Paul's sense) by faith in Christ, not by works of the law

Galatians 2:16 - Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

but true faith will naturally produce good works as evidence of the believer's transformed life

Titus 3:8 - The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

While forgiveness is by grace through faith alone, a living faith is never alone but is always accompanied by good works, resulting in ultimate salvation (justification in James' usage).
It is essential to understand that while good works are necessary evidence of genuine faith, they are not the means by which salvation is earned. Salvation is a gift of God's grace, received through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the fruit and outworking of this saving faith (Ephesians 2:10), demonstrating the reality of the believer's transformation in Christ (Titus 2:11-14). In other words, we are saved by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone; it always produces good works (love / fruit) as a result of the Holy Spirit's work in the believer's life (Philippians 2:12-13)."

Ephesians 2:8-9 -For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:10 - For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Titus 2:11-14 - For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

B) Rule of Life Errors

3. Legalism: This error teaches Christians are still bound to the Law of Moses. Sabbatarians fall under this category, as well as the Hebrew Roots movement. These teach we must keep the Torah in totality holding the mosaic law as Gods only and chief expression of His righteous requirement given to men. It rejects the fulfilment of the laws purpose which was to point men to Christ. It also ignores the Holy Spirits role of leading us in all things, having written the law of God on our hearts (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and shedding abroad Gods love in us (Romans 5). It denies we are no longer under the letter of the law but follow the Spirit (Romans 7:6)

Ezekiel 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."
Romans 5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

4. Antinomianism (Lawlessness): This error correctly teaches we are free from the law of Moses (Romans 7) but doesn't assert we are still bound under the Law of Christ. It leads to open sin and living selfishly to the "flesh". Everyone doing what they think is right in their own eyes like in the book of judges. These people will vehemently assert Romans 7 is a description of the normal Christian life (instead of Pauls life under Judaism before coming to Christ) wanting to do whats right but always living in sin, and deny Romans 8.

Romans 8:3-4 - For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The biblical truth is we are freed from the law of Moses (torah - first 5 books of the bible) to serve Jesus doing all He taught (which far exceeds the righteousness described in the Law of Moses). This is summed up in one word - Love. But not some generic love, Jesus is the standard of our love according to the book of John. He gave us a new commandment to love as He loved. Romans 13 says love is the fulfilling of the law.
Irenaeus (130-200AD, bishop and disciple of Polycarp who was a Discple of the apostle John) said the following on the issue which perfectly captures the meaning of Pauls epistles:

A Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching
Chp96 God has summed up again for Himself in us the faith of Abraham, we ought not to turn back any more-- I mean, to the first legislation. For we have received the Lord of the Law, the Son of God; and by faith in Him we learn to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves. Now the love of God is far from all sin, [289] and love to the neighbour worketh no ill to the neighbour. (Cf. Rom xiii. 10) Wherefore also we need not the Law as a tutor. Behold, with the Father we speak, and in His presence we stand, being children in malice , [290] and grown strong in all righteousness and soberness. For no longer shall the Law say, Do not commit adultery, to him who has no desire at all for another's wife; and Thou shalt not kill, to him who has put away from himself all anger and enmity; (and) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's field or ox or ass, to those who have no care at all for earthly things, but store up the heavenly fruits: nor An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, to him who counts no man his enemy, but all men his neighbors, and therefore cannot stretch out his hand at all for vengeance. It will not require tithes of him who consecrates all his possessions to God, [291] leaving father and mother and all his kindred, and following the Word of God. And there will be no command to remain idle for one day of rest, to him who perpetually keeps sabbath, [292] that is to say, who in the temple of God, which is man's body, does service to God, and in every hour works righteousness.

We do this by not loving this world (1 John 2) but loving Christ above all and our neighbour as our self which we can do by following His Spirit.

1 John 2:15 - Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

The Spirit of God never leads us into sin but is contrary to the the selfish desires of the flesh that result in sin (Galatians 5:16-17).

Galatians 5:16-17 - I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Practically it just means walking with a clear conscience always and keeping a pure heart before God, resisting temptation and in short - loving him.

1 Tim 1:5 - The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Praying and study scripture frequently are means by which we can relate to God, as our salvation is primarily relational not transactional. Viewing salvation as transactional is what leads to the majority of these errors I am addressing. Love (goodwill) fulfils the command of righteousness before God. Jesus said in John 15, apart from Him we can do nothing but if we abide in Him we will bare much fruit.

John 15:4-5 - Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

Love obeys all the teachings of Jesus, and these are not hard teachings to those indwelt by the Spirit of God (1 John 5).

1 John 5:3 - For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

C) Relationship to The World Errors

5. Asceticism: This error promotes extreme self-denial and the rejection of worldly pleasures as a means to attain righteousness, often leading to a legalistic and works-based approach to spirituality. It views pleasure as intrinsically evil.
6. Hedonism: This error elevates the pursuit of pleasure as the highest good, neglecting the importance of self-control, self-sacrifice for others, and the pursuit of holiness.
The biblical perspective that balances these errors is that Christians should receive God's earthly gifts with gratitude and exercise self-control, preferring others above themselves

Philippians 4:11-13 - Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Romans 12:10 - Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

Believers are called to live lives of holiness and devotion to God, not indulging in sinful pleasures

1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."
Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,

At the same time, they should not embrace extreme asceticism, which can lead to pride and a false sense of righteousness

Colossians 2:20-23 - If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

God's earthly gifts, when enjoyed with gratitude and moderation, are not inherently evil but are meant to be received with thanksgiving

1 Timothy 4:4 - For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

D) Relationship to Sin & Righteousness Errors

7. Mistakelessness:
This error ignores the ongoing reality of the struggle against temptation and the need for vigilance in the life of a believer, claiming that a true believer is incapable of making mistakes or succumbing to temptation and sinning. This error neglects the need for mercy and patience amongst Christians as they grow in maturity in Christ. While believers might occasionally stumble (James 3:2), it's crucial to distinguish between temporary setbacks and a lifestyle of persistent, unrepentant sin.

James 3:2 - For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

Stumbling is easy as a human, but if we can exercise self control in speech (by the Spirit) we can be complete and fully trained like Jesus, for He to became human:

Luke 6:40 - A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Through the transformative power of the Holy Spirit, believers can experience victory over sin and become like Christ in this world (Luke 6:40) but we still may make mistakes.

1 John 3:7 - Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1 John 3:24 - Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
1 John 4:17 - By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.

If stumbling occurs, it should be met with repentance, seeking forgiveness, and learning from one's mistakes - changing how one lives.
By emphasizing the power of God's grace and the possibility of Christlikeness, we embrace a balanced perspective that acknowledges the struggle against temptation while affirming God's power to enable believers to live lives pleasing to Him, avoiding the extremes of believing that Christians are either incapable of sinning or that sin is inevitable.
8. Inevitability of sin:
This error denies the transformative power of the Holy Spirit and the ability of believers to live a life pleasing to God, asserting that loving obedience is impossible and sin is inevitable, even after conversion. Those who hold to this error might say things like, 'We will never be sinless in this life,' or 'we sin in thought, word and deed every day' or 'our righteousness is filthy rags' which suggests that believers are doomed to a life of continuous sin and fails to recognize the transformative power of abiding in Christ and walking by the Spirit. It also denies the fruit of the Spirit in ones life is the actual righteousness of God, not ones own and it isn't filthy rags. John 15 says God is pleased by this fruit and we prove to be Christs disciples by abiding in Him and doing His works.
This is the most dominant error amongst believers so I will spend more time unpacking this one. It is rooted in the traditions and novel interpretations of some prominent protestant reformers and not the new testament, or the early church fathers witness.
Those who hold to this error often cite 1 John 1:8 as evidence for their position, which states,

1 John 1:8 - If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

However, this verse must be understood in its proper context. In 1 John 1:8, John is addressing the false teaching that denies the reality of sin and the need for a Savior

1 John 1:6 - If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
1 John 1:10 - If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Referring to the Gnostic idea that the spiritual realm is entirely separate from the material realm and that one's actions in the physical world do not affect one's spiritual standing. John is not suggesting that believers are doomed to a life of continuous sin.
In fact, just a few verses later, John writes,

1 John 2:1a - My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.

indicating that the goal of the Christian life is to avoid sin, not to embrace its inevitability. He goes on to say,

1 John 2:1b - But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

acknowledging that while believers may still stumble, they have the provision of Christ's forgiveness and advocacy if they do.
Furthermore, throughout his epistle, John emphasizes the transformative power of God's love and the believer's union with Christ

1 John 3:6 - No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1 John 3:9 - No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
1 John 5:18 - We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

which enables them to overcome sin and live a life of obedience. This aligns with the broader New Testament teaching that believers have been set free from the dominion of sin and can live a life pleasing to God through the power of the Holy Spirit

Romans 6:11-14 - So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Galatians 5:16 - But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Thus, the error of the inevitability of sin is based on a misinterpretation of 1 John 1:8 and fails to account for the overall message of 1 John and the broader New Testament teaching on the transformative power of God's grace in the life of a believer. It also opposes the earliest extra biblical witnesses on the issue, the very disciples of the disciples.
Here are some quotations from the disciples of the disciples to prove my point:

Ignatius to the Ephesians 14:2 (1st century Bishop and martyr, direct disciple of the apostle John)
2 No man professing faith sins, and no man possessing love hates. The tree is manifest from its fruit; so they that profess to be Christ’s will be seen through their actions. For the work is not a thing of profession now, but is seen then when one is found in the power of faith to the end.
Polycarp to the Philippians 3:1-3 (1st century Bishop and another martyr, another direct disciple of the apostle John) These things, brothers, I write to you concerning righteousness, not at my own instance, but because you first invited me. 2 For neither am I, nor is any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he was among you in the presence of the men of that time accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth, and also when he was absent wrote letters to you, from the study of which you will be able to build yourselves up into the faith given to you, 3 “which is the mother of us all” when faith follows, and love of God, and Christ, and neighbor goes before. For if one is in this company, he has fulfilled the command of righteousness, for he who has love is far from all sin.

Irenaeus (130-200AD, bishop and disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John):

A Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching
Chp86 And that not by the much speaking of the law, but by the brevity of faith and love, men were to be saved, Isaiah says thus: A word brief and short in righteousness: for a short word will God make in the whole world. (Cf. Isa. x. 23) And therefore the apostle Paul says: Love is the fulfilling of the law: for he who loves God has fulfilled the law. Moreover the Lord, when He was asked which is the first commandment, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength. [270] And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments, He says, all the hangeth and the prophets. So then by our faith in Him He has made our love to God and our neighbour to grow, making us godly and righteous and good. And therefore a short word has God made on the earth in the world.

---

The balanced biblical view is that loving obedience is possible through the power of the Holy Spirit, but temptation remains a reality that believers must resist

Philippians 2:12-13 - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

The New Testament teaches that believers have been set free from the dominion of sin and can live a life of righteousness through Christ and will never be tempted beyond what they can bare.

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
Romans 6:11-14 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

However, it also acknowledges the ongoing fight against temptation and the possibility of making mistakes, emphasizing the need for repentance if one stumbles and reliance on God's grace

1 John 2:1 - My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Importantly, the Bible warns that believers will be judged according to their deeds

Romans 2:6-11 - He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

and will have to give an account for their lives, including both their sins and their righteousness

2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

This truth should motivate Christians to take their sanctification seriously and strive to live a life that is pleasing to God. The New Testament also warns that those who persistently live according to the flesh, even if they profess faith, will face condemnation

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Galatians 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Hebrews 10:26-31 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

While salvation is by grace through faith alone, these warnings underscore the importance of living out one's faith through obedience and good deeds, demonstrating the reality of one's transformation in Christ.
Remember, love is the opposite of sin. Sin the opposite of love. We cannot walk and abide in love and sin. Nor can we abide in sin and profess to love God. They are polar opposites. You walk in one or the other, light or darkness. Whoever abides in love abides in God and God in Him. This is how we can assure our hearts before Him, because as He is so are we in this world. Focus on the positive - love, not on sin aversion.

1 John 1: 5-7 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 4:12-18 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

Summary

In summary, the balanced biblical perspective on Christian doctrine can be encapsulated by the phrase "faith working through love," as stated by Paul in

Galatians 5:6 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

This concise expression captures the essential relationship between faith, works, and the transformative power of God's love in the life of a believer. It effectively addresses the various errors discussed, emphasizing that genuine faith in Christ will naturally express itself through love for God and others, leading to a life of obedience and good works. By understanding and embracing this principle, Christians can develop a more accurate and balanced understanding of their faith, rooted in the teachings of the New Testament and the ante-Nicene Church Fathers.

Christian doctrine can be better understood by examining sets of opposite errors and finding the biblical truth that lies between them. By carefully studying these errors and their corresponding truths, believers can develop a more balanced perspective of their faith that is consistent with the teachings of the New Testament and the ante-Nicene Church Fathers (50-200AD). I will quote these early church bishops alongside scripture to demonstrate this was their understanding and not some novel invention. Below is a high level outline of the errors I will address.
Summary:

A. Forgiveness Errors 1. Merit - Forgiveness by works (either religious ceremonies or moral achievements) 2. Cheap Grace - Salvation in willful unrepentant sin B. Rule of Life Errors 3. Legalism - Chrisitans must obey the law of Moses 4. Antinomianism (Lawlessness) - As Christians are freed from the law of Moses, they are free from all moral obligation. C. Relationship to the World Errors 5. Asceticism - Pleasure and enjoyment is sin. 6. Hedonism - Pleasure and enjoyment is the highest good. D. Relationship to Sin & Righteousness Errors 7. Mistakelessness - Its impossible for genuine christians to sin or stumble, obedience is inevitable. 8. Inevitability of Sin - Its impossible for genuine Christians to obey God and live righteously, sin is inevitable. 

A) Forgiveness Errors

1. Merit (Forgiveness/Justification by works): This error promotes the idea that salvation (forgiveness of sins) can be earned through good works and obedience, or religious ceremonies and performances neglecting the simplicity of faith and Gods grace. In Pauls time, this was faith in sacrificing bulls and animals to pay for their sins. In modern times its things like penance "do x y and z, and only then will you be forgiven". While repentance does include restoration of the wrong where possible, high church traditions do not normally mean returning a stolen good to someone if you were a thief, they mean do "x" religious practice "x" amount of times to be forgiven. This is not biblical and goes against the concept of being forgiven by Gods grace freely without needing to merit it.
2. Cheap Grace (Salvation in wilful deliberate sin): This error separates faith from works, suggesting that one's actions have no bearing on their final salvation. "Once saved always saved" is a facet of this error. So also is treating sin as a transactional thing (eg a mentality of "I will sin then repent later"). People who hold this error often separate Christians into two classes, "carnal" Christians who believe in Jesus for forgiveness but don't want to obey him, and "mature" Christians who do obey him. There is no distinction like this in historical Christianity. There are immature Christians, and mature Christians but anyone who rejects submission to the teachings of Jesus is outside the faith. Jesus clearly warned about these people being wolves amongst sheep, for by their fruits we will know them. Bad trees bring forth bad fruit.
The biblical truth that balances these errors is that forgiveness (justification in Paul's usage) is by faith alone

Romans 3:28 - For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
1 Clement 32:4 (LSV - Clement was a hearer of Paul and Peter, a bishop of the Roman church in the 1st century) 4 And we who through His will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory through the ages of the ages. Amen.

but genuine faith will inevitably result in a life of loving obedience to Christ through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, leading to ultimate salvation.

James 2:14-26 - What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. ...
Galatians 5:13-14 - For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Christians are justified (ie "forgiven and reconciled to God" in Paul's sense) by faith in Christ, not by works of the law

Galatians 2:16 - Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

but true faith will naturally produce good works as evidence of the believer's transformed life

Titus 3:8 - The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

While forgiveness is by grace through faith alone, a living faith is never alone but is always accompanied by good works, resulting in ultimate salvation (justification in James' usage).
It is essential to understand that while good works are necessary evidence of genuine faith, they are not the means by which salvation is earned. Salvation is a gift of God's grace, received through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the fruit and outworking of this saving faith (Ephesians 2:10), demonstrating the reality of the believer's transformation in Christ (Titus 2:11-14). In other words, we are saved by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone; it always produces good works (love / fruit) as a result of the Holy Spirit's work in the believer's life (Philippians 2:12-13)."

Ephesians 2:8-9 -For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:10 - For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Titus 2:11-14 - For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

B) Rule of Life Errors

3. Legalism: This error teaches Christians are still bound to the Law of Moses. Sabbatarians fall under this category, as well as the Hebrew Roots movement. These teach we must keep the Torah in totality holding the mosaic law as Gods only and chief expression of His righteous requirement given to men. It rejects the fulfilment of the laws purpose which was to point men to Christ. It also ignores the Holy Spirits role of leading us in all things, having written the law of God on our hearts (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and shedding abroad Gods love in us (Romans 5). It denies we are no longer under the letter of the law but follow the Spirit (Romans 7:6)

Ezekiel 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."
Romans 5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

4. Antinomianism (Lawlessness): This error correctly teaches we are free from the law of Moses (Romans 7) but doesn't assert we are still bound under the Law of Christ. It leads to open sin and living selfishly to the "flesh". Everyone doing what they think is right in their own eyes like in the book of judges. These people will vehemently assert Romans 7 is a description of the normal Christian life (instead of Pauls life under Judaism before coming to Christ) wanting to do whats right but always living in sin, and deny Romans 8.

Romans 8:3-4 - For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The biblical truth is we are freed from the law of Moses (torah - first 5 books of the bible) to serve Jesus doing all He taught (which far exceeds the righteousness described in the Law of Moses). This is summed up in one word - Love. But not some generic love, Jesus is the standard of our love according to the book of John. He gave us a new commandment to love as He loved. Romans 13 says love is the fulfilling of the law.
Irenaeus (130-200AD, bishop and disciple of Polycarp who was a Discple of the apostle John) said the following on the issue which perfectly captures the meaning of Pauls epistles:

A Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching
Chp96 God has summed up again for Himself in us the faith of Abraham, we ought not to turn back any more-- I mean, to the first legislation. For we have received the Lord of the Law, the Son of God; and by faith in Him we learn to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves. Now the love of God is far from all sin, [289] and love to the neighbour worketh no ill to the neighbour. (Cf. Rom xiii. 10) Wherefore also we need not the Law as a tutor. Behold, with the Father we speak, and in His presence we stand, being children in malice , [290] and grown strong in all righteousness and soberness. For no longer shall the Law say, Do not commit adultery, to him who has no desire at all for another's wife; and Thou shalt not kill, to him who has put away from himself all anger and enmity; (and) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's field or ox or ass, to those who have no care at all for earthly things, but store up the heavenly fruits: nor An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, to him who counts no man his enemy, but all men his neighbors, and therefore cannot stretch out his hand at all for vengeance. It will not require tithes of him who consecrates all his possessions to God, [291] leaving father and mother and all his kindred, and following the Word of God. And there will be no command to remain idle for one day of rest, to him who perpetually keeps sabbath, [292] that is to say, who in the temple of God, which is man's body, does service to God, and in every hour works righteousness.

We do this by not loving this world (1 John 2) but loving Christ above all and our neighbour as our self which we can do by following His Spirit.

1 John 2:15 - Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

The Spirit of God never leads us into sin but is contrary to the the selfish desires of the flesh that result in sin (Galatians 5:16-17).

Galatians 5:16-17 - I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Practically it just means walking with a clear conscience always and keeping a pure heart before God, resisting temptation and in short - loving him.

1 Tim 1:5 - The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Praying and study scripture frequently are means by which we can relate to God, as our salvation is primarily relational not transactional. Viewing salvation as transactional is what leads to the majority of these errors I am addressing. Love (goodwill) fulfils the command of righteousness before God. Jesus said in John 15, apart from Him we can do nothing but if we abide in Him we will bare much fruit.

John 15:4-5 - Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

Love obeys all the teachings of Jesus, and these are not hard teachings to those indwelt by the Spirit of God (1 John 5).

1 John 5:3 - For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

C) Relationship to The World Errors

5. Asceticism: This error promotes extreme self-denial and the rejection of worldly pleasures as a means to attain righteousness, often leading to a legalistic and works-based approach to spirituality. It views pleasure as intrinsically evil.
6. Hedonism: This error elevates the pursuit of pleasure as the highest good, neglecting the importance of self-control, self-sacrifice for others, and the pursuit of holiness.
The biblical perspective that balances these errors is that Christians should receive God's earthly gifts with gratitude and exercise self-control, preferring others above themselves

Philippians 4:11-13 - Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Romans 12:10 - Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

Believers are called to live lives of holiness and devotion to God, not indulging in sinful pleasures

1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."
Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,

At the same time, they should not embrace extreme asceticism, which can lead to pride and a false sense of righteousness

Colossians 2:20-23 - If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

God's earthly gifts, when enjoyed with gratitude and moderation, are not inherently evil but are meant to be received with thanksgiving

1 Timothy 4:4 - For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

D) Relationship to Sin & Righteousness Errors

7. Mistakelessness:
This error ignores the ongoing reality of the struggle against temptation and the need for vigilance in the life of a believer, claiming that a true believer is incapable of making mistakes or succumbing to temptation and sinning. This error neglects the need for mercy and patience amongst Christians as they grow in maturity in Christ. While believers might occasionally stumble (James 3:2), it's crucial to distinguish between temporary setbacks and a lifestyle of persistent, unrepentant sin.

James 3:2 - For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

Stumbling is easy as a human, but if we can exercise self control in speech (by the Spirit) we can be complete and fully trained like Jesus, for He to became human:

Luke 6:40 - A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Through the transformative power of the Holy Spirit, believers can experience victory over sin and become like Christ in this world (Luke 6:40) but we still may make mistakes.

1 John 3:7 - Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1 John 3:24 - Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
1 John 4:17 - By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.

If stumbling occurs, it should be met with repentance, seeking forgiveness, and learning from one's mistakes - changing how one lives.
By emphasizing the power of God's grace and the possibility of Christlikeness, we embrace a balanced perspective that acknowledges the struggle against temptation while affirming God's power to enable believers to live lives pleasing to Him, avoiding the extremes of believing that Christians are either incapable of sinning or that sin is inevitable.
8. Inevitability of sin:
This error denies the transformative power of the Holy Spirit and the ability of believers to live a life pleasing to God, asserting that loving obedience is impossible and sin is inevitable, even after conversion. Those who hold to this error might say things like, 'We will never be sinless in this life,' or 'we sin in thought, word and deed every day' or 'our righteousness is filthy rags' which suggests that believers are doomed to a life of continuous sin and fails to recognize the transformative power of abiding in Christ and walking by the Spirit. It also denies the fruit of the Spirit in ones life is the actual righteousness of God, not ones own and it isn't filthy rags. John 15 says God is pleased by this fruit and we prove to be Christs disciples by abiding in Him and doing His works.
This is the most dominant error amongst believers so I will spend more time unpacking this one. It is rooted in the traditions and novel interpretations of some prominent protestant reformers and not the new testament, or the early church fathers witness.
Those who hold to this error often cite 1 John 1:8 as evidence for their position, which states,

1 John 1:8 - If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

However, this verse must be understood in its proper context. In 1 John 1:8, John is addressing the false teaching that denies the reality of sin and the need for a Savior

1 John 1:6 - If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
1 John 1:10 - If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Referring to the Gnostic idea that the spiritual realm is entirely separate from the material realm and that one's actions in the physical world do not affect one's spiritual standing. John is not suggesting that believers are doomed to a life of continuous sin.
In fact, just a few verses later, John writes,

1 John 2:1a - My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.

indicating that the goal of the Christian life is to avoid sin, not to embrace its inevitability. He goes on to say,

1 John 2:1b - But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

acknowledging that while believers may still stumble, they have the provision of Christ's forgiveness and advocacy if they do.
Furthermore, throughout his epistle, John emphasizes the transformative power of God's love and the believer's union with Christ

1 John 3:6 - No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1 John 3:9 - No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
1 John 5:18 - We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

which enables them to overcome sin and live a life of obedience. This aligns with the broader New Testament teaching that believers have been set free from the dominion of sin and can live a life pleasing to God through the power of the Holy Spirit

Romans 6:11-14 - So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Galatians 5:16 - But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Thus, the error of the inevitability of sin is based on a misinterpretation of 1 John 1:8 and fails to account for the overall message of 1 John and the broader New Testament teaching on the transformative power of God's grace in the life of a believer. It also opposes the earliest extra biblical witnesses on the issue, the very disciples of the disciples.
Here are some quotations from the disciples of the disciples to prove my point:

Ignatius to the Ephesians 14:2 (1st century Bishop and martyr, direct disciple of the apostle John)
2 No man professing faith sins, and no man possessing love hates. The tree is manifest from its fruit; so they that profess to be Christ’s will be seen through their actions. For the work is not a thing of profession now, but is seen then when one is found in the power of faith to the end.
Polycarp to the Philippians 3:1-3 (1st century Bishop and another martyr, another direct disciple of the apostle John) These things, brothers, I write to you concerning righteousness, not at my own instance, but because you first invited me. 2 For neither am I, nor is any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he was among you in the presence of the men of that time accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth, and also when he was absent wrote letters to you, from the study of which you will be able to build yourselves up into the faith given to you, 3 “which is the mother of us all” when faith follows, and love of God, and Christ, and neighbor goes before. For if one is in this company, he has fulfilled the command of righteousness, for he who has love is far from all sin.

Irenaeus (130-200AD, bishop and disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John):

A Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching
Chp86 And that not by the much speaking of the law, but by the brevity of faith and love, men were to be saved, Isaiah says thus: A word brief and short in righteousness: for a short word will God make in the whole world. (Cf. Isa. x. 23) And therefore the apostle Paul says: Love is the fulfilling of the law: for he who loves God has fulfilled the law. Moreover the Lord, when He was asked which is the first commandment, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength. [270] And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments, He says, all the hangeth and the prophets. So then by our faith in Him He has made our love to God and our neighbour to grow, making us godly and righteous and good. And therefore a short word has God made on the earth in the world.

---

The balanced biblical view is that loving obedience is possible through the power of the Holy Spirit, but temptation remains a reality that believers must resist

Philippians 2:12-13 - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

The New Testament teaches that believers have been set free from the dominion of sin and can live a life of righteousness through Christ and will never be tempted beyond what they can bare.

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
Romans 6:11-14 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

However, it also acknowledges the ongoing fight against temptation and the possibility of making mistakes, emphasizing the need for repentance if one stumbles and reliance on God's grace

1 John 2:1 - My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Importantly, the Bible warns that believers will be judged according to their deeds

Romans 2:6-11 - He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

and will have to give an account for their lives, including both their sins and their righteousness

2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

This truth should motivate Christians to take their sanctification seriously and strive to live a life that is pleasing to God. The New Testament also warns that those who persistently live according to the flesh, even if they profess faith, will face condemnation

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Galatians 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Hebrews 10:26-31 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

While salvation is by grace through faith alone, these warnings underscore the importance of living out one's faith through obedience and good deeds, demonstrating the reality of one's transformation in Christ.
Remember, love is the opposite of sin. Sin the opposite of love. We cannot walk and abide in love and sin. Nor can we abide in sin and profess to love God. They are polar opposites. You walk in one or the other, light or darkness. Whoever abides in love abides in God and God in Him. This is how we can assure our hearts before Him, because as He is so are we in this world. Focus on the positive - love, not on sin aversion.

1 John 1: 5-7 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 4:12-18 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

Summary

In summary, the balanced biblical perspective on Christian doctrine can be encapsulated by the phrase "faith working through love," as stated by Paul in

Galatians 5:6 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

This concise expression captures the essential relationship between faith, works, and the transformative power of God's love in the life of a believer. It effectively addresses the various errors discussed, emphasizing that genuine faith in Christ will naturally express itself through love for God and others, leading to a life of obedience and good works. By understanding and embracing this principle, Christians can develop a more accurate and balanced understanding of their faith, rooted in the teachings of the New Testament and the ante-Nicene Church Fathers.

Christian doctrine can be better understood by examining sets of opposite errors and finding the biblical truth that lies between them. By carefully studying these errors and their corresponding truths, believers can develop a more balanced perspective of their faith that is consistent with the teachings of the New Testament and the ante-Nicene Church Fathers (50-200AD). I will quote these early church bishops alongside scripture to demonstrate this was their understanding and not some novel invention. Below is a high level outline of the errors I will address.
Summary:

A. Forgiveness Errors 1. Merit - Forgiveness by works (either religious ceremonies or moral achievements) 2. Cheap Grace - Salvation in willful unrepentant sin B. Rule of Life Errors 3. Legalism - Chrisitans must obey the law of Moses 4. Antinomianism (Lawlessness) - As Christians are freed from the law of Moses, they are free from all moral obligation. C. Relationship to the World Errors 5. Asceticism - Pleasure and enjoyment is sin. 6. Hedonism - Pleasure and enjoyment is the highest good. D. Relationship to Sin & Righteousness Errors 7. Mistakelessness - Its impossible for genuine christians to sin or stumble, obedience is inevitable. 8. Inevitability of Sin - Its impossible for genuine Christians to obey God and live righteously, sin is inevitable. 

A) Forgiveness Errors

1. Merit (Forgiveness/Justification by works): This error promotes the idea that salvation (forgiveness of sins) can be earned through good works and obedience, or religious ceremonies and performances neglecting the simplicity of faith and Gods grace. In Pauls time, this was faith in sacrificing bulls and animals to pay for their sins. In modern times its things like penance "do x y and z, and only then will you be forgiven". While repentance does include restoration of the wrong where possible, high church traditions do not normally mean returning a stolen good to someone if you were a thief, they mean do "x" religious practice "x" amount of times to be forgiven. This is not biblical and goes against the concept of being forgiven by Gods grace freely without needing to merit it.
2. Cheap Grace (Salvation in wilful deliberate sin): This error separates faith from works, suggesting that one's actions have no bearing on their final salvation. "Once saved always saved" is a facet of this error. So also is treating sin as a transactional thing (eg a mentality of "I will sin then repent later"). People who hold this error often separate Christians into two classes, "carnal" Christians who believe in Jesus for forgiveness but don't want to obey him, and "mature" Christians who do obey him. There is no distinction like this in historical Christianity. There are immature Christians, and mature Christians but anyone who rejects submission to the teachings of Jesus is outside the faith. Jesus clearly warned about these people being wolves amongst sheep, for by their fruits we will know them. Bad trees bring forth bad fruit.
The biblical truth that balances these errors is that forgiveness (justification in Paul's usage) is by faith alone

Romans 3:28 - For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
1 Clement 32:4 (LSV - Clement was a hearer of Paul and Peter, a bishop of the Roman church in the 1st century) 4 And we who through His will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory through the ages of the ages. Amen.

but genuine faith will inevitably result in a life of loving obedience to Christ through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, leading to ultimate salvation.

James 2:14-26 - What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. ...
Galatians 5:13-14 - For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Christians are justified (ie "forgiven and reconciled to God" in Paul's sense) by faith in Christ, not by works of the law

Galatians 2:16 - Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

but true faith will naturally produce good works as evidence of the believer's transformed life

Titus 3:8 - The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

While forgiveness is by grace through faith alone, a living faith is never alone but is always accompanied by good works, resulting in ultimate salvation (justification in James' usage).
It is essential to understand that while good works are necessary evidence of genuine faith, they are not the means by which salvation is earned. Salvation is a gift of God's grace, received through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the fruit and outworking of this saving faith (Ephesians 2:10), demonstrating the reality of the believer's transformation in Christ (Titus 2:11-14). In other words, we are saved by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone; it always produces good works (love / fruit) as a result of the Holy Spirit's work in the believer's life (Philippians 2:12-13)."

Ephesians 2:8-9 -For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:10 - For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Titus 2:11-14 - For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

B) Rule of Life Errors

3. Legalism: This error teaches Christians are still bound to the Law of Moses. Sabbatarians fall under this category, as well as the Hebrew Roots movement. These teach we must keep the Torah in totality holding the mosaic law as Gods only and chief expression of His righteous requirement given to men. It rejects the fulfilment of the laws purpose which was to point men to Christ. It also ignores the Holy Spirits role of leading us in all things, having written the law of God on our hearts (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and shedding abroad Gods love in us (Romans 5). It denies we are no longer under the letter of the law but follow the Spirit (Romans 7:6)

Ezekiel 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."
Romans 5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

4. Antinomianism (Lawlessness): This error correctly teaches we are free from the law of Moses (Romans 7) but doesn't assert we are still bound under the Law of Christ. It leads to open sin and living selfishly to the "flesh". Everyone doing what they think is right in their own eyes like in the book of judges. These people will vehemently assert Romans 7 is a description of the normal Christian life (instead of Pauls life under Judaism before coming to Christ) wanting to do whats right but always living in sin, and deny Romans 8.

Romans 8:3-4 - For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The biblical truth is we are freed from the law of Moses (torah - first 5 books of the bible) to serve Jesus doing all He taught (which far exceeds the righteousness described in the Law of Moses). This is summed up in one word - Love. But not some generic love, Jesus is the standard of our love according to the book of John. He gave us a new commandment to love as He loved. Romans 13 says love is the fulfilling of the law.
Irenaeus (130-200AD, bishop and disciple of Polycarp who was a Discple of the apostle John) said the following on the issue which perfectly captures the meaning of Pauls epistles:

A Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching
Chp96 God has summed up again for Himself in us the faith of Abraham, we ought not to turn back any more-- I mean, to the first legislation. For we have received the Lord of the Law, the Son of God; and by faith in Him we learn to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves. Now the love of God is far from all sin, [289] and love to the neighbour worketh no ill to the neighbour. (Cf. Rom xiii. 10) Wherefore also we need not the Law as a tutor. Behold, with the Father we speak, and in His presence we stand, being children in malice , [290] and grown strong in all righteousness and soberness. For no longer shall the Law say, Do not commit adultery, to him who has no desire at all for another's wife; and Thou shalt not kill, to him who has put away from himself all anger and enmity; (and) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's field or ox or ass, to those who have no care at all for earthly things, but store up the heavenly fruits: nor An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, to him who counts no man his enemy, but all men his neighbors, and therefore cannot stretch out his hand at all for vengeance. It will not require tithes of him who consecrates all his possessions to God, [291] leaving father and mother and all his kindred, and following the Word of God. And there will be no command to remain idle for one day of rest, to him who perpetually keeps sabbath, [292] that is to say, who in the temple of God, which is man's body, does service to God, and in every hour works righteousness.

We do this by not loving this world (1 John 2) but loving Christ above all and our neighbour as our self which we can do by following His Spirit.

1 John 2:15 - Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

The Spirit of God never leads us into sin but is contrary to the the selfish desires of the flesh that result in sin (Galatians 5:16-17).

Galatians 5:16-17 - I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Practically it just means walking with a clear conscience always and keeping a pure heart before God, resisting temptation and in short - loving him.

1 Tim 1:5 - The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Praying and study scripture frequently are means by which we can relate to God, as our salvation is primarily relational not transactional. Viewing salvation as transactional is what leads to the majority of these errors I am addressing. Love (goodwill) fulfils the command of righteousness before God. Jesus said in John 15, apart from Him we can do nothing but if we abide in Him we will bare much fruit.

John 15:4-5 - Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

Love obeys all the teachings of Jesus, and these are not hard teachings to those indwelt by the Spirit of God (1 John 5).

1 John 5:3 - For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

C) Relationship to The World Errors

5. Asceticism: This error promotes extreme self-denial and the rejection of worldly pleasures as a means to attain righteousness, often leading to a legalistic and works-based approach to spirituality. It views pleasure as intrinsically evil.
6. Hedonism: This error elevates the pursuit of pleasure as the highest good, neglecting the importance of self-control, self-sacrifice for others, and the pursuit of holiness.
The biblical perspective that balances these errors is that Christians should receive God's earthly gifts with gratitude and exercise self-control, preferring others above themselves

Philippians 4:11-13 - Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Romans 12:10 - Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

Believers are called to live lives of holiness and devotion to God, not indulging in sinful pleasures

1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."
Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,

At the same time, they should not embrace extreme asceticism, which can lead to pride and a false sense of righteousness

Colossians 2:20-23 - If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

God's earthly gifts, when enjoyed with gratitude and moderation, are not inherently evil but are meant to be received with thanksgiving

1 Timothy 4:4 - For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

D) Relationship to Sin & Righteousness Errors

7. Mistakelessness:
This error ignores the ongoing reality of the struggle against temptation and the need for vigilance in the life of a believer, claiming that a true believer is incapable of making mistakes or succumbing to temptation and sinning. This error neglects the need for mercy and patience amongst Christians as they grow in maturity in Christ. While believers might occasionally stumble (James 3:2), it's crucial to distinguish between temporary setbacks and a lifestyle of persistent, unrepentant sin.

James 3:2 - For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

Stumbling is easy as a human, but if we can exercise self control in speech (by the Spirit) we can be complete and fully trained like Jesus, for He to became human:

Luke 6:40 - A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Through the transformative power of the Holy Spirit, believers can experience victory over sin and become like Christ in this world (Luke 6:40) but we still may make mistakes.

1 John 3:7 - Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1 John 3:24 - Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
1 John 4:17 - By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.

If stumbling occurs, it should be met with repentance, seeking forgiveness, and learning from one's mistakes - changing how one lives.
By emphasizing the power of God's grace and the possibility of Christlikeness, we embrace a balanced perspective that acknowledges the struggle against temptation while affirming God's power to enable believers to live lives pleasing to Him, avoiding the extremes of believing that Christians are either incapable of sinning or that sin is inevitable.
8. Inevitability of sin:
This error denies the transformative power of the Holy Spirit and the ability of believers to live a life pleasing to God, asserting that loving obedience is impossible and sin is inevitable, even after conversion. Those who hold to this error might say things like, 'We will never be sinless in this life,' or 'we sin in thought, word and deed every day' or 'our righteousness is filthy rags' which suggests that believers are doomed to a life of continuous sin and fails to recognize the transformative power of abiding in Christ and walking by the Spirit. It also denies the fruit of the Spirit in ones life is the actual righteousness of God, not ones own and it isn't filthy rags. John 15 says God is pleased by this fruit and we prove to be Christs disciples by abiding in Him and doing His works.
This is the most dominant error amongst believers so I will spend more time unpacking this one. It is rooted in the traditions and novel interpretations of some prominent protestant reformers and not the new testament, or the early church fathers witness.
Those who hold to this error often cite 1 John 1:8 as evidence for their position, which states,

1 John 1:8 - If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

However, this verse must be understood in its proper context. In 1 John 1:8, John is addressing the false teaching that denies the reality of sin and the need for a Savior

1 John 1:6 - If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
1 John 1:10 - If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Referring to the Gnostic idea that the spiritual realm is entirely separate from the material realm and that one's actions in the physical world do not affect one's spiritual standing. John is not suggesting that believers are doomed to a life of continuous sin.
In fact, just a few verses later, John writes,

1 John 2:1a - My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.

indicating that the goal of the Christian life is to avoid sin, not to embrace its inevitability. He goes on to say,

1 John 2:1b - But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

acknowledging that while believers may still stumble, they have the provision of Christ's forgiveness and advocacy if they do.
Furthermore, throughout his epistle, John emphasizes the transformative power of God's love and the believer's union with Christ

1 John 3:6 - No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1 John 3:9 - No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
1 John 5:18 - We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

which enables them to overcome sin and live a life of obedience. This aligns with the broader New Testament teaching that believers have been set free from the dominion of sin and can live a life pleasing to God through the power of the Holy Spirit

Romans 6:11-14 - So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Galatians 5:16 - But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Thus, the error of the inevitability of sin is based on a misinterpretation of 1 John 1:8 and fails to account for the overall message of 1 John and the broader New Testament teaching on the transformative power of God's grace in the life of a believer. It also opposes the earliest extra biblical witnesses on the issue, the very disciples of the disciples.
Here are some quotations from the disciples of the disciples to prove my point:

Ignatius to the Ephesians 14:2 (1st century Bishop and martyr, direct disciple of the apostle John)
2 No man professing faith sins, and no man possessing love hates. The tree is manifest from its fruit; so they that profess to be Christ’s will be seen through their actions. For the work is not a thing of profession now, but is seen then when one is found in the power of faith to the end.
Polycarp to the Philippians 3:1-3 (1st century Bishop and another martyr, another direct disciple of the apostle John) These things, brothers, I write to you concerning righteousness, not at my own instance, but because you first invited me. 2 For neither am I, nor is any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he was among you in the presence of the men of that time accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth, and also when he was absent wrote letters to you, from the study of which you will be able to build yourselves up into the faith given to you, 3 “which is the mother of us all” when faith follows, and love of God, and Christ, and neighbor goes before. For if one is in this company, he has fulfilled the command of righteousness, for he who has love is far from all sin.

Irenaeus (130-200AD, bishop and disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John):

A Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching
Chp86 And that not by the much speaking of the law, but by the brevity of faith and love, men were to be saved, Isaiah says thus: A word brief and short in righteousness: for a short word will God make in the whole world. (Cf. Isa. x. 23) And therefore the apostle Paul says: Love is the fulfilling of the law: for he who loves God has fulfilled the law. Moreover the Lord, when He was asked which is the first commandment, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength. [270] And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments, He says, all the hangeth and the prophets. So then by our faith in Him He has made our love to God and our neighbour to grow, making us godly and righteous and good. And therefore a short word has God made on the earth in the world.

---

The balanced biblical view is that loving obedience is possible through the power of the Holy Spirit, but temptation remains a reality that believers must resist

Philippians 2:12-13 - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

The New Testament teaches that believers have been set free from the dominion of sin and can live a life of righteousness through Christ and will never be tempted beyond what they can bare.

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
Romans 6:11-14 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

However, it also acknowledges the ongoing fight against temptation and the possibility of making mistakes, emphasizing the need for repentance if one stumbles and reliance on God's grace

1 John 2:1 - My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Importantly, the Bible warns that believers will be judged according to their deeds

Romans 2:6-11 - He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

and will have to give an account for their lives, including both their sins and their righteousness

2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

This truth should motivate Christians to take their sanctification seriously and strive to live a life that is pleasing to God. The New Testament also warns that those who persistently live according to the flesh, even if they profess faith, will face condemnation

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Galatians 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Hebrews 10:26-31 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

While salvation is by grace through faith alone, these warnings underscore the importance of living out one's faith through obedience and good deeds, demonstrating the reality of one's transformation in Christ.
Remember, love is the opposite of sin. Sin the opposite of love. We cannot walk and abide in love and sin. Nor can we abide in sin and profess to love God. They are polar opposites. You walk in one or the other, light or darkness. Whoever abides in love abides in God and God in Him. This is how we can assure our hearts before Him, because as He is so are we in this world. Focus on the positive - love, not on sin aversion.

1 John 1: 5-7 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 4:12-18 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

Summary

In summary, the balanced biblical perspective on Christian doctrine can be encapsulated by the phrase "faith working through love," as stated by Paul in

Galatians 5:6 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

This concise expression captures the essential relationship between faith, works, and the transformative power of God's love in the life of a believer. It effectively addresses the various errors discussed, emphasizing that genuine faith in Christ will naturally express itself through love for God and others, leading to a life of obedience and good works. By understanding and embracing this principle, Christians can develop a more accurate and balanced understanding of their faith, rooted in the teachings of the New Testament and the ante-Nicene Church Fathers.

This is my first hand account as the youngest of 3 daughters, with a loving, hardworking mom but lazy, narcissistic dad with anger management issues. It's going to be a long story, basically my whole life story, because I feel that sharing some of my experiences growing up, may help bring more context to the situation I'm in today. I'm also a certified banana (non-Chinese speaking Chinese), and do identify as a ABC: American Born Chinese.
Growing up, I wasn't really allowed to go out from my house except for friends' birthday parties, and to go to school (obviously). My dad was a sales manager, and my mom ran a retail shop selling bags up till I was in secondary school, after which she stopped to be a full time housewife. Honestly, I don't even know how she juggled all the responsibilities while I was in primary school, because she did all the cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, and even took time to dress my sisters and me and help us with homework and studying, and spend time with us on weekends (which I now understand how precious weekends are as a working adult). Basically, my freedom was heavily restricted, and I learnt at a young age how to keep myself entertained and appreciate my own company (which did make me depressed sometimes to be honest, until I learnt to accept, appreciate, and love myself for me when I got much older).
My parents were always yelling when I was home from school, especially at night. I used to try to ignore it by focusing on studying, thinking that if I worked hard enough, I would be able to make a living on my own and things would be better then (yes, I was only in primary school when I thought these things). I recall now that I used to think that no one loved me, that I was so much younger than my sisters (8 years from the oldest, and 6 years from the second) because I was an accident and unwanted. I was a naughty child, used to run around the house and draw on the table legs with color pencils. My mom used to cane me to discipline me when I misbehaved, but I still loved her. Looking back, I realise I honestly have a lot to thank her for - that it does feel like she single-handedly raised me and my sisters.
I was never given any allowance, never bought any new toys or clothes or shoes, because everything I needed would be handed down from my sisters. I would resent this for most of my childhood of course, until I got old enough to understand this was to be frugal. But looking back, it went deeper than that - my mom wasn't really able to spend money without my dad's consent. So everything went through him - and he would never allow us to spend money unless it was really a necessity, or unless it was something HE wanted. And what he was most interested in at the time I was growing up, was tech stuff. TVs, surround sound speakers with subwoofers, iMacs and all. Now this, he would spend money on. But my mom, I don't recall seeing her buy things for herself much to be honest. He did buy us a lot of pirated computer games - but usually he'd try to pick something that was more educational - and I think he only did it because he was buying pirated VCDs anyway.
Side question: How common is it to get your first handphone at 18yo (Nokia, the model you could drop from the roof and still would work), if you were born in the 1990s? I feel like it was definitely earlier than my older sisters, but the reason for this is because I was selected for National Service, and my parents wanted to stay in contact with me so they got me a handphone (which ironically was confiscated at the camp and only returned to you on weekends, and signal at my camp was almost non-existent). I feel like in comparison with many of my friends, I was super late in getting a handphone and had a lot to make up for to catch up in understanding.
Fast-forwarding to secondary school - my dad would usually always be angry about something at home. Maybe he woke up late for work and blamed my mom for it. Maybe I didn't get good enough grades - even if I got 100, he'd somehow always find a way to say that I could have gotten higher (yes I know that sounds stupid but he honestly used to say these things, because I would almost consistently get 100 for English and Maths - yes I am a nerd). Or maybe it would just be the way we answered his questions. He has this pattern where if he asked you a question, and he didn't like your answer, he'd pretend he didn't hear it, and ask you again, almost in the exact same phrasing he did the first time. And he'd do it again. And again. And eventually when you run out of patience and answer him shortly, he'd burst out in anger, with his default phrase: "You don't know how to talk to people.". "You talk nicer to strangers, better than your own father.". For a long time, hearing these words being repeatedly yelled, screamed at you, by a loud, angry, male voice, did two things to me. One, I used to almost believe that I didn't know how to talk to people, that I WAS the problem, and not him. Two, till today, hearing raised male voices still scares and distresses me, I get nervous and really tense - which doesn't help because that's how Hokkien and Hakka sounds to me when people are just saying hello! (yea it doesn't sound like anything to me because I'm a banana).
I recall a time on a weekend, when I had woken up early to watch morning cartoons, and my dad was angry about something - my sister had been busy applying for university, and I think he didn't like that she didn't want to be a medical doctor - she was more interested in math or vet sciences. He had been yelling at her, and then proceeded to walk over to where I was sitting on the floor in front of the TV, stand over in front of me, bend down, and scream at my face saying "get out, get out of this house now!" - I swear I saw spit fly when he yelled at me. I was so afraid, so freaked out, that I later asked my mom if she thought one of the nice aunties from church would take me in if he really kicked me out.
How did I survive all this? I didn't even realise I was doing it, but I would try to spend as much free time as I could with friends - we'd talk on the phone for HOURS after school (mind you this was before we had cordless landline phones, so I would sit at the stairs, with my ear glued to the phone), and when I finally got to Form 6, I'd hang out after school with friends with cars, to malls, to the movies, to lunch, and my mom would sneak me some spare cash from her groceries budget so I could have a good time with friends. I had some really good friends that would sponsor me food/snacks too, whom I'll forever be indebted to, because no matter how cheap it was back then, it was still their allowance they were spending on a friend that couldn't pay them back.
Around this time, my dad lost his job - the management had changed, but if I recall how he was about his job, I don't think he was meeting his work KPIs as a sales manager either to be honest - and he was sacked. He fought it in court, and won money from it. This will become significant later on, but let's move on first.
Fast-forward to my turn to enter university, and I couldn't get in to medicine. I had tried, believe me - thinking that I liked biology enough, and that if I didn't, I could learn to love it - that my dad would love me more and treat me better if I did what he wanted, and go into medicine. But I couldn't make it - no scholarships wouldn't take me with my STPM 3.75 CGPA, not even for dentistry, because the competition was too tough with limited placements. I recall, my dad had opened a Maybank Yippie account under my name, and he applied to earn the rewards the bank offered for getting certain grades from PMR, SPM and STPM. When we got it, it went promptly into his own bank account under the justification that I didn't have my own bank account and he'd keep it for me until I did. Bro, you were controlling my Yippie account, and you had to close it once I finished STPM. You could have just opened an account immediately after that for me, but you didn't. That makes no sense, but ok, take it if that makes you happy.
I recall when I was applying to university through the UPU platform, I asked him for his advice, and he yelled at me to figure it out on my own. I wasn't sure what I could do honestly, because the whole time in secondary school, I only knew that he wanted me to go into medicine - I had no other frame of reference. My mom asked around among the neighbors, and found out that engineering was also a good field, and I did enjoy physics a lot more than biology, so I went into that. And my dad? Never did he once check on me - on what I was applying for, about school fees, nothing. My mom suggested I apply for PTPTN, that if I graduated with first class honors, I could convert it into a full scholarship, so I did that after exhausting all the other available scholarship options.
I think it was only in 2nd year of university that he found out I took Biomedical Engineering, and then he took an interest because there was some correlation to medicine - more on rehab science, but hey, I was taking classes in the attached hospital, so he was interested. Then he started to "show off" to relatives whenever they asked about it during CNY gatherings.
Anyway I think I've completely lost focus, so I'm gonna fast-forward. Today, I'm working a stable full-time job at a company I love working at - the people here are great and so supportive, and most of my social circle is from here today, with the exception of some close school friends I still keep in contact with.
Full lockdown in MCO was super tough for me. Being at home with my dad's constant yelling and anger issues, I seriously considered many times once lockdown was lifted, about moving out. I mentioned it to my mom, but she would always advise me not to, that it was too much financial strain on me and it wasn't safe to live by myself (you know, single girl, alone). Eventually, I realised, with lockdown lifted, I could escape our home, by going to the office. So I did. And I realised, that my mom was the more pitiful one because she couldn't escape as a full time housewife because my dad would restrict her freedom too - both inside and outside of the house. And for some reason, she accepted it. She clearly wasn't happy about it, but whenever I'd complain about my issues at home with her, her advice would be to not let it affect me and go out when I could. Honestly, I always wanted to ask her why she didn't just divorce my dad, but I was always too afraid to ask. So I let it be.
There were times when work was stressful, and because I had made work my escape from home, it was a toxic cycle for me, so much so that I had a few mental breakdowns at work, and did consider ending my life. But I got through it eventually after seeking counseling and talking to friends about my issues.
Have I mentioned my dad is a hoarder? He still has old VCRs of shows recorded from laser discs and satellite TV which we haven't touched in 20+ years, and probably will never use again. He still has an old Amiga computer in the storeroom that he never intends to set up, and also doesn't intend to sell - he just doesn't want to throw it away. Old pill boxes, old batteries - he insists to keep because he thinks he'll either need them again, or be able to use them somehow. Basically, the old house is so full of his junk that he's collected since I was young, that there's no space for the rest of us to really live. We're just, guests in his house, that have beds, places to put our clothes, and have to cook, clean, grocery shop, and pay for all the utilities, his car insurance, medical insurance, house insurance, and also give him an allowance. He complains about our cleaning too, even though he wouldn't ever clean himself. I found out from my sisters recently that he actually did complain about us not paying rent some time back, and this was AFTER they were already giving him a generous allowance every month (I had only just finished uni or started working? so they didn't tell me this). And he would continue to complain about this even after we started to pay for utilities and groceries. So eventually, they stopped giving him an allowance.
Another incident I want to share is about the family car. So we used to have a really old Proton Wira that we used as the family car since I was in primary school. About 20 years later, we still used it and it was the only available car I could take to drive to work. It wasn't very well maintained, but it got you from A to B, so for my first car, I wasn't complaining. Until, the gearbox started to have problems. I would send it to service many times, change the gearbox many times, and still, the gears would slip while driving - could be on a flat road while accelerating, and what especially worried me was when I was going up ramps or slopes, like when exiting basement parking, I had to have my hand on the handbrake at all times incase I started to fall backwards because I wasn't sure I could switch from accelerator to brake pedal quick enough. I told my dad about it every time, but he would just tell me off, saying I wasn't driving properly, and that there was nothing wrong with the car. I endured it for a couple years, until finally one day, I realised just how dangerous it was when I was leaving the parking with cars behind me, and I DID have to use pull the handbrake. So one day, I had enough, and I bought myself my own car with my own money. And guess what? When I went back home with it, what did my dad do? He yelled at me. Like on a scale of 1 to 10, he was 15. And then he yelled at my cousin who helped me to buy the car. He wasn't upset that I had gotten one without his consent, or that maybe I hadn't gotten the best deal on the car, no nothing like that. He was only upset, because I had spent my own money on myself, and that he insisted the old family car was perfectly fine. Well guess what? Eventually, he gave up on the car too, and asked *cough*forced*cough my cousin to buy it off from him, and apparently en route to the shop on the highway, the car broke down and had to be towed. And my dad never said a THING about it, ever. Makes me so mad just thinking about how selfish and irresponsible he was being, and how lucky I was that I had decided to get a car on my own. He was only curious about one thing - he asked me if I had gotten a bank loan for the car. I told him I borrowed money from my boss - when actually I had gotten a loan from my sister.
We're getting closer to present day, bear with me.
Last month, my house was being painted, with some other fixes being done like changing the roof gutters and house gate which were severely rusted over the 30+ years we lived in the house, never having been maintained ever since we moved in. It was actually my oldest sister's idea, being the "bread-winner" ever since my dad entered "forced retirement". She felt like it was a nice gesture and she had saved money to do it. She let my dad to pick the contractor so he'd be satisfied with the quality of the work, and that's when all hell broke loose.
From the day we agreed to the quotation (which was a really hefty sum), my dad wasn't happy about anything. He was always criticising the price, the quality of the materials, the workmanship of the painter and workmen, and even nitpicked that the contractor had "daddy issues". Funnily enough, it's my dad that has "daddy issues" himself because he likes to play the victim card after all these years saying that his father abandoning his family when he was young screwed him up. I'm sorry he went through that, but seriously, you're doing well now, and you're 66 fucking years old, could you grow up? Sorry, I digress. Honestly, my dad would just find ANYTHING to complain about, and he'd be angry and loud about it. Worse one I think was when he kept having the idea that the contractor should throw in some freebies for him, like hey, could you also paint this window for me, or fix this door for me, for free. Like as if materials are free and workmanship doesn't cost time and effort? I swear it's almost as if he's never worked a hard day's work in his life... Which I find contradicting considering how stingy he is with money...
The painting and house fixes took around 3 weeks in total - including power washing all the old paint off the walls, putting a few coats of primer, painting, and all the metal work. Also considering this was during puasa which was tough for the workers, and the weather was blistering hot in the afternoon and then heavy rain in the evenings. Through the whole thing, my sisters and I were busy at work, so who was left to manage at home were my parents. Or rather I should say, my mom. Because all my dad did, from day 1, is yell at the contractor. Saying he's not doing a good job, that he's so calculative because he wouldn't throw in some freebies like painting the window when we didn't ask for it in the quotation, or changing the color when he didn't like it, etc etc. Lies, they were all lies. The contractor knew exactly what he was doing, and it was really good work. We were all really happy with it. So my mom had to be peacemaker, try to calm down my dad, and apologize to the contractor on the side. Which is exhausting, because my dad was literally yelling in his face all the time! And he would eventually take it out on my mom because obviously it was no secret she was defending the contractor. I'm honestly super shocked he would act this way to a stranger. All my life he's always been so careful to only show his nasty side to us at home, and be charming outside to strangers. I guess being the "customer" went to his head?
All this took a really heavy toll on my mom. She's 64yo, and it was stressing her out so much to have my dad throwing his temper around all the time. If he didn't get his way with the contractor, he'd take it out on her. When I was home on weekends or before going to work in the mornings, she'd tell me how things were going, and they were just getting from bad to worse. She was getting more and more frail, more tired, losing her appetite, and not being able to sleep too.
Around 1-2 weeks in, realising things were getting way way out of control (who am I kidding, when was anything in my life with my dad ever in control? lol) - more importantly, my mom was suffering horribly from it - I reminded her that I considered a few times before about moving out. And that in the end, I decided not to only because she advised me not to. That I could escape to my office, but she couldn't, and that with my working hours and escapism, I hardly spent any time at home except to sleep (sometimes even choosing to shower at the office). So what was the point if she wasn't going to move out with me? So I stayed. But I told her this time, forget about financial worries, about anything else - and consider if she needs to get out of this situation. It's not worth being stuck in this at the cost of her own mental well being. I told her all this, to know these are options she could consider for herself, and left it at that. A couple days later, I went for an overseas trip with friends, and honestly, didn't think much of it.
A week later, I came back, and things felt the same. The painting was done, the gate was being installed, and the end of the hell seemed to be really close, like 1-2 days before everything would be completed. Another week later, I'm having lunch with my sisters and mom at home (dad not there because he had the habit of sleeping till 2pm ever since he "retired"). And I did NOT expect them to tell me they had all decided to move out, to leave my dad.
I was surprised, happy (like really happy), and also confused. So they explained that the turning point had come during the week that I was away, my dad's temper had gotten so bad, that he had almost hit my mom when he was yelling at her and the contractor outside the house. Luckily the contractor stepped in to stop him, and he snapped out of it, but it was enough to make my mom realise that after all these years, he is really never going to change, and that he could one day hurt her when no one else was around. Apparently, there were times before that she had mentioned his attitude & anger problems to him and threatened to leave him, and he promised to change, but then he would quickly forget it and go back to his usual ways. And other times, when he couldn't get the response he wanted from her, he would take it out on my sisters and I by yelling at us. She would always tell me when I was growing up that people don't change unless they want to, and don't ever get into a relationship with a guy thinking I can fix or change him. Funny that she would give me that advice, but herself still be hoping for my dad to change.
So, after telling them I fully supported the idea (basically I said I had been waiting a long time for them to decide to move out lols), we started looking for places to rent. And this is where I really have to thank God, because everything just fell into place. I mean there were some hiccups along the way, but within 2 weeks we managed to find a great place to move to within our rental budget with an awesome landlord. Then my dad announced he was going on an overseas trip around the time we would get the keys to move in. Honestly, we had considered trying to pack everything while he was sleeping and moving it under his nose, or considering the possibility of asking the police for help to move out in case my dad tried to stop us physically. But none of that had to happen, because he went for a trip, and we had basically a week to pack and move out. And with the help of many friends, we did it. We moved out, for the first time after 30+ years (40 for my mom).
Living apart from my dad, able to control our own lives and living space... We have never been happier as a family. I don't have my own room, I still share with my sister, but it honestly doesn't matter, because we can wake up every morning without worrying about the next temper tantrum or yelling match, or accidentally upsetting my dad about anything. It's so peaceful, and I look forward to going home after work now, rather than staying longer at the office. I no longer have to live under constant threat of being blamed from something wrong in the house. Yes, this is also something my dad does a lot, blame all of us for things getting spoiled in the house, even if it's obviously from wear and tear over the years. Like, the air-conditioner leaking, he would say was because we were folding clothes in the room which created a lot of fluff and clogged up air vents causing it to leak. Or, a power bank not working so well anymore, according to him was because I used it wrongly, and not because the charge just doesn't hold so well after degrading over the years.
The simplest things - being able to have a desk to work at when I want to work from home or play computer games, and having a cabinet in the kitchen to put my coffee gear instead of having to always wash, dry, and pack them up into paper bags. Or something even simpler - being able to accidentally leave a light on in a room and not be scolded for it like I had just killed someone... These are joys I get to experience now because we no longer live under the control of my dad.
Now, it's been 2 weeks since my dad returned from his trip to find an empty house (we only took our stuff, his stuff is still all there), and a letter explaining we had moved out because we couldn't stand to stay there anymore, and not to contact us because we need our space. He tried calling us but frankly, I think we were all either afraid to pick up just to be yelled at, or just not willing to be subjected to his manipulation anymore after experiencing peace of mind without him, so none of us picked up. He tried texting the family group then, and it surprised me he didn't act angry, but rather said he was shocked and expected to be able to live the rest of his life with us, that we would take care of him in his old age, that we should have pity on him because he's not young and came back unwell from his trip, that he had to sleep on the floor at the airport in Dubai. He said he wanted another chance to improve on his 'flaws', saying he loves us and would never do anything to hurt us, asking my mom to come back, that he knows he made a lot of mistakes, but that he's always lived his life for the benefit of us. Then, he asks us to continue paying for the utilities. Followed by saying "he knows we don't talk about it, but he never recovered from the suffering he endured at church" - which is total bullshit by the way, because he never suffered at church... what happens is what he always does - he alienates people or doesn't like it when people do things differently from him, and is super sensitive when people don't compliment or praise him for his works. So what he does eventually, is he leaves that church, and then finds another one. Anyway, he then continues in his messages with even more sappy words like he misses us, he's so lost without us, when he wakes up he's so full of fear, that that's why he's so unhappy and angry all the time, he needs us, that he's never had to be independent all his life, he's not eating well, not sleeping well, don't block him, please just let him meet us one more time, just let him hear our voices, just to say hello... OMG I wanna puke just reading all this... So much of it is so cringe, like he's NEVER spoken like that to us ever, and in the middle of it asks for money? And for the past, I don't know, 15 years at least, he's either always yelling at us that we don't know how to talk to people properly, or that we shouldn't talk to him. And now, he says he misses our voices? GAG.
Then this week... he pays me a visit to my office. Shows up at lunch time, and asks to see me. It was a really big shock to see him just standing there, smiling at me like as if I should be happy to see him? Honestly, I did expect it to happen, because my office is the nearest to his house, and probably the easiest to get to compared to my sisters' workplaces. But still, thinking it and seeing it were two different things, and I was just praying that he wouldn't be desperate enough to really do it and that I was just being paranoid. So seeing him in my office, I was instantly on edge, thinking he was going to make a scene at my office, and asked some colleagues to help keep an eye out for me while I went to talk to him. And he basically repeated the same things he's been sending in text to me. He started crying, and trying to show me how frail he was because he wasn't eating well, said he hoped I could take him out for a meal, saying he's only been eating all the leftovers - which honestly, is kind of suspicious because we didn't have that many leftovers to begin with, and we had purposely restocked the house with bread, biscuits, tuna which we knew he knew how to eat on his own - so maybe he was referring to that... Said he was worried about his finances, that his eyesight wasn't good, his knees weren't good, how was he going to clean the house on his own. Then he tries to change the topic for some reason, by saying he was surprised he was allowed into the office building and that the guard had given him some package to bring up as well when he said he was coming to my floor... It was weird and creepy and gave me a really unsettled, disturbed feeling throughout the whole experience. I was so tense and nervous that I couldn't bear to talk to him without crossing my arms in front of me the whole time. And I kept explaining to him, that there was no point in him trying to justify and explain himself to me - that it all just sounded like excuses to me, that 30 years of doing the same damn thing over and over to us was enough and that we were never ever going back to his house, whether it was to visit or moving back in - none of that was going to happen. But with his constant crying and pleading, I did start to feel really sorry for him.
I mean, even in the week when we were moving out, I felt guilty about it, knowing he wasn't going to be happy and was going to have a hard time once we left him. But the alternative was to do nothing about our situation, which wasn't a viable option either. Continuing to live with him was basically just saying, this is it, this is our lives, we're going to die with this being the extent of our lives. And I was NOT going to let that happen. My mom did NOT deserve to die in that house with that tyrant controlling every aspect of her life, sucking the joy and energy from her like a leech, like a freaking Dementor from Harry Potter. But anyway, yea, his pleading got to me, I did pity him and felt sorry for him, so I told him, please leave, I'll unblock him on my phone so he can call and message me, but I won't promise anything else except to pass on what he has said to my sisters and mom. He kept saying please, he can't wait too long, please just come to the house to talk to him, he needs us, etc. Took me a few times to convince him he's not going to get anything else out of me and eventually he left.
I was so on edge after that, I realised my hands were cold and shaking, and I didn't have much appetite for lunch by then. Thankfully I have many caring and supportive colleague who knew about the situation and they helped talk to me about it and it calmed me down. I talked to my sisters and mom that night after work, and they shared with me some of their experiences that I wasn't aware of from when I was a baby or when I wasn't at home. Which made me realise... he may have been trying to manipulate me earlier. Apparently, he has on several occasions, told my mom he regretted marrying her, that he would have been better off letting his mom to find him a wife instead. He had told my sister (the middle child) that he regretted having us as children. Told her to get out of the house too. And always told us that he had lots of money, that money was no object, whenever we told him we didn't want to spend on something he was asking for because we couldn't afford it. Which is conflicting isn't it, because if YOU have the money, then why not buy it yourself instead of trying to convince us to buy it for you? My sister had also asked him before why he was so angry, why he was yelling, and he would respond that he wasn't angry and that he was just like that, and he wouldn't change. I think the one story that really hit me though, was when my oldest sister said, she remembered when she was younger, maybe around kindergarten or primary school - she was holding me as a baby, and I was crying, and she was trying to comfort me. And my dad was playing really loud music at the time, and mom was busy with house chores, and she said she just remembered feeling like something wasn't right, and thinking why was it like this. It hit me then... that this had been going on for YEARS, like from before I was born, probably from the moment my mom had married him, and everything he had been saying were lies. Maybe he meant some of it, because he knew now that we weren't afraid to leave, that we could and would and did leave, that for that he was probably sorry for yelling at us. That all his threats to tell us to get out, while he probably thought would give him control over us at the time, had eventually now come back to bite him in the ass now that we were older and didn't depend on him anymore.
So, today, at this moment, I am sitting at my new desk, in my nice new home, writing this out because, my logical brain KNOWS that we have done the right thing. That my dad, the whole situation with him and how he treats the people around him, his entire behavior, is a classic red flag, textbook case. But despite knowing this, in my heart, in my emotional brain, I feel bad about it. Not enough to want to reach out to him and respond to his requests. But enough that I feel guilt when I'm happy about our new life, like I shouldn't feel this great when he's feeling bad. That my happiness now has come as his expense now. And yes, although I have been angry at him enough to wish him dead many many times over in the past, I think my compassion somehow makes me feel like it's not right to inflict suffering on others for my own sake. But logically, am I really "inflicting" suffering on him? Is it my fault he doesn't know how to be happy with his own life? Just because I was born as his child, doesn't mean I owe him anything, that I'm responsible to make him feel good, does it? Yes, I'm Asian, and Christian, and both of these teach us to respect our elders and take care of our parents. But it can't be at the expense of my own happiness and emotional well-being.
I don't know if I'll ever get into a relationship with someone. I'm 31 years old this year, and I have never been in a romantic relationship. I've had crushes, gone out a couple times for movies or meals, but it's never gone beyond just being casual acquaintances or friends. And I have zero interest in putting myself out there on online dating platforms, or going out to meet new people for the purpose of finding someone. I don't know if it's because of my experience with my dad, that deep down I'm so traumatised that I don't even want to consider putting myself in a situation that could become how it was with my mom and dad. I've seen other people have healthy marriages with loving family bonds, where the father is useful, caring, stable, dependable, and supportive. But I think I'm really afraid that I'm that person that attracts the wrong sort, you know? There's a saying right? That you marry men who are like our fathers? Yes, good relationships exist, but they're what other people get, and since I'm not a good judge of character and easily gullible, it can't possibly happen for me. And while thinking that does make me sad, I also know that maybe it's just better to stay single, so that I'll never be hurt again. Like, the risk isn't worth the potential reward.
Anyway, I hope someone does read this in the entirety, and lets me know what they think about the whole situation that is my life, and also especially my current situation. If there's any advice you could share with me, do you think I'm being too harsh? I do get triggered by my message tones, call tones, and even the office door bell these days, because every time, I'm just reminded that my dad is trying to plead with us to come back, and I'm just so tired of his manipulation and gaslighting and general emotional abuse. And I feel like this is probably more common than I think, and if you can relate to this while you're reading it, I hope you find the courage get out of the bad situation you're in and find your happiness too. If you're in a similar situation, although I have guilty feelings about it, I know it's important to take care of your own well-being, and I hope this helps you to know that you're not alone.

My community is romanian so it was originally written in romanian, just translated it with chat gpt now so that may be why some words or expressions sound weird.
How to Find Urban Exploration Locations Without Someone's Help
Google is your friend: Search, Maps, and Earth.
Most of the locations I explore are found online. The internet is the most important resource we have in urban exploration and it's not that hard to use it properly. If you search and don't find information online (let's say in Bucharest), it means you haven't searched enough (I've been to hundreds of locations in the past year, and 90% were found online) xD
I. Before you search, you need to ask yourself a few questions:

1. What do you want to find?

Okay, urban exploration locations. What kind of locations? Are they abandoned houses or buildings, unfinished construction sites, abandoned industrial buildings, forts or bunkers, etc. There are many options, and you can easily find information by using specific searches.

1. Where is the location?

Again, the volume of information on the internet is absolutely huge, and it helps to have a specific search (street, sector, city, county, region, country etc.).

1. In what form do you think the information you want is? Where do you think you'll find it? Is it a social media post or a blog? Is it an article in the press? Is it in an official document?

Depending on the answer, you can adapt your search. In practice, various terms are used depending on the purpose of the text. The most efficient way to get used to this (it becomes instinctive at some point) is practice :))
II. Finding a potential location and confirming it.
The most basic option is to search for pre-made lists of abandoned places. You can search on Google for "abandoned places Bucharest" and find posts on forums, websites, social media, etc.
Obviously, the information is not always up to date (in fact, in urban exploration, it's rarely up to date), and you need to check if the location is still abandoned, which is relatively simple. Let's say you found Alex Iacob's website (Reptilianul) and see an interesting location. Let's say Aversa. It's not a good idea to assume that's all because you might end up at the location and find it's a guarded ruin (or that you're trying to enter an active building protected by the military even though it seemed like a ruin online - real story, sadly).
I first search on Google Earth what the location looks like (btw, just because it looks like that on Earth or Maps doesn't mean it's like that in reality because the image is not always updated) and check 3D or street view. If it still looks abandoned (broken windows, broken fences, graffiti, holes in walls, vegetation, holes in the roof, etc.), I do some searches on Google to find additional information. You don't always find something useful like this, but in the case of famous buildings, there is plenty of information online (check their current status and look for the latest news/posts). In the case of less known buildings, it helps to search for the exact address to see what their situation is.
And if we're talking about searches, there are some relatively well-known things ignored by many people. When you search for something on a standardized search engine (let's say a simple search on Google), you find enough close results. Basically, it searches for similar terms but not exact ones, which usually doesn't help us. You can avoid this by using an advanced search (especially since you can avoid some terms, so if you're looking for a news story about an abandoned building, you can avoid news about mainstream ones) or by putting the searched terms in quotation marks. Another thing is searching for the type of documents. Let's say you want to search for locations using some official documents. In this case, you can search by file type. For example: "abandoned buildings" filetype:pdf (and you find documents in pdf format containing the words you searched for).
Well, now you can search for some tips and tricks on Google searches because there are plenty of them :))
Another option is to spend a lot of time on Maps or Earth to find locations that seem abandoned and then check them. Here it's about patience and discipline. You can't really rush the process, you just have to invest time and effort, and you'll find locations 100%.
III. Physically verifying online information.
Regardless of your skill in finding online information, you still need to physically verify it. This depends on the person and your circumstances.
I'm more paranoid by nature, and I admit I have some issues with anxiety/overthinking, so I try to make everything as safe as possible (especially from a legal point of view). This means I don't take many risks, I check the buildings physically before entering, I take a quick look around without entering at that time. I look for guards, cameras, entry and exit ways from a building (the entrance can be slower but subtle, the exit should be quick, even if it's too obvious). Preferably, multiple exits and entrances, just in case (and it works, I haven't received any fines in 4-5 years of urban exploration).
What you do next is your choice. I prefer not to take risks if I see something suspicious; it's not like the location will disappear if I don't enter it right away.
IV. You've seen a location in someone's post and want to go there too.
Here it's complicated (obviously, you don't spam the person with messages "give me the location too"). If the photos are from inside a building, it's hard to figure out the location (not impossible). In theory, a location posted recently on this subreddit would have a vague location posted by the author (city or region, nothing more exact, and that only if the exact location is not obvious).
So you have a starting point, you know the approximate area. To increase your chances of success, you need to figure out what type of building it is. Some are impossible to find without someone giving you the location (like the recent post about Mrs. Eugenia's house here) because it's just a simple house and there shouldn't be any online information about it. Furthermore, it's not a "special" or "unique" location that you can differentiate from other houses in Romania. Other locations are easier; you see a logo, specific equipment, or anything that helps you figure out what the location was used for. For example, you see an old train and think it's something related to the Romanian Railways. Or you see an old gas mask and think it's some industrial building from the communist era. If you know the relative area, you have a chance to find the area because you've advanced to "abandoned industry Constanța" (hypothetically speaking).
If the photo is of the exterior, the situation changes (for the better) because you have a higher chance of finding the location. What do you see in that photo? Do you recognize anything? Let's say it's a photo taken from some buildings in Bucharest, and you see a fairly large lake. There aren't that many large lakes in Bucharest; you've already found some approximate areas where that building could be. Usually, there are enough details in the photos, and you can use them: tall buildings with the corporate logo on them, giant advertisements, emblematic buildings, maybe even traffic signs with the names of streets.
If you see this information, you further reduce the possible locations. You definitely find the area using Google Earth 3D view and street view to find the exact place (you practically walk around until you find from which direction the photo was taken, and then you look to see if it looks abandoned. If not, it's probably a normal building that someone climbed, so you can look for graffiti, but those are not mandatory).
Another option that rarely works (but is quick and free, so I usually test it first) is reverse search by image. I recommend a browser extension: Invid Weverify, which basically searches for an image using multiple sites (it's for fact-checking, but geolocation is part of it, so it's useful).
For those interested in geolocation, I can give you some references to something more detailed/useful. See what techniques are used in OSINT and adapt them for finding urbex locations lol. I recommend the book "OSINT Techniques: Resources for Uncovering Online Information" by Michael Bazzell, 2023 edition (btw, Libgen is brilliant, Z Library as a backup. Update: Anna's Archives is getting bigger than anything now).
I know my guide might seem disappointing; I'm sure I probably missed some "strategies," but believe me, I've been using them for years and have found plenty of locations. There's no magic solution; it's just about time, effort, and skills gained through training. I hope my little "guide" helps you :)))
.
.
.

Guide to Urban Exploration Safety

Exploration is an interesting hobby, but it can be dangerous, and I think we're all aware of that. It's important to acknowledge the risks when embarking on exploration and not start with the mindset of "it won't happen to me" because anything can happen to anyone. Yes, the chances are slim, but not nonexistent. Most of the things here are logical, some maybe not. Let me start with a list of the "equipment" I consider necessary (in general, obviously depending on the situation), then I'll cover a passage about avoiding legal problems, safety issues during exploration, what to do if you encounter dogs or homeless people, and other general advice.
1. Equipment:
a) Comfortable footwear (you never know how much walking you'll do), with thick soles (to protect against nails, shards, spikes, etc.), and relatively waterproof (depends on the situation, but I've often encountered mud, puddles of water, or other liquids lol).
b) Comfortable clothing (freedom of movement), dark-colored (to avoid drawing attention, especially if you're in a building where you'd be the only colorful spot), and durable (or clothing you don't care much about getting dirty or damaged easily).
c) Mask (I know it's an investment, but a good mask should be essential). Many of the buildings we explore are old, which means there are some risks: asbestos, lead paint, or various chemicals in the air. The first two are banned, but they were legal when some of the buildings we explore were constructed. Then there's the risk of encountering chemicals that have been dumped there or were in the buildings before they were abandoned, but the container is destroyed or simply not maintained the way it used to be (and in many buildings, ventilation is quite dusty). Not to mention other minor but annoying hazards: dust and mold. Bonus: the mask helps endure the horrible smell you constantly encounter in urbex lol.
d) First aid "kit" - it doesn't have to be anything fancy, logically, but it doesn't hurt to have something on you just in case: band-aids, some bandages (the adhesive type is more useful), disinfectant (because most of the things you can cut or prick yourself on are either rusty or dirty). If it's something more serious, go to the hospital quickly (I think that was obvious, but I thought I'd add it - especially if we're talking about dog bites or cuts/piercings caused by rusty objects).
e) Situational "tools": wet wipes/disinfectant (especially if you're a smoker or if you want to eat), flashlight (I prefer flashlights that can be charged at the outlet, but also have regular batteries), power bank (because, well, you need your phone), water and some food (I've had to wait hours for security/police to leave so I could leave the building), rope/paracord (especially if you know you need to descend a considerable distance), gloves (especially if you're climbing somewhere), etc. I'm waiting for suggestions from you; I'm sure I missed something 😊)
e) Self-defense: pepper spray (for homeless people) and some food (for dogs). Also, it doesn't hurt to have some extra cigarettes or food in case you talk to a homeless person.
2. Avoiding Legal Problems
Exploration is illegal in most cases (even if there's no sign saying "forbidden," locked doors or gates, barbed wire fences, surveillance cameras, etc.), so we accept the legal consequences of our choices (and yes, even minors). I divide exploration into 3 stages: entering the location, exploring it, and exiting the location.
For me, entry should be invisible, exploration subtle, and exit quick.
First of all, I need to check if the location is abandoned. I check online first (mainly news about the location, searching for the "exact address" in quotes to find that exact address; if it's a company, I check the business details; reverse search a street photo to see if I find something, etc.), then I check physically (broken fence, broken windows, absence of surveillance cameras, absence of activity traces, absence of alarm at the entrance, etc.). If everything is fine and the location is abandoned, then I start looking for an entry. For me, entry should be subtle (preferably not through a crowded place where people can see you, not through a place with surveillance cameras), quick (to minimize the possibility of someone catching you jumping the fence), and efficient (it's useless to have a subtle and quick entry if you waste a lot of time getting into the building, so you increase the time you're in open space).
Exploration should be subtle: don't make noise, don't use bright lights (minimum necessary, you don't need a powerful flashlight to see where you're going), and don't go in a large group (3 people seems enough to me). Don't hang around windows, and if you're on the roof, try not to attract attention (especially with the light from the flashlight or phone lol).
Exiting should be as subtle as the rest, but if it can't be... well, at least it should be quick because no one will chase you anymore. Try to exit where you can check if someone is passing by (if it's near the street) or if someone is waiting for you (security or police).
I'll add here the importance of anonymity, both during exploration and afterward. I know the chances of legal trouble because of this are slim, but it doesn't cost you much to reduce risks: cover your face or at least wear a hood during exploration, avoid posting online photos/clips where features that could be used for your identification are visible (face, tattoos, etc.), if you get into urbex and are active online, don't involve your real name in the equation.
3. Building Safety Issues
Obviously, it depends on the location being explored, but usually, we're talking about buildings abandoned for some time and their condition is not ideal. First of all, this means you risk falling through the floor, having the ceiling fall on your head, and you can't really avoid that. Obviously, don't jump like a retard if you see that the floor is unstable 😊)) But usually, it matters to keep your attention during exploration (look for holes and cracks in the floor or ceiling, check how solid the object you're holding onto is when trying to climb onto something, etc.), know your limits (especially when it comes to heights, free climbing, or parkour), and don't take unnecessary risks (common sense things: don't touch unknown substances, cables, sharp objects, etc.).
4. Dogs and Homeless People
Yes, homeless people are also humans, I included them here just out of laziness. I don't recommend going to urbex with headphones on because they help you hear the noises from the ground. If you hear barking, assume there are dogs so you can play it safe: avoid those areas, don't stay outside the building for too long, check the area from above when you reach the
upper floors or the roof. Same goes for homeless people: you rarely encounter them during the day, but it helps to avoid them if you hear noises, shouting, etc. If you encounter dogs and homeless people, aggression and running away won't help. It's much better to remain calm and retreat in an organized manner. If you have no choice, engage in conversation with homeless people but not aggressively, don't show off like you have money, behave as if you have a backbone (meaning, have balls, but not in a passive-aggressive way).
5. General Advice
Watch out for tobacco, alcohol, and drug consumption. I included tobacco on the list just to emphasize the idea that you shouldn't throw lit cigarettes randomly because you risk setting fire to the location (especially if there are flammable substances there, old papers, etc.). I don't recommend in any possible way consuming anything that makes you think irrationally, especially since you need a good balance in some situations (good luck jumping high fences if you're dead drunk or high as a kite), but I think that's obvious.
Choose your locations wisely, understand your limits. I understand that some places are extremely interesting, but I don't recommend someone who has never been to urbex to explore a well-guarded or hard-to-reach building. Not to mention that some places are really risky (like subway tunnels), others are not a good idea at night (extremely damaged locations or those where the light from flashlights is very visible), and others are simply inaccessible in general (security, locked doors, surveillance cameras, etc.).
I don't recommend going urbex alone, but neither going in large groups. The larger the group, the greater the chances that someone will make a mistake or somehow attract attention (it's one thing for 1-3 people to jump over a fence and another for 5-10 lol). I actually try to create a community here, but that doesn't mean I can control the quality of the people present on this subreddit in any way. When choosing to explore with strangers you find online, some dangers arise, obviously. I'm not even mentioning those extremely unlikely dangers (to be a policeman, organ theft, etc. lol), I'm referring to more concrete ones: you don't know how cautious the respective person is, how much experience they have, what physical condition they are in, etc. You might be cautious, but you might get hurt because of the person next to you. I'm not even mentioning the possibility of encountering someone who's a jerk and does nasty jokes in abandoned buildings (locking you somewhere, leaving you behind, etc.), committing some illegalities (beating up a homeless person, setting something on fire, destroying things, etc.), and so on.
Also, urbex should not and should not be a competition. For me, all that matters is to feel good when I explore. I've met people who see exploration as a competition (x has been to y place, I have to go too) or people who are in a continuous search for validation online. I'm by no means the most experienced urbexer, but I can say that in the last 4-5 years, I've seen people who started doing urbex and then took on more and more risks (and yes, the places they've reached are cool). I believe there are few of those people (and no, I won't name names) who continue to do urbex: most of them calmed down after legal problems started to arise (I know it may not seem like it when you're young, but that criminal record can have nasty consequences), and the unlucky ones have serious medical problems (I've seen a few cases of life-changing problems in the comments, like nasty fractures, paralysis, etc.). If you look for it a bit, you'll find enough news about people who died doing urbex (and I'm not talking about suicides), so there can be serious consequences for recklessness.
That being said, I'm not here to tell you how to do urbex; the post is for those who want to explore safely and are just starting out.

My community is romanian so it was originally written in romanian, just translated it with chat gpt now so that may be why some words or expressions sound weird.
How to Find Urban Exploration Locations Without Someone's Help
Google is your friend: Search, Maps, and Earth.
Most of the locations I explore are found online. The internet is the most important resource we have in urban exploration and it's not that hard to use it properly. If you search and don't find information online (let's say in Bucharest), it means you haven't searched enough (I've been to hundreds of locations in the past year, and 90% were found online) xD
I. Before you search, you need to ask yourself a few questions:

1. What do you want to find?

Okay, urban exploration locations. What kind of locations? Are they abandoned houses or buildings, unfinished construction sites, abandoned industrial buildings, forts or bunkers, etc. There are many options, and you can easily find information by using specific searches.

1. Where is the location?

Again, the volume of information on the internet is absolutely huge, and it helps to have a specific search (street, sector, city, county, region, country etc.).

1. In what form do you think the information you want is? Where do you think you'll find it? Is it a social media post or a blog? Is it an article in the press? Is it in an official document?

Depending on the answer, you can adapt your search. In practice, various terms are used depending on the purpose of the text. The most efficient way to get used to this (it becomes instinctive at some point) is practice :))
II. Finding a potential location and confirming it.
The most basic option is to search for pre-made lists of abandoned places. You can search on Google for "abandoned places Bucharest" and find posts on forums, websites, social media, etc.
Obviously, the information is not always up to date (in fact, in urban exploration, it's rarely up to date), and you need to check if the location is still abandoned, which is relatively simple. Let's say you found Alex Iacob's website (Reptilianul) and see an interesting location. Let's say Aversa. It's not a good idea to assume that's all because you might end up at the location and find it's a guarded ruin (or that you're trying to enter an active building protected by the military even though it seemed like a ruin online - real story, sadly).
I first search on Google Earth what the location looks like (btw, just because it looks like that on Earth or Maps doesn't mean it's like that in reality because the image is not always updated) and check 3D or street view. If it still looks abandoned (broken windows, broken fences, graffiti, holes in walls, vegetation, holes in the roof, etc.), I do some searches on Google to find additional information. You don't always find something useful like this, but in the case of famous buildings, there is plenty of information online (check their current status and look for the latest news/posts). In the case of less known buildings, it helps to search for the exact address to see what their situation is.
And if we're talking about searches, there are some relatively well-known things ignored by many people. When you search for something on a standardized search engine (let's say a simple search on Google), you find enough close results. Basically, it searches for similar terms but not exact ones, which usually doesn't help us. You can avoid this by using an advanced search (especially since you can avoid some terms, so if you're looking for a news story about an abandoned building, you can avoid news about mainstream ones) or by putting the searched terms in quotation marks. Another thing is searching for the type of documents. Let's say you want to search for locations using some official documents. In this case, you can search by file type. For example: "abandoned buildings" filetype:pdf (and you find documents in pdf format containing the words you searched for).
Well, now you can search for some tips and tricks on Google searches because there are plenty of them :))
Another option is to spend a lot of time on Maps or Earth to find locations that seem abandoned and then check them. Here it's about patience and discipline. You can't really rush the process, you just have to invest time and effort, and you'll find locations 100%.
III. Physically verifying online information.
Regardless of your skill in finding online information, you still need to physically verify it. This depends on the person and your circumstances.
I'm more paranoid by nature, and I admit I have some issues with anxiety/overthinking, so I try to make everything as safe as possible (especially from a legal point of view). This means I don't take many risks, I check the buildings physically before entering, I take a quick look around without entering at that time. I look for guards, cameras, entry and exit ways from a building (the entrance can be slower but subtle, the exit should be quick, even if it's too obvious). Preferably, multiple exits and entrances, just in case (and it works, I haven't received any fines in 4-5 years of urban exploration).
What you do next is your choice. I prefer not to take risks if I see something suspicious; it's not like the location will disappear if I don't enter it right away.
IV. You've seen a location in someone's post and want to go there too.
Here it's complicated (obviously, you don't spam the person with messages "give me the location too"). If the photos are from inside a building, it's hard to figure out the location (not impossible). In theory, a location posted recently on this subreddit would have a vague location posted by the author (city or region, nothing more exact, and that only if the exact location is not obvious).
So you have a starting point, you know the approximate area. To increase your chances of success, you need to figure out what type of building it is. Some are impossible to find without someone giving you the location (like the recent post about Mrs. Eugenia's house here) because it's just a simple house and there shouldn't be any online information about it. Furthermore, it's not a "special" or "unique" location that you can differentiate from other houses in Romania. Other locations are easier; you see a logo, specific equipment, or anything that helps you figure out what the location was used for. For example, you see an old train and think it's something related to the Romanian Railways. Or you see an old gas mask and think it's some industrial building from the communist era. If you know the relative area, you have a chance to find the area because you've advanced to "abandoned industry Constanța" (hypothetically speaking).
If the photo is of the exterior, the situation changes (for the better) because you have a higher chance of finding the location. What do you see in that photo? Do you recognize anything? Let's say it's a photo taken from some buildings in Bucharest, and you see a fairly large lake. There aren't that many large lakes in Bucharest; you've already found some approximate areas where that building could be. Usually, there are enough details in the photos, and you can use them: tall buildings with the corporate logo on them, giant advertisements, emblematic buildings, maybe even traffic signs with the names of streets.
If you see this information, you further reduce the possible locations. You definitely find the area using Google Earth 3D view and street view to find the exact place (you practically walk around until you find from which direction the photo was taken, and then you look to see if it looks abandoned. If not, it's probably a normal building that someone climbed, so you can look for graffiti, but those are not mandatory).
Another option that rarely works (but is quick and free, so I usually test it first) is reverse search by image. I recommend a browser extension: Invid Weverify, which basically searches for an image using multiple sites (it's for fact-checking, but geolocation is part of it, so it's useful).
For those interested in geolocation, I can give you some references to something more detailed/useful. See what techniques are used in OSINT and adapt them for finding urbex locations lol. I recommend the book "OSINT Techniques: Resources for Uncovering Online Information" by Michael Bazzell, 2023 edition (btw, Libgen is brilliant, Z Library as a backup. Update: Anna's Archives is getting bigger than anything now).
I know my guide might seem disappointing; I'm sure I probably missed some "strategies," but believe me, I've been using them for years and have found plenty of locations. There's no magic solution; it's just about time, effort, and skills gained through training. I hope my little "guide" helps you :)))
.
.
.

Guide to Urban Exploration Safety

Exploration is an interesting hobby, but it can be dangerous, and I think we're all aware of that. It's important to acknowledge the risks when embarking on exploration and not start with the mindset of "it won't happen to me" because anything can happen to anyone. Yes, the chances are slim, but not nonexistent. Most of the things here are logical, some maybe not. Let me start with a list of the "equipment" I consider necessary (in general, obviously depending on the situation), then I'll cover a passage about avoiding legal problems, safety issues during exploration, what to do if you encounter dogs or homeless people, and other general advice.
1. Equipment:
a) Comfortable footwear (you never know how much walking you'll do), with thick soles (to protect against nails, shards, spikes, etc.), and relatively waterproof (depends on the situation, but I've often encountered mud, puddles of water, or other liquids lol).
b) Comfortable clothing (freedom of movement), dark-colored (to avoid drawing attention, especially if you're in a building where you'd be the only colorful spot), and durable (or clothing you don't care much about getting dirty or damaged easily).
c) Mask (I know it's an investment, but a good mask should be essential). Many of the buildings we explore are old, which means there are some risks: asbestos, lead paint, or various chemicals in the air. The first two are banned, but they were legal when some of the buildings we explore were constructed. Then there's the risk of encountering chemicals that have been dumped there or were in the buildings before they were abandoned, but the container is destroyed or simply not maintained the way it used to be (and in many buildings, ventilation is quite dusty). Not to mention other minor but annoying hazards: dust and mold. Bonus: the mask helps endure the horrible smell you constantly encounter in urbex lol.
d) First aid "kit" - it doesn't have to be anything fancy, logically, but it doesn't hurt to have something on you just in case: band-aids, some bandages (the adhesive type is more useful), disinfectant (because most of the things you can cut or prick yourself on are either rusty or dirty). If it's something more serious, go to the hospital quickly (I think that was obvious, but I thought I'd add it - especially if we're talking about dog bites or cuts/piercings caused by rusty objects).
e) Situational "tools": wet wipes/disinfectant (especially if you're a smoker or if you want to eat), flashlight (I prefer flashlights that can be charged at the outlet, but also have regular batteries), power bank (because, well, you need your phone), water and some food (I've had to wait hours for security/police to leave so I could leave the building), rope/paracord (especially if you know you need to descend a considerable distance), gloves (especially if you're climbing somewhere), etc. I'm waiting for suggestions from you; I'm sure I missed something 😊)
e) Self-defense: pepper spray (for homeless people) and some food (for dogs). Also, it doesn't hurt to have some extra cigarettes or food in case you talk to a homeless person.
2. Avoiding Legal Problems
Exploration is illegal in most cases (even if there's no sign saying "forbidden," locked doors or gates, barbed wire fences, surveillance cameras, etc.), so we accept the legal consequences of our choices (and yes, even minors). I divide exploration into 3 stages: entering the location, exploring it, and exiting the location.
For me, entry should be invisible, exploration subtle, and exit quick.
First of all, I need to check if the location is abandoned. I check online first (mainly news about the location, searching for the "exact address" in quotes to find that exact address; if it's a company, I check the business details; reverse search a street photo to see if I find something, etc.), then I check physically (broken fence, broken windows, absence of surveillance cameras, absence of activity traces, absence of alarm at the entrance, etc.). If everything is fine and the location is abandoned, then I start looking for an entry. For me, entry should be subtle (preferably not through a crowded place where people can see you, not through a place with surveillance cameras), quick (to minimize the possibility of someone catching you jumping the fence), and efficient (it's useless to have a subtle and quick entry if you waste a lot of time getting into the building, so you increase the time you're in open space).
Exploration should be subtle: don't make noise, don't use bright lights (minimum necessary, you don't need a powerful flashlight to see where you're going), and don't go in a large group (3 people seems enough to me). Don't hang around windows, and if you're on the roof, try not to attract attention (especially with the light from the flashlight or phone lol).
Exiting should be as subtle as the rest, but if it can't be... well, at least it should be quick because no one will chase you anymore. Try to exit where you can check if someone is passing by (if it's near the street) or if someone is waiting for you (security or police).
I'll add here the importance of anonymity, both during exploration and afterward. I know the chances of legal trouble because of this are slim, but it doesn't cost you much to reduce risks: cover your face or at least wear a hood during exploration, avoid posting online photos/clips where features that could be used for your identification are visible (face, tattoos, etc.), if you get into urbex and are active online, don't involve your real name in the equation.
3. Building Safety Issues
Obviously, it depends on the location being explored, but usually, we're talking about buildings abandoned for some time and their condition is not ideal. First of all, this means you risk falling through the floor, having the ceiling fall on your head, and you can't really avoid that. Obviously, don't jump like a retard if you see that the floor is unstable 😊)) But usually, it matters to keep your attention during exploration (look for holes and cracks in the floor or ceiling, check how solid the object you're holding onto is when trying to climb onto something, etc.), know your limits (especially when it comes to heights, free climbing, or parkour), and don't take unnecessary risks (common sense things: don't touch unknown substances, cables, sharp objects, etc.).
4. Dogs and Homeless People
Yes, homeless people are also humans, I included them here just out of laziness. I don't recommend going to urbex with headphones on because they help you hear the noises from the ground. If you hear barking, assume there are dogs so you can play it safe: avoid those areas, don't stay outside the building for too long, check the area from above when you reach the
upper floors or the roof. Same goes for homeless people: you rarely encounter them during the day, but it helps to avoid them if you hear noises, shouting, etc. If you encounter dogs and homeless people, aggression and running away won't help. It's much better to remain calm and retreat in an organized manner. If you have no choice, engage in conversation with homeless people but not aggressively, don't show off like you have money, behave as if you have a backbone (meaning, have balls, but not in a passive-aggressive way).
5. General Advice
Watch out for tobacco, alcohol, and drug consumption. I included tobacco on the list just to emphasize the idea that you shouldn't throw lit cigarettes randomly because you risk setting fire to the location (especially if there are flammable substances there, old papers, etc.). I don't recommend in any possible way consuming anything that makes you think irrationally, especially since you need a good balance in some situations (good luck jumping high fences if you're dead drunk or high as a kite), but I think that's obvious.
Choose your locations wisely, understand your limits. I understand that some places are extremely interesting, but I don't recommend someone who has never been to urbex to explore a well-guarded or hard-to-reach building. Not to mention that some places are really risky (like subway tunnels), others are not a good idea at night (extremely damaged locations or those where the light from flashlights is very visible), and others are simply inaccessible in general (security, locked doors, surveillance cameras, etc.).
I don't recommend going urbex alone, but neither going in large groups. The larger the group, the greater the chances that someone will make a mistake or somehow attract attention (it's one thing for 1-3 people to jump over a fence and another for 5-10 lol). I actually try to create a community here, but that doesn't mean I can control the quality of the people present on this subreddit in any way. When choosing to explore with strangers you find online, some dangers arise, obviously. I'm not even mentioning those extremely unlikely dangers (to be a policeman, organ theft, etc. lol), I'm referring to more concrete ones: you don't know how cautious the respective person is, how much experience they have, what physical condition they are in, etc. You might be cautious, but you might get hurt because of the person next to you. I'm not even mentioning the possibility of encountering someone who's a jerk and does nasty jokes in abandoned buildings (locking you somewhere, leaving you behind, etc.), committing some illegalities (beating up a homeless person, setting something on fire, destroying things, etc.), and so on.
Also, urbex should not and should not be a competition. For me, all that matters is to feel good when I explore. I've met people who see exploration as a competition (x has been to y place, I have to go too) or people who are in a continuous search for validation online. I'm by no means the most experienced urbexer, but I can say that in the last 4-5 years, I've seen people who started doing urbex and then took on more and more risks (and yes, the places they've reached are cool). I believe there are few of those people (and no, I won't name names) who continue to do urbex: most of them calmed down after legal problems started to arise (I know it may not seem like it when you're young, but that criminal record can have nasty consequences), and the unlucky ones have serious medical problems (I've seen a few cases of life-changing problems in the comments, like nasty fractures, paralysis, etc.). If you look for it a bit, you'll find enough news about people who died doing urbex (and I'm not talking about suicides), so there can be serious consequences for recklessness.
That being said, I'm not here to tell you how to do urbex; the post is for those who want to explore safely and are just starting out.

So around 8-10 years old I (M) was SA'd by someone a couple years older than me multiple times. This experience really hurt me and basically ruined any semblance of self-confidence or sense of self I had. Until I was about 14-15, I was constantly in a state of wondering what I had done for it to happen to me, multiple people I trusted telling me how "lucky" I was, and to be completely honest, a certain amount of anxiety around women. I was homeschooled and so I literally had no social life and no outlet outside of my toxic family to vent my emotions or talk with someone who understood. I just felt really really yucky, id constantly scrub my body in the shower for hours, sometimes until I was bleeding trying to feel clean, sometimes I'd stop bathing for weeks because I felt like there wasn't any point since i'd feel nasty snyways. I genuinely felt completely isolated and was desperate for any attention, any human connection that I had never had.
My coping mechanism and my way of dealing with everything I was going through was essentially to become void of all emotions, to stop feeling anything, and I stopped crying at 10ish, my smiles and laughter always felt forced, and just my hate for myself and for my body along with how emotionally unavailable my parents were made me feel constantly hurt. I was always really underweight as a kid and wasn't traditionally masculine and I got bullied and body shamed for being a "sissy" by my own family.
Eventually at 17 I finally had enough freedom to get Internet access and join discord and Reddit and I was so desperate to make friends or just to have literally anyone to talk to or connect with. I made some "friends" in a couple of friends and kpop servers I joined and being emotionally immature and having literally no experience socializing with anyone ever, I opened up and revealed far more about myself than I should have, in hindsight, to literal strangers who I thought were my "friends". It just so happened that these friends all knew each other, and were all 30+ year olds who identified as trans females and they were so kind and caring and interested, which I had never felt before, and I opened up, spilling everything about myself. After a few weeks, one of these people asked me, do you really think you're a male? They brought up how I mentioned I had liked movies and books with female MCs, written short stories with female POVs, always liked traditionally feminine things like pink and cutesy stuff and brought up how yucky and disgusted I felt by my own body.
In hindsight this is all sexist AF and incredibly stereotypical, but I was at a point where I genuinely wanted to be happy or atleast not alone and hurting and so I entertained these ideas, maybe if I wasn't enough of a boy, that meant I was a girl? And these so called friends started coaxing me into changing my pronouns, introducing myself as a girl, and even correcting my mannerisms and speech to be more "girly". I wasn't enough of a boy so they were forcing me to literally become someone else because that was the only way I'd love my body and be happy apparently. It only escalated from there and they'd constantly be forcing me into being "girly" and doing "girly" things and in hindsight I feel really really stupid for letting these ppl take advantage of me, like it was hurting me even worse and I felt so disgusted and icked out by myself but I still didn't establish boundaries and end it when I should have.
When I'd voice these concerns or say I didn't think I was trans, which was a lot lot more frequent during the first year, they'd convince me that "thinking you're not trans is proof your trans" and I was basically made to feel that I was feeling worse because I needed to reach that breaking point of being "girly" enough, trans enough, feminine enough that I would finally be happy, and so it was basically up to me to do anything to reach that point so I could be happy. Pretty early on these men (which is what they are I'm sorry) started introducing me to porn as a means of understanding and discovering my trans identity and it made me so uncomfortable. Like I had never been aroused or into porn but I was literally made to watch it because "all trans girls go through this phase to feel really girly" and one of these men, sort of the main perpetrator of this whole weird gang or whatever would basically convince me that to be a real girl I had to like penises, even tho I had never once even been remotely interested in guys at any point in my life, but in trying to be this perfect trans female that would be so happy and in trying to be whatever prevented version of what these ppl think is a "girl" i basically had to tell myself that I liked boys and I wanted to be penetrated when in fact even the thought just disgusted me and turned me off. The main guy even would make me watch micropenis porn and send me random pictures of micropenises and looking back with clarity and thinking about it now, he was literally sending me pictures of himself without my consent and I felt so yucky about it then but now looking back I feel so violated and I truly hate it.
There was also a point where I said I really didn't wanna be a girl and I felt more boyish, so they asked me to watch incest porn with "mommies" in it and to imagine myself as the mommy and being called mommy because that would apparently make me feel really girly and turned on and maybe that would be the final push into finally feeling like a happy trans female and it was in fact not, like I said porn disgusted me but those things turned me off even more and I was genuinely struggling with the disgust I felt not only for these things but the genuine disgust I had for myself for basically becoming an incel, even tho I suppose it wasn't voluntary, because ppl told me I wasn't enough as myself. I did drop these "friends" pretty soon because I genuinely reached a point where I dreaded being controlled and never feeling girly enough, but I guess the damage was done because I was seriously convinced I was trans, despite the self-loathing and disgust I had with myself. I even engaged in subreddits like egg and stuff and I was literally acting as a pawn for these creepy perverted people who liked forcing children to be trans to suit their fantasies in helping them achieve their goals. I feel like I literally aided predators and I can't help but feel so disgusted with myself regardless of my own circumstances or anything like why did I let myself fall so low? But I kept trying anything to feel that "girliness" and I reached a point where I started associating any good feelings with being trans. "I only made real friends when I was trans so it must be who I am" "I only felt happy doing this when I was trans so maybe I'm just in denial" but Everytime I had this euphoria it would be followed with extreme disgust with myself and just a massive ick and bouts of self-harm just to "punish" myself for not being a good enough girl.
I think I always knew I wasn't trans, but I was so deep into the rabbit hole that I even pulled my girlfriend into it and I literally became the literal monsters and abusers I hated so much, and I truly didn't mean it, it wasn't intentional, but the fact that I did that or even the fact that I encouraged other "eggs" to find their true selves instead of giving these vulnerable babies the support and safety they needed makes me feel so disgusted by myself. I hate how I acted so stereotypical and misogynistic in trying to be some creepy, perverted version of what these ppl think is a girl, and I don't wanna sound dramatic but now that my girlfriend has helped me leave that vicious cycle and instead of telling me that if I'm not manly enough clearly I'm trans that I can be loved as myself and that I can be a feminine guy and that's ok, I feel like such a massive weight has been lifted off my shoulders I just love being myself and being a guy because it feels so natural. I still feel like those three years ruined my life though, 17-20 are such important years and I feel like I missed out and lost those years trying to be something else and I feel like I lost myself, I killed myself in those three years and although I do feel loved and I feel better now, I don't think I'll ever be myself again and I feel so so so just revolted and disgusted with myself and I hate my self for being such a disgusting creep I just wanna rip my skin off and do everyone a favor and just be gone.
I really want to be happy but how can I ever feel happy knowing I did the things I did or acted the way I acted or hurt the people I love and lost myself all because I was too naive and stupid to figure out that these people weren't my friends. I feel like I'm just struggling with these emotional and I guess it helps to know that there are other people out there with similar experiences and if anyone had smth similar happen to them and they'd feel comfortable sharing that would be really great? Thank you so much and I hope I didn't break any rules in my post.
I wanna just say that I am extremely against the use of labels and determining certain behaviors or items or actions or things as "girly" or "boyish" or masculine or feminine because that's reinforcing the same stereotypes that create this toxic cycle so I tried to put these words in quotation marks to express that I don't really truly believe that anymore.

[This is quite a long and unsympathetic life story, so beware. If you don't want to engage in a whole life situation that is fine and you should skip it.]
Support: I have real trouble understanding where I am, how permanent my situation is, what I can actually do. I have this therapist, it's not going as well as I'd want. Should I voice those concerns? Am I at a stage where this is my set-in-stone brain chemistry? Will I never be able to connect to anyone? How should I actually solve this. I feel as if I have been sick for 14 years. I know what normal is, I have experienced it, and did experience it a bit again last fall, how do I get back to it?!
Intro and summary for those who don’t wanna read it all:
So, it took my a pretty damn long time to figure out that I value people in my life, I was 22 when I got my first deep existensial crisis which lasted for like 2 weeks. Up until that point I had truly deluded myself in so many ways.
What worries me is the immense amount of time it seems to take for my mind to cope. Having like 1 socialization event per semester is just not feasible in any way. It’s like what I do in 1 year people do in 1 week, and I think what is hurting me mostly is the way I go “out-of-practice”, during last semester, once me and the group spent more time together and my social machine got oiled, things felt better. But it was a group in school, they didn’t necessarily want to spend time with me, they had to, and maybe that is why it felt good. But the social anxiety just grasps its claws around my neck keeping me from doing what I know I really want and need, the cycle of having a socialization event going okay, living off the “high” from that, go back to isolation because of What-if scenarios and anxious thoughts, stay there until it becomes unbearable, socialize out of desperation, etc. This semester is coming to a close, after this one I have 4 more. Time is running out and I feel utterly damaged, and in my worst moments, beyond repair.
ADHD [So, during my very early years, I would say I excibited real signs of ADHD, I was very very impulsive, I once threw a brick at one of my friends (like 8-9 years old), for absolutely no reason... I wasn't angry, we were actually laughing. I have stolen countless of money from my parents. My parents initiated a ADHD evaluation at age 14, but did the mistake of letting me be the final say, which I declined. I have now, after so damn long gotten an appointment for preliminary evaluation, so I hope this will give me some sort of answer.]
During high-school (from 16 to 19 in my country) I just "attended" hung out with some of the more geeky types you now, although I never really shared that much of their interests, they were the ones who tolerated me. I was a pretty normal kid up until 12 years old, doing sports having friends, had girls interested in me (for like 10, 11 year olds but anyway), that stuff, until I stupidly stole a pair of shoes from a classmate, was found out and justifyible berated. But, it just sunk my confidence to bare minimum and since that day my sort of new default mode was "I am bad, I am disliked". So in high-school, I was comfortably at the bottom of everything, everybody was better, more handsome, more intelligent, etc, so my mind coped by sort of creating a mental mode of "Oh, I don't need people, I'm gonna learn myself programming and get rich." Which I of course never did really. It was just an escape and excuse for my mind. So, went through high-school, pretty much not developing any serious later teenage social skills, by just hanging out with the same bunch of people who adoped me in elementary school. Graduated with average GPA (or its equivalent in my home country), and couldn't really get into any university I wanted (still deluded, so I wanted to get into computer engineering without being any good at math, but decent at basic programming). So I started working, odd jobs, warehouses, IT-service, botched them all, by calling in sick for like 20 days straight, until they, again justifyibly fired me, I took a university course in music and took government student aid for that (everyone does it in my country) but failed the course so if I wanted to study in the future I'd have to get those credits before being eligble for student aid and loan. 3 years of work and unemployment. Then I applied for a uni program which wasn't the one I wanted to get into, but my parents (which is a whole other story of its own with stealing money, weight gain prompting panic solutions and constant scoldings, again "I am bad") eagerly pushed me to start studying although I didn't really have any motivation to study (or anything else for that matter), and I had't yet caught up with my credits (which I hadn't told my parents, keeping an outward persona even to those closest to me is a common theme for me). [Tangent: I borrowed my parents car and drove to the city where the campus was for an intro day. I remember walking along with some people, and I asked a girl some questions, about you know the usual stuff, after a period of silence as we walked along she turned her head back at me and smiled at me, I remember it to this day... Yeah, that is now 3 and a half years ago...]
So the first break happened that August when I started a program I couldn't even study at since it was another city and I couldn't get the aid and loan, so I had to come up with some excuse for it to the parents like it didn't feel right and that I wanted to study up for the SAT. I basically laid under a blanket not eating for 2 weeks, watching the movie "2012" like 3 times in a day, reading Tolstoy of all things. The thing in my mind that broke was the unforseeable future, suddenly my life sort of shrunk, my life was a finished product, I was going to die homeless and alone and I bloody well deserved it. This is when I finally realized, after 22 years on this earth, that people matter, took me long enough to understand. It's damn incredible how I managed to keep this persona of having it together towards my family... I worked like a month during the fall and during the spring, my 4th year after graduation, I finally took some courses which would grant me my credits needed. I also studied up for the SAT and amazingly ended up in the 95th percentile, which would get me into most of the programs in my country. So finally, things felt like they were getting back on track. Summer passed, I moved to another city starting computer engineering, my parents were all proud and stuff (which felt okay, but the guilt stemming from all that had happened, along with this obvious feeling of "You're bloody 23 years old..." weighed down on me heavily).
But, getting out into the social world after spending 4 years with no social connection except my concerned parents and occasionally meeting my "friends" (quotations on my behalf, they are good people), I was damn overwhelmed. Suddenly meeting 30 people who all seemed to be the way I was, in my mind, "supposed" to be, social, good looking etc, overwhelmed me profusely. So the first day which was 2 weeks before courses began, meant to be an intro to university life, I quickly retreated to my dorm room. When courses started I was, once again (are you as frustrated yet, as I am with myself...) alone, isolated, the "other", possibilities litterally within my grasp, but the anxiety of it all combined with my self-image that started at 12 years old, made me isolate myself. Due to this, I utterly failed my courses, especially the math, remember how I never was any good at math, but my delusion of "well, when I start studiying in some conceptual future, I am gonna have the motivation and work ethic to pull through" just made it into a joke. The first semester I took half of the total credits, basically zero of any math stuff, when there were group projects I tended to pull through a bit more, since a social setting, although very temporary, helps me. Second semester I took 1/4th of the credits, so I once again, had to take external courses (which I took in music, having a talent for it) to be eligible for student housing and student loan (for context we are eligible for a total of 6 years, or 12 semesters). I, once again, during summer, retreated into a delusion that I could study up on all the courses I had failed. New semester, similar, passed programming stuff, completely lost on anything math. Christmas came and passed, (I was also at this point at my heaviest around 310 lbs at 6'0) next semester I took more external courses to rack up the credits, but now I was so behind in the program that I knew I would have to look for something else. I had now, finally, applied for a therapist, but it was going have to wait until fall due to waiting time. I applied to a program combining business and programming. Summer came and passed. This was the final push, 6 semesters of 3 years is what I had left of student loan, if I failed that, move back without a degree to my parents, back to square one basically.
So, last fall, 25 years old... I started this new program, I opted out of the intro week (of course). When the courses began it was better suited for me, no math, but also geared heavily towards group projects. In this first semester the teachers paired us into groups of 4. Worth noting here, is that I also got a medication for my hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating, which contributed immensely to my social anxiety). With this new medication along with starting therapy for social anxiety, I got this new sense of hope, and it actually lingered. The group I ended up in, 2 girls, 1 guy, was a saving grace for me. I finally got back to the feeling I once had all those years ago before the age of 12, I could talk to them, be funny, focus on the group projects, help them a lot with the programming aspects, it felt exilirating and exciting as hell. I also joined a student association which shared in some of my interests, where I also felt I had something in common with these people, and I also joined a book club where we met online once a week. And I also moved to a new dorm room where I actually started to talk to the people in my dorm, having dinners every Sunday. So I finally got some social structure in my life. Along with the therapy where we tried to make sense of all my behaviors. I also got into weight loss (now at this moment having lost 60 lbs), which very obviously was aided- although not entirely -by this new socialization, I actually had a reason to take care of my appearence. Last fall was the most socialization I had had for a staggering 7 years after high-school. Now, this semester, new groups were to be formed by ourselves, the other people in my previous group went to form groups seperately with people they knew. I seriously considered asking them if they wanted to go on this semester too (notice how I think asking this is a "serious consideration"), but did not. I however, joined another group and we haven’t clicked I would say.
What worries me is the immense amount of time it seems to take for my mind to cope. Having like 1 socialization event per semester is just not feasible in any way. It’s like what I do in 1 year people do in 1 week, and I think what is hurting me mostly is the way I go “out-of-practice”, during last semester, once me and the group spent more time together and my social machine got oiled, things felt better. But it was a group in school, they didn’t necessarily want to spend time with me, they had to, and maybe that is why it felt good. But the social anxiety just grasps its claws around my neck keeping me from doing what I know I really want and need, the cycle of having a socialization event going okay, living off the “high” from that, go back to isolation because of What-if scenarios and anxious thoughts, stay there until it becomes unbearable, socialize out of desperation, etc. This semester is coming to a close, after this one I have 4 more. Time is running out and I feel utterly damaged, and in my worst moments, beyond repair.
Am I at a stage where this is my set-in-stone brain chemistry? Will I never be able to connect to anyone? How should I actually solve this. I feel as if I have been sick for 14 years. I know what normal is, I have experienced it, and did experience it a bit again last fall, how do I get back to it?!

These are quotations from peer-reviewed scientific publications arguing that NDEs in cardiac arrest suggests that the mind is more than just brain activity how atheists react to these publications?
The accumulating reports of conscious awareness and, in particular, lucid, well-structured cognitive processes, including attention and memory recall of specific events at a time when cerebral -function- is severely impaired´-or-absent during cardiac arrest, raises a number of interesting and perplexing questions, particularly as cerebral localization studies have indicated that cognitive processes are mediated through the activation of multiple cortical regions. Therefore, a globally disordered brain including a non-function-ing cortex should not support lucid thought processes and memory recall. Furthermore, even relatively minor reductions in CBF lead to confusional states and impaired attention followed by loss of consciousness, rather than lucid thought processes, attention, and memory that are ordinarily reserved for a normally -function-ing brain. The experiences reported are clearly not confusional and are reported to occur at a time when consciousness and memory formation should not be possible in relation to the underlying levels of cerebral activity and CBF. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nyas.12582
Given that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is insufficient to meet the metabolic requirements of the brain and that brain function ceases even with CPR, and is associated with a concurrent slowing and absence of cortical EEG within 2–20 s [reviewed in22], reports of consciousness during CPR—i.e. at a time when the brain is thought to be ‘non-functional’—raise questions about the relationship between mind and brain/body [reviewed in22]. The results of studies of consciousness during cardiac arrest have been proposed to support the philosophical view that the mind or consciousness is a separate entity that interacts with, but is not produced by, the brain. https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/110/2/67/2681812
Those intent on defending materialist reduc- tionism might object that even in the presence of a flat-line EEG there still could be undetected brain activity going on current scalp-EEG tech-nology detects only activity common to large populations of neurons, mainly in the cerebral cortex. However, the issue is not whether there is brain activity of any kind whatsoever, but whether there is brain activity of the specific form agreed on by contemporary neuroscien-tists as the necessary condition of conscious experience. Activity of this form is eminently detectable by current EEG technology, and it is abolished either by adequate general anesthesia´-or-by cardiac arrest. In cardiac arrest, even neuronal action-potentials, the ultimate physical basis for coordination of neural activity be-tween widely separated brain regions, are rap-idly abolished. Moreover, cells in the hip-pocampus, the region thought to be essential for memory formation, are especially vulnerable to the effects of anoxia (Vriens et al., 1996). In short, it is not credible to suppose that NDEs occurring under conditions of adequate general anesthesia, let alone cardiac arrest, can be ac-counted for in terms of some hypothetical re-sidual capacity of the brain to process and store complex informations under those conditions. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-03251-005

This is the greatest conspiracy brain-rot of all time
Hey what’s up guys, A_Toxic_User here. Now I know we’re currently obsessing over Israel/Palestine but I wanted to address a very wacky and silly claim made by an extremely popular and influential creator. 4 days ago, popular influencer Penguinz0/MoistCritikal (Charlie) put on a video on Boeing titled “Boeing is evil”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN2s\_qBqiRo
Summary of video: Penguinz0 covers the death of the second “Boeing whistleblower” (I put this in quotation marks since it may be the case that they weren’t technically a whistleblower from Boeing) and states that he is certain that Boeing assassinated Joshua Dean and that all other Boeing whistleblowers are in danger because Boeing is evil and is assassinating them as well.
Link to the article he cites: https://medium.com/@tchurchlady/the-second-boeing-related-whistle-blower-to-die-in-the-last-3-months-959ca6137498
Here’s what I am not arguing: I am not arguing that Boeing is a great company. By all accounts and reports, Boeing seems to have a history of shady and shitty practices, of which they are currently being investigated for.
However, Penguinz0’s whole basis for his huge inflammatory video and really grand and confident proclamations hinges on his belief that Boeing assassinated Joshua Dean. It should be noted that he doesn’t actually provide any evidence for his claim, just a whole lot of “isn’t it weird that-“ and “It sooo obvious that-“. You know, your standard conspiracy brain-rot language. He does not actually provide any evidence as to why the official “narrative” is false and that Boeing actually assassinated the guy.
So, what is the official narrative?
So now, according to the article, Joshua Dean was previously healthy, then developed a strep throat, which worsened to the point that he needed to go to the ER, where he tested positive for Influenza B and MRSA. He later died from pneumonia and possibly a stroke.
There is absolutely nothing suspicious about this at all. Charlie doesn’t even actually attempt to disprove or provide any evidence as to why this story is so obviously bullshit, and it is very obvious that he has not put any (Moist)critical thinking into this at all. However, I will provide evidence as to why this is entirely possible.
(So I’m drawing from a bunch of sources and background knowledge regarding how MRSA infections work, so I’m not going to link a source for every medical statement here, but if anyone doubts any of the following medical statements made, Just ask and I’ll link a source).
First, MRSA infections are definitely a big thing (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwvolumes/68/wmm6809e1.htm). In 2017, there were nearly 120000 Staph bloodstream infections and 20,000 associated deaths. MRSA is widely recognized as an ongoing health issue in the United States. According to the CDC, one in three people carry S. Aureus in their nose, with 2 in every 100 people carrying MRSA (so probably over 3 million people in the US are carriers of MRSA in their upper airway). It is entirely possible that Joshua Dean was one of these people. MRSA infections that reach the bloodstream are extremely dangerous, with fatality rates ranging from 10% to 30% to even above 60%. MRSA infection leads to a wide variety of nasty symptoms such as pneumonia, lung abscesses, empyema (hence the nasty appearance of the lungs), septic shock, and cerebral vasculitis (hence the possible stroke). In addition, MRSA progresses rapidly, and some strains can kill in around 24 hours. It is entirely within reason for someone with a MRSA infection to die within 2 weeks due to the above symptoms.
Now, how did he get the MRSA infection? We don’t know. There are a wide variety of factors that may predispose one to being susceptible. Perhaps the influenza B weakened his body enough to allow the MRSA to spread. Maybe he had an unknown chronic condition that put him at risk, such as vascular disease or being immunocompromised. Maybe he was just unlucky.
But how could he not have known of any potential risk factors for developing an MRSA infection? Well, as his own article states: “Dean, whom his family described as a "health nut" and someone who didn't have a regular doctor because he was never sick, checked himself into an urgent care because he was having trouble breathing”.
You know something that a regular doctor does? Regular health checkups, where they can prescribe tests and check stuff like your WBC counts and other factors to make sure your immune system is functioning normally. Whatever Joshua Dean was, he was most definitely not a doctor, and thus there is no reasonable basis by which he alone could determine how healthy he actually was (no matter how much of a health nut he is claimed to have been).
So no doctor means no way of knowing that he wasn’t at risk for developing a fatal MRSA infection, which means that all the claimed “health stuff” doesn’t disprove anything at all.
So, in short, we have a man who didn’t regularly see a doctor, who becomes sick and dies, and the hospital attributes the cause of death to a bacteria that kills people in a way that matches exactly what killed Joshua Dean, and that is an ongoing health issue within the US.
Not too sure what’s so obviously wrong about this.
In short, Charlie is making an extremely wild accusation without providing any actual proof, and instead demonstrating the same stupid conspiracy-brained symptoms that people like Andrew Tate and Alex Jones demonstrate. Predictably, his millions of followers do not attempt at all to challenge his statements and instead follow his brainrot conspiracy.
Charlie should just stick to drama and dildos.
That’s about it, see ya.

Barred From Each Other: Why Normative Husbands Remain Married to Incarcerated Wives—An Exploratory Study – page 2
You’ve got to understand, what we’re talking about here is great love. That’s the whole story. The idea of leaving her never came up. It was never mentioned or discussed. Our romantic life could never be dismantled just because one of us did something wrong. Separation is totally irrelevant. [After exposing her crime] I never felt as if I don’t love her or want her less. It’s all a matter of pure commitment—built on pure love—and this is something you do not abandon. (A., 53)
I decided to stay with her for two reasons: great love and great commitment. I swear that [after her incarceration] it never crossed my mind to leave her. I’m with her until the end. Our love is priceless. I don’t care for other women; I’m just waiting for her. I always knew from the second I met her that we will be together until death. I will not desert her regardless of the situation. She is the best thing that ever happened to me. (D., 34)
I told myself, you’re not going to leave her no matter what happens. We’ve been together since we’re 17, we love each other a lot and we’re committed to each other. Let it be clear—I decided to stay with her just because of us, and not because of the kids and the house. I love her very much. She is the love of my life and my best friend and I’m staying with her no matter what happens. (S., a 53-year-old Jewish husband, married to an inmate sentenced to a period of 27 months in prison, continues in the same vein.
Interestingly, in addition to the decisive description of all research participants of their marriage in terms of love and devotion, six participants related to these relations and their spouses in adorable and admirable ways. These participants perceive their women partners as being unique and exceptional, each a veritable femme fatale, and describe the relations with them in various flattering and admirable ways.
She is everything to me. When I look to the right—I see her. When I look to the left—I see
her. I see her and no one else but her. I admire her. She is pure gold. There is no one like her
in the world and that’s why our love is so strong. (Y., a 60-year-old Jewish husband, married
to a first-timer sentenced to 4 years)
And this sentiment is echoed in two other statements:
I admire my wife. She is bigger than life itself. I can only thank God that she’s mine/that I have her. (S., 53)
She is a very special woman and a friend. She is special, not like any other woman. (A., 53)
While these quotations illustrate the high appreciation and admiration of the women spouses, the next ones portray the specific personal characteristics that make the women so admirable:
She is the most clever, intelligent, and lovely woman in the world. She is energetic, active, and dominant. An amazing woman. (T., 52
She is a good soul. She is warm and emphatic, [mentally] stronger than any man I know, very reliable. She has so many virtues: understandable, intelligent, supportive, funny, and very ethical. (D., 34)
She is [mentally] a very strong woman. She is remarkable . . . outstanding. She knows everything—regardless of the fact that she’s in prison. (Z., 55)
She is a good human-being: She takes care of everyone . . . pays attention to everyone . . . she loves to help people. (A., 53
All the participants love and admire their partners and perceive them as an attached and inherent part of their past, present, and future married lives. These statements clearly demonstrate that love is perceived as an essential component for the preservation of good marital relations—in general and in times of crisis. Moreover, regardless of female-spouses’ criminal conduct and imprisonment, most partners describe them as ideal and wonderful women, using words of admiration. As such, continuation of the marriage to them may be perceived as an obvious and rational act.
Perception of Wife’s Criminal Conduct
Numerous studies have argued that most female inmates are abandoned by their male counterparts, be it because of the forced disengagement and/or the shame in their “betrayal” of the law, their families, and their “traditional gender roles” (McGowan & Blumenthal, 1978; Stanton, 1980). Evidently, such desertion is solely dependent on men’s discretion, irrespective of the female inmates’ desires (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Pelka-Slugocka & Slugocki, 1980).
Somewhat in contrast to these studies, our findings indicate that although all participants acknowledge that their spouses committed various criminal offenses and morally reject it, they do not perceive them and their criminal conduct as shameful and disgraceful. Specifically, the participants (deliberately or unintentionally) describe their spouses’ criminal behaviors in a forgiving manner, explaining it as a “sad tale” (i.e., an outcome of harsh and complicated life-story; Scott & Lyman, 1968). By doing so, they invalidate the female inmates’ moral and criminal responsibilities, detach their criminal conduct from their character, and defend their dignity and importance:
My wife did not do all these things. She meant to do no bad. I know that she doesn’t act out of evilness . . . she is a good person . . . a victim of herself. She didn’t really want to kill me . . . It is not her fault . . . her friends are bad . . . they pushed her to act this way. I can’t believe and I don’t believe that she did what she did independently. (A., 53)
They [the police] found some financial inconsistencies in the bank and instead of exposing the truth and framing her brother, she took responsibility. I knew she did everything in order to save her brother. She is a good soul and her family members abused her. All she did was done in order to protect her family and not because she’s bad. She is a good soul . . . a queen who made a mistake in order to save her brother. (S., 53)
She did not take it [the money] for herself . . . She gave it to her family. She has a big family and someone had to take care of them. Looking back, I think she had no choice. (I., 47)
Six participants use neutralization techniques (Sykes & Matza, 1957) to support their contention of their partners’ morality. The men resort to “denial of injury” and “denial of responsibility.” In their simplest form, the former technique suggests that this was a no-victim crime and the latter proposes that the criminal actions were caused by forces beyond the perpetrator’s control (Enticott, 2011).
After all, what did she do? What crime had she committed? It’s not that she enjoyed the money. It’s not that she is walking around wearing lots of jewelry. She’s a modest individual and all in all she did not take big sums of money. Maybe they [justice system] can define her as an offender, but for me she is P., my beloved wife, and that’s that. (C., 37)
n fact, what did she do? She got involved with the gray market, something that could happen to anyone, and they forced her to do what she did. It could happen to me, to you, to anyone. She made a mistake but she is only human. But it’s not a crime and she’s not a criminal. (Z., 55)
No! My wife is not a criminal. She didn’t break the law. In my opinion, all she did was make a single mistake. The fact that she’s in prison does not make her a criminal. (I., 47)
Difficulties in Marital Relationships With Incarcerated Wife
Numerous studies have repeatedly argued that three factors underlie most crises in marital relationships: diminished (or extinguished) love, reduced (or lack of) intimacy, and weakened (or nonexistent) commitment (Mace, 1982; Sabatelli & Cecil-Pigo, 1985; Sharlin, 1996; Sokolski & Hendrick, 1999; Surra et al., 1988). Our findings deviate somewhat and indicate that regardless of lengths of imprisonment and/or marriage, the major difficulty experienced by most (n = 7) participants relates to lack of physical intimacy. All other inconveniences and difficulties characterizing marital relationships in crisis (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001) appear to be irrelevant to the interviewees:
During the last six months [time of spouse’s incarceration] everything has obviously changed, because of her physical absence. We meet once a month [conjugal visits] and it is not enough. I miss the physical intimacy, the physical togetherness. I miss it. It is difficult. I currently and practically live with no romantic relationships. I miss her body and her smell.
(I., 47)
I miss her smell. She has amazing smells, nothing I experienced with other women. I miss having sex with her. I miss being hugged by her, feeling her head on my shoulder. (D., 34)
[You can’t believe] how much I miss her. I miss her hugs, I miss the physical contact with her, I miss going to sleep with her. (T., 52)
An additional difficulty, raised by six (75%) participants, relates to lack of support by family members, friends, and acquaintances. In some cases, participants report that people totally ignored or terminated relationships after the incarceration. The participants view this kind of behavior as an outcome of shame and/or disappointment:
It wasn’t easy with my family [because] they wanted me to divorce her. They didn’t understand how she could do that and didn’t accept her. They were really furious. They decided to break off relations with her. My reaction, by the way, was to completely break off my relations with my family. (Z., 55)
Some family members and all my neighbors told me that I should be ashamed of my wife. In school, my children suffered daily harassments from other children, from the teachers, and even from the headmaster. All of them wanted us to forget her as if she were dead. They think she should be “dead” . . . deleted! (S., 53)
Two very close friends of ours were informed [by us] about the trial and the offense. It was very embarrassing. Yet, their reaction was even more embarrassing and made us want to bury ourselves deep in the ground: In the most difficult moment of our life, they deserted us. They had a very dramatic discussion with my wife on the phone with lots of shouting and yelling and then, decided to stop talking to us. These people are not human-beings. You cannot call them friends. (Y., 60)
None of her friends called or asked us how we feel. None of our friends came to visit her in prison. Is this friendship? This is disgusting. It’s very difficult to live with the notion that suddenly, when you are in trouble, everyone disappears. Suddenly, no-one wishes to be your friend. (A., 53)
Preconditions for the Continuation of Marital Relationships Between Normative Men and Incarcerated Wives
All research participants have pointed out two central factors that could have had a negative effect on the marriage, perhaps even leading to their termination of this relationship: (a) length of prison sentence and (b) length of marriage prior to the imprisonment.
Length of prison sentence. Most (n = 7) participants assert that because their spouses were sentenced to relatively short terms of imprisonment, they did not consider leaving them. However, they also state that if the sentence had been longer, they may have considered terminating the marriage and finding a new relationship:
I don’t know what would have happened to our romantic relationships if she’d been imprisoned for, let’s say, 20 years. I believe I would have separated from her. It’s like disappearing from someone’s life for a very long time. Time is definitely a significant factor.
(I., 47)
On the day of the verdict, when the judge said “4 years,” I felt as if my hands were freezing. If it were 10 or 15 years, then I’d probably acted differently. I doubt if I would have stayed with her . . . with all due respect to love. (Z., 55)
These findings strengthen previous findings (Holt & Miller, 1972; Walker, 1983) revealing a decline in visiting patterns among wives of long-term prisoners compared with wives of short-termers, as well as deterioration of marriages over long periods of incarceration.
I had a very dramatic discussion with my wife on the phone with lots of shouting and yelling and then, decided to stop talking to us. These people are not human-beings. You cannot call them friends. (Y., 60)
None of her friends called or asked us how we feel. None of our friends came to visit her in
prison. Is this friendship? This is disgusting. It’s very difficult to live with the notion that
suddenly, when you are in trouble, everyone disappears. Suddenly, no-one wishes to be your
friend. (A., 53)
Preconditions for the Continuation of Marital Relationships Between Normative Men and Incarcerated Wives
All research participants have pointed out two central factors that could have had a negative effect on the marriage, perhaps even leading to their termination of this relationship: (a) length of prison sentence and (b) length of marriage prior to the imprisonment.
Length of prison sentence. Most (n = 7) participants assert that because their spouses were sentenced to relatively short terms of imprisonment, they did not consider leaving them. However, they also state that if the sentence had been longer, they may have considered terminating the marriage and finding a new relationship: I
I don’t know what would have happened to our romantic relationships if she’d been imprisoned for, let’s say, 20 years. I believe I would have separated from her. It’s like disappearing from someone’s life for a very long time. Time is definitely a significant factor.
(I., 47)
On the day of the verdict, when the judge said “4 years,” I felt as if my hands were freezing. If it were 10 or 15 years, then I’d probably acted differently. I doubt if I would have stayed with her . . . with all due respect to love. (Z., 55)
These findings strengthen previous findings (Holt & Miller, 1972; Walker, 1983) revealing a decline in visiting patterns among wives of long-term prisoners compared with wives of short-termers, as well as deterioration of marriages over long periods of incarceration.
Length of marriage prior to incarceration.
The men’s decision to remain married was determined, to a significant degree, to the duration of the relationship prior to the woman’s incarceration. Our findings show that all participants perceive the total length of the relationship prior to spouses’ incarceration to be positively correlated to their decision to remain married:
If we’d been married for a year and then she’d begun committing crimes, I would have separated from her. But now, after so many years of marriage, there is no way I would leave her. The length of our romantic relationships is a critical factor. That’s why I couldn’t see any option of leaving her. (I., 47)
Please don’t forget that I didn’t meet her yesterday, we’ve been together for almost 10 years. We went through many things together. It’s a lot of time and obviously, I won’t leave her. (D., 34
Ways of Preserving the Marital Relationships With Incarcerated Wives
All participants (N = 8) report that to deal with their pain of separation and maintain marital relationships, they use two tactics—frequent phone calls and making all visits
that the prison allows.
The men receive four or five phone calls a day from their imprisoned partners. Both partners await these phone calls and cherish them, as the frequent and continuous delivery and receipt of information create a semblance of the exchange of information that occurs when living under the same roof. Symbolically, the ongoing communication, and hearing the partner’s voice, signifies a continuation of everyday [dyadic and nondyadic] normal life:
We constantly maintain telephone contact. I’m like a child, again and again waiting for her phone calls. It doesn’t matter whether I am with friends, at work, or at a restaurant, I wait for her to call me all the time. She calls me three times a day, in the morning, noon, and in the evening hours. (T., 52)
We talk on the phone all day and every day. We actually do everything through the phone: We talk about her feelings, what happened to her in prison during the day, what happened to me at work, and how we miss each other. That’s basically it. (D., 34)
I love it when she calls me. I look forward to her phone calls. That’s how I really know what is going on with her in prison. (S., 53)
The second tactic is routinely coming for the bi-weekly 30-min visits to which all prisoners are entitled, whether or not they are also allowed home furloughs (IPS, 2012). The visits take place on Saturdays and Sundays, and all families gather in a relatively small, closed, and sealed space. There are open visits in which the inmate can be in physical touch with the visitors and closed visits, conducted through an armored-glass division. All participants welcome the visits, perceive them as the best temporary way of realizing their marriage, and look forward to them:
I visit her every two weeks. Up to now, I haven’t missed a single visit. We were limited to 30 minute in-person visits every two weeks during her first year. After that they let us have a 12 hour conjugal visit each month. Now she can come home [on furlough] for 24 hours every month. That time of being together in the home refreshes our love. In addition, we talk on the phone four times a day. I wait for these calls because I love talking to her. We talk about her day, about my day, about things that happened to both of us at work, about intimate thoughts. (A., 53)
I visit her every two weeks, sometimes with her parents and sometimes alone. We sit together, talk, laugh, and try to make use of our [joint] time. (Y., 60)
I come to visit her every two weeks. I never missed a single visit. Occasionally, I bring our son with me. We wake up at 5 in the morning and drive 4 hours just to see her for 30 minutes. And then we have to drive 4 hours back. But I wouldn’t have missed it for the world. (C., 37)
Discussion
Incarceration affects all aspects of family life, including the health and well-being of inmates’ spouses and children, and the maintenance of family attachments. It can also lead to marital dissolution (Comfort, 2007; Goffman, 2009; Lopoo & Western, 2005; Western & Wildeman, 2009). Most studies concerning the impact of imprisonment on inmates’ marriages have focused on the effects of men’s incarceration (Chui, 2010; Wildeman, Schnittker, & Turney, 2012), whereas only scarce attention directed at the effects of women’s incarceration on their families. This appears to be quiet odd [and disturbing] in light of research findings showing that most incarcerations of men rarely result in marital breakup (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Travis et al., 2003), whereas most women sentenced to prison are abandoned by their partners and their pre-incarceration romantic relations are terminated (Hairston & Addams, 2001; Sergin & Flora, 2005).
The current study provides important information about the characteristics, motivation, and justifications of men to preserve marital relationships with their imprisoned spouses. Out of 180 prisoners incarcerated in the single Israeli female incarceration facility, Neve Tirza Prison, only nine (of whom eight took part in the study) maintain stable marital relationships longer than 3 years. All these inmates except one, who was sentenced to 264 months, had no criminal records prior to current imprisonment, and were only sentenced to a relatively short time of incarceration (M = 21.8 months). Interestingly, all spouses (but one) have no prior criminal record and therefore can be considered normative (i.e., law-abiding).
The interviews yielded five overarching themes: (a) perceptions of marital relations with incarcerated spouse, (b) perceptions of wife’s criminal conduct, (c) difficulties in marital relationships with incarcerated spouse, (d) preconditions for the continuation of marital relationships between normative men and incarcerated wives, (e) and ways of preserving the marital relationships with incarcerated partners
The discovery that the wife had committed a crime, the following arrest, initial stages of incarceration, and mainly the concealment of the crime from family and community members are experienced as stressful crises. Yet, participants describe incarceration as a challenge that brought the couple even closer, enhancing mutual responsibility and commitment.
This study elucidates the shock and devastation that comes with the discovery that one’s wife had committed a crime, and then with the following arrest and the initial stages of incarceration. The psychosocial effects of finding out about the crime linger well beyond the time of initial shock. Thus, although four (50%) of the participants were interviewed 2 years or more after they had first learned of their wives’ criminal actions, they still referred to the great difficulty of discovery and its long-lasting negative impact. Specifically, all participants testified that the incarceration of their female partners raised frustrations, tension, and lack of trust that led them to reconsider their motivation to preserve their marriages. They clearly described the disruption the revelation caused and the resulting strain on their marital relationship.
Although the romantic relationship was undoubtedly stressed by the discovery of the crime, the arrest, and the incarceration, all participants seemed to have had the resources to meet this challenge or found appropriate support to do so. Our findings indicate that the incarceration led the husbands to recognize their obligation to their partners and to their relationship. Similarly, clinical experience and several empirical studies suggest that some couples facing hospitalization, critical illness, or serious injuries perceive their marital relationship to be improved since the medical episode (e. g., Dorval et al., 2005). The trauma often creates a powerful intensified family bond and feeling of mutual empathy (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007) and intensifies the desire to protect each other (Burr, 1998). Whether this kind of interaction may stabilize and strengthen a relationship after arrest is to be determined in future research.

I like to do wrestling related book reports, and in the past, this sub responded really well to my posts. Again, though, if y'all feel like this isn't the kind of content for this sub, let me know, and I'll post elsewhere.
Very, very short book that didn't detail too much, with a large portion being Billy just ranting on the history of wrestling or fighting.
As always, I attempted to keep to chronological order of events, even though Billy didn't tell a lot of this in order, and he never dated any story.
(Note: the number of guys named "Billy" in this post is just unreal and gave me a headache)
Billy describes how his dad, grandfather, uncle, and great-grandfather were all world-class boxers or fighters. He says his father taught him a ton of things to do in a fight and even underhanded tactics, like using a pencil to defend himself. Billy says a 4H pencil had the toughest lead that you could sharpen out and use as a weapon. The best part was that it wasn't classified as a weapon, so you could avoid the jail time that came with having knives.
Billy describes running home from school as 3 boys chased him. When he got home, crying, his dad asked him what was going on. After Billy explained, his dad said, "You can either fight the 3 of them or fight me." Billy chose the 3 boys, and his dad went with him to make sure the fights were 1 on 1. After Billy beat up the 1st two kids, the third one wanted none of it. Billy says this was the first time he saw his dad was proud of him.
Billy dreamed of being a pro boxer, but one day, as a child, he was struck in the eye by a metal sign that some other kids were playing with and severely tore his retina. He spent 6 weeks in the hospital, and his boxing dreams were over.
Billy's uncle wanted him to try out pro wrestling because it was popular in the 60s, but Billy's dad wanted him to do amature wrestling, though it wasn't as lucrative as pro wrestling. Eventually, Billy was brought to a local YMCA where he started to train amature.
Before long, Billy's dad relented and took him to Billy Riley's gym, the same place that Karl Gotch trained and that Dynamite Kid would go train at as well. Billy even met John Foley there, who would go on to be a feared shooter and manage Dynamite Kid in Stampede Wrestling. Though if that's the only place you know John Foley from, then you won't have a high opinion of him.
John Foley was a legit bad ass shooter for most of his career, who was known to take liberties with guys. By the time he got to Stampede Wrestling, though, he was an old timer who was more known as a drunk who everyone ribbed. One story suggests where he lost his nerve, and that would be the time he was being a little too physical in the ring with Lanny and Randy Poffo, prompting their dad Angelo came to the ring, and all 3 Poffo men beat the living shit out of Foley. Bret Hart says he "never lived it down."
Billy says the best match he ever saw was a "friendly" sparring contest between Jack Dempsey and John Foley that left both men with black eyes, broken noses and blood coming out of their ears and mouths. Billy says they were still close friends after.
Billy calls shoot fighting/grappling "physical chess," and he spent 12 years learning this at Reilly's Gym, also known as the Snake Pit.
Billy learned "catch-as-catch-can" (or Greco-Roman) wrestling in The Snake Pit from Charlie Carrol.
Charlie Carrol was 55 years old and 155 pounds to Billy's 6 foot 2, 190 pound 17 year old, but Charlie hurt Billy every single time they sparred. Billy says that Charlie kept him humble.
Billy puts over modern MMA fighters but says the best modern MMA fighter couldn't hold a candle to a mediocre 1930s catch wrestler.
It's not a long book, but a significant section early on is just Billy going over the history of catch fighting and amateur wrestling all the way back to the 1800s. He complains that modern amateur wrestling is all about power and maneuvering for points and says he doesn't even watch the Olympics anymore. It's actually super fascinating as he details various amature techniques used in different Olympic competitions and where they originated from.
He tells a story of how when he was a teenager, his coach Billy Riley (who was 55 years old) would walk with him down the street and often try to grapple with Billy or show him some maneuver right there and Billy says people would stare at them like they were homosexuals and says it was so embarrassing. At the time, homosexuality was illegal in England.
Billy Robinson is critical of modern coaching, which he says consists of the coach giving a ton of positive feedback. Billy Robinson won multiple amature championship tournaments and bouts but never heard a good word from Billy Riley. When Billy Robinson won his first amature world title, he remembered Riley saying, "That was good." Riley would later explain that it wasn't his job to tell Robinson what was good, but it was his job to tell Robinson what was wrong and where he can correct himself. Interesting take on coaching.
In 1956, Billy placed 3rd at the nationals for amature wrestling. In 1957, he won the nationals tournament! Riley told Billy Robinson, "You've won all the cups and the medals. Why don't you take me out and buy me a steak dinner?" When Billy Robinson said he couldn't afford to, Riley said to him, "It just goes to show you kid, you can't buy steak with medals. It's time you turned pro."
Billy says he regrets not putting pro wrestling off another couple of years. He thinks he should have been amature wrestling in the Olympics. He beat everyone who eventually wrestled on the Brittish team, and he thought he could have won a medal.
Billy turned pro at 19 years old and was asked to help get pro wrestling going in Sweden. The problem was that the Sweden Olympic amature wrestling team wouldn't allow it unless the pros proved they were legit and could beat them in an amateur contest. Billy beat them all, including Alex Gronburg, a 2 time Olympic champion and former world champion, and Gosta Andersson, who quit after a minute, saying, "Hey, it's too dangerous for us."
Billy Robinson asked to go to Spain and wrestle for a new promotion, but as he was getting ready to leave, his coach Billy Riley warned him that if he worked for that company he would be black balled out of most major European wrestling companies. Robinson told Riley that he had given his word, and he said this was the first time he ever went against Riley's suggestion.
It didn't matter because Billy said the Spain promotion fizzled out before he even got there, but no one told him, and he flew to Spain for no reason.
He ended up staying in Spain, living with someone Billy referred to as "the English professor" who introduced him to people like Earnist Hemmingway and Sophia Loren and got Billy work in a movie
One day, the professor told Billy that his name was in the newspaper, and sure enough, Billy was being advertised in a new wrestling promotion. When Billy called them, he was informed that they had a job for him. For 2 years, 1960-1961, Billy wrestled in Spain and made a name for himself.
Billy would wrestle in tournaments and other tours during this time as well, in places like Germany and Belgium.
It was at these tournaments when Billy started noticing guys wanting to train with him and only him. Billy days. "It was odd!"
Billy loved zoos and had opinions on the good ones. He says he could spend all day just watching gorillas
Billy says he didn't like France much, saying that compared to places like Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, France was pretty dirty and gross back then.
Billy seems to have loved Lebanon the most, and being a huge history buff, Billy goes on a tangent about the history of Lebanon.
Billy wrestled in India in 1962, and on the way back, he stopped in Lebabon right before a war broke out, and he had to quickly escape.
Billy says his father told him that he should pretend to not know English when traveling and not be identified as an English speaking person. He said this advice helped him his whole life while traveling.
The first time Billy got to India, he was shocked at the poverty and state of it. He remembers seeing dead animals all over the place and people sleeping in the streets among rats. Billy also puts over India and a big wrestling country and said he had a good time there.
Billy says he was fortunate to wrestle the original Dara Singh. Dara Singh was a huge name in India, and he eventually went to prison for killing 3 men. He did it because those 3 men killed his brother, so it was a revenge killing. Years later, he would be pardoned and released. This is when Billy beat him in India.
In India, it was legitimately against the law for a Muslim to wrestle against a Hindu, so the Muslim community "adopted" Billy Robinson as their guy to fight the Hundu guys. It's pretty fascinating imo.
After India, Billy wrestled in Napal and said he had a great time, even wrestling private matches for the King of Napal.
While in Napal, Billy was ribbed into approaching a live leopard and says it was the first time in his life that he ever felt fear.
Billy even helped some Americans set up a play for the King of Napal, where Billy was the stage manager and even took a couple of bumps on the hard wood floor. He says the King loved it so much that he called for an encore, so Billy had to do the painful bump again.
Billy recalls one time in Napal, a local accidently hit and killed a cow with his truck. Since cows were sacred, the man was killed right there, and his body hung from a lamppost.
While in Germany wrestling a tournament that was cross promoting with a ten pin bowling competition, Billy met his future wife Ursula. She was working on the bowling side and Billy on the wrestling side. Billy says when their eyes first locked, he was in the ring, and she was in the front row. Billy says, "It was the beginning of the end, for my single days." 18 months later she came to England and they got married.
Billy says he played some charity bowling games against the Beatles in the early 60s.
Dave Ruhl was an extremely popular face in Stampede Wrestling out of Calgary, and through his uncle Ray Steele, Dave got ahold of Billy and invited him to Calgary Billy says Stampede promoter Stu Hart saw Billy wrestle one match and then invite Billy to come to Stampede Wrestling.
While backstage at one of his first Stampede shows, he saw a bunch of big gues in the dressing room talking. Through eavesdropping, he heard them talking about football and asked them if they were wrestlers or football players. They said football players, and so Billy insisted they leave the dressing room. Things got tense and heated, but eventually, Billy made it clear that if they didn't leave, he would remove them. He says they all scurried out of the room and notes that one of them was a young Wayne Coleman, the future "Superstar" Billy Graham.
After reading Billy Graham's book, it's clear that these two fucking hated eachother, with Graham calling Billy a bully who took liberties with less experienced guys in the ring. In Graham's book, he details how poorly Robinson treated him when their paths crossed in Stampede Wrestling. Graham's book made no mention of Billy kicking him out of a locker room nor the supposed contract with Verne that forbade Robinson from hurting Graham.
Down the line when Billy came to Minnesota, Billy Robinson claimes that Billy Graham insisted that Verne write up a contract that prohibited Billy Robinson and Billy Graham from squaring up. I don't know the validity of this claim, but Billy Robinson says Billy Graham was so scared that he only came to Minnesota with the guarantee that Robinson wouldn't hurt him.
This claim about a contract and Graham refusing to work with Robinson, might come from the time in Minnesota when Graham opted out of working with him in favor of Wahoo McDaniel. One time they were matched up and Graham approached Robinson backstage and made a show of wrapping razor blades in his taped up hands, warning Robinson that if he attempted to shoot on him, that Graham would "shred you from your face to the tip of your toes." This is all from Graham's book, with Billy making no mention of it.
In Bruce Hart's book, he tells a story about how they had The Stomper penciled in to challenge NWA World Champion Dory Funk Jr, but they had The Stomper face Billy Robinson 2 weeks prior. The two meshed so poorly that it devolved into an ugly shoot, with the fans chanting boring at them. Eventually The Stomper left and got counted out, before getting to the back and telling Stu he is quitting. They had no choice but to put Robinson in his place, and while the match was amazing and Robinson would be a good face for Stampede at the time, even Bruce calls him a bully and finishes it by saying "here's not to you Mr Robinson, there is no place in Heaven for those who prey."
After Billy wrestled Dory Funk Jr in an 1 hour draw, and after Dory invited Billy to the States to wrestle.
Before heading over to the States full time, Billy did tours in England, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia where he won the World title for a company that Jim Barnett was promoting.
Billy met Jack Brisco in Australia, shortly after winning the world title there. Billy remembers there first match together, saying that Jack was trying to show off a little too much so Billy said he showed him a simple catch hold that put poor Jack in the hospital for a couple days! Billy says the 2 became friends and calls him a good amateur wrestler and great guy.
Jack Brisco was the one who first told Billy about "shoot wrestlers" in the States. Billy never heard the term before but says a shooter is just another word for catch wrestling.
Billy mentions a rib that Jack Brisco and Dick Murdoch played on him during that Australia tour. Dick introduced Billy to chewing tobacco and purposely misinformed Billy on how to enjoy it. Billy swallowed the juice and vomiting all over the place.
Another time, Jack and Billy were up in Billy's hotel room all night, talking holds and even practicing them on one another. It was middle of the night, so Billy was in his underwear when Jack asked him to go get the newspaper from down the hall. The second Billy got in the hallway, Jack locked him out and made Billy sneak back to his room a few floors up in just his boxers. Billy said this was the nicest hotel in Australia, too.
Billy says he got his first taste of American pro wrestling in Hawaii, where he wrestled for several months. Every single guy who writes a wrestling book inevitably ends up doing a tour in Hawaii.
It was in Hawaii where Billy met Verne Gagne, who was "wrestling" a tour there, but really, Verne was on vacation and wrestling as a means to vacation for free. A lot of guys did that with Hawaii back in the day.
Billy and Verne wrestled a tag team match together, and after Verne made sure to watch how Billy was as a singles wrestler. Verne asked Billy to come back to the mainland in 1972.
Verne even asked Billy to train his son Greg, and they ended up inviting several other guys to a small wrestling camp. The group consisted of Verne's son Greg, Ric Flair, Ken Patera, Jim Bunzell (who would later team with Ken in AWA and be one half of the Killer Bee's in the WWE), Bob Bruggers (a former Miami Dophins linebacker), and Hossien Khosrow Vaziri (the future Iron Shiek).
An infamous story happened at this camp, early on, Shiek was the only one of the 6 who had amateur experience, and one day he was boasting to the others about how neither Verne or Billy could get him on his back in an amateur bout. Billy heard about this and challenged him immediately to spar. Shiek was successful in holding his stance on his knees, with Billy unable to turn him. So Billy viciously dropped his knee into Shiek's thigh, fucking him up bad. Then Billy casually rolled Shiek over and said "told you I could flip you."
Billy acknowledges Sheik as a very good amateur but says he has a big head a big mouth. He knew Shiek wasn't familiar with catch-as-catch-can, ankle submissions, neck cranks or double wristlocks and took advantage of him. Billy just casually says "I knelt on his thigh in a way we do. He couldn't walk for two days and couldn't work out at the camp for two weeks."
Billy remembers a match he did early on working for Verne, where a fan in the front row was being obnoxious and screaming at Billy all match. After the bout, Billy went and picked the fan up out of his seat and smacked him a few times and notes how the fan stayed quiet the rest of the show. When he got to the back he was chewed our by Verne who was afraid of a lawsuit. Billy says the fan ended up getting tickets to a future show.
In the middle of the book he goes on a rant about the history of how wrestling started in carnival tents and how champions made money. He calls Gorgeous George a "carnie wrestler" and credits him for accelerating the change in how the general audience looks at pro wrestlers. He resents the sentiment that all wrestlers are showmanship guys and puts over himself and others like Lou Thesz as legit tough guys. Billy is always putting over his skills as catch fighter in the book.
Billy says he and Lou Thesz became pretty good friends.
Billy says Lou Thesz would call Ed "Strangler" Louis as the best wrestler of all time, while Billy says he would call Billy Joyce the best of all time. But he says that Billy Joyce said that George Gregory was the best of all time.
Billy describes one time he wrestled Verne Gagne with Lou Thesz as the special referee. Billy says that he and Verne weren't getting along at this point, so throughout the match, Billy was sorta abusing Verne and taunting him the whole time. Billy says he kept turning to Lou and saying "Look at this Lou!" And "What do you think of this Lou?" As he took advantage of Verne. Eventually Lou piped up and said, "Jesus Billy, take it easy on him, he is the boss."
Ed "Strangler" Louise had an "open" contract, meaning that if you were matched up against him and wanted to shoot, Ed encouraged it. What a badass.
John Pesek was a wrestler with legit Olynpic credentials. John Pesek decided to shoot on Ed Lewis when Ed was very sick and had boils all over. It was a hard fight but Ed won. Lou Thesz resented Pesek for attempting this and even had him black balled by the NWA later in his career. Lou never forgave John for shooting on Ed when Ed was sick and never admitted Pesek was talented in any way. Billy clarifies that John Pesek was legitimate in the ring and tells this story as a way to show Lou Thesz power back in those days.
Ben Assirati was a freakishly strong guy who was known as a legit street fighter. Billy says he was a masochist who not only liked to hurt people in the ring, but also liked to get hurt, himself. Ben Assirati tried to start a rival promotion in England, and was challenged to a legitimate shoot fight by promoters (and world class ass kickers) George Gregory and Billy Joyce, but Ben turned them down. Of course, when Lou Thesz was NWA Champion and touring through England, Ben made a big show of challenging him beforehand and even got the newspapers to print about it. On the night of the show, Lou had police block the entrance and not let Ben in the arena. Billy tells this story as if Lou was turning down Ben's challenge for the way he turned down Gregory and Joyce. But Billy really puts over Ben Assirati as a scary guy in the ring and says that people actually died in the ring with Ben. Wild claim that I couldn't back up online, though there are a ton of stories to speak on Ben's notorioty in the ring.
In Lou Thesz memoir, he stated that he challenged Ben first multiple times and Ben refused all of them
Billy says that when he first got to the States, Lou Thesz and Karl Gotch were close friends who respected one another. But something happened that led to the two refusing to speak to one another.
Billy says a lot of old timers were hot heads, and gives an example of when his son was born. Billy named him Spencer after Winston Churchill, but Karl Gotch got angry at this and said it should have been a powerful name like Thor or something silly. Billy says that he and Karl nearly came to blows in the street over this. So whatever fractured the relationship between Gotch and Thesz, it was probably minor and petty.
When talking about modern wrestlers, Billy always refers to them in quotations. Like in his book he says "pro wrestlers" as if he is air quoting when talking about modern guys.
Billy says a big difference between wrestling in America vs England was how much guys talked in the ring in America (called spots). Billy says this never happens over seas and says he didn't call spots verbally.
Another big difference is how pay structure worked. In America it was all based on the house and what the promoter felt you earned. Over seas, Billy says he and the promoter would sit alone and discuss the pay prior to the match. Ticket sales were irrelevant, you always got paid what you agreed to. He says America is where all the backstabbing and politicking started in wrestling.
Billy says Danny Hodge was probably one of the most dangerous guys from his time wrestling and puts him over as one ofthe greatest American wrestlers ever.
Billy describes an interesting concept for wrestling promoters back in his day. Every promoter had what he called a "policman" wrestler. When a new guy came in and wanted to challenge the top draw, he would face this "policman" wrestler as the top draw or promoter watched closely. For example, if you were looking to challenge Lou Thesz, first you would face Ray Steele as Thesz watched and judged, then after he and Ray would talk about the guy together.
While working for Verne Gagne in the early 70s, Billy was asked to wrestle with a green as grass guy and Verne told Billy to go 10 minutes before he beat him. This baffled Billy and Verne had to explain its a taping and they need to put on a good show. Billy says he shouldn't have done that, especially considering how Verne would go on to screw with Billy's payoffs down the line.
Billy says he took the kid down at the 9 minute mark and stretched him, nearly breaking his elbow as he screamed and cried and tapped out. Billy says the guy gave an interview later and said pro wrestling is the nastiest and most dangerous sport there is. Billy chuckles at this but he took some rookie and killed any interest the kid had in wrestling while abusing him.
Billy tells a wild story about a short real fight he had with Peter Maivia in Japan. Billy, Peter and a few other guys were eating at a restaurant when Peter got upset at how the menu and ordering system worked. Peter got so worked up that Billy yelled at him to calm down. Later as Billy was walking towards his hotel, a drunk Peter Maivia approached Billy looking for a fight. Billy attempted to restrain him, telling Peter as he held him, "Peter stop it. I don't want to hurt you." But Peter in his enraged, drunken state goes to bite Billy in the neck! Billy, having been trained in self defense and combat like this, knew to tuck his chin to save his neck, but Peter still bit down hard and into Billy's face! Billy says he still had scars from this 40 or 50 years later! When blood started pouring down Billy's cheek, he snapped and laid out Peter with an unspecified number of strikes that left Peter with a broken nose and two black eyes. He says the fight lasted all of 15 seconds. Billy says he had to go to the hospital to get stitches and shot for a human bite.
The next morning, Billy nearly kicked Peter's door down and told Peter he is lucky to be alive. Billy points out how biting the neck is an attempt to kill him, so he gives Peter a chance to try again. A very sober Peter backed down immediately
Billy says he saw an interview on Tv where The Rock claimed that Peter Maivia bit Billy's eye out and he needed surgery. Billy refutes this claim and says the only eye surgery he ever had was when he was a kid.
Billy says a lot of guys would spar once or train once with someone and then spend their whole career saying they were trained by that person. He gave an example of one time, Bill Watts called him up asking about Johnny Eagles, who said he trained at Billy's gym. Billy had a good laugh because Eagles stopped by his gym one time to borrow money.
Billy often goes on tangents or rants about bullies and how much he hates them. He calls them cowards who always back down when challenged. I guess that's why he doesn't see himself as a bully, while almost everyone who came up after him clarifies him as the biggest bully they ever met. I've read several, several dozen wrestling book, and only 1 guy didn't have anything bad to say about Billy. That was Dynamite Kid, who didn't have anything nice to say about Billy either. He was just the only guy to bring up Billy Robinson and not rant about how awful of a person he was.
If the only guy to not have a negative story about you in Dynamite Kid, then you may be an asshole imo.
Billy says he was AWA World Heavyweight Champion for 24 hours "until they changed the decision on me." I'm not a big AWA buff so if anyone knows this story I would like to hear it.
Billy briefly mentions the Gagne produced movie in 1974 movie, "The Wrestler" but unfortunately Billy has no tales from the set or stories about it at all. Billy alongside Dusty Rhodes and Dick Murdoch all appeared in the film.
One time while in Alberta wrestling for Stampede, Billy was invited along with a couple other wrestlers to have dinner with the Primier of Alberta (like a State Governor) and at the event Billy was asked to join the premieres wife in the morning. So when the wife reminded Billy about coming by at 8am the next morning, Billy used British slang in response and said "Yes, I'll come knock you up at 8 o'clock tomorrow." Poor Billy had to explain that where he's from, someone waking you up in the morning by knocking on your door is a knocker upper.
Billy calls Canadian wrestler George Gordienko the strongest wrestler he ever got in the ring with. George Gordienko was originally hoping to be a doctor before becoming an exceptionally successful wrestler and someone who Lou Thesz once called one of the best of all time. Gordienko has been lost to time for the most part since he was banned from the United States during the McCarthy era. George married a woman who was the head of a communist party in America and poor George never got to return. He continued to wrestle in the UK until a bad ankle injury forced him to retire. He pivoted again and became a pretty succesful artist. Super fascinating story imo.
Over in Japan, Karl Gotch was working for Giant Baba in the Japan Pro Wrestling Alliance and their competition, the International Wrestling Enterprise contacted Billy Riley and asked who was the best catch wrestler available to counter Gotch, who was doing big business for JWA. Riley immediately suggested Robinson, who was quickly invited to Japan for the IWE.
Karl and Billy were friends but working for rival promotions in Japan, so they could only meet and get together in secret.
Billy ended up winning the World title for the IWE and they asked him to move his family to Japan long-term.
Billy wasn't having a good time coaching the young Japanese guys and complained to Karl Gotch that it seems like their minds are elsewhere. Karl advised Billy to hurt one of them to get them in line. Billy refused and said he was their coach, he wasn't supposed to hurt them. This is wild to hear from Billy, who's entire reputation among the next generation was that he was a bully who liked to hurt people.
A week later Billy got caught in a snowstorm after fighting with his wife, so he was in a bad mood as he walked into the gym to train the young guys. One of them mouthed off so Billy says he lined them all up and wrestled each of them into submission. He calls it an accident, bit says he ended up breaking one of their arms that day and after that all the young guys took everything more seriously and treated Billy with more respect and admiration.
Billy seems to have mixed feelings on his time in Japan since he did well and early on was treated well by promoters. He said in Japan if you have something someone needs, you're a God in their eyes and your treated as such. He says if you need something from someone though, they always make it clear that they are in charge and treat you poorly. He says he and Karl both started to really resent the culture there towards the end of their runs in Japan.
It was after or near the end of his Japan tour that Billy and his wife got divorced. He doesn't expand on it in any way in his book. Barely gets a passing mention.
In the mid-70s Billy was in rough shape, his drinking was out of control and his knee was beyond fucked. Billy started working odd jobs outside the wrestling business, including a security job gig in Las Vegas where he was training other security guards and he managed a gas station in Minnesota. Billy calls this the lowest point of his life and says the gas station job was the most boring thing he ever did in his life.
Antonio Inoki contacted Billy when he was running the gas station and invited him to Japan for a big celebration show where they would have a match. Billy doesn't speak highly of the match and says he just had knee surgery and could barely get in the ring, but if you look up reports on his 1975 match with Inoki, all you see is massive, massive praise and people calling it one of the best matches ever at the time.
Billy calls Inoki the best Japanese wrestler of all time.
Yuko Miyato of The Union of Wrestling Forces International (UWFI) contacted Billy and sent him to Nashville to train guys to go to Japan for them and Billy says between himself and Karl Gotch, every wrestler they trained went on to be world champions. Billy lists Shigeo Miyato and Nobuhiko Takada as examples.
Billy says Yuko Miyato "really saved me." Billy says he was drinking excessively and gained a ton of weight after the divorce, and that his knees and hips had to be replaced. Billy says his nervous system was fucked up from all the years of grappling and he couldn't effectively train anymore. He got a 2nd life back in Japan and even became the head coach at his old Snake Pit gym after Riley passed away in 1977. Billy says he ended spending 15 years in Japan training the next generation of catch/mma fighters.
Billy talks about the difference in training Japanese guys compared to others, since Japanese guys are more scientific and teach techniques down to the specificity. Billy didn't teach like that, he taught concepts and ideas that anyone could use on anyone else. He struggled to get some guys over the "belt system" in Japan where a brown belt guy would never challenge a black belt guys. Billy says anyone can beat the best, regardless of their belt.
Near the end of the book, Billy again rants about modern guys and how they know one or two moves and consider themselves catch style wrestlers. Billy also rants again about bullies and how you don't train people by taking advantage of them. (Tell that to Iron Sheik) Billy cites Verne Gagne as an example of a guy who didn't know how to spar or lock in submissions, and would train guys by exhausting them before he jumped on them and shot for a hold. Billy says he and Karl Gotch resented that and made sure their training camps were the opposite of that. It's funny because Billy literally did this stuff with Verne Gagne! Maybe he is implying that he learned then not to that stuff, but he doesn't outright say it. Billy as as guilty of bullying as the Verne imo.
Billy thinks modern MMA is shooting themselves in the foot for not having pinfalls. He says that fighting off your back is exciting and opens the door for more to be done. He says that when a guy is trying not to get pinned, he may leave an opening somewhere for the other guy to take advantage of.
Billy complains how modern boxers are looking for knockouts and training to knock people out. He says that's not how it's done, you fight and wait for the opening, Billy says you wait for the knockout to come to you, you don't go looking for it. He laments the same thing in submissions as well, saying you don't go looking to lock in a submission, you maneuver around and wait for the opening to present itself. You wait for the submission to come to you. He is extremely critical of modern "catch style" wrestlers/ fighters.
Billy is critical of modern wrestling and fighting having such short time limits, saying that short 2 or 3 minute rounds means that it's all about power.
The book ends with Billy ranting about modern fighters and amateur wrestlers and how Catch wrestling was the greatest sport of all time. I hope I love something as much as Billy loved catch-as-catch-can wrestling.

Very, very short book that didn't detail too much, with a large portion being Billy just ranting on the history of wrestling or fighting.
As always, I attempted to keep to chronological order of events, even though Billy didn't tell a lot of this in order, and he never dated any story.
(Note: the number of guys named "Billy" in this post is just unreal and gave me a headache)
Billy describes how his dad, grandfather, uncle, and great-grandfather were all world-class boxers or fighters. He says his father taught him a ton of things to do in a fight and even underhanded tactics, like using a pencil to defend himself. Billy says a 4H pencil had the toughest lead that you could sharpen out and use as a weapon. The best part was that it wasn't classified as a weapon, so you could avoid the jail time that came with having knives.
Billy describes running home from school as 3 boys chased him. When he got home, crying, his dad asked him what was going on. After Billy explained, his dad said, "You can either fight the 3 of them or fight me!" Billy chose the 3 boys, and his dad went with him to make sure the fights were 1 on 1. After Billy beat up the 1st two kids, the third one wanted none of it. Billy says this was the first time he saw his dad was proud of him.
Billy dreamed of being a pro boxer, but one day, as a child, he was struck in the eye by a metal sign that some other kids were playing with and severely tore his retina. He spent 6 weeks in the hospital, and his boxing dreams were over.
Billy's uncle wanted him to try out pro wrestling because it was popular in the 60s, but Billy's dad wanted him to do amature wrestling, though it wasn't as lucrative as pro wrestling. Eventually, Billy was brought to a local YMCA where he started to train amature.
Before long, Billy's dad relented and took him to Billy Riley's gym, the same place that Karl Gotch trained and that Dynamite Kid would go train at as well. Billy even met John Foley there, who would go on to be a feared shooter and manage Dynamite Kid in Stampede Wrestling. Though if that's the only place you know John Foley from, then you won't have a high opinion of him.
John Foley was a legit bad ass shooter for most of his career, who was known to take liberties with guys. By the time he got to Stampede Wrestling, though, he was an old timer who was more known as a drunk who everyone ribbed. One story suggests where he lost his nerve, and that would be the time he was being a little too physical in the ring with Lanny and Randy Poffo, prompting their dad Angelo came to the ring, and all 3 Poffo men beat the living shit out of Foley. Bret Hart says he "never lived it down."
Billy says the best match he ever saw was a "friendly" sparring contest between Jack Dempsey and John Foley that left both men with black eyes, broken noses and blood coming out of their ears and mouths. Billy says they were still close friends after.
Billy calls shoot fighting/grappling "physical chess," and he spent 12 years learning this at Reilly's Gym, also known as the Snake Pit.
Billy learned "catch-as-catch-can" (or Greco-Roman) wrestling in The Snake Pit from Charlie Carrol.
Charlie Carrol was 55 years old and 155 pounds to Billy's 6 foot 2, 190 pound 17 year old, but Charlie hurt Billy every single time they sparred. Billy says that Charlie kept him humble.
Billy puts over modern MMA fighters but says the best modern MMA fighter couldn't hold a candle to a mediocre 1930s catch wrestler.
It's not a long book, but a significant section early on is just Billy going over the history of catch fighting and amateur wrestling all the way back to the 1800s. He complains that modern amateur wrestling is all about power and maneuvering for points and says he doesn't even watch the Olympics anymore. It's actually super fascinating as he details various amature techniques used in different Olympic competitions and where they originated from.
He tells a story of how when he was a teenager, his coach Billy Riley (who was 55 years old) would walk with him down the street and often try to grapple with Billy or show him some maneuver right there and Billy says people would stare at them like they were homosexuals and says it was so embarrassing. At the time, homosexuality was illegal in England.
Billy Robinson is critical of modern coaching, which he says consists of the coach giving a ton of positive feedback. Billy Robinson won multiple amature championship tournaments and bouts but never heard a good word from Billy Riley. When Billy Robinson won his first amature world title, he remembered Riley saying, "That was good." Riley would later explain that it wasn't his job to tell Robinson what was good, but it was his job to tell Robinson what was wrong and where he can correct himself. Interesting take on coaching.
In 1956, Billy placed 3rd at the nationals for amature wrestling. In 1957, he won the nationals tournament! Riley told Billy Robinson, "You've won all the cups and the medals. Why don't you take me out and buy me a steak dinner?" When Billy Robinson said he couldn't afford to, Riley said to him, "It just goes to show you kid, you can't buy steak with medals. It's time you turned pro."
Billy says he regrets not putting pro wrestling off another couple of years. He thinks he should have been amature wrestling in the Olympics. He beat everyone who eventually wrestled on the Brittish team, and he thought he could have won a medal.
Billy turned pro at 19 years old and was asked to help get pro wrestling going in Sweden. The problem was that the Sweden Olympic amature wrestling team wouldn't allow it unless the pros proved they were legit and could beat them in an amateur contest. Billy beat them all, including Alex Gronburg, a 2 time Olympic champion and former world champion, and Gosta Andersson, who quit after a minute, saying, "Hey, it's too dangerous for us."
Billy Robinson asked to go to Spain and wrestle for a new promotion, but as he was getting ready to leave, his coach Billy Riley warned him that if he worked for that company he would be black balled out of most major European wrestling companies. Robinson told Riley that he had given his word, and he said this was the first time he ever went against Riley's suggestion.
It didn't matter because Billy said the Spain promotion fizzled out before he even got there, but no one told him, and he flew to Spain for no reason.
He ended up staying in Spain, living with someone Billy referred to as "the English professor" who introduced him to people like Earnist Hemmingway and Sophia Loren and got Billy work in a movie
One day, the professor told Billy that his name was in the newspaper, and sure enough, Billy was being advertised in a new wrestling promotion. When Billy called them, he was informed that they had a job for him. For 2 years, 1960-1961, Billy wrestled in Spain and made a name for himself.
Billy would wrestle in tournaments and other tours during this time as well, in places like Germany and Belgium.
It was at these tournaments when Billy started noticing guys wanting to train with him and only him. Billy days. "It was odd!"
Billy loved zoos and had opinions on the good ones. He says he could spend all day just watching gorillas
Billy says he didn't like France much, saying that compared to places like Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, France was pretty dirty and gross back then.
Billy seems to have loved Lebanon the most, and being a huge history buff, Billy goes on a tangent about the history of Lebanon.
Billy wrestled in India in 1962, and on the way back, he stopped in Lebabon right before a war broke out, and he had to quickly escape.
Billy says his father told him that he should pretend to not know English and not be identified as an English speaking person. He said this advice helped him his while life while traveling.
The first time Billy got to India, he was shocked at the poverty and state of it. He remembers seeing dead animals all over the place and people sleeping in the streets among rats. Billy also puts over India and a big wrestling country and said he had a good time there.
Billy says he was fortunate to wrestle the original Dara Singh. Dara Singh was a huge name in India, and he eventually went to prison for killing 3 men. He did it because those 3 men killed his brother, so it was a revenge killing. Years later, he would be pardoned and released. This is when Billy beat him in India.
In India, it was legitimately against the law for a Muslim to wrestle against a Hindu, so the Muslim community "adopted" Billy Robinson as their guy to fight the Hundu guys. It's pretty fascinating imo.
After India, Billy wrestled in Napal and said he had a great time, even wrestling private matches for the King of Napal.
While in Napal, Billy was ribbed into approaching a live leopard and says it was the first time in his life that he ever felt fear.
Billy even helped some Americans set up a play for the King of Napal, where Billy was the stage manager and even took a couple of bumps on the hard wood floor. He says the King loved it so much that he called for an encore, so Billy had to do the painful bump again.
Billy recalls one time in Napal, a local accidently hit and killed a cow with his truck. Since cows were sacred, the man was killed right there, and his body hung from a lamppost.
While in Germany wrestling a tournament that was cross promoting with a ten pin bowling competition, Billy met his future wife Ursula. She was working on the bowling side and Billy on the wrestling side. Billy says when their eyes first locked, he was in the ring, and she was in the front row. Billy says, "It was the beginning of the end, for my single days." 18 months later she came to England and they got married.
Billy says he played some charity bowling games against the Beatles in the early 60s.
Dave Ruhl was an extremely popular face in Stampede Wrestling out of Calgary, and through his uncle Ray Steele, Dave got ahold of Billy and invited him to Calgary Billy says Stampede promoter Stu Hart saw Billy wrestle one match and then invite Billy to come to Stampede Wrestling.
While backstage at one of his first Stampede shows, he saw a bunch of big gues in the dressing room talking. Through eavesdropping, he heard them talking about football and asked them if they were wrestlers or football players. They said football players, and so Billy insisted they leave the dressing room. Things got tense and heated, but eventually, Billy made it clear that if they didn't leave, he would remove them. He says they all scurried out of the room and notes that one of them was a young Wayne Coleman, the future "Superstar" Billy Graham.
After reading Billy Graham's book, it's clear that these two fucking hated eachother, with Graham calling Billy a bully who took liberties with less experienced guys in the ring. In Graham's book, he details how poorly Robinson treated him when their paths crossed in Stampede Wrestling. Graham's book made no mention of Billy kicking him out of a locker room nor the supposed contract with Verne that forbade Robinson from hurting Graham.
Down the line when Billy came to Minnesota, Billy Robinson claimes that Billy Graham insisted that Verne write up a contract that prohibited Billy Robinson and Billy Graham from squaring up. I don't know the validity of this claim, but Billy Robinson says Billy Graham was so scared that he only came to Minnesota with the guarantee that Robinson wouldn't hurt him.
This claim about a contract and Graham refusing to work with Robinson, might come from the time in Minnesota when Graham opted out of working with him in favor of Wahoo McDaniel. One time they were matched up and Graham approached Robinson backstage and made a show of wrapping razor blades in his taped up hands, warning Robinson that if he attempted to shoot on him, that Graham would "shred you from your face to the tip of your toes." This is all from Graham's book, with Billy making no mention of it.
In Bruce Hart's book, he tells a story about how they had The Stomper penciled in to challenge NWA World Champion Dory Funk Jr, but they had The Stomper face Billy Robinson 2 weeks prior. The two meshed so poorly that it devolved into an ugly shoot, with the fans chanting boring at them. Eventually The Stomper left and got counted out, before getting to the back and telling Stu he is quitting. They had no choice but to put Robinson in his place, and while the match was amazing and Robinson would be a good face for Stampede at the time, even Bruce calls him a bully and finishes it by saying "here's not to you Mr Robinson, there is no place in Heaven for those who prey."
After Billy wrestled Dory Funk Jr in an 1 hour draw, and after Dory invited Billy to the States to wrestle.
Before heading over to the States full time, Billy did tours in England, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia where he won the World title for a company that Jim Barnett was promoting.
Billy met Jack Brisco in Australia, shortly after winning the world title there. Billy remembers there first match together, saying that Jack was trying to show off a little too much so Billy said he showed him a simple catch hold that put poor Jack in the hospital for a couple days! Billy says the 2 became friends and calls him a good amateur wrestler and great guy.
Jack Brisco was the one who first told Billy about "shoot wrestlers" in the States. Billy never heard the term before but says a shooter is just another word for catch wrestling.
Billy mentions a rib that Jack Brisco and Dick Murdoch played on him during that Australia tour. Dick introduced Billy to chewing tobacco and purposely misinformed Billy on how to enjoy it. Billy swallowed the juice and vomiting all over the place.
Another time, Jack and Billy were up in Billy's hotel room all night, talking holds and even practicing them on one another. It was middle of the night, so Billy was in his underwear when Jack asked him to go get the newspaper from down the hall. The second Billy got in the hallway, Jack locked him out and made Billy sneak back to his room a few floors up in just his boxers. Billy said this was the nicest hotel in Australia, too.
Billy says he got his first taste of American pro wrestling in Hawaii, where he wrestled for several months. Every single guy who writes a wrestling book inevitably ends up doing a tour in Hawaii.
It was in Hawaii where Billy met Verne Gagne, who was "wrestling" a tour there, but really, Verne was on vacation and wrestling as a means to vacation for free. A lot of guys did that with Hawaii back in the day.
Billy and Verne wrestled a tag team match together, and after Verne made sure to watch how Billy was as a singles wrestler. Verne asked Billy to come back to the mainland in 1972.
Verne even asked Billy to train his son Greg, and they ended up inviting several other guys to a small wrestling camp. The group consisted of Verne's son Greg, Ric Flair, Ken Patera, Jim Bunzell (who would later team with Ken in AWA and be one half of the Killer Bee's in the WWE), Bob Bruggers (a former Miami Dophins linebacker), and Hossien Khosrow Vaziri (the future Iron Shiek).
An infamous story happened at this camp, early on, Shiek was the only one of the 6 who had amateur experience, and one day he was boasting to the others about how neither Verne or Billy could get him on his back in an amateur bout. Billy heard about this and challenged him immediately to spar. Shiek was successful in holding his stance on his knees, with Billy unable to turn him. So Billy viciously dropped his knee into Shiek's thigh, fucking him up bad. Then Billy casually rolled Shiek over and said "told you I could flip you."
Billy acknowledges Sheik as a very good amateur but says he has a big head a big mouth. He knew Shiek wasn't familiar with catch-as-catch-can, ankle submissions, neck cranks or double wristlocks and took advantage of him. Billy just casually says "I knelt on his thigh in a way we do. He couldn't walk for two days and couldn't work out at the camp for two weeks."
Billy remembers a match he did early on working for Verne, where a fan in the front row was being obnoxious and screaming at Billy all match. After the bout, Billy went and picked the fan up out of his seat and smacked him a few times and notes how the fan stayed quiet the rest of the show. When he got to the back he was chewed our by Verne who was afraid of a lawsuit. Billy says the fan ended up getting tickets to a future show.
In the middle of the book he goes on a rant about the history of how wrestling started in carnival tents and how champions made money. He calls Gorgeous George a "carnie wrestler" and credits him for accelerating the change in how the general audience looks at pro wrestlers. He resents the sentiment that all wrestlers are showmanship guys and puts over himself and others like Lou Thesz as legit tough guys. Billy is always putting over his skills as catch fighter in the book.
Billy says he and Lou Thesz became pretty good friends.
Billy says Lou Thesz would call Ed "Strangler" Louis as the best wrestler of all time, while Billy says he would call Billy Joyce the best of all time. But he says that Billy Joyce said that George Gregory was the best of all time.
Billy describes one time he wrestled Verne Gagne with Lou Thesz as the special referee. Billy says that he and Verne weren't getting along at this point, so throughout the match, Billy was sorta abusing Verne and taunting him the whole time. Billy says he kept turning to Lou and saying "Look at this Lou!" And "What do you think of this Lou?" As he took advantage of Verne. Eventually Lou piped up and said, "Jesus Billy, take it easy on him, he is the boss."
Ed "Strangler" Louise had an "open" contract, meaning that if you were matched up against him and wanted to shoot, Ed encouraged it. What a badass.
John Pesek was a wrestler with legit Olynpic credentials. John Pesek decided to shoot on Ed Lewis when Ed was very sick and had boils all over. It was a hard fight but Ed won. Lou Thesz resented Pesek for attempting this and even had him black balled by the NWA later in his career. Lou never forgave John for shooting on Ed when Ed was sick and never admitted Pesek was talented in any way. Billy clarifies that John Pesek was legitimate in the ring and tells this story as a way to show Lou Thesz power back in those days.
Ben Assirati was a freakishly strong guy who was known as a legit street fighter. Billy says he was a masochist who not only liked to hurt people in the ring, but also liked to get hurt, himself. Ben Assirati tried to start a rival promotion in England, and was challenged to a legitimate shoot fight by promoters (and world class ass kickers) George Gregory and Billy Joyce, but Ben turned them down. Of course, when Lou Thesz was NWA Champion and touring through England, Ben made a big show of challenging him beforehand and even got the newspapers to print about it. On the night of the show, Lou had police block the entrance and not let Ben in the arena. Billy tells this story as if Lou was turning down Ben's challenge for the way he turned down Gregory and Joyce. But Billy really puts over Ben Assirati as a scary guy in the ring and says that people actually died in the ring with Ben. Wild claim that I couldn't back up online, though there are a ton of stories to speak on Ben's notorioty in the ring.
In Lou Thesz memoir, he stated that he challenged Ben first multiple times and Ben refused all of them
Billy says that when he first got to the States, Lou Thesz and Karl Gotch were close friends who respected one another. But something happened that led to the two refusing to speak to one another.
Billy says a lot of old timers were hot heads, and gives an example of when his son was born. Billy named him Spencer after Winston Churchill, but Karl Gotch got angry at this and said it should have been a powerful name like Thor or something silly. Billy says that he and Karl nearly came to blows in the street over this. So whatever fractured the relationship between Gotch and Thesz, it was probably minor and petty.
When talking about modern wrestlers, Billy always refers to them in quotations. Like in his book he says "pro wrestlers" as if he is air quoting when talking about modern guys.
Billy says a big difference between wrestling in America vs England was how much guys talked in the ring in America (called spots). Billy says this never happens over seas and says he didn't call spots verbally.
Another big difference is how pay structure worked. In America it was all based on the house and what the promoter felt you earned. Over seas, Billy says he and the promoter would sit alone and discuss the pay prior to the match. Ticket sales were irrelevant, you always got paid what you agreed to. He says America is where all the backstabbing and politicking started in wrestling.
Billy says Danny Hodge was probably one of the most dangerous guys from his time wrestling and puts him over as one ofthe greatest American wrestlers ever.
Billy describes an interesting concept for wrestling promoters back in his day. Every promoter had what he called a "policman" wrestler. When a new guy came in and wanted to challenge the top draw, he would face this "policman" wrestler as the top draw or promoter watched closely. For example, if you were looking to challenge Lou Thesz, first you would face Ray Steele as Thesz watched and judged, then after he and Ray would talk about the guy together.
While working for Verne Gagne in the early 70s, Billy was asked to wrestle with a green as grass guy and Verne told Billy to go 10 minutes before he beat him. This baffled Billy and Verne had to explain its a taping and they need to put on a good show. Billy says he shouldn't have done that, especially considering how Verne would go on to screw with Billy's payoffs down the line.
Billy says he took the kid down at the 9 minute mark and stretched him, nearly breaking his elbow as he screamed and cried and tapped out. Billy says the guy gave an interview later and said pro wrestling is the nastiest and most dangerous sport there is. Billy chuckles at this but he took some rookie and killed any interest the kid had in wrestling while abusing him.
Billy tells a wild story about a short real fight he had with Peter Maivia in Japan. Billy, Peter and a few other guys were eating at a restaurant when Peter got upset at how the menu and ordering system worked. Peter got so worked up that Billy yelled at him to calm down. Later as Billy was walking towards his hotel, a drunk Peter Maivia approached Billy looking for a fight. Billy attempted to restrain him, telling Peter as he held him, "Peter stop it. I don't want to hurt you." But Peter in his enraged, drunken state goes to bite Billy in the neck! Billy, having been trained in self defense and combat like this, knew to tuck his chin to save his neck, but Peter still bit down hard and into Billy's face! Billy says he still had scars from this 40 or 50 years later! When blood started pouring down Billy's cheek, he snapped and laid out Peter with an unspecified number of strikes that left Peter with a broken nose and two black eyes. He says the fight lasted all of 15 seconds. Billy says he had to go to the hospital to get stitches and shot for a human bite.
The next morning, Billy nearly kicked Peter's door down and told Peter he is lucky to be alive. Billy points out how biting the neck is an attempt to kill him, so he gives Peter a chance to try again. A very sober Peter backed down immediately
Billy says he saw an interview on Tv where The Rock claimed that Peter Maivia bit Billy's eye out and he needed surgery. Billy refutes this claim and says the only eye surgery he ever had was when he was a kid.
Billy says a lot of guys would spar once or train once with someone and then spend their whole career saying they were trained by that person. He gave an example of one time, Bill Watts called him up asking about Johnny Eagles, who said he trained at Billy's gym. Billy had a good laugh because Eagles stopped by his gym one time to borrow money.
Billy often goes on tangents or rants about bullies and how much he hates them. He calls them cowards who always back down when challenged. I guess that's why he doesn't see himself as a bully, while almost everyone who came up after him clarifies him as the biggest bully they ever met. I've read several, several dozen wrestling book, and only 1 guy didn't have anything bad to say about Billy. That was Dynamite Kid, who didn't have anything nice to say about Billy either. He was just the only guy to bring up Billy Robinson and not rant about how awful of a person he was.
If the only guy to not have a negative story about you in Dynamite Kid, then you may be an asshole imo.
Billy says he was AWA World Heavyweight Champion for 24 hours "until they changed the decision on me." I'm not a big AWA buff so if anyone knows this story I would like to hear it.
Billy briefly mentions the Gagne produced movie in 1974 movie, "The Wrestler" but unfortunately Billy has no tales from the set or stories about it at all. Billy alongside Dusty Rhodes and Dick Murdoch all appeared in the film.
One time while in Alberta wrestling for Stampede, Billy was invited along with a couple other wrestlers to have dinner with the Primier of Alberta (like a State Governor) and at the event Billy was asked to join the premieres wife in the morning. So when the wife reminded Billy about coming by at 8am the next morning, Billy used British slang in response and said "Yes, I'll come knock you up at 8 o'clock tomorrow." Poor Billy had to explain that where he's from, someone waking you up in the morning by knocking on your door is a knocker upper.
Billy calls Canadian wrestler George Gordienko the strongest wrestler he ever got in the ring with. George Gordienko was originally hoping to be a doctor before becoming an exceptionally successful wrestler and someone who Lou Thesz once called one of the best of all time. Gordienko has been lost to time for the most part since he was banned from the United States during the McCarthy era. George married a woman who was the head of a communist party in America and poor George never got to return. He continued to wrestle in the UK until a bad ankle injury forced him to retire. He pivoted again and became a pretty succesful artist. Super fascinating story imo.
Over in Japan, Karl Gotch was working for Giant Baba in the Japan Pro Wrestling Alliance and their competition, the International Wrestling Enterprise contacted Billy Riley and asked who was the best catch wrestler available to counter Gotch, who was doing big business for JWA. Riley immediately suggested Robinson, who was quickly invited to Japan for the IWE.
Karl and Billy were friends but working for rival promotions in Japan, so they could only meet and get together in secret.
Billy ended up winning the World title for the IWE and they asked him to move his family to Japan long-term.
Billy wasn't having a good time coaching the young Japanese guys and complained to Karl Gotch that it seems like their minds are elsewhere. Karl advised Billy to hurt one of them to get them in line. Billy refused and said he was their coach, he wasn't supposed to hurt them. This is wild to hear from Billy, who's entire reputation among the next generation was that he was a bully who liked to hurt people.
A week later Billy got caught in a snowstorm after fighting with his wife, so he was in a bad mood as he walked into the gym to train the young guys. One of them mouthed off so Billy says he lined them all up and wrestled each of them into submission. He calls it an accident, bit says he ended up breaking one of their arms that day and after that all the young guys took everything more seriously and treated Billy with more respect and admiration.
Billy seems to have mixed feelings on his time in Japan since he did well and early on was treated well by promoters. He said in Japan if you have something someone needs, you're a God in their eyes and your treated as such. He says if you need something from someone though, they always make it clear that they are in charge and treat you poorly. He says he and Karl both started to really resent the culture there towards the end of their runs in Japan.
It was after or near the end of his Japan tour that Billy and his wife got divorced. He doesn't expand on it in any way in his book. Barely gets a passing mention.
In the mid-70s Billy was in rough shape, his drinking was out of control and his knee was beyond fucked. Billy started working odd jobs outside the wrestling business, including a security job gig in Las Vegas where he was training other security guards and he managed a gas station in Minnesota. Billy calls this the lowest point of his life and says the gas station job was the most boring thing he ever did in his life.
Antonio Inoki contacted Billy when he was running the gas station and invited him to Japan for a big celebration show where they would have a match. Billy doesn't speak highly of the match and says he just had knee surgery and could barely get in the ring, but if you look up reports on his 1975 match with Inoki, all you see is massive, massive praise and people calling it one of the best matches ever at the time.
Billy calls Inoki the best Japanese wrestler of all time.
Yuko Miyato of The Union of Wrestling Forces International (UWFI) contacted Billy and sent him to Nashville to train guys to go to Japan for them and Billy says between himself and Karl Gotch, every wrestler they trained went on to be world champions. Billy lists Shigeo Miyato and Nobuhiko Takada as examples.
Billy says Yuko Miyato "really saved me." Billy says he was drinking excessively and gained a ton of weight after the divorce, and that his knees and hips had to be replaced. Billy says his nervous system was fucked up from all the years of grappling and he couldn't effectively train anymore. He got a 2nd life back in Japan and even became the head coach at his old Snake Pit gym after Riley passed away in 1977. Billy says he ended spending 15 years in Japan training the next generation of catch/mma fighters.
Billy talks about the difference in training Japanese guys compared to others, since Japanese guys are more scientific and teach techniques down to the specificity. Billy didn't teach like that, he taught concepts and ideas that anyone could use on anyone else. He struggled to get some guys over the "belt system" in Japan where a brown belt guy would never challenge a black belt guys. Billy says anyone can beat the best, regardless of their belt.
Near the end of the book, Billy again rants about modern guys and how they know one or two moves and consider themselves catch style wrestlers. Billy also rants again about bullies and how you don't train people by taking advantage of them. (Tell that to Iron Sheik) Billy cites Verne Gagne as an example of a guy who didn't know how to spar or lock in submissions, and would train guys by exhausting them before he jumped on them and shot for a hold. Billy says he and Karl Gotch resented that and made sure their training camps were the opposite of that. It's funny because Billy literally did this stuff with Verne Gagne! Maybe he is implying that he learned then not to that stuff, but he doesn't outright say it. Billy as as guilty of bullying as the Verne imo.
Billy thinks modern MMA is shooting themselves in the foot for not having pinfalls. He says that fighting off your back is exciting and opens the door for more to be done. He says that when a guy is trying not to get pinned, he may leave an opening somewhere for the other guy to take advantage of.
Billy complains how modern boxers are looking for knockouts and training to knock people out. He says that's not how it's done, you fight and wait for the opening, Billy says you wait for the knockout to come to you, you don't go looking for it. He laments the same thing in submissions as well, saying you don't go looking to lock in a submission, you maneuver around and wait for the opening to present itself. You wait for the submission to come to you. He is extremely critical of modern "catch style" wrestlers/ fighters.
Billy is critical of modern wrestling and fighting having such short time limits, saying that short 2 or 3 minute rounds means that it's all about power.
The book ends with Billy ranting about modern fighters and amateur wrestlers and how Catch wrestling was the greatest sport of all time. I hope I love something as much as Billy loved catch-as-catch-can wrestling.
Billy passed away 1 year after this book came out, and it's said he died peacefully in his sleep.

I think we can all agree that “Down Bad” is very very gay. If you don’t, let me present my case (and for everyone else, here’s a quick recap, and excuse any errors since english is my 2nd language):
First verse:

Did you really beam me up In a cloud of sparkling dust Just to do experiments on? Tell me I was the chosen one Showed me that this world is bigger than us Then sent me back where I came from For a moment I knew cosmic love

The muse (a woman, in my —our— argument), is “experimenting” with the lyrical subject (aka the poem’s speaker, aka Taylor) romantically/sexually. This is a very common situation with same-sex attracted women, as I’m guessing most of us know.
So, in this interpretation, the lyrical subject has found a whole new world *cue Aladdin music* with this experimenting muse before she dumped her. Tale as old as time.
Second verse:

Did you take all my old clothes Just to leave me here, naked and alone In a field in my same old town That somehow seems so hollow now? They'll say I'm nuts if I talk about The existence of you For a moment, I was heavenstruck

Same as the first verse. The lyrical subject is honing it in: everything’s not the same without the muse. It’s of particular importance the “they’ll say I’m nuts if I talk about // the existence of you”, because of course it heavily relates to fame, the world of don’t ask don’t tell in some groups and the forbidden love that's so common in Taylor's repertoire.
Of course we also have the “did you take all my old clothes”, which is very telling that both the lyrical subject and the person she’s referring to dress the same. (Just a side note that I know that hetlors and whatever will interpret this line as saying that they undress her —so, not ALL her clothes, just all the clothes she was wearing—, meaning they left her vulnerable. I agree that they took all of her clothes in the sense that she was left vulnerable, naked; but I do think it has that double meaning most people won't entertain). Also, I think saying "old clothes" means her past too, so who she was in the life before the muse, before she was shown all this whole new world. She wants much more, the muse took all her old clothes so she can't go back.
“Like I lost my twin” is also a very gay line (and, again, I’m aware that some people will say that it’s metaphorical, like they both were very similar. However, were they actually similar in personality? To me, the speaker and the muse are very different, ergo why the muse showed the speaker so many different things).

I'll build you a fort on some planet Where they can all understand it How dare you think it's romantic Leaving me safe and stranded

This is one of the gayest parts of the song for me, because the whole wanting to run away to a more understanding and safer place is always a theme in my lesbian-from-a-small-conservative-town mind. But also the whole “safe and stranded” evokes me an image of her muse leaving her to protect her from people’s gossip, to protect her fame and the life she’s been building since day one.
But now, here lies the interpretation I haven’t seen anywhere and that ties everything nicely together: the chorus.

Now I'm down bad, cryin' at the gym Everything comes out teenage petulance "Fuck it if I can't have him" "I might just die, it would make no difference" Down bad, wakin' up in blood Starin' at the sky, come back and pick me up Fuck it if I can't have us I might just not get up, I might stay Down bad

The first thing that can convince people that this isn’t a lesbian song is the use of “him”. But, what if I told you that I think it reinforces the analysis I’ve presented you?
Let’s pay attention to the line before: “Everything comes out of teenage petulance”, which tells us the mood that the lyrical subject is in when she says all this. And the line AFTER the “him” says “I might just die, it would make no difference”. What would make no difference, exactly? If you can’t have him, it would make no difference in contrast to what exactly? Like, what is the other option? You have him and you still might die?
TO ME, this can mean two things (both equally as gay, tbh):

1. She has to hide her real feelings/her broken heart by hiding behind a public man (a beard) with whom she fake-breaks up in order to justify feeling like shit.
2. She’s not even talking about her, she’s talking to her muse. (I’ll explain later.)

See, the reason why I don’t love the first interpretation is because it feels a little forced to me. Maybe some of you will resonate with it, which is great! But, for me, I feel like the second interpretation has more proof that sustains it. (But anyway, they can both coexist!)
See, we have two very different, almost mirroring things:
“Fuck it if I can’t have him”
and
“Fuck it if I can’t have us"
So… why the two pronouns? Why a “you” and a “he”?
What if (hear me out) we are missing a comma (or two, i guess)?
What if it is “Fuck it(,) if I can’t, have him”? Meaning that if “we” can’t be together, have him, who tf cares, it’s not gonna make any difference since we won’t be together. I’ll die either way because I won’t be with you, and that way you’re happy/safe.
I like this interpretation because it explains the existence of both “you" and “he”, and also explains better why it wouldn’t make a difference anyway. And, of course, fits very well with the themes of safety, and hiding and, well, bearding.
It explains so well why “it would make no difference” is after that line, but after “Fuck it if I can’t have us” there’s no sense of choice, or of another escenario playing out. She’ll just not get up and stay down bad.
Now, another thing that can enter this analysis is the presence of the quotation marks. What if it’s actually a conversation? What if the lyrical subject tells the muse directly “have him” and the muse thinking she’s doing this for the speaker’s safety and happiness but is hurting just as much, says she might die if she has to go get a man, because losing the speaker will kill her anyway?
This is my humble interpretation. As always when it comes to literary analysis, there’s not A Truth, but multiple interpretations. Hope you liked mine <3

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of the Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of the gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; 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. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]