I have prayed about this a lot and I’m going to assume it’s a no from God.
I have had a crush on this guy at my local church for nearly 6 months now. He is very attractive. Like a solid 10/10. Every girl at church thinks this. I see him twice, once during the Sunday service and again on Wednesday during bible study. We are on 2 different bible study groups so we don’t have an opportunity to talk.
He is very confident in leading his group and presenting etc. BUT he doesn’t talk to women. He only talks to a few women who, I assume are his friends (but they are also married). Otherwise, he’s very distant. After the service, he usually just wonders around cleaning up etc. Barely interacting with anyone.
Now, I feel like he may like me, but I could be delusional. He is always around me, just lingering around. He always sits somewhere where he has the perfect view of me (or I of him😅), and every time I speak to a guy, he is always facing us, sometimes just staring. It’s so bizarre because he doesn’t talk to me, and when I try to talk to him, it’s short and to the point. I have only tried to speak with him twice.
Do you have any advice? Also, why would a young, extremely attractive Christian M26 be single and literally not want to mingle?

=BACKGROUND=

Gwýsene ⟪ثِتونج ځوېٓسِنہ⟫ ⟨th'Tundj Gwýsene⟩ /θɛˈtund͡ʒ ˈʝyːzɛnɛ/ (or "the least Germanic Germanic language") is a Germanic language descendant from Old English spoken in Nabataea (modern-day Jordan, Sinai, and northwestern Saudi Arabia). It takes place in a timeline where the Anglo-Saxons get kicked out of Britain by the Celts, therefore they sail all the way to Nabataea (I pride myself on my realism here) and settle there. Most of them eventually convert to Islam, and, as a consequence, Arabic becomes elevated to the language of academia, nobility, and poetry.
"English" as we know it still survives in-timeline as Englisc — basically Middle English with some modifications — spoken as a minority language in southeastern Britain (or Pritani as the Celts call it in-world).
==ETYMOLOGY OF GWÝSENE==
⟨Gwýsene⟩ ⟪ځوېٓسِنہ⟫ is derived from ځوېٓسِن (Gwýsen) + ـہ- (-e, adjectival suffix), the former from Middle Gwýsene جِٔويسّمَن (ɣewissman), a fossilization of جِٔويسّ (ɣewiss, "Geuisse") + مُن (mon, "man"), from Old Gwýsene יוש מן (yws mn, yewisse monn), from Old English Ġewisse monn.
⟨Tundj⟩ ⟪تونج⟫ is loaned from an Arabized pronunciation of Old Gwýsene תנג (tng, tunge) (from which descends the doublet ⟨Togg⟩ ⟪تُځّ⟫ /toɣ(ː)/, "tongue")
The Englisc exonym is ⟨Eizmenasisc⟩ /ɛjzmɛˈnaːsɪʃ/, From Brithonech (in-world Conlang) Euuzmenasech /ˈøʏzmə̃næsɛx/, from Middle French Yœssmanes /ˈjœssmanɛs/ (hence modern in-world French Yœssmanes /jœsman/ and Aquitanian (in-world) ⟨Yissmanes⟩ /ˈiːsmans/), from Middle (High) German \jewissmaneisch (hence modern in-world German *Jewissmännisch** /jəˌvɪsˈmɛnɪʃ/, Saxon Jewissmannisch /jɛˌvɪsˈma.nɪʃ/, and Hollandish Iweesmanis /iˈʋeːsmanɪs/), Ultimately from Middle Gwýsene جِٔويسّمَن (ɣewissman). Doublet of Englisc ⟨iwis mon⟩ /ɪˈwɪs mɔn/ + ⟨-isc⟩ /-ɪʃ/

=PHONOLOGY=

Consonants	Labial	Dental	Alveolar	Post-Alveolar	Palatal	Velar
Nasal	/m/		/n/
Plosive/Affricate	/p/ /b/		/t/ /d/	/t͡ʃ/ /d͡ʒ/¹		/k/ (/g/)²
Fricative	/f/ /v/	/θ/ /ð/	/s/ /z/	/ʃ/ /ʒ/¹	(/ç/)³ (/ʝ/)³	/x/ /ɣ/
Tap/Trill			/ɾ/ /r/
Approximant	/w/		/ɹ/ (/l/)⁴		/j/	/ɫ/

Vowels	Front	Central	Back
Close	/i/ /iː/ /y/ /yː/		/u/¹ /uː/¹
Near-Close	(/ɪ/)⁵ (/ʏ/)⁵
Mid	/e/ /eː/ /ø/ /øː/		/o/ /oː/
Open-Mid	(/ɛ/)⁵	(/ɐ/)⁵	(/ɔ/)⁵
Open	/æ/ /æː/		/ɑ/ /ɑː/

1. Nonnative phonemes
2. allophone of /k/ inter-vocalically
3. allophones of /x/ /ɣ/ near front vowels
4. allophone of /ɫ/ when not near any back vowels and/or velar consonants.
5. allophones in unstressed syllables

These are the phonemes of Standard Gwýsene, and, expectedly, they differ from dialect to dialect.
==EVOLUTION FROM OLD ENGLISH==
The Phonological evolution from Old English to Old Gwýsene are as follows:

• /g/ /j/ => /ɣ~ʝ/
• /h/ => /x/
• /f/ /θ/ /s/ => /v/ /ð/ /z/ word-internally
• /l/ => /ɫ/
• /x/ /ɣ/ => /ç/ /ʝ/ near /i/ /e/ /ø/
• /eo/ /eːo̯/ => /iɔ̯/ /iːɔ̯/
• /æɑ/ /æːɑ̯/ => /iɐ̯/ /iːɐ̯/
• /iy/ /y/ => /ø/
• /iːy̯/ => /øː/

From Old Gwýsene to Middle Gwýsene:

• /ŋk/ /ŋg/ => /kː/ /ɣː/
• /w̥/ /r̥/ /l̥/ /n̥/ => /fː/ /sː/ /ʃː/ /nː/
• /-çt/ /-xt/ => /-ç/ /-x/
• /r/ => /ɹ~ɻ/ post-vocalically
• /iɔ̯/ /iːɔ̯/ => /iɐ̯/ /iːɐ̯/
• /i/ /y/ /u/ => /ɪ/ /œ/ /ʊ/ when unstressed
• /e/ /ø/ /o/ => /ɛ/ /ɛ/ /ɔ/ when unstressed
• /æ/ /ɑ/ => /ɐ/ /ɐ/ when unstressed

From Middle Gwýsene to Modern Gwýsene:

• /p/ /t/ /k/ /b/ /d/ => /b/ /d/ /g/ /v/ /z/ word-internally
• /p/ /t/ /k/ /b/ /d/ => /f/ /s/ /x/ /v/ /z/ word-finally
• /wi/ => /wy/ => /yː/
• /ɪ/ /œ/ /ʊ/ => /ɛ/ /ʏ/ /ɔ/
• /ɔ/ => /ɐ/
• /i(ː)/ /u(ː)/ => /y(ː)/ /o(ː)/
• /o(ː)/ /æ(ː)/ /ɑ(ː)/ => /ɑ(ː)/ /e(ː)/ /æ(ː)/
• (/æː/ /uː/ => /i/ /ɑ/ in open syllables)
• /eː/ => /i/
• /iɐ̯/ /iːɐ̯/ => /eː/ /iː/

==DIALECT GROUPS==
Gwýsene has 4 main dialect groupings:
1- Southern Dialects
Spoken around in-world Áglästrélz /ˈɑːɣɫɐˌstɾeːɫz/ [ˈɑːʁɫ(ə)ˌsd̥ɾeːɫz]. Speakers of these dialects tend to pronounce:

• /Vm/ /Vn/ /Vɫ/ as syllabic [N̩] [ɫ̩]
• /ɹ~ɻ/ as [ɰ] in non-rhotic accents
• /w/ as [ɥ] near front vowels
• /p/ /t/ /k/ as [pʰ] [tʰ] [kʰ]
• /p/ /t/ /k/ as [b̥] [d̥] [g̊] word-internally
• /ɛ/ /ɐ/ as [ə]

Regarded as the oldest dialect by Gwýsens as it encompasses the original "homeland" (if we don't count the Anglo-Saxons that is). They're also considered the most "posh", and the standard accent is loosely based on the southern dialects.
2- Central Dialects
Spoken around in-world Keü-Nüvátra /keʏ ˌnʏˈvɑːtɾɐ/ [kɛɨ ˌnɨˈvɒːtɾɐ]. Speakers of these dialects tend to pronounce:

• /ç/ /ʝ/ as [h] [j]
• /p/ /t/ /k/ as [pʰ] [tʰ] [kʰ]
• /p/ /t/ /k/ as [p˭] [t˭] [k˭] word-internally
• /Vɹ/ /Vːɹ/ as [Vʴ] [Vʴːɹ]
• /ʏ/ /y/ /yː/ as [ɨ] [ʉ] [ʉː]
• /u/ as [ɯ] (though not that common)
• stressed /e/ /ø/ /o/ as [ɛ] [œ] [ɔ]
• /ɑ/ /ɑː/ as [ɒ] [ɒː]
• /æ/ /æː/ as [ä] [äː]

Central Dialects are considered posh by northerners and westerners, but not by southerners.
3- Western Dialects
Spoken in in-world Ettúr /ɛtˈtuːɻ/ [ətˈtuːɽ]. Speakers of these dialects tend to pronounce:

• /ç/ /ʝ/ as [x] [ɣ]
• /p/ /t/ /k/ as [p˭] [t˭] [k˭]
• /p/ /t/ /k/ as [b] [d] [g] word-internally
• /b/ /d/ as [β̞] [ð̞] word-internally, instead of /v/ /z/
• /ɹ~ɻ/ as [ɾ~ɽ]
• stressed /e/ /ø/ /o/ as [ɛ] [œ] [ɔ]
• unstressed /e/ /ø/ /o/ as [ə] [œ] [ə]
• /eː/ /øː/ /oː/ as [ɛː] [œː] [ɔː]

4- Northern Dialects
Spoken in in-world Ämma̋n /ɐmˈmæːn/ [(ʕ)ɐmˈmæːn]. Speakers of these dialects tend to pronounce:

• /ç/ /ʝ/ as [h] [j]
• /ɫ/ as [l]
• /p/ /t/ /k/ as [p˭] [t˭] [k˭]
• /p/ /t/ /k/ as [b] [d] [g] word-internally
• /b/ /d/ as [b] [d] word-internally, instead of /v/ /z/
• /ɹ~ɻ/ as [ɾ~ɽ]
• /Vɹ/ as [Vː], or [Vɾ] in rhotic accents
• /Vːɹ/ as [Vːː] or [Vː], or [Vːɾ] in rhotic accents
• /ʏ/ /y/ /yː/ as [ɨ] [ɨ] [ɨː]
• /ø/ /øː/ as [ə] [əː] or [ɵ] [ɵː]
• /ɑ/ /ɑː/ as [ä] [äː]

==LEXICAL DOUBLETS==
The differing analyses of the Old English sequences /xe͜o xæ͜ɑ/ & /je͜o jæ͜ɑ/ when the change from /e͜o æ͜ɑ/ to /iɔ̯ iɐ̯/ was taking place led to:

• In the south, /i/ was elided into the palatal /ç/ /ʝ/, yielding Modern Southern [χɑ xæ] [ʁɑ ɣæ]
• In the (at the time) North, /i/ was fully pronounced, yielding Modern Central [heː] [jeː]

For example, Old English heofon & geofon evolved into:

• [ˈχɑvɱ̩] & [ˈʁɑvɱ̩] in Southern dialects. Used natively in the south and the west and were adopted as the standard forms /ˈxɑvɐn/ & /ˈɣɑvɐn/
• [ˈheːvɐn] & [ˈjeːvɐn] in the Central dialects. Used natively in the center and north and considered nonstandard.

=ORTHOGRAPHY=

Gýsene uses the Arabic script natively alongside a romanization
==SCRIPT BACKGROUND==
Since Gýsen use of the Nabataean & then Arabic script preceded the Persians by centuries, the Gýsen Arabic script differs quite a bit from the Indo-Persian system:

1. Rasm: Gýsens writing in Nabataean (& carrying over to Arabic) tended to follow Aramaic & Hebrew convention for representing consonants, while the Persian convention was derived from the most similar sounding preexisting Arabic consonants, leading to drastic differences in pointing convention (i‘jām). As Islam spread, the 2 conventions spread in their respective halves of the Muslim World: The Indo-Persian-Derived Eastern convention, and the Gýsen-Derived Western convention:

(Loose) Consonant ↓	Western ↓	Eastern ↓
//v//	⟪پ⟫	⟪و⟫ ǀ ⟪ڤ⟫
//tʃ//	⟪ڝ⟫	⟪چ⟫
//p//	⟪ڢ⟫	⟪پ⟫
//f//	⟪ڧ⟫	⟪ف⟫

1. Vowel Notation: The western convention has a definitive way of expressing vowels when diacritics are fully written, while in the eastern convention diacritics often serve dual-duty due to limitations of Arabic short vowel diacritics.

==Script keys==

Romanization ↓	Arabic ↓	Standard Phoneme ↓
ä ǀ a	◌َ	/æ/ (stressed) ǀ /ɐ/ (unstressed)
e	◌ِ	/e/ (stressed) ǀ /ɛ/ (unstressed)
o	◌ُ	/o/ (stressed) ǀ /ɔ/ (unstressed)
a̋ ǀ ◌́	◌ٓ	/æː/ (standalone) ǀ /◌ː/ (coupled with other vowels)
a	ا	/ɑ/ (stressed) ǀ /ɐ/ (unstressed)
b	ب	/b/ ǀ /v/ (intervocalically)
g	ځ	/ɣ/ ǀ /ʝ/
d	د	/d/ ǀ /z/ (intervocalically)
h	ھ	/ç/
w ǀ u	و	/w/ (glide) ǀ /u/ (vocalic)
z	ز	/z/
ch	خ	/x/
t	¹ط	/t/
y ǀ i	ي	/j/ (glide) ǀ /i/ (vocalic)
k	ک	/k/ ǀ /g/ (intervocalically)
l	ل	/ɫ/
m	م	/m/
n	ن	/n/
tj	ڝ	/t͡ʃ/
-	¹ع	/Ø/ ǀ /◌ː/ (post-vocalically)
p	ڢ	/p/ ǀ /b/ (intervocalically)
s	¹ص	/s/
k	¹ق	/k/
r	ر	/ɾ/ ǀ /r/ (geminated) ǀ /ɹ/ (post-vocalically)
s	س	/s/ ǀ /z/ (intervocalically)
t	ت	/t/ ǀ /d/ (intervocalically)
y	ې	/y/ (stressed) ǀ /ʏ/ (unstressed)
f	ڧ	/f/ ǀ /v/ (intervocalically)
ö	ۊ	/ø/ (stressed) ǀ /œ/ (unstressed)
-	ء ǀ ئـ	initial vowel holder
v	پ	/v/
th	ث	/θ/ ǀ /ð/ (intervocalically)
tj	¹چ	/t͡ʃ/
dj	¹ج	/d͡ʒ/
dh	ذ	/ð/
j	¹ژ	/ʒ/
sj	ش	/ʃ/
dh	¹ض	/ð/
dh	¹ظ	/ð/
g	¹غ	/ɣ/ ǀ /ʝ/
v	¹ڤ	/v/
a ǀ ä	²ـى	/æ/ (stressed) ǀ /ɐ/ (unstressed)
e	²ـہ	/e/ (stressed) ǀ /ɛ/ (unstressed)
'l-	لٔـ	/‿(ə)ɫ-/
th'-	ثِـ	/θɛ-/

1. nonnative
2. only occur word-finally

=GRAMMAR=

Gýsen grammar is extremely divergent from the Germanic norm, having been brought about by extremely harsh standardization efforts by the ruling class while backed by academia & scholars. It's heavily influenced by Arabic — being the encompassing liturgical, academic, and aristocratic language during the Middle to Early Modern Gýsen periods.
==PRONOUNS==
^\this entire segment will use the romanization only]) The Pronouns themselves have remained relatively true to their Germanic origins, apart from the entire set of Arabic 3rd person pronouns & the genitive enclitics. Gýsene still retains the Old English dual forms, but they're only used in formal writing:

1st Person	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	ih /iç/	wi /wi/	wi /wi/
Accusative	mih /miç/	án /ɑːn/	ós /oːs/
Standalone Genitive	min /min/	ár /ɑːɣ/	ór /oːɹ/
Enclitic Genitive	-min /-mɪn/	-ar /-ɐɣ/	-or /-ɔɹ/

2nd Person	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	thách /θɑːx/	gi /ʝi/	gi /ʝi/
Accusative	thih /θiç/	in /in/	iw /iw/
Standalone Genitive	thin /θin/	ig /iʝ/	iwar /ˈiwɐɹ/
Enclitic Genitive	-thin /-θɪn/	-ig /-ɪʝ/	-iwar /-ɪwɐɹ/

3rd Person Masculine	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	chá /xɑː/	chama̋ /xɐˈmæː/	chám /xɑːm/
Accusative	hin /çin/	chama̋ /xɐˈmæː/	chám /xɑːm/
Standalone Genitive	his /çis/	chama̋ /xɐˈmæː/	chám /xɑːm/
Enclitic Genitive	-his /-çɪs/	-chama /-xɐmɐ/	-cham /-xɐm/

3rd Person Feminine	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	hi /çi/	chana̋ /xɐˈnæː/	chán /xɑːn/
Accusative	hi /çi/	chana̋ /xɐˈnæː/	chán /xɑːn/
Standalone Genitive	hir /çiɹ/	chana̋ /xɐˈnæː/	chán /xɑːn/
Enclitic Genitive	-hir /-çɪɹ/	-chana /-xɐnɐ/	-chan /-xɐn/

==NOUNS==
Middle Gwýsene inherited the Old English nominal declension, but due to merging & reduction of (final) unstressed vowels, all endlings were dropped except for the accusative & dative plurals which were later generalized. Middle Gwýsene also dropped the neuter gender, merging it with the masculine & feminine genders based on endings

Regular Noun Declension	Singular	Plural
Masculine	-	-an /-ɐn/
Feminine	-	-as /-ɐs/

This has been standardized to all nouns, with some ablaut irregulars:

"Man" (man) ǀ "Bách" (book)	Singular	Plural
Masculine	man /mɑn/	menan /ˈmenɐn/
Feminine	bách /bɑːx/	bitjas /ˈbit͡ʃɐs/

...and some nouns retain colloquial plural forms more reminiscent of their Old English counterparts:

"Tjylz" (child) ǀ "Chänz" (hand)	Singular	(Standard) Plural	(Common) Plural
Masculine	tjylz /t͡ʃyɫz/	tjylzan /ˈt͡ʃyɫzɐn/	tjylro /ˈt͡ʃyɫɾɔ/
Feminine	chänz /xænz/	chänzas /ˈxænzɐs/	chänza /ˈxænzɐ/

===Possession===
Gwýsene has two distinct methods of indicating possession dur to the dropping of the genitive case:
1. A loaned version of the Arabic construct state (present in the standard language, urban areas, and most of the Northern and Western dialects). the Arabic definite article (-الـ) was loaned with its use in the construct state into Late Early Modern Gwýsene as a separate "letter form" [-لٔـ] and prescribed by Grammarians ever since as a "genitive" maker. This method also assumes definiteness of the noun it's prefixed to; it must be prefixed to eneg ("any") for indefinite nouns.
Bách 'lgörel /bɑːχ‿ɫ̩ˈʝøɹɛɫ/ ("the boy's book")

bách 'l - görel book ɢᴇɴ.ᴅғ - boy 

2. Use of a prefixed fär (equivalent to English "of", cognate with English "for") (present in rural areas and is generally viewed as a rural or "Bedouin" feature). This method does not assume definiteness, and a definite article is required.
Bách färth'görel /bɑːχ ˌfɐɹðəˈʝøɹɛɫ/ ("the boy's book")

Bách fär - th' - görel book of - ᴅғ - boy 

==ADJECTIVES==
Much like Nouns, adjectives decline for number and gender:

Regular Adjective Declension	Singular	Plural
Masculine	-	-an /-ɐn/
Feminine	-e /-ɛ/*	-as /-ɐs/

\due to its similarity with the common adjectival suffix* -e*, adjectives derived that way would not decline for gender in the singular*
==VERBS==
Gwýsen verbs are the most mangled, both by Arabization and regular phonological development. Gwýsen word order is VSO. Due to pronouns coming after the verb, they merged with the preexisting endings and formed unique endings that were later generalized to standard verb declension (rendering Gwýsene a pro-drop language)

Present Verb Conjugation	---
Infinitive	-en /-ɛn/
Present Participle	-enz /-ɛnz/
Past Participle	ge- -en /ʝɛ- -ɛn/
Singular Imperative	-
Plural Imperative	-on /-ɔn/
1ˢᵗ singular	-i /-ɪ/
1ˢᵗ plural	-swe /-swɛ/
2ⁿᵈ singular	-tha /-θɐ/
2ⁿᵈ plural	-gge /-ʝʝɛ/
3ʳᵈ singular masculine	-scha /-sxɐ/
3ʳᵈ dual masculine	-schama /-sxɐmɐ/
3ʳᵈ plural masculine	-scham /-sxɐm/
3ʳᵈ singular feminine	-sche /-sxɛ/
3ʳᵈ dual feminine	-schana /-sxɐnɐ/
3ʳᵈ plural feminine	-schan /-sxɐn/

the subjunctive is formed with a prefixed les- (if the verb is consonant-initial) or let- (if the verb is vowel-initial)
A consequence to the fusional suffixes, the preterite suffixes completely merged with the present ones, so weak verbs need an auxiliary to indicate simple past, which segways us to-
===Auxiliary Verbs===
Most auxiliaries have 2 conjugations: an auxiliary conjugation & a standalone conjugation:

Sőn ("to be") Conjugations	Auxiliary	Standalone
Singular Imperative	ső /søː/	ső /søː/
Plural Imperative	sőn /søːn/	sőn /søːn/
Singular Subjunctive	ső /søː/	les-... /ɫɛs-../
Plural Subjunctive	sőn /søːn/	les-... /ɫɛs-.../
1ˢᵗ singular	ém /eːm/	émi /ˈeːmɪ/
1ˢᵗ plural	synz	synzwe /ˈsynzwɛ/
2ⁿᵈ singular	érs /eːɹs/	értha /ˈérðɐ/
2ⁿᵈ plural	synz /synz/	syngge /ˈsynʝ(ʝ)ɛ/
3ʳᵈ singular masculine	ys /ys/	ysscha /ˈyssxɐ/
3ʳᵈ dual masculine	synz /synz/	synzchama /ˈsynzxɐmɐ/
3ʳᵈ plural masculine	synz /synz/	synzcham /ˈsynzxɐm/
3ʳᵈ singular feminine	ys /ys/	yssche /ˈyssxɛ/
3ʳᵈ dual feminine	synz /synz/	synzchana /ˈsynzxɐnɐ/
3ʳᵈ plural feminine	synz /synz/	synzchan /ˈsynzxɐn/

There are 4 tense-related auxiliaries: Wesan (past auxiliary, "was"), Sőn (participle auxiliary, "be"), Bín (participle auxiliary, "be"), and Víden (future auxiliary, "will"):

Auxiliary Declensions	Wesan ↓	Sőn ↓	Bín ↓	Víden ↓
1ˢᵗ singular	wes /wes/	ém /eːm/	bí /biː/	va̋ /væː/
2ⁿᵈ singular	wir /wiɹ/	érs /eːɹs/	bys /bys/	vés /veːs/
3ʳᵈ singular	wes /wes/	ys /ys/	byth /byθ/	véth /veːθ/
dual/plural	wiran /ˈwiɹɐn/	synz /synz/	bíth /biːθ/	va̋th /væːθ/
Singular Imperative	wes /wes/	ső /søː/	bí /biː/	víz /viːz/
Plural Imperative	weson /ˈwezɔn/	sőn /søːn/	bín /biːn/	vídon /ˈviːzɔn/
Singular Subjunctive	wir /wiɹ/	ső /søː/	bí /biː/	víz /viːz/
Plural Subjunctive	wiren /ˈwiɹɛn/	sőn /søːn/	bín /biːn/	víden /ˈviːzɛn/

===Stong Verbs===
Most of the strong classes remain in Gwýsene, albeit with completely unorthodox ablaut patterns. They've been resorted based on pattern that I've Grammarians have found. Strong verbs also never need the past auxiliary.

Type (Gwýsene)	Corr. Type in Old English	Present stem vowel	Past singular stem vowel	Past plural stem vowel	Past participle stem vowel
I	VII.c	é /eː/	í /iː/	í /iː/	é /eː/
II	IV	e /e/	e /e/	i /i/	a /ɑ/
III.a	I	ý /yː/	a̋ /æː/	y /y/	y /y/
III.b	III.a	y /y/	ä /æ/	o /o/	o /o/
IV.a	II.a	í /iː/	í /iː/	o /o/	a /ɑ/
IV.b	II.b	a/á /ɑ(ː)/	í /iː/	o /o/	a /ɑ/
IV.c	III.b	é /eː/	é /eː/	o /o/	a /ɑ/
V.a	VI	ä /æ/	á /ɑː/	á /ɑː/	ä /æ/
V.b	VII.a	a̋ /æː/	i /i/	i /i/	a̋ /æː/
V.c	VII.e	á /ɑː/	í /iː/	í /iː/	á /ɑː/

=TRANSLATIONS=

==NUMBERS==

Number	Cardinal	Ordinal	Adverbial	Multiplier
1	A̋n /æːn/	Föress /ˈføɹɛss/	Mer /meɹ/	A̋nfélz /ˈæːnˌveːɫz/
2	Twin /twin/	Áther /ˈɑːðɛɹ/	Merdén /mɛɹˈdeːn/	Twýfélz /ˈtyːˌveːɫz/
3	Thrý /θɾyː/	Thryzz /ˈθɾyzz/	Thrémra̋s /ˌθɾeːˈmɾæːs/	Thryfélz /ˈθɾyˌveːɫz/
4	Fíwar /ˈfiːwɐɹ/	Fíradh /ˈfiːɹɐð/	Fírmra̋s /ˌfiːɹˈmɾæːs/	Fíwarfélz /ˈfiːwɐɹˌveːɫz/
5	Fýf /fyːf/	Fýfedh /ˈfyːvɛð/	Fýfmra̋s /ˌfyːvˈmɾæːs/	Fýffélz /ˈfyːfˌfeːɫz/
6	Sysj /syʃ/	Sysjedh /ˈsyʃɛð/	Sysmra̋s /ˌsysˈmɾæːs/	Sysjfélz /ˈsyʃˌfeːɫz/
7	Sévan /ˈseːvɐn/	Sévadh /ˈseːvɐð/	Sévmra̋s /ˌseːvˈmɾæːs/	Sévanfélz /ˈseːvɐnˌveːɫz/
8	Éht /eːçt/	Éhtadh /ˈeːçtɐð/	Éhmra̋s /ˈeːçˈmɾæːs/	Éhtafélz /ˈeːçtɐˌveːɫz/
9	Nygan /ˈnyʝɐn/	Nygadh /ˈnyʝɐð/	Nygamra̋s /ˌnyʝɐˈmɾæːs/	Nyganfélz /ˈnyʝɐnˌveːɫz/
10	Tőn /tøːn/	Tődh /ˈtøːð/	Tőmra̋s /ˌtøːˈmɾæːs/	Tőnfélz /ˈtøːnˌveːɫz/

==THE COLD WINTER IS NEAR==
‎‫بېث نيٓھ ثِوېٓنتِر ڝِٓلز، پِٓث ڝۊٓمسخى ستارم سنِوى. ڝۊم وِثنَن خُٓمسمين وِٓرم، برآثَرمين. سَلٓم! ڝۊم ھېذ، سېځّ ءَنز شّيٓڧ، ڧرِس ءَنز درېھّ. بېثِّس خُطَّمين. ھِپّسوى وِتِر، ءَنز زۊٓثِن، ءَنز مِٓلخ، بېثِّس ڧِرش ءُٓسڧرى ثِکآ. ءوٓ، ءَنز براث وِٓرم!‬
Byth ních thʼwýnter tjélz, véth tjőmscha starm snewe. Tjöm withnän¹ chósmin wérm, bráthärmin². Säläm³! Tjöm hydh, sygg ænz ssjíf⁴ ⁶, fres⁵ änz dryhh⁶. Bytthes⁷ chottämin⁸. Hevvswe weter, änz zőthen⁹, änz mélch, býtthes fersj ósfrä¹⁰ thʼká. Ó, änz brath!
be.3.ꜱɢ.ᴘʀᴇꜱ near ᴅꜰ-winter cold , ꜰᴜᴛ.3.ꜱɢ come-3.ꜱɢ.ᴍᴀꜱᴄ storm snowy . come.ɪᴍᴘ.ꜱɢ in house-1.ꜱɢ.ɢᴇɴ.ᴄʟ warm , brother-1.ꜱɢ.ɢᴇɴ.ᴄʟ . Welcome ! come.ɪᴍᴘ.ꜱɢ hither , sing.ɪᴍᴘ.ꜱɢ and dance.ɪᴍᴘ.ꜱɢ , eat.ɪᴍᴘ.ꜱɢ and drink.ɪᴍᴘ.ꜱɢ . be.3.ꜱɢ.ᴘʀᴇꜱ-that plan-1.ꜱɢ.ɢᴇɴ.ᴄʟ . have-1.ᴘʟ water , and beer , and milk, be.3.ꜱɢ.ᴘʀᴇꜱ-that fresh from ᴅꜰ-cow . Oh , and soup !

/byθ niːç θə‿ˈyːnzɛɹ tʃeːɫz veːθ ˈtʃøːmsxɐ stɑɻm ˈsnewɛ/
/tʃøm wɪðˈnæn ˈxoːsˌmɪn weːɹm ˈbɾɑːðɐɹˌmɪn/
/sɐˈɫæm tʃøm çyð syʝʝ‿ɐnz ʃʃiːf fres‿ɐnz dɾyçç/
/ˈbyθθɛs ˈxottɐˌmɪn/
/ˈçevvswɛ ˈwedɛɹ ɐnz ˈzøːðɛn ɐnz meɫχ ˈbyθθɛs feɹʃ ˈoːsfrɐ θəˈkɑː/
/oː ɐnz bɾɑθ/

1. the words for “in” and “on” merged to än, which was kept for “on”.‬
2. Gwýsens tend to use “brother” as an informal form of address‬.
3. Säläm is only used by Muslim Gwysens. Christian Gwysens prefer Pastos /pɐsˈtos/ (from Ancient Greek ‬ἀσπαστός).
4. comes from Old English hlēapan.
5. comes from old English fretan.
6. Drykken & Ssjípan are within a class of verbs that have a differing imperative stems than the usual inflected stems due to sound changes. In this case the usual stems are Drykk- & Ssjíp-, while the imperatives are Dryhh & Ssjíf. In the central and Low Northern dialects this particular /k/ => /ç/ is not present, and the imperative stem is also Drykk.
7. contracted from of Byth thäs (“that is”)‬.
8. from Arabic خُطَّة.
9. from Latin zȳthum.
10. contraction of old English ūt fra (“out of”).

Another question, is it a sin to buy nice clothes sometimes? I always feel guilty though I try to by only when I need something or at least try to think about it first.

Part 14.3

Heracles VS Lernaean Hydra

Author Note: I was thinking about it and I really wish that GT9 used more draconic symbolism throughout the story when (or if) I revisit Team Crowley VS Rosencreutz I'll have symbolism of Aleister (TheBeast666), Aiwass (Codename: DRAGON) and Coronzon (The Dragon of the Abyss) all have symbology of them being Dragons preying on a God/Hero like CRC and the reversed conflict of Chaos VS Order you see in mythology, I also wanted to achieve something similar with Kakine Teitoku as he can represent the Fallen Angel and the Seraphim but for now I'll try adding draconian symbolism into Gunha VS CRC.
True Expert Christian Rosencreutz, with his golden rosy cross sword, clashed relentlessly against the indomitable force of the Strongest Gemstone, Sogiita Gunha. With each clash of their powers, the air crackled and compressed, and the pavement trembled beneath.
CRC, observed Sogiita with a mixture of intrigue and disdain. "You fight like the legendary Heracles," he remarked, his voice carrying over the din of battle. "But know this, I am the Lernaean Hydra, and no matter how many heads you sever, I shall always rise again!" Rosencreutz roared to slice the #7’s midsection.
Sogiita, his entire body wreathed in unknowable energy, met CRC's blade unyielding. "Bring it on, old man!" he retorted, his voice brimming with confidence. "I'll knock you down as many times as it takes! I won't stop till you come to your senses and remember your roots, like the roses you love so much, Rosencreutz!!"
Their clash intensified, that old man’s higher dimensional sword colliding with the raw power of that boy’s fists and kicks as they pushed each other to their limits with each sword swing, punch, kick and flash.
Sogiita unleashed a barrage of punches, each strike carrying the force of a meteor, while that silver young man countered: he wielded his sword in his right hand and released impacts followed by white light that was enough to previously take down all of The Bridge Builders Cabal.
As the battle raged on, the very fabric of reality seemed to warp and shift around them, bearing witness to the titanic struggle between two unparalleled forces.
The founder of Rosicrucianism who intimidated reality itself to obey his will and that Gemstone with an unstable personal reality that could change on a whim.
The atmosphere crackled with electrifying distortion.
Sogiita's fists tore through the air with the ferocity of meteors, their velocity enhanced by his ability to adapt and accelerate, surpassing even CRC's speed. As each blow was released, the friction with the surrounding air molecules ignited a scorching heat, intensifying the impact.
The rapid movement of molecules generated an escalating thermal energy, causing the air to seethe with increasing temperature. It was akin to a tempest of incandescent projectiles hurtling towards CRC, their speed surpassing the limits of human perception.
It was like a storm of brilliant fiery arrows was fired at Rosencreutz.
These blazing arrows of force were reminiscent of the elusive strikes employed by the Rose & Cross Leader, ignoring distance with deceptive agility.
With each thunderous punch, that bandana boy sought to overpower his adversary through sheer kinetic force, his unwavering resolve palpable in every motion.
But that wasn't enough for this superhuman.
CRC, wielding his cross sword with precision and skill, deflected each and every one Sogiita's flaming arrows with calculated strikes of his own. Each impact unleashed a burst of blinding white light, sending shockwaves rippling through the chaotic city.
"You think brute strength alone will defeat me?" the silver man taunted, his voice cutting through the chaos of battle. "You may be strong, but strength without strategy is nothing but raw power wasted."
Sogiita grinned, his confidence unshaken. "Strategies for cowards who can't handle a real fight," he retorted, his voice ringing with defiance. "I'll K.O. you with my fists and guts alone!!!!"
Rosencreutz's eyes narrowed as he parried another of Sogiita's punches. "Your arrogance will be your downfall," he warned, his tone tinged with certainty. "I may not match your overall speed, but I have something you lack: intellect and precision.”
Christian Rosencreutz then plunged his cross sword into the ground.
"This is what harmed Kamijou Touma," he declared, grinning and unleashing a torrent of lethal invisible attacks from his outstretched palms.
However, the #7 countered with a relentless barrage of flaming arrows from the thermal aftershock of his punches.
Each strike akin to a particle accelerator in its intensity and speed. That Gemstone was the particles being fired on the right and that True Expert was the particles fired on the left.
As the attacks clashed, the battlefield became a spectacle of raw power and precision.
“Roar!” CRC held his open palm to his mouth and blew gently on the tip of the middle finger.
That was all it took for a blaze easily outdoing a flamethrower to rush out. And this was not just any fire. It fed on the power of a ley line and stole vitality from space itself. This overwhelming mass of light and heat was wielded for no other purpose than to take lives. Anyone who tried to survive it using simple composite armor or special fibers would dry up and burn away in less than a second.
But that wouldn't kill another superhuman would it?
Of course not.
“Aaaaarghhhh!!!!” screamed the #7.
Some assaults bypassed the fray entirely, slipping through the chaos like elusive particles in a collider.
A smokescreen.
Those brilliant fireworks from hell weren't meant to take Sogiita’s life. They were meant to disrupt the Gemstone's senses and sight so he couldn't counter all of that old man’s deadly attacks.
Invisible strikes found their mark on that Gemstone, and the searing arrows of the arrows scorched Rosencreutz.
CRC was wounded but he rejected to make any whimpers. Instead with a sudden burst of velocity, the young silver man picked up his cross sword from the ground and launched a flurry of strikes, cutting at the #7’s body with pinpoint accuracy.
His arms, his head, his face, his stomach, his legs, his midsection, his back.
Each blow landed with devastating force, causing Sogiita to stagger back under the onslaught.
If that bandana boy hadn't had his defenses and general stats raised by the #5 he’d be cut to pieces.
The #7 fell on his back.
"There's a fire," Sogiita declared, his voice ringing out amidst the chaos of battle.
With each attempt to break his spirit, Sogiita's resolve only grew stronger, fueling the flames of his determination. "Every time someone tries to make me give up, it's like wind feeding my flames, making them burn even brighter just like my punches," he explained, his words carrying the weight of his unwavering determination.
He refused to stay down.
With a roar of defiance, Sogiita surged forward once more, his movements blurring with speed as he disappeared from view. In the blink of an eye, he reappeared behind Christian Rosencreutz, catching the magician off guard.
"Hey, old man," Sogiita taunted, his voice filled with confidence as he seized Rosencreutz from behind.
Christian Rosencreutz's eyes widened in surprise as he realized he had been outmaneuvered.
As Sogiita Gunha faced off against Christian Rosencreutz in their airborne duel, he felt the flames of determination burning within him, driving him forward with unstoppable force.
Before he could react, the boy lifted him effortlessly and slammed him onto the pavement below with a resounding thud.
"I'm not just a kick-boxer!!" Sogiita sang.
As the impact reverberated through the air, the young silver man let out a pained cry. The force of the collision compressed the surrounding air, heating it up until it crackled with energy. Christian Rosencreutz's head struck the ground with a velocity equivalent to mach 20, igniting his body in flames upon impact.
This move is called a suplex.
Struggling to regain his bearings, Rosencreutz muttered in a daze, "The House of the Holy Spirit...the seven walls..."
"You said it yourself, didn't you?" the gutsy boy retorted, cocky. "My power and my guts can break through your impenetrable walls. And I can spread those same guts to the world around me."
With a grimace, Christian Rosencreutz acknowledged the truth of the boy's words. "Your uncontrolled AIM field grants you the ability to imbue non-organic objects with the properties of your virus," he observed, his voice tinged with begrudging admiration. "Allowing them to bypass even the defenses of the seven-walled tomb.”
"A virus? Don't be so gutless, CRC," the #7 retorted, his voice filled with defiance. "This battleground ruled by wills is a two-way road between you and me."
Christian Rosencreutz raised an eyebrow at the boy's words. "Hey Gemstone, you could've killed me if I weren't a superhuman with an idealized body that accomplished The Great Work and crossed the Ungrund, what then short-stack?" he questioned while fitting an insult against his height.
Even without the seven-walled tomb or sheets of diamonds Rosencreutz was cartoonishly durable.
"Sorry, old man," Sogiita replied, his tone tinged with annoyance. "I might've gotten carried away, but I know it'll take more than that to kill you. No matter how many heads you regrow, like Hydra, I will not give up until I've completed all my labors."
"Mhm, so you do know your mythology," CRC remarked, a hint of amusement in his voice. "The Lernaean Hydra, or simply Hydra, is a serpentine lake monster in Greek and Roman mythology. Its lair was the lake of Lerna in the Argolid, known as an entrance to the Underworld. In the canonical myth, the monster is slain by Heracles as part of his Twelve Labors."
"Yeah, I know," Sogiita replied confidently. "I studied the tales of great gutsy heroes in school.”
"So, short-stack," Christian Rosencreutz began, his voice carrying a hint of scholarly interest. “Have you ever considered the parallels between our battle and ancient Near Eastern religions?”
Sogiita listened intently. "Are you saying you see yourself as a god of war or a hunter?" he inquired.
CRC chuckled softly. "In a sense, indeed. We are both assuming roles in this grand theater, are we not? I, the Hydra, and you, Heracles."
He continued, "Consider the Second Labor of Heracles. Eurystheus, the king of Tiryns, sent Heracles to slay the Hydra, which Hera had raised specifically to defeat him. Heracles approached the swamp near Lake Lerna, where the Hydra dwelled. To protect himself from the poisonous fumes, he covered his mouth and nose with a cloth and shot flaming arrows into the Hydra's lair, causing it to emerge and terrorize the surrounding villages."
CRC paused, drawing a comparison. “In our own clash, the flaming arrows that Heracles hurled at the Hydra find their echo in your lightning-fast fists, generating shockwaves that ignite the air with their speed and force. It's as though each strike of yours is akin to shooting a flaming arrow, much like Heracles did.”
“Huh? Are you suggesting we're caught in a time loop? That some enigmatic group, like the Bridge Builders Cabal, manipulated events to resurrect you, pitting us against each other in a timeless struggle? I've never met them, and I'm certainly no child of Zeus. Are you implying that our battle will be distorted into a Greek legend by a meddling time traveler?!” frantically asked the boy.
“No, no, you simpleton. This world contains synchronicities. In Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian mythology, the war and hunting god Ninurta was celebrated for his deeds. The Angim credited him with slaying eleven monsters during an expedition to the mountains, including a seven-headed serpent, possibly identical to the Mushmahhu, and Bashmu, whose constellation was later associated with the Hydra by the Greeks. In Babylonian contexts, the Hydra's constellation is also linked to Marduk's dragon, the Mushhushshu.”
“Uhhh….” That shounen boy was dumbfounded.
"Hhm, I suppose calling it a time loop isn't technically wrong," Christian Rosencreutz began, his tone measured. "I'll break it down from history class and reconstruct it through the lens of the occult. Historic recurrence, young Gemstone, is the phenomenon of events echoing throughout time. Whether it's the rise and fall of empires or the repetitive cycles within a single society, it's all part of this grand plan that was decided when Adam ate the forbidden fruit."
The #7 with his guard up but curious listened: "So, history just keeps repeating itself? Just a series of coincidences?"
Christian Rosencreutz shook his head sagely. "There is no such thing as coincidences. Take, for instance, the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, pondered upon by thinkers like Heinrich Heine and Friedrich Nietzsche. While it's said that 'history repeats itself,' it's not quite that simple. Rather, these recurrences stem from identifiable circumstances and chains of causality."
He continued, his voice carrying the weight of centuries of philosophical debate. "Consider the phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries in science or the reproducible findings in natural and social sciences. These recurrences, whether in the form of rigorous experimentation or comparative research, are vital to our understanding of the world."
Christian Rosencreutz paused, allowing the weight of his words to sink in. "G.W. Trompf, in his seminal work, The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought, illustrates the recurring patterns of political thought and behavior since ancient times. Through these patterns, history offers us invaluable lessons, often leading to a sense of resonance or déjà vu."
Their words reverberated like a challenge to destiny itself, a testament to their unyielding determination in the face of adversity.
That Gemstone didn't surrender his characteristic fervor. "History echoing through time, huh? It's like the universe itself is stuck on repeat, and we're just caught in the cycle. But you know what? If history's gonna keep looping, then let's break the pattern! Let's smash through those chains of causality and forge our own path. Who cares about déjà vu? We'll create something entirely new, something that'll shake the very foundations of this world and we’ll do it with guts!!!" He defied that silver monster.
But Rosencreutz wasn't finished. He pulled out his Crystal World Map.
The supposedly old man listened intently to that boy's impassioned response, his expression inscrutable behind his clairvoyant card. After a moment of contemplation, he spoke.
“Gemstone, you speak of breaking free from the chains of repetition, of forging a new destiny against the backdrop of eternal return. It is a noble aspiration, indeed. However, consider this: eternal return is not merely a philosophical concept or a whimsical notion of fate. It is the very fabric of existence, woven into the nature of time itself.” He pressed his finger on the Miniature Garden and a 3D holographic projection flew out—
“In ancient times, the Stoics grappled with the idea, seeing in it both a sense of cosmic order and a challenge to individual agency. Augustine and others recoiled from its implications, fearing it as a negation of free will and salvation. And yet, Nietzsche, in his brilliance, dared to confront the concept anew, exploring its depths in the crucible of human consciousness.”
Didn't Aleister Crowley say that he had to shatter every single phase in order to eliminate the concept of fate?
“I will shatter every last phase and put an end to all mysticism. It can be helped and we need not restrain our tears and bite our lip when faced with tragedy. I will bring back the pure world in which everyone can feel anger like normal and question it all like normal!!”
And didn't Coronzon appear to break down all the phases including the Pure World?
Partial destruction would be meaningless. If anything remains and an eternal distortion is born from that, then it will all happen again. I will eliminate the ten spheres, the twenty-two pathways, and the hidden eleventh symbol. Collisions between phases? Sparks and spray? You cannot save anyone if you only treat those symptoms. All of the fundamental clogs must be removed. All so we can pass the baton to whoever comes next.”
“Sparks and Sprays…” Rosencreutz muttered.
“Eh?” The #7 didn't quite hear him.
"Beside time stands fate, cruelty's steadfast herald. In the silent chambers of the soul, whispers the most profound wisdom. Humanity, in its folly, neglected to exalt life's splendor, its radiance, its grandeur. Truly, it is a rare gift to comprehend the forces that shape our existence.” That magician spoke in despair.
“From the moment man ate the fruit of knowledge, he guaranteed your species’ failure... Entrusting his future to the whims of fate, man clutches to a flickering hope. Yet, within the Miniature Garden lies the key to all revelation. Beyond the well-trodden path lies the ultimate terminus. It matters not who you are; Death is the sole certainty awaiting all.” he finished with scorn.
Shokuhou Misaki was currently linked to Sogiita Gunha so was overhearing the entire conversation.
“Are you okay, Leader?” asked Kamijou back at the hospital.
“Yeah…” she responded.
“Really?” Mikoto breathed a white sigh. “It wasn’t the shock of seeing their school destroyed. Nor was it the fear of having those rioters attack. …They’re afraid of their own power. And after learning how exactly to use that power to survive, they’re not sure they can just switch it off and return to their normal lives. So their gears have ground to a halt.” Tokiwadai Middle School was a prestigious esper development school.
The young ladies registered there were Level 3 at the lowest and Level 5 at the highest.
Almost all of the students had a power that surpassed that of a blade or handgun if used properly, but something had become twisted.
Yes.
“A lot of them weren’t really sure why they were training their powers.”
Shokuhou breathed a white breath, wrapped her own arms around herself, and rubbed her thighs together.
Why are you studying?
How many people could give a proper answer to that question? Because my parents told me to, because my teachers taught me to, because that’s how the world works. Those would be most people’s answers. Even the students with a clear vision of their future would only have something vague like “for the entrance exams” or “for my future”.
Only a small handful would have specific puzzle pieces in mind, such as “I need to learn how to use this equation so I can build a rocket”.
The young ladies of Tokiwadai Middle School were the same.
What if the very gears that humans have…their actions, reactions, inactions were all the result of some transcendental entity hovering above.
Like God or The Devil watching over humanity’s reality sphere and ordering around his system like everyone was a pre-programmed NPC that had specific events occur to them to get them to develop in the way that they did and determined their genetic bloodline that composed their psyche?
Is there truly a free will?
It was said that in order for you to break out of the system of society that the working class was stuck in you had to climb to the top where the corrupt elites resided.
Imagine Breaker negated sparks, Aleister Crowley could see through the veil thanks to Holy Guardian Angel Aiwass, Great Demon Coronzon could always see the cogs.
Christian Rosencreutz could view the entire world through his Miniature Garden.
The rest of humanity was at the mercy of their own destinies.
A Guardian Angel wouldn't arrive to save a parent’s child from fate every single time.
"Okay, nice poetry, can we get back to fighting already?" asked the #7 impatiently.
"Seems I got carried away," the old man conceded with a nod. "The synchronicities of this world, akin to the astral configurations in astrology, serve as an example of synchronicity, according to Jung. It describes circumstances that appear meaningfully related yet lack a causal connection, much like the parallel relationship between celestial and terrestrial phenomena. Synchronicity experiences entail subjective encounters where coincidences between events in one's mind and the external world may lack a clear causal link but still harbor an unknown connection.”
"Ah," Sogiita chimed in, recalling his philosophy class discussions. "We talked about synchronicity back then. Jung thought it was a good thing for the mind, but said it could get dicey in psychosis. He cooked up this theory as a kind of mental link between those meaningful coincidences, calling it a noncausal principle. This term came about in the late 1920s, and then he teamed up with physicist Wolfgang Pauli to dive deeper. Their work, The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche, dropped in 1952. They were big on this idea that these connections, even the ones that don't seem to have a cause, could still teach us a lot about how our minds and the world work."
“Mhm, you know more than you lead on, Gemstone.” pondered CRC.
“Oh this? My teachers say I'm not good at remembering speeches hahaha…” The #7 looked slightly nervous. “You know, analytical psychologists really push for folks to get what these experiences mean to boost their awareness instead of just feeding into superstitions. But funny thing is, when clients spill about their synchronicity experiences, they often feel like no one's really hearing them out, or getting where they're coming from. And hey, having a bunch of these meaningful coincidences flying around can sometimes ring the schizo bell. Delusions aren't healthy.”
Where was this conversation going?
"Delusion! Hah! That's a good one coming from you," CRC fired back.
"The real delusion is thinking humanity isn't worth a damn," Sogiita shot back, pulling out some info from Johansen and Osman. "Some scientists think coincidences are just random flukes, but counselors and psychoanalysts reckon there's more to it, like some deep-down stuff needing to come out.”
"Delusion! Hah! That's a good one coming from you," CRC fired back.
"The real delusion is thinking humanity isn't worth a darn," Sogiita shot back, pulling out some info from Johansen and Osman. "Some scientists think coincidences are just random flukes, but counselors and psychoanalysts reckon there's more to it, like some deep-down stuff needing to come out. Unconscious material to be expressed."
Rosencreutz interjected, his expression reflecting a mix of confusion and concern. "Aleister Crowley's actions have left a lasting scar on this world and this city," he began, his voice weighted with solemnity. “The vacuum-like dichotomy between magic and science created by the use of that colossal psychotronic weapon, has damaged this world's memory irreparably.”
Psychotronic weapon?
The Archetype Controller?
He paused, his gaze piercing as he continued, "Jung's exploration of synchronicity as evidence of the paranormal paved the way for further inquiry, notably by Koestler and the subsequent embrace of these ideas by the New Age movement.”
Sogiita shrugged, "Some folks say synchronicity is impossible to test or prove, so it gets labeled as pseudoscience. Jung even acknowledged that these synchronicity events are basically just coincidences, statistically speaking. But hey, who's to say what's really going on without some solid scientific studies, right?"
"Dubious as his experiments may have been," CRC interrupted, "Jung believed in a connection between synchronicity and the paranormal, drawing parallels to the uncertainty principle and works by parapsychologist Joseph B. Rhine.” CRC posed a thought-provoking question, "How are we to recognize acausal combinations of events, since it is obviously impossible to examine all chance happenings for their causality? The answer lies in the fact that acausal events are most readily expected where a causal connection appears inconceivable upon closer reflection. It's impossible, with our current resources, to explain ESP or meaningful coincidences as mere phenomena of energy. This challenges the very notion of cause and effect, as these events occur simultaneously rather than in a linear cause-and-effect manner. Hence, I have coined the term 'synchronicity' to describe this phenomenon, placing it on equal footing with causality as a principle of explanation."
Getting closer to that Gemstone, CRC emphasized, "Esper abilities cannot be fully understood with science alone. They defy traditional cause-and-effect explanations, instead representing a convergence of factors that create a quantum phenomenon affecting both the micro and macro. Why were there the naturally gifted and the naturally ungifted?”
Why did some students get praised for their abilities while others needed to work harder?
Others among them would have worked every hour of their free time and not progressed anywhere in this city’s leveling curriculum.
Why did this city present such an unfair and unpredictable status quo of potential?
Why did hard work barely matter in a city of empirical evidence to record any possible progress?
Sogiita Gunha wasn't a normal Level 5 but he wasn't always this powerful. He went through the curriculum same as everyone but if the outside conditions for his Gemstone ability to manifest didn't form in the exact way that it did, in such an acausal form then would he even be here to challenge Christian Rosencreutz right now?
Everything just happened to fall right into place.
All those puzzle pieces that would lead to this moment here and now.
Was it all just talent? God picking a fool as his champion?
The #7 leaned back, absorbing CRC's words with a thoughtful expression. "So, what you're saying is, there's this whole other layer to reality that we can't quite wrap our heads around," he summarized, nodding slowly. "I mean, it's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands—slippery and elusive."
He chuckled, shaking his head slightly. "Historic recurrence, synchronicities, all these things—they're like pieces of a puzzle scattered across this substantial reality. And sometimes, they just... click into place, right? It's like the universe has its own plan, and we're just along for the ride."
That bandana wearing boy's gaze drifted, lost in thought. "You know, CRC, it's funny," he remarked, a wry smile playing on his lips. "Here we are, with all our powers and potential, but at the end of the day, we're still grappling with the same questions as everyone else. Talent, destiny, divine intervention—maybe they're all just different sides of the same coin."
He shrugged, the weight of the philosophical musings settling over the broken city. "Who knows? Maybe God does have a sense of humor, after all.” that boy chuckled.
There was a deep silence between them.
Rosencreutz’ response was swift and resolute, his tone filled with certainty. "All this ‘universe has a plan’ banter is just a distraction from the inevitable," he declared, his eyes narrowing. "We can debate the nature of us being all-powerful yet struggling with mortal issues until the sun burns out, but it won't change the fact that our fate was sealed upon the knowledge Adam learned."
“To think so many trivialities have developed while this old man wasn’t watching. Heh heh. Then I should assume the thread of fate has again begun to weave its strange connections between myself and some unknown human.”
He rose forward, his movements purposeful. "It's time to put an end to this dance of platitudes," CRC continued, his voice cold and unwavering. "We'll settle this the only way that somewhat matters—through objective action in this grand play."
“Silence, preserved doll. Illusionists are meant to remain silent. That is all we magicians are: wielders of substanceless illusions. Opening your mouth serves only to break the illusion.”
With a flicker of resolve in his eyes, he locked gazes with the #7. "I am Hydra, Gemstone," he said, his voice carrying a hint of challenge. "Our battle ends now.” CRC opened both his palms and began shooting at their surroundings, the buildings, the pavement, the apartments, the rubble.
It probably wasn't random as it seemed to create a pattern.
“Huh are you getting senile old man?” asked the young Gemstone.
“What fun. I never imagined someone would bother diligently polishing their skills this far while knowing it is all essentially an illusion. Didn’t you ever feel silly going to the effort?”
Rosencreutz dropped to all fours, his rosy cross sword gripped tightly in his right hand.
He moved—
“Arrgh!” Sogiita yelled amidst the relentless and precise and precise strikes from that golden cross. “Old man?” he asked.
That magician didn't say anything.
That silver man’s movements became more beastly.
Faster.
Stronger.
Fiercer.
Something new was beginning to manifest.
With each strike of his higher dimensional blade that old man’s blows seemed infused with an otherworldly energy.
The wounds inflicted by his weapon burned with a venomous intensity, sending searing pain coursing through Sogiita's body.
That boy grimaced as the poison from that silver man’s strikes surged through his being, each wound feeling like it was ablaze with venomous fire.
"Damn... That burns…like a killer hornet’s sting," he muttered through clenched teeth, his voice strained with effort. Gritting, he fought to maintain his focus, despite the agony threatening to overwhelm him.
Was this another application of The Four Stages? Citrinitas? No, there was nothing yellow here, it was more like a dirty purple.
But it wasn't just the physical damage that posed a threat.
As the Rosy Cross leader leaped on all fours his movements took on an almost erratic quality, he was bouncing from one building to another with an animalistic agility.
With each jump, a shockwave rippled through the air, carrying with it a palpable sense of dread.
Something was spreading.
The air around them seemed to thicken with a toxic miasma. The #7 struggled to breathe, the noxious fumes clouding his senses.
Like a chaotic monster’s venomous poison breath.
The once-clear air now felt thick and suffocating.
Gasping for breath, the bandana boy struggled to maintain his focus amidst the swirling chaos.
His vision blurred, his movements sluggish as he fought against the oppressive atmosphere.
Blinded that heroic boy could only fire a flame arrow without his sight.
His fists striking out with all the strength he could muster. Igniting in that poisonous compressed air.
It seemed to be flammable like a dragon’s breath.
???
At the hospital, Shokuhou's voice carried a mix of surprise and relief. “He caused real damage.” she exclaimed.
Kamijou turned his attention to her, intrigued. “What happened?”
“It's hard to see clearly, but it looks like the #7 managed to rip off CRC's left arm,” she explained. “Though, I'd say it was more of a lucky shot. I can read he acted on pure instinct.”
Kamijou nodded, a hint of melancholy in his tone. “Yeah... the psychic link and all.”
Had the #7 Level 5 given up on the old man?
Back on the battlefield, Sogiita cursed under his breath. “Dammit... Sorry, old man,” he muttered. “I was aiming to hit your whole body to maximize the surface area, maybe break a few bones as a casualty. We can probably get your arm reattached at the hospital. Heaven Canceller has enough guts to even fix me.”
It was clear—he hadn't given up.
It was an accidental strike of his arm.
“As each ghastly head was severed from its serpentine form, dreadfully, two more writhed forth from the abyss.” a cryptic voice amidst the chaos spoke.
Wasn't it said that the Hydra’s lair was the lake of Lerna in the Argolid.
Lerna was reputed to be an entrance to the Underworld.
The abyss.
The Ungrund.
There is no limit to the depth of the Alcyonian Lake, and I know of nobody who by any contrivance has been able to reach the bottom of it since not even Nero, who had ropes made several stades long and fastened them together, tying lead to them, and omitting nothing that might help his experiment, was able to discover any limit to its depth. This, too, I heard. The water of the lake is, to all appearance, calm and quiet but, although it is such to look at, every swimmer who ventures to cross it is dragged down, sucked into the depths, and swept away.
The keeper of the gate to the Underworld that lay in the waters of Lerna was the Hydra.
The serpentine Lake Monster.
“Rosencreutz……?” The #7 muttered.
That magician chuckled ominously. "Indeed, young Heracles," he intoned, his voice echoing with a bizarre resonance. “The Lernaean Hydra's curse is upon you now.” as he said that he ripped off a bit of his arm that was cuterarised and it began bleeding.
Anna Sprengel’s blood was said to create unknown miracles when spilled.
Christian Rosencreutz’ blood was so virulent that even its scent was deadly.
As Sogiita Gunha glanced at his severed arm lying on the ground, a creeping sense of horror enveloped him. "All fate is a curse and that curse," he murmured, his words barely audible over the din of battle, "extends even to my severed limb.”
Christian Rosencreutz’ left arm grew back.
No.
Two new arms grew in its place.
The arm was fully functioning with no defects.
Although one of the arms appeared somewhat scaly and lanky like a serpent.
It had human anatomy but something was abnormal here.
He almost looked like a spider as he emerged from the poisonous fog as he remained on all fours.
“So short-stack. Are you ready to complete your final labor: Crossing the abyss!!!” He challenged that boy with his cross sword facing him.
"Boss, what's up? You look kinda stuck," Kamijou asked, his tone concerned.
Two students were sitting together in the waiting room at a hospital.
"—abyss, Hydra, curse, synchronicities, Historic recurrence." she replied, her words carrying a weight of unease.
"Huh? What? Can you give me the lowdown?" Kamijou prodded, his urgency evident.
"Can't quite wrap my head around it. But what I can tell you is that after CRC started talking about these esoteric concepts, he leveled up his power ability, managed to seriously hurt the #7 despite me cranking up all his stats for the win condition," the honey-blonde girl explained, frustration creeping into her voice.
"Can you beam all that stuff into my head, like a memory download? You're a psychological esper, right? My right hand won't mess with it, and we've done the telepathy thing before," Kamijou suggested.
"Memory download's not quite it, but I can send you a recording," she clarified.
"Got it," Kamijou muttered as he absorbed the info.
"You got any ideas to help the #7’s situation ability, Kamijou-san? We're kinda desperate here," she asked.
"I wish Index was still here, dammit.” he lamented, “But you know about magic, right?" he queried.
"Yeah, people converting their delusions into reality right?," she admitted.
"Well, magic's not just about delusions; it can be tied up to the whole world. Not sure if it's relevant, but based on Idol Theory, Rosencreutz might be pulling in 'energy’ from the Greek 'phase’ of Heracles for an edge," Kamijou theorized.
"Like a chessboard flip?" Shokuhou Misaki inquired, her brow furrowed with concern.
"No, more like... imagine you're playing checkers with a buddy, and you're totally crushing it because you're a checkers pro. Then suddenly, your buddy switches it up and challenges you to an arm wrestling match, and you lose because, well, arm wrestling isn't your forte," Kamijou Touma explained, trying to paint a vivid picture.
"So, by taking on the role of the Hydra from Greek myth, he's essentially forcing the #7 into the role of Heracles? But didn't Heracles defeat the Hydra?" Shokuhou sought clarification.
"Yeah, but..." Kamijou recalled the tale from the movies he'd seen. "Lichas gave Heracles a shirt soaked in the Hydra's poisonous blood from his arrows, which ends up killing him by tearing his flesh down to the bone," he elaborated.
"It was actually Nessus seeking vengeance and tricking Deianira into giving it to Heracles as a gift, delivered by Lichas without disclosing the tunic's lethal bloodstained secret from the Lernaean Hydra, but you're right," Shokuhou corrected gently. "So, Rosencreutz is harnessing the power of that legend to slowly poison the #7?"
"Not literal. I mean the poison is real but his slashes do significant harm now so it's more like shifting the paradigm in his favor…shifting his position.” The spiky-haired boy wasn't in the mood to explain Phases, “Earlier, he mentioned Sogiita spreading his 'virus' throughout the world. A virus isn't a poison in the traditional sense, but the Rosicrucians originally sought to create a universal cure for all illnesses. Now, CRC is spreading a literal poison, positioning himself as the ultimate predator and his opponents as prey rather than his savior role, the paradigm has been shifted." Kamijou concluded, his voice tinged with gravity.
“So he’s changed the environment to get the win condition? The #7’s durability doesn't matter in the face of the world being forced to go about a certain way because of Rosencreutz stage play?” The girl asked.
“Yeah…if things keep going this way…Sogiita will….goddamnit….” The spiky haired boy swore. “I can't let someone else die after all that's happened but I feel like if I go out there I really will kill him…” he muttered that last bit while clenching his right fist that began shaking uncontrollably.
The girl’s eyes seemed confused. “What did you say?” The honey blonde middle schooler asked.
“Nothing, just mumbling to myself.” he spat out.
That boy and girl could never come to the right conclusion on their own without the aid of former Magic God Othinus by their side.
“Did you think I had challenged you with no hope of succeeding, you cesspool? The magic born on earth is bound by the directions based on the earth’s magnetic field and by the density and composition of the air which is determined by air pressure which is in turn influenced by gravity. That is inevitable when you are focused on the cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west or on the basic elements of fire, water, wind, and earth. But what you will find upon leaving the atmosphere is an unknown. Coronzon, are you sure there will be no malfunction in the magic giving you control of Avatar Lola? And before, my power was bound by the puny speck named earth which failed to become a black hole or even a sun, but once we enter outer space, just how far do you think that power will be released? I do not mind at all that I will lose the support of Academy City.”
Well the boy was half right.
“Let us test it out, you cuspidor. On one side, we have you using the planet and bound to an avatar. On the other, we have me exposed and freed from the planet. Now, who will be the star of this show?”
Christian Rosencreutz did not shoot at his surroundings for no reason.
The battlefield transformed into Rosencreutz's canvas, resembling the legendary battleground of Lerna where Heracles once clashed with the Hydra.
Yes.
He didn't unleash his powers randomly; every action was deliberate.
In the magical side of Idol Theory, mimicking an object, event, or person allowed one to tap into a fraction of its power.
And that even applied to locations that essentially worked as stage plays.
Idol Theory was so absolute that even the basic cross held a portion of the son of God’s power.
As Above, So Below.
As Below, So Above.
Macro to micro.
Micro to macro.
And the macrocosm and the microcosm are always linked.

I will offer two options here:

1. Your soul go to heaven or hell immediately after you die
2. Still expect Christ's second coming.(The end of the world and final Judgement)

And if your view is the 2nd one , then where would you go if you die before the second coming?
If you have any other idea, please comment , Thanks

Hi all,
First, this is a long post, and for that I apologize. I have a lot on my mind I’m trying to process right now. I’m also a creative writing minor, so I realize this will come across as a story.
I attend a fairly conservative college where most of the students being Christian. I myself am not religious, and due to the environment I try to keep that fact to myself so as not to be rude or disruptive. Some people do know about my lack of belief, and I’ve had mixed responses from them when they learn. Some want to convert me, others are rather nonchalant about it.
The reason I am writing is because I recently had a conversation with one of my literature professors that has left me wondering how I should respond. The conversation started after I asked him a follow up question to something he mentioned about the Bible: “That it’s the greatest story about the human condition humanity ever told.” For context, he’s been a Catholic his entire life.
My follow up question to him after class was this: “But if it’s just a story, why should we believe it, especially when there seem to be so many contradictions within it?” This tends to be my first question when someone makes a claim about the Bible, and it is born partly out of curiosity (I genuinely want to know why, as no Christian I’ve talked with has given me a good answer to it) and partly as a challenge, as I don’t want to see him wasting his life worshipping something that isn’t true. Perhaps this is not the best motivation, but it is what sparked my question.
He didn’t answer right away, but when he did this is (roughly) what he said: “My favorite story is William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury. I think it, while being fictitious, presents a deep understanding of human nature. I read it to understand the characters, and, by understanding them, hopefully learn a little bit more about myself and others in the process. Does it matter if it is true? Depends on what you mean by true. If you mean it in the sense of “this actually happened,” then you will be disappointed by a lot of literature. But if you mean it as “this reveals an important quality of human condition,” then I think it is very true.” He then chuckled and added, “Your question reminds me of a quote one of my professors told me when I was a student: ‘Everything in the Bible is true; some of it actually happened.”
This surprised me, as this is the first time I had really talked with someone who didn’t take the Bible (specifically the creation story) literally. I clarified with him to make sure I understood him correctly, and he affirmed what I said.
I probed him a bit more about that, asking if the fact that it was written by humans makes it less trustworthy. Why should we place so much faith in something that was written by mere men? I figured he would say something like “God wrote the Bible,” as that is what people I know have said.
He paused again and thought. His eventual response was this (if I recall correctly): “I have two reasons for why I believe in the Bible, one reason for believing in God, and one additional reason for why I am Catholic. The first reason for why I believe in the word of the Bible is because I think it is written by God. Unfortunately, that isn’t the most convincing reason even for myself, as why should I believe it is written by God? This leads to my second reason, which is that I simply find the story of the Bible presents to be the most beautiful and brilliant work to ever exist. I have spent years studying the intricacies of the Bible simply because I find its underlying themes and its story of human failure and promise for redemption to be gripping and compelling. Shakespeare doesn’t even come close, in my opinion. If it’s not written by God with human hands, then I don’t know what is. But this still is built upon believing that God exists, so let’s go to why I think that.
"The way I see it, faith is a natural part of human life. It is impossible to find a functional person who doesn’t trust something, and trust is one of the pillars of faith, so similar in fact that I view it as faith. If everything in the world is man-made and artificial, without divine influence, I think at the very least I would still choose to believe in the word of the Bible because I find it the most beautiful thing in the world. A large part of the reason I believe in God is because I think it is natural to have faith in something. If I am going to have faith in something no matter what, I want my faith to be in something beautiful, intellectually rigorous, and good for humanity.
“This leads into my reason for being Catholic, which is in large part it is because I think it presents the most holistic, beautiful, and practical theory for human success. Everything it teaches is geared toward human success, both individually and socially. People might disagree with what the Catholic Church defines as “human success,” but I think the Catholic Church is onto something.”
I asked him to elaborate, and he explained how the Catholic Church (if I understand correctly) places great emphasis on God’s first two commands to Adam and Eve: “Be fruitful and multiply.” “Multiply,” he explains, “sounds like what it says: make more humans.” This is not to say every male and female should hook up, but rather that we as a society should be concerned about the “continuation of our species.”
This command is to be taken hand in hand with the next one: “Be fruitful.” Making lots of babies isn’t the point--the point is to make lots of “good” humans. What does he mean by ‘good?’ “That,” he shrugs, “is where a lot of people disagree. I myself am not entirely sure how to describe ‘good’ humans, but I’ll try. I could say ‘love’ is the measure of a 'good' human, but even there people disagree with what ‘love’ is. I think love, however, is fundamentally about willing the best for the other, to the point of being willing to lay down your life for that person. An enduring society that produces those types of people is one that I would say is a good society, and I think people who take the ideals of Catholicism seriously and live them out as intended are the most likely to do that.”
I asked him about the abuse that the LGBTQ community has had to endure at the hands of Christians, and how the Catholic Church does not recognize same-sex marriage and calls those people sinners. I also asked about how denying abortion access to women is loving to them. He winces at this, and says this in reply: “A lot of people say and do terrible things in the name of Jesus and 'love.' The Catholic Church’s official teachings do not say we should be cruel to LGBTQ members or to women who have had or want an abortion. Unfortunately, people are people and people are often hypocrites, many without realizing it. When it comes to the LGBTQ community, the Catholic Church does not say ‘being homosexual is a sin,’ it says that homosexuality is a disordered desire. The ‘sin’ comes from acting on that desire, as the Catholic Church holds that all sexual acts should be reserved for the opposite sex as a unitive and potentially procreative act within the security of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. This goes back to “be fruitful and multiply:” Sex is so very pleasurable because it is extremely important for reproduction, which is what all life, in general, tries to do. Since the sexual act has been shown scientifically to significantly rewire the human brain, shouldn’t we try to be as careful as we possibly can be with it and make sure it is used for its intended purpose: to make babies? That is part of the Church’s practical reasoning for why homosexual acts (and extramarital and non-unitive sex) are not to be encouraged or endorsed by the Catholic Church.
"Many Christians, unfortunately, forget the lessons of the Gospel stories of the woman about to stoned and the woman at the well: those two woman were isolated and outcast from their homes for their sexual acts; one of them was about to be killed it. What happens to these women is intended to be viewed as unloving. Jesus, however, befriends them despite them ‘objectively’ sinning. He never endorsed their behavior, but he still treated them with respect and love. Even if people today might argue those women did nothing wrong, the point of those stories is that Jesus considered them ‘sinners’ and yet he loved and befriended them anyway. That is literally what Jesus was doing in every city he went to: Spending time with the people who were considered terrible sinners, not because he agreed with their actions but because they are human and thus deserve to be loved. I think Christians today too often forget that is the core message of the Jesus' teachings: to love one another.
“As for abortion, the Catholic Church’s position on that rests upon our emphasis on the inherent dignity of human life. The Catholic Church believes human life begins at conception. Operating under that view, abortion is murder and should thus be strongly discouraged and/or condemned. Personally, I think it should still remain a decision between a woman and her doctor, as the doctor is the only one with the medical expertise necessary to accurately say when an abortion is actually necessary to save the woman’s life. That, however, is a tragedy, and it is one the Catholic Church acknowledges is an unfortunate situation of ‘abortion is necessary to save a life that would be otherwise lost.’ Doctors need the confidence and ability to make difficult decisions without fear of being punished for it. That means there is a risk of abuse and malpractice, but that is the nature of trust.”
We were running out of time before he had to get to his next class, so I asked him one last question that was on my mind: “Can the existence of God be proved?”
He chuckled at this. “Some of my colleagues will likely disagree with me on this, but I personally don’t put a lot of stock in ‘proofs for God.’ I haven’t found one that convinces me, and I believe in God. I think they do a good job of suggesting God exists, but proving He exists? I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s possible to prove God’s existence to someone who doesn’t already believe in God. I think the most we can do is show is why belief in God is not illogical—that’s the role of apologetics. But I can’t say, with absolute certainty, that I am right. That’s part of why it is faith: We might be wrong. If we are wrong, then ‘we are of all people the most pitiable.’” (I had to look this up afterward, as he made it sound like a quote. He was quoting Paul’s letter (1 Cor:15-19) talking about what it means if Christians are wrong about their faith. It seems he was applying this quote to all people of faith who are wrong.)
He gave me an example of what he means by ‘impossible to prove:’ “Think of your paper for this class. You, hopefully, are writing about something that you think is true. You are speculating at what the author meant, at how the author thought, why the author wrote the book or scene the way he or she did, or any works or events that likely influenced the work you are studying. Can you know for certain that you are correct?”
My answer: “No. But I can find evidence for it that shows I probably am.”
His reply: “Exactly. It is the same way with God. I don’t think we can prove God definitely exists the same way you can’t prove, with 100% confidence, that your paper’s thesis is correct. I think there is a lot of evidence that suggests God does exist, but I can’t prove it. Belief in God is inductive, and therefore inherently uncertain. This is how the Catholic Church also understands “Natural Law” and “Moral Law.” We can’t really prove either of them exist, we just have a lot of evidence gathered from observing the world and humanity that we think strongly suggests a natural and moral law. Apologists are the ones in charge of showing how our teachings and beliefs on these subjects are not inconsistent and intellectually bankrupt to hold.
“One last thing, to explain what I mean by ‘lots of evidence for God’s existence.’ Imagine we were to find Van Gogh’s The Starry Night out in the woods. I can’t prove that someone painted it, but I think a strong case can be made that someone did paint it. I might go so far as to argue it is obvious. That’s how I tend to view the world and the universe: one giant painting made by God by means of scientific laws and evolution.”
At this point he had to leave for his next class. He thanked me for the conversation and asked if I was still able to make it to cigars this Friday to celebrate the end of the term. I told him yes, and that I will probably have more questions and that I hope he didn’t mind if I asked him. He said he did not mind.
So that leads me to here: I have never had a conversation with a person of faith like this before. Almost every response he had appealed to an intuition that he seemed fine with not everyone sharing. He's also the first Christian I've met who says he doesn't think God can be proved and doesn't seem bothered by that. I suppose my question for you is: What should I ask him? What should he clarify?

Doing a Gospel reading this morning, and read a versse from Matthew Ch 1 that I have read before, but today it jumped out at me:
You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.
As a Christian, I always saw this as it pertained to me - yes, I hear and see, but before I did not. But looking at the state of our society now - we read and hear peoples' views on social media - both self-identified athiests AND Christians - and we can see immediately how this pertains to EVERYONE, just as much today as it did 2000 years ago, and 2700-odd years ago in Isaiah's time. The Gospels are truly eternal!

The majority of biblical scholars accept that many books of the canonical new testament are pseudepigraphical or pseudonymous. Yet, many biblical scholars are Christian.
Christian biblical scholars that hold to the scholarly consensus, what are your personal views on scriptural "inspiration"?

I would preface this post by saying that I am not coming at this issue as someone with ill will or antagonism towards Catholicism, but as someone trying to understand Church teaching. I am also not coming at the issue from an emotionally charge point of view; I recognize there might be instances where the institution is a necessary one, even from a purely natural law or non religious perspective.
I have yet to find a satisfactory answer on the Church and its teaching on slavery. Unlike the issue of Dignitatis Humanae and religious freedom, where you could reconcile it with previous teachings, the issue of slavery seems to present a genuine change or rupture in Church teaching.
For most of the history of Christianity, the Church taught that slavery was, at least in some contexts, a lawful and acceptable practice. To the extent Popes said anything on slavery prior to Leo XIII, they merely restricted or ameliorated slavery or slave trading, not condemning the institution en toto.
John Chrysostom

And how shall slavery be able to hurt? It is not slavery itself, beloved, that hurts; but the real slavery is that of sin.

Thomas Aquinas -

Adultery, however, and inducing a slave to leave his master are properly injuries against the person; yet the latter, since a slave is his master's chattel, is referred to theft. Voluntary commutations are when a man voluntarily transfers his chattel to another person.

Pope Pius IX says -

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery

Pope Nicholas says in Dum Diversas

Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude, and to apply and appropriate realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, possessions and goods of this kind to you and your use and your successors the Kings of Portugal.

However starting with Pope Leo XIII started to condemn slavery as a whole

In the presence of so much suffering, the condition of slavery, in which a considerable part of the great human family has been sunk in squalor and affliction now for many centuries, is deeply to be deplored; for the system is one which is wholly opposed to that which was originally ordained by God and by nature. The Supreme Author of all things so decreed that man should exercise a sort of royal dominion over beasts and cattle and fish and fowl, but never that men should exercise a like dominion over their fellow men

Pope Leo XIII's teaching are codified in Vatican II in Gadium et Spes

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

This was reiterated again in 1995

The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience

So it seems to me that you have two irreconcilable teachings, one that taught slavery is sometimes lawful and another that teaches that it never is. If we are looking to an institution for guidance on moral issues, said institution should be able to speak clearly and consistently on an issue.

Divorce problem solution in india The concept of marriage is often romanticized, with many of us envisioning a lifelong partnership filled with love, laughter, and happiness. However, for many individuals, marriage can be a complex and challenging journey, often fraught with difficulties and obstacles that can lead to divorce. In India, where the institution of marriage is deeply rooted in culture and tradition, the stigma surrounding divorce can be overwhelming, making it difficult for individuals to seek help and support. Despite the challenges, divorce can be a transformative opportunity for personal growth and renewal. In this comprehensive guide, we will delve into the complex issues surrounding divorce in India, exploring the reasons behind the soaring divorce rates, the laws and regulations surrounding divorce, and most importantly, the solutions and strategies for navigating the divorce process with ease and dignity. Whether you are considering divorce or have already gone through the process, this guide will provide you with the knowledge and support you need to emerge stronger and wiser, ready to take on the next chapter of your life.

1. Understanding the concept of divorce in India

In the vast and complex landscape of Indian society, the concept of divorce is a delicate and often misunderstood topic. Despite the country’s rich cultural heritage and strong family values, the institution of marriage is not immune to challenges and conflicts. As a result, divorce has become a reality that many couples in India face, often leaving them feeling lost, confused, and uncertain about the future. Divorce problem solution in india
In India, the concept of divorce is rooted in the Hindu Marriage Act, the Indian Divorce Act, and the Special Marriage Act, which govern the procedures and grounds for divorce. While the laws governing divorce in India are complex and varied, they share a common goal of providing a framework for couples to navigate the process of separation and move forward.
In recent years, the Indian society has undergone significant changes, and the traditional notion of marriage as a lifelong commitment is no longer the only reality. The increasing number of working women, changing social norms, and the growing awareness of individual rights and freedoms have all contributed to a shift in the way people view marriage and divorce.
As a result, couples in India are seeking more flexible and practical solutions to their marital problem, often seeking to dissolve their marriage through a quick and amicable divorce. In this guide, we will delve into the complexities of divorce in India, exploring the various laws, procedures, and solutions available to couples seeking to end their marriage.

1. The reasons behind the rise in divorce rates in India

In recent years, India has witnessed a significant surge in divorce rates, leaving many to ponder the underlying causes behind this phenomenon. According to the latest statistics, the divorce rate in India has increased by a staggering 40% over the past decade, with approximately 1.5 million divorces registered annually. This trend is not only reflective of the changing societal values and norms but also a manifestation of the pressing issues that couples in India are facing.
One of the primary reasons behind the rise in divorce rates is the increasing awareness of women’s rights and the growing willingness to stand up for their entitlements. As a result, women are now more empowered to seek divorce and assert their independence, rather than meekly accepting a miserable marriage. The rise of the feminist movement has also played a significant role in this shift, as women are now more confident in their ability to navigate the complexities of divorce and build a better life for themselves. Divorce problem solution in india
Another significant factor contributing to the rise in divorce rates is the increasing acceptance of divorce as a viable solution. Gone are the days when divorce was stigmatized and viewed as a taboo subject. Today, couples are more willing to acknowledge that marriage is not always a lifelong commitment, and that sometimes, it is necessary to take a step back and re-evaluate the relationship. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining a divorce through the courts, coupled with the growing availability of counseling services, has made it easier for couples to seek help and navigate the divorce process.
Lastly, the changing nature of work and family dynamics has also contributed to the rise in divorce rates. With both partners working outside the home and the increasing pressure to balance work and family responsibilities, the traditional nuclear family structure is no longer the norm. This has led to increased stress and tension, making it more challenging for couples to maintain a harmonious relationship.
In conclusion, the rise in divorce rates in India is a complex issue with multiple underlying causes. While it is essential to acknowledge the challenges faced by couples, it is also vital to recognize the growing empowerment of women and the increasing acceptance of divorce as a viable solution. By understanding the root causes of this trend, we can work towards creating a more supportive and accepting environment for couples to navigate the challenges of marriage and build stronger, more resilient relationships.

1. The legal framework for divorce in India

The legal framework for divorce in India is a complex and multifaceted entity, shaped by the country’s rich cultural heritage and the principles of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As the second most populous country in the world, India has a unique legal system that is influenced by Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi laws, making it essential to understand the nuances of divorce laws in each community. In India, divorce is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, among others. Divorce problem solution in india
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is the most widely applicable law, and it provides for the dissolution of a marriage on grounds such as adultery, cruelty, desertion, and conversion to another religion. However, the Act also requires that the couple has been living separately for at least two years or that the couple has been unable to live together due to differences, making it a lengthy and often contentious process. Similarly, the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, applies to Christians and provides for divorce on grounds such as adultery, desertion, and conversion to another religion.
In addition to these Acts, the Indian legal system also recognizes the concept of judicial separation, which is a temporary separation granted by the court, allowing the couple to live separately while still being married. This can be a vital step in the divorce process, as it provides an opportunity for the couple to re-evaluate their relationship and work towards reconciliation.
The legal framework for divorce in India is complex and varied, and understanding the nuances of each community’s laws is crucial for navigating the divorce process successfully. As a result, it is essential to consult with a qualified lawyer who is well-versed in Indian divorce laws and can guide individuals through the legal process, ensuring that their rights are protected and their interests are represented. Divorce problem solution in india

1. Types of divorce: contested vs. uncontested

When it comes to the process of divorce, one of the most crucial decisions that couples must make is whether to opt for a contested or uncontested divorce. In India, the law provides for two primary types of divorce, each with its own set of benefits and drawbacks. A contested divorce, also known as a litigated divorce, is a process where the couple involved in the divorce dispute over various aspects of the divorce, such as property division, alimony, and child custody. This type of divorce can be a lengthy and emotionally draining process, involving multiple court appearances and mediation sessions.
On the other hand, an uncontested divorce is a more streamlined and efficient process, where the couple agrees to all the terms of the divorce, including the division of assets and liabilities, and the arrangement for child custody and support. This type of divorce is often referred to as a “mutual consent divorce” or “divorce by mutual consent.” In India, couples can opt for an uncontested divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. An uncontested divorce is generally faster and less costly than a contested divorce, as it eliminates the need for lengthy court battles and mediation sessions.
In recent years, the Indian government has taken steps to simplify the divorce process and make it more accessible to couples. For instance, the Indian government has introduced the concept of “no-fault divorce,” which allows couples to divorce without having to prove any grounds or fault. This has made it easier for couples to end their marriage amicably and move on with their lives. In this comprehensive guide, we will delve deeper into the types of divorce available in India, the process of divorce, and the legal and practical implications of each type of divorce.

1. The divorce process in India: a step-by-step guide

The divorce process in India can be a complex and daunting journey, especially for those who are navigating it for the first time. As a country with a rich cultural heritage, India’s divorce laws are deeply rooted in its ancient traditions and customs. However, in recent years, the country has undergone significant changes in its laws and regulations, making the process more accessible and less restrictive. Divorce problem solution in india
In this section, we will take you through the divorce process in India, step by step, to help you understand what to expect and how to navigate the system. From the initial filing of the petition to the final decree, we will cover every crucial aspect of the divorce process, including the different types of divorce, the role of the courts, and the various legal and procedural requirements.
With the help of expert lawyers and legal professionals, we will demystify the divorce process and provide you with a comprehensive guide to help you make informed decisions about your future. From understanding the grounds for divorce to the process of obtaining a divorce certificate, we will cover every important detail that will help you navigate the divorce process with confidence.
By the end of this section, you will have a clear understanding of the divorce process in India, including the necessary steps to take, the required documents, and the timeline for the process. With this knowledge, you will be better equipped to make decisions that are right for you and your future.
https://abdullahkhadim.com/divorce-problem-solution-in-india/

My aunt called me yesterday. I avoid talking to her as much as I can (you'll see why) but she called me and asked what's been going on.
I told her about work as well as possibly starting a new career. I told her I got a job offer and met with the owner of the facility. She asked where it is and all that. I told her about possibly moving and mentioned that a friend and I are talking about becoming roommates. Reported that we talked about that previously, but he ended up moving in with his girlfriend. However, they recently broke up, so we're back to talking about getting an apartment.
Ooooooooooh......... she didn't like that one bit. She asked about him moving in with his girlfriend and all that and I said I'd only met her a few times. Her next response, and I shit you not, was to tell me that maybe I shouldn't have much contact with him because "your friends doing stuff like that would be a bad influence on you." To reiterate, the "stuff" she is referring to is [checks notes] a couple living together. In essence, she lost her shit over my friend and his girlfriend living together. To the point of calling it a "bad influence". That's extremely normal!! Like, to the point of being fucking MUNDANE!
But, that is the evangelical brand: vilifying mundane and normal facets of society.
She subsequently told me that I should "find friends who set a better Christian example." Something I should clarify is that I'm 32 years old. She's talking to me as if I'm a child. This was completely unwarranted in every possible regard. Again, this was (in my mind) a minor but necessary detail to explain my current living plans; no big deal. But, to her, it was enough to derail the ENTIRE conversation.
I shifted focus and asked about her kids and the conversation wrapped up and hung up because what in the actual fuck?!?!
So, her definition of being a Christian is being involved in a romantic relationship but not living together.
Any atheists here romantically involved with someone but not living with them? Well, I have news for you: you're a Christian now, apparently.
I think for fundigelicals like her, it allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll comes down to image. My aunt doesn't wanna be viewed by (let's be honest) people who act like she does as "sinning".
So, yeah, I avoid talking to her as much as I can.

Introduction

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

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

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

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

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

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

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

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

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

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for Preterists

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

Sorry for the click bait title. :) I have some thoughts I'd like to share and discuss. As far as I manage to understand, Nietzsche appreciated a lot of the life affirming qualities that were manifest in the cultures of Ancient Greece, and he was critical of the Christian Life denying attributes that overpowered the European soul. Now, Nietzsche often views the Jews as the heralds of slave morality, which led to the Christian enveloping of Europe through Ancient Rome.
The thing is - as a Jew myself, I know that one of the biggest differences between Judaism and Christianity is that Judaism IS NOT life denying. Sure, Orthodox Jews believe in god and have restrictions on their way of life, but the vast majority of them celebrate life - they get married, they have children, they dance, sing, play music, drink wine in celebrations. Additionally, the old testament is FULL of wars, struggles, passions and overcoming etc. Jesus took the Jewish idea into this non opposing, non resisting, non violent ideal - but that's not part of the Jewish faith (which is why Jesus was rejected by the Jews since his time and today). Jews, rather, believe in fighting *when needed*. In outsmarting those who wish to destroy you etc.
Now, there's no denying that Judaism and any religious ideal is rejected by Nietzsche's idea of the superman and the creation of personal values, so at the end of the day N would view any religion as a collective force to be overcome, but I do believe that in terms of his genealogy of morals, his perception of Jewish inversion of values and denying of life is not entirely accurate, as far as I understand it. In Judaism there there is little to no discussion about another heavenly life, but this life only, so generally speaking - in many ways it is a religion of life affirmation, and was in fact much closer to Ancient Greece's values than Christianity is. There are shades of grey here and I do agree with some of his points on inversion of values, but I also think there is a lot of interesting nuance worth considering.

I(18 M) am graduating highschool in two weeks. In the fall I'm finally going to university!! I currently live with my mom, (46F) , stepdad (49M), step sister(13F). I also have another stepsister who is 19 who will be home for the summer. After years of denial and questioning I've finally come to terms with my sexuality. I like dudes. I live in a small town in Texas. It doesn't really fly here, but I'm going to college in Austin and being gay isnt as scary there. I want to start fresh and I don't want to hide who I am when I get to college. Part of me also wants to come out to my family, but I'm scared. For a bit of background info, my mom and stepdad are pretty great, but they are really Christian. Like we got to church every week. We pray before we eat and we have a family Bible study. I also have to be apart of this other Bible study at my church. We do every church event and we volunteer all the time. My church is cool, but one big thing is that homosexuality is seen as a sin. Our pastor has given sermons about it. The church's view on this matter is very evident. I've never heard my parents talk about homosexuality, so I'm not sure what their stance on it is, but I assume it's not great. I do, however, know that my older step sis is a raging homophobe. I dont have a great relationship with her, so I'm not expecting support. I've learned to not really care about her, so I'm not scared about her knowing. Same thing with my biological father. I'm terrified of how my parents and younger step sis will react. I love them with all my heart and I don't want to lose them. I can't lose my mom. Unlike my bio dad, my mom actually wanted me and never thought of leaving me. Even when I've been nothing but a burden. Then there's my stepdad. God I love him. Hes the father I never had. He never treated me less because I wasn't biologically his. I dont want to lose the only father figure in my life. I dont want them to not come to my graduation. They both have this unconditional love for me, but I know there's only so much of me they can take and I don't want me coming out to be their breaking point. What would you do in this situation? Should I come out to them? Should I stay in the closet around them, but be myself when I get to college? Or should I just play it safe and stay completely in the closet? Please give me any advice. 

I was never really that close with god throughout my life, and I definitely regret that. I always thanked him for everything and I still felt his love even though I didn’t show him much in return. god still showed up for me when times were tough, and heard my prayers even though I took advantage of his grace. I felt his love before I ever picked up a Bible a day in my life, and that means everything to me. I just feel like every since I started to take my faith more seriously and genuinely pursue a relationship with him, I just feel nothing but shame and anxiety. I never genuinely felt the fear of hell up until I started reading the Bible and talking to god more, and the worst part of all of this is that my mind is literally trying to convince me that the shame I feel about being bisexual, is coming from god and it’s him condemning me so I can turn away from my sin. Mainly bc I’ve seen so many videos and posts about how when you get closer to god you still to feel convicted bc you become hyper aware of your sins, that you used to never think about. It makes sense and it scares me that it makes sense, bc I feel like.. what reason do I have to believe that god is okay with me being bisexual, if I genuinely feel such a deep, gut wrenching shame all of the time, and that shame was never there before I came to Christ? It’s like I can’t get out of that mindset and I want to “deconstruct” if you will, but I don’t know how to.
My family isn’t homophobic at all, and most of them are catholic, all of us are believers though. My grandpa (who recently passed away) grew up in a very religious community, and he was entirely supportive, so it’s not like this came from the people around me. I didn’t even grow up in church or anything like that, all of these “inherited” beliefs have come from my own unfortunate encounters with the Internet… and the problem is, I wasn’t aware that the content I was reading/watching was even affecting me until it already caused a lot of damage. Now, i feel stuck bc there is no way I can erase all of that information out of my head, all of the videos I’ve seen of well educated theologists, priests, and even just regular Christian’s who don’t even act extreme, saying that homosexuality is a sin and there is no way around it, it breaks my heart and it’s very difficult to not allow it to affect how I view god.
There is a fine line though, I think there are people in the middle who admit they don’t know if it’s a sin or not but that the Bible does say it is, those people are respectful and I do feel like their approach is far less problematic, but then you got these other people, so straight up say homosexual desires comes from the devil, and that supporting the lgbtq is satanic, that is such a harmful narrative I don’t even have the words for how disgusting it is.
Anyway, does anyone have any advice for deconstructing? How can I develop a genuine relationship with god without feeling like I’m living a lie or “painting him in my own image to feel better about my sins” (as a lot of evangelicals say) I really can’t keep going down this path, it’s hurting my faith and I just wish I could go back and tell myself not to engage with that kind of content at all, then maybe this dang OCD wouldn’t have gotten out of control.

Hey! So, I’ve been posting these analysis compilations for each team in their respective subs, however, I am banned in the Patriots sub, so I figured I’d post this one (and only this one) here.
Round 1, Pick 3 - Drake Maye, QB, North Carolina:
NFL: Maye has prototypical dimensions and an exceptional arm. The comparisons made between Maye and Buffalo’s Josh Allen are real when it comes to his size, arm strength and leadership skills. Maye lacks the experience of other QBs in this draft, but if he can iron out some of his inconsistencies, he can be a superstar for the Patriots.
CBS Sports: B. He might need some time on the bench, but he has the talent to develop into a good starting quarterback in this league. He just needs to fine tune a few mechanical things. The Patriots had to get a quarterback.
ESPN: They didn't overthink it. In need of a potential franchise quarterback, and open to trading the pick if a big-time offer came their way, the Patriots landed a player who gives the organization the same type of hope that Drew Bledsoe did after being selected No. 1 overall in 1993. Now comes the important part of developing Maye with quality coaching, and ensuring he doesn't have too many voices in his ear.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Freaked out when a bird got into his house last summer and knocked over a lamp.
Round 2, Pick 37 - Ja’Lynn Polk, WR, Washington:
NFL: I wonder if the Patriots weren't hoping for Coleman to fall to them. Polk has some nice physical traits, possesses really nice body control to adjust to passes outside his frame and stepped up nicely when Jalen McMillan was hurt midseason last year. But I saw Polk's upside as lower, viewing him more as a third-round talent. He'll add size to New England's smaller WR room, though.
CBS Sports: B-. Complete wideout without stellar athletic traits who tracks it awesomely. Flashes of YAC wiggle and power. Fun, versatile piece to add to the offense that needs it. A tick early for him though.
ESPN: The Patriots had explored trading back into the bottom of the first round on Thursday night but couldn't strike a deal, according to sources. So they regrouped, traded down three spots in the second round (from 34 to 37) to improve 27 spots later in the draft (from 137 to 110), and then grabbed the player they probably would have picked at 34 in Polk. A Bill Belichick-type move from the new regime that will be judged, in part, by if they should have gone with WR Ladd McConkey (selected at 34) instead.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: He is currently binging all 14,000 episodes of Days of Our Lives.
Round 3, Pick 68 - Caedan Wallace, OT, Penn State:
NFL: Wallace is a thick-bodied right tackle who developed into an NFL prospect later in his six-year college career. With 40 college starts, he has experience, but it's almost all at that position, and Coleman was considered something of an underachiever earlier in his career. A reach for me.
CBS Sports: C-. Sizable framed OT with lumbering feet. Average-at-best athlete. Plays with good calmness and accuracy at second level and has quality power but overall athletic profile was severely threatened often in college. A concern for his NFL future. New England did need to add some OL depth. Worried about his upside.
ESPN: The Patriots' top need areas entering the draft were QB, WR and OT, and Wallace caps off the 1-2-3 approach in filling them. He was mostly a right tackle in college, but Wolf said the team believes Wallace has the athletic ability to move to the left side. First-year offensive line coach Scott Peters comes from the Browns and his presence ties to Wallace, who at the least will be counted upon to be a top backup as a rookie.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: I’m just saying, if you know, you know.
Round 4, Pick 103 - Layden Robinson, OG, Texas A&M:
NFL: It's funny, if you hadn't told me Eliot Wolf was running the Patriots' draft room, I might have just assumed it was business as usual in Foxboro, with Bill Belichick overseeing things. Robinson, like Day 2 picks Ja'Lynn Polk and Caedan Wallace, were semi-value reaches. Robinson is a hard-nosed guard-only who improves the depth up front, but was it a massive need?
CBS Sports: B+. Mashing guard who plays more athletically than his workout. Tremendous burst off the snap on a routine basis. Could add more strength at the next level. Serious length but hands are late often. Nastiness is there for the run and pass protection. Upside blocker.
ESPN: With starting left guard Cole Strange attempting to return from a late-season injury that could affect his availability early this year, the Patriots are loading up on the offensive line to give themselves as many options as possible. Robinson has been a pure right guard, where 2023 fourth-round pick Sidy Sow is the projected starter. The team also has 2023 fifth-rounder Atonio Mafi, so Robinson joins the young pipeline up front. One scouting report referred to him as an "absolute freight train in the running game," which seems to reflect the style of lineman the team is looking for under the new coaching staff.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: You don’t stop the rock It to the bang-bang boogie, say up jump the boogie.
Round 4, Pick 110 - Javon Baker, WR, UCF:
NFL: I figured the Patriots would double up at receiver, and there was some talk of Baker being a Day 2 pick. I didn't love all of his tape, but he clearly features big-play prowess. UCF didn't fully unleash his talent, but Baker also needs to hone the details of his craft before he can be in a featured role.
CBS Sports: A+. This is a future No. 1 wideout. While not a burner, he plays faster and has the complete skill set. Releases at the line are good, flexibility to get open at intermediate level, YAC prowess, and especially rebounding skills are high-end.
ESPN: Baker is a big play waiting to happen, as evidenced by his five catches of 50-plus yards last season. So after the Patriots selected Ja’Lynn Polk in the second round, they doubled down with Baker -- which reflects how director of scouting Eliot Wolf is decisively addressing one of the team's top deficiencies. Wolf grew up in the Packers' system, and they have had recent success taking a similar approach at WR and TE. If there is a knock on Baker, it's that he has 14 drops over the past two seasons.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: His favorite movie of all time is Scream.
Round 6, Pick 180 - Marcellas Dial, CB, South Carolina:
NFL: Dial has decent length and has gotten his hands on a lot of passes the past three years, and he has a chance to make it as a jack of all trades in the secondary, with experience at multiple spots.
CBS Sports: A-. This is tremendous value. Zone awareness for days. Didn’t see the football thrown in his direction much. Outstanding ball skills when it does arrive. Doesn’t miss many tackles either. Hard to find a clear flaw to his game.
ESPN: Christian Gonzalez (2023 first-round pick), veteran Jonathan Jones and third-year player Marcus Jones are at the top of the CB depth chart, followed by a group of younger players whom Dial (6-0, 190) will compete against for a roster spot. That group includes Alex Austin, Marco Wilson, Shaun Wade, Isaiah Bolden and Azizi Hearn. As is often the case at this point in the draft, contributions on special teams figure to be a notable factor if Dial ultimately breaks through. Dial said he visited the Patriots before the draft (among the three teams he traveled to see) and had a feeling he would land with them.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: If you send the right mod $10,000 they will sell you the sub.
Round 6, Pick 193 - Joe Milton III, QB, Tennessee:
NFL: Milton's bazooka arm figured to make him a late-round flier, but I didn't have him landing in New England after the Patriots took Drake Maye with the third overall pick. Some teams have toyed with the idea of turning Milton into a Logan Thomas-like TE conversion.
CBS Sports: C+. Will immediately have one of the strongest arms in the NFL. Grew a lot as a passer after transfer to Tennessee. Accuracy is very hit or miss and he’s an average athlete. Coverage-reading needs to improve. Big frame.
ESPN: After taking Drake Maye No. 3 overall, and then Milton, this marks just the second time in team history that two QBs were selected in the same draft (1983 with Tony Eason and Tom Ramsey). Milton's physical traits stand out -- he's 6-foot-5 and 246 pounds with a powerful arm -- and some believe he could transition to tight end in the NFL. When looking at Milton through the QB-specific lens, the Patriots obviously view Maye as their hopeful long-term option, with veteran Jacoby Brissett the current projected starter until Maye is ready. They would still be looking to carry a No. 3 option. Bailey Zappe (2022 fourth-round pick) and second-year player Nathan Rourke are also on the depth chart, and their spots on the roster could be in jeopardy if the Patriots view Milton as the ideal developmental option.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Totally cried when he read The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane.
Round 7, Pick 231 - Jaheim Bell, TE, Florida State:
NFL: Bell was a versatile enough athlete that he played running back at South Carolina because of injuries, but his best chance to make it in the league is as a "move" tight end with his smaller frame.
CBS Sports: A+. H-back type with explosive YAC traits. Cutting skill and natural ability to absorb contact and keep the legs churning. Won’t be a natural separator but when schemed open he can be a fun asset in the New England offense.
ESPN: Coach Jerod Mayo said by this point of the draft, the Patriots were selecting the best player regardless of need. The 6-foot-2, 242-pound Bell played more than 40% of his snaps last season in the slot, so he's an H-back-type option more than an inline TE. The Patriots have veteran Hunter Henry atop their depth chart, with top backups Austin Hooper and Mitchell Wilcox on one-year contracts, so Bell gives them a developmental option with the future in mind. If he breaks through, he could be a safety valve for a young quarterback on safer, underneath routes. His 897 yards after the catch since 2021 rank second among FBS tight ends after Brock Bowers.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Consults the farmers almanac every day about the weather.

Romans 1:26-28 TW "clobber" verses
Hi everyone, I don't usually post on here but I saw someone raise an interesting point which didn't get answered on a separate thread. I'm bisexual, and I've been deconstructing for the last year to equate my Christian faith from being someone who was previously deeply closeted and homophobic, to wildly supportive as an ally before realising oh heck wait.. I might not be straight either. I'm in an extremely strict Christian social circle, (evangelical) and tho I'm not out publicly, I've been put through the paces to explain myself (eyeroll) at why I'm not studying the Bible and coming to the same conclusions my homophobic friends are essentially.
Ultimately let me share my views: I very strongly believe the Bible has been edited again and again, to agendas of misogyny for example, due to the cultures of the time. However I fail to see how God would send good, loving, consensual homosexual people to hell with the likes of Hitler (for example) for loving the "wrong" person. All love comes from God after all. I believe that ANY healthy relationship, God has placed us into.
I've got answers for 3 out of the 4 "clobber verses" that I know, (the mistranslation argument that there were no loving consensual homosexual relationships in biblical times and what the various people namely Paul was addressing and in Leviticus was the fact that it was common practice for a Roman man to assert dominance on his slaves by raping them, and then (Lev) hiring male prostitutes was a sin.
However - I've realised if anyone questions me on where lesbian and gay sexuality is condemned in Romans 1:26-28, I haven't got an answer to hand except for repeating the above.
Much might still apply but I'm wondering if anyone's ever looked into the translations of this etc. I know it's told in a story context of "this people were evil worshipped false gods etc, and so God "gave them over" to "unnatural and lustful desires " in "exchange for the natural (straight) ones".
However it also talks about their sinful (straight) desires in the paragraph above as well.
This Could have been Paul's take on this story and he was deathly homophobic as we all know. I'm just wondering if anyone has a biblical answer I can shut Evangelicals up with 😆

Hi everyone, I don't usually post on here but I saw someone raise an interesting point which didn't get answered on a separate thread. I'm bisexual, and I've been deconstructing for the last year to equate my Christian faith from being someone who was previously deeply closeted and homophobic, to wildly supportive as an ally before realising oh heck wait.. I might not be straight either. I'm in an extremely strict Christian social circle, (evangelical) and tho I'm not out publicly, I've been put through the paces to explain myself (eyeroll) at why I'm not studying the Bible and coming to the same conclusions my homophobic friends are essentially.
Ultimately let me share my views: I very strongly believe the Bible has been edited again and again, to agendas of misogyny for example, due to the cultures of the time. However I fail to see how God would send good, loving, consensual homosexual people to hell with the likes of Hitler (for example) for loving the "wrong" person. All love comes from God after all. I believe that ANY healthy relationship, God has placed us into.
I've got answers for 3 out of the 4 "clobber verses" that I know, (the mistranslation argument that there were no loving consensual homosexual relationships in biblical times and what the various people namely Paul was addressing and in Leviticus was the fact that it was common practice for a Roman man to assert dominance on his slaves by raping them, and then (Lev) hiring male prostitutes was a sin.
However - I've realised if anyone questions me on where lesbian and gay sexuality is condemned in Romans 1:26-28, I haven't got an answer to hand except for repeating the above.
Much might still apply but I'm wondering if anyone's ever looked into the translations of this etc. I know it's told in a story context of "this people were evil worshipped false gods etc, and so God "gave them over" to "unnatural and lustful desires " in "exchange for the natural (straight) ones".
However it also talks about their sinful (straight) desires in the paragraph above as well.
This Could have been Paul's take on this story and he was deathly homophobic as we all know. I'm just wondering if anyone has a biblical answer I can shut Evangelicals up with 😆