Seattle mariners will call

I'm a weeb who mostly consume manga and anime as far as such media goes, but I wanna give light novels a try since I've been leaning more towards reading manga recently.
I'm willing to read anything other than generic shonen or stories that take place during medieval period/in medieval settings. Main genre I'm looking for are comedy, romcom, drama, horror, action, fantasy, slice of life, thriller. I've also seen a novel called "trapped in a dating sim" or something like that so if you could tell me more about that one as well I'd appreciate it.

Renting a car for 5 days. I get an option to “Pay Now” for $350 (I think that’s ridiculous but it’s the best price I can find, so fine). I hit “pay now” and go through a couple of screens to skip the ridiculous add-ons and input my payment information, all of which I have to scroll way down to continue or submit. Any good, honest user experience would show you the $ amount you’re paying with a breakdown of fees just before you finally submit. Not Avis. That number is up at the top and disappears as soon as you start scrolling down. I hit submit and see a credit card notification that I got charged nearly $500. WTF???
The “pay now” button said $350! No worries, I’ll cancel and find another option. No, that will cost another $50 to cancel. I call, no waiving the fee despite this happening 5 min before. I am nice, I know this is not the rep’s fault. Even a manager won’t cancel without the fee.
I’m a seasoned traveler and I missed this. I get that there are taxes and fees but isn’t best practice to show me what I’m going to pay just before I submit? Felt so much like a bait and switch. Never renting from these guys again.

Booked a CR flight today and got an error message after the payment screen. Long story short, I didn’t get confirmation from Qantas, but the transaction to Qantas is pending on my CC. Called QF and they can see the booking there but say there’s no payment made and the booking will automatically cancel after 24 hours. The booking shows up on my app and also on Emirates portal. Can’t be ticketed without payment.
Has anybody had this happen before?

After reading the article, it looks like another misleading headline designed to generate buzz by the sales team at the WSJ.
But I still want to be cautious in my strategy and mitigate any risks.
Curious what do others think of the article?
The article needs a subscription, so I pasted the text below.
Wall Street went on a home-buying spree. Now, more lawmakers want to stop it from ever happening again.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House have sponsored legislation that would force large owners of single-family homes to sell houses to family buyers. A Republican’s bill in the Ohio state legislature aims to drive out institutional owners through heavy taxation.
Lawmakers in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota and North Carolina are among those proposing similar laws.
While homeowner associations for years have sought to stop investors from buying and renting out houses in their neighborhoods, the legislative proposals represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall Street’s appetite for single-family homes.
These lawmakers say that investors that have scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are contributing to the dearth of homes for sale and driving up home prices. They argue that investor buying has made it harder for first-time buyers to compete with Wall Street-backed investment firms and their all-cash offers.
Wall Street went on a home-buying spree. Now, more lawmakers want to stop it from ever happening again.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House have sponsored legislation that would force large owners of single-family homes to sell houses to family buyers. A Republican’s bill in the Ohio state legislature aims to drive out institutional owners through heavy taxation.
Lawmakers in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota and North Carolina are among those proposing similar laws.
While homeowner associations for years have sought to stop investors from buying and renting out houses in their neighborhoods, the legislative proposals represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall Street’s appetite for single-family homes.
These lawmakers say that investors that have scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are contributing to the dearth of homes for sale and driving up home prices. They argue that investor buying has made it harder for first-time buyers to compete with Wall Street-backed investment firms and their all-cash offers.
Share of single-family homes purchased by investors, by portfolio sizeSource: John Burns Research and ConsultingNote: Quarterly data measures the trailing 12 months. iBuyers are a type of house flipper.2016'17'18'19'20'21'22'23'2402.55.07.510.012.515.017.520.022.525.027.5%iBuyers1,000+ home companies100-99910-991-91-9 1Q 2017 18%
Investors of all sizes spent billions of dollars buying homes during the pandemic. At the 2022 peak, they bought more than one in every four single-family homes sold, though more recently their activity has slowed as interest rates rose and supply became tighter. Two of the largest home-buying firms, Invitation Homes and AMH, are publicly traded companies, while a number of other companies, backed by private equity, hold portfolios of tens of thousands of homes nationwide.
Companies that buy single-family homes say their businesses provide renters the opportunity to live in desirable neighborhoods where they otherwise couldn’t afford to buy.
With home prices and rents near record highs around the U.S., legislators and officials at all levels of government have become more active on housing issues. States have passed new measures to fund more affordable housing, to allow builders to bypass local zoning laws and to make the eviction process more favorable to tenants.
Most calls to block large companies from snapping up homes come from liberals, but some conservatives also show an inclination to crack down.
This “corporate large-scale buying of residential homes seems to be distorting the market and making it harder for the average Texan to purchase a home,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott wrote on X last month. “This must be added to the legislative agenda to protect Texas families.”
Close to equal numbers of voting-age Republicans and Democrats said they would support a measure to block Wall Street firms from buying homes, according to a new study funded by the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. The study gauged opinion from 5,000 renters and homeowners in urban and suburban ZIP Codes.
Proposals to curb investors might be popular with voters, but so far they haven’t gained much traction in legislatures. None of the bills in Congress or in any of the state houses has reached a floor vote.
Advocates for the single-family rental industry, such as the National Rental Home Council, oppose such legislation and blame rising prices on an undersupply of new-construction homes. They also point to the relatively low number of homes owned by institutional investors, defined as those companies with portfolios of 1,000 homes or more. Some research estimates these companies own 3% to 5% of American rental homes.
In some American cities, institutional investors hold a much larger share of homes than they hold nationally. In Atlanta, nearly 11% of all rental homes in the five-county area are now owned by three real-estate companies, a recent study by researchers at Georgia State University found. A 2022 analysis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said 21% of Atlanta rental homes were owned by some large institution.
Rep. Nikema Williams (D., Ga.), from the Atlanta area, in December co-sponsored the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act in the U.S. House. The act “won’t solve all of the problems, but it will definitely make an impact,” she said in an interview.
Critics of regulation note that many of the largest investors have bought very few or no homes in the past year. “The great trade is done,” said John Burns, founder of the eponymous housing research and consulting firm. “So what are you trying to stop?”
Smaller investors that own between 10 and 99 homes have stepped up their share of home buying this year, Burns said. Some of the proposed legislation would also target these smaller investors.
The bills in the House and Senate would cap rental-home ownership at no more than 50 homes for many companies, requiring them to sell off any more they already own. A bill in Minnesota, meanwhile, would limit ownership to 20 homes.
Bills to block landlords in the Ohio and Nebraska state legislatures were written in response to a small number of investors buying up hundreds of homes in a handful of Cincinnati and Omaha neighborhoods.
Louis Blessing III, a Republican representing suburbs of Cincinnati in the Ohio Senate, introduced a bill to tax large landlords so heavily that they would likely feel compelled to sell their properties. Blessing said he is concerned about real-estate companies developing monopoly power in some neighborhoods, while putting starter homes further out of reach for home buyers.
“It’s an antitrust in spirit bill,” he said.

As we move into 2024, at least the mobile app development landscape is expected to continue to evolve rapidly. In the mobile app business, developers are creating a wide range of apps, from consumer-grade to enterprise-level and high-performing medical solutions. To create dependable and effective software, developers must utilise the newest and most advanced technological stack, regardless of the stage of development. The most widely used frameworks and libraries, which serve as the foundation for creating high-quality apps on various platforms such as Windows, iOS, Android, and so on, are the only ways to accomplish this.
Mobile app technologies are available in the app stores if you want to create apps that work with Internet of Things (IoT) devices, offer social media integration, cloud storage services, and internal device communication.Mobile app developers are creating a wide range of apps, from high-performing to consumer-grade.
Here are some trends for what's likely to be popular in making apps in 2024:

1. AI and Machine Learning: Better Experiences, Smarter Apps:

While machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) have long been buzzwords, 2024 will see them take centre stage in app development. We can looking at applications that provide a more customised experience than ever before by anticipating requirements and preferences in addition to reacting to user input. Apps are becoming smarter and more user-friendly thanks to AI and ML, from sophisticated virtual assistants to complex recommendation engines.
It has the potential to greatly streamline the mobile app development process
By referring to present activity of human , AI can mimic user behaviour.
In this way, we may use apps with AI built into them to govern all of our possessions and feed in the essential data to our mobile devices.
AI-Powered Smartphone Applications to Anticipate:

• Face Recognition
• Adaptive battery
• Translators

1. Voice Technology: Using the Convenience Language;

One of the most sought-after trends in mobile app development for 2024 is voice recognition. Asking your phone to tell you the weather is no longer the only use of voice technology. Voice-enabled apps are becoming increasingly common in 2024, allowing users to communicate with them without using their hands. This is particularly important for accessibility, as it improves the usability of programs for all users.
The development community is becoming more and more interested in developing AI-powered voice recognition software for online and mobile applications. Voice recognition has become a necessary tool in our lives due to the rise of smart speakers and virtual assistants like Siri and Google Assistant. These days, smartphone consumers love using speech-to-text and text-to-speech tools for in-app functionality.
These features improve the user experience overall in addition to improving accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Voice commands enable mobile users to order food, send texts, make calls, and perform other tasks. Including a feature like this in your mobile app can help set it apart from the competition and provide an

1. Integrating the Internet of Things (IoT) to Build a Networked Ecosystem:

Streaming Internet Access
Mobile apps play a critical part in the IoT system as a whole. It enables end users to send commands, transfer, analyse, and configure connected devices in addition to interacting with the smart sensors. Thus, it is crucial to guarantee smooth connection, which requires a certain type of technology when using IoT devices
The world is becoming a networked ecosystem through the Internet of Things (IoT), and smartphone apps are coordinating this connectivity. Apps that monitor and manage wearables, cars, and smart home appliances will be even more prevalent by 2024, improving convenience and productivity.
Industrial Sector: Mobile IoT-based apps for the industrial sector enhance supply chain monitoring, inventory control, predictive maintenance, and simplified asset tracking. In addition, IoT promotes the expansion of industrial, energy, and construction businesses while also offering a secure work environment.
Retail, consumer, and healthcare industries all employ IoT in manufacturing.

1. Augmented Reality:

Developers may now experiment and expand on augmented reality applications, as half of the world's population now has a smartphone. Although web apps have been explored, they lack the same level of appeal as mobile apps.
Game developers will undoubtedly use the well-known AR development tools Unity 3D in 2024 to create a few very addicting augmented reality gaming apps for devoted gamers.
Melting the Bound aries Between the Digital and Physical Worlds AR keeps blending the boundaries between the digital and physical realms, producing immersive, more dynamic, and engaging experiences. By 2024, augmented reality will have expanded beyond video games and social media filters to include the retail, education, and healthcare industries. It will give consumers new options for learning, shopping, and health management.

1. 5G Technology: Advancing Velocity and Creativity:

For app developers, the introduction of 5G technology is revolutionary. This year, we're taking advantage of 5G's blazingly fast speeds to create apps that can manage larger amounts of data, support better-quality content, and provide seamless experiences.
The following are some 5G-capable apps to keep an eye out for this year:

• Precise location trackers: Better coverage and connectivity will allow GPS-enabled apps to provide far more accurate locations.
• Virtual reality-based gaming applications and 3D printing apps
• OTT services offering 4K streaming: Higher speed and lower latency are just what we need to improve our binge-watching experience.
• Quick data transfer will guarantee that your hardware doesn't have to work as hard, which will result in significantly lower battery consumption than 4G.

1. Mobile E-Commerce: A Revolution in Online Buying ;

In 2024, mobile commerce will take centre stage over e-commerce. Apps provide a whole shopping experience - personalised, safe, and with a variety of payment methods - not just a platform for online purchases. Shopping via mobile applications is becoming safer and faster because to the popularity of mobile wallets and one-click purchases.

1. Cybersecurity: An Absolute Need:

With the increasing integration of applications into our daily lives, cyber security is becoming more and more important. In order to safeguard user information, app developers in 2024 will place a high priority on secure code, frequent upgrades, and strong data encryption.

1. Personalised User Experience

AI-powered mobile apps can analyse user behaviour, preferences, and past interactions to deliver a highly personalised experience. This can include tailored content, product recommendations, and intelligent assistants that cater to the individual user's needs.
These developments are changing not only how apps are developed in the future but also how we use technology in our daily lives. Knowing these patterns is essential for anyone wanting to design an app. Do you need help with that? Reach out! We'll see to it that your software stands out in the online environment.
At Wow Infotech, we're always looking at the horizon, anticipating the next wave of trends that will shape the way we build, operate, and think about mobile app Development .
Additionally, if you require app development services, WOWinfotech can help bring your app idea to life with our skilled team of developers. Contact us at +91 9370104077 or info@wowinfotech.com for more details on how we can assist you in enhancing business apps with AI or developing a new app tailored to your needs.

(I'm might end up deleting this post but we'll see what happens) I’m a 16 year old female from Australia and I’ve been reading the Bible for a while now but even with everything I know I feel horrible. No one around me can help me with my faith because they don’t know God’s word. My mother claims to be Christian but she still chases this world for temporary pleasure, she even believes a rock can cure you of illnesses. And my Dad is an addict.
I feel alone. In blissful moments when I’m in prayer or reading scripture (I use an app called Youversion since they have a feature where someone reads scripture to you) I feel at peace like I can finally be at peace but I’m too attached to this world and I get angry a lot and I’m practically spoiled.
Whenever I can get what I want I end up feeling horrible, maybe I feel like people giving me stuff is a show of affection or something, idk. Like tonight: I wanted something and my mother ended up falling asleep then minutes later I find myself crying in my room (which I share with my sister) making this post. I know none of this will do anything good for me and it’s all making me more depressed.
I had a rough period through my life where I felt suicidal, but the Lord must've got me out of that mindset since I just got tired of the self harm. Barely anyone was there for at the time, people said they'd help me but it never happened.
I really want Christian friend so I have someone but I can’t find them. I’m starting to think my generation is so messed up to the point that no one wants to follow Jesus Christ. I did ask my sister to read the Bible with me on 1 or more occasions but she declined, saying: shed forget it or something like that.
It all feels hopeless. I know I have Jesus to talk to but I also would like someone to help me out with my faith. I feel isolated and alone and the environment I’m currently living in isn’t good for me.
I’m sorry for the long post but I can’t take this anymore. So, if the Lord lets it happen, please anyone help me. Please.
May God bless you all and keep you safe. Thank you.
P.S I'm not forcing anyone into anything, just to be clear, God bless you. ❤️

The tensions with Opposing Empire have gone beyond mere mutual enmity. This is a conflict of economies, ideologies, and clandestine efforts, fought across our empires in the hearts and minds of our citizens. With some carelessness, or perhaps deliberate actions, it could quickly become a full-fledged military conflict.
^{(Note: this is a sneak peak into a larger Diplomacy DLC concept I am designing. Also disclaimer: I am not a game designer, I intentionally did not provide numbers, just ideas! Feel free to suggest or criticize.})
When two empires are Rivals a while, both sides will have the option to escalate the Rivalry into a Cold War, which costs Influence. If either side does this, a Situation that is shared and progressed by both sides is created. This situation is intended to provide more RP and mechanical freedom for empires to either diplomatically mend relations, prepare a leadup to war, or perhaps make gains without resorting to warfare.
Cold Wars, like many situations currently in the game, operate on a line between two endpoints, representing the tensions between the two empires: Reconciliation (-100) to War (100).
By default, the Situation will start at 0 and remain stagnant in the middle. Both sides will have access to four Approaches which have different bonuses and effects on the Situation:

• Seek De-Escalation: costs Unity to upkeep. Increases Opinion of the opposing empire, and progresses the Situation towards Reconciliation. (Our simmering conflict with Opposing Empire must be reconsidered. We will extend diplomatic tendrils in hopes of reducing tensions and reconciling our two empires.)
• Maintain Status Quo: costs no upkeep, has no effect. (The current friction with Opposing Empire works to our advantage. We will focus on our own affairs.)
• Clandestine Effort: costs low Energy Creds to upkeep. Moderately decreases the cost of running Spy Operations in the target empire and slightly increases their effectiveness. Slowly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have no desire for a large scale armed conflict with Opposing Empire at this time- instead, we will use... other methods to improve our position.)
• Prepare for Hostilities: costs more Energy Creds to upkeep. Increases Military Ship and Defense Platform build speed, and more quickly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have had enough of the thinly veiled hostilities with Opposing Empire. War is inevitable- and we will lay the groundwork for victory!)

Progress: there are also other factors which will influence the progress of this situation:

• Either side being Militarist or Xenophobe will add base progress towards War, increased if Fanatic.
• Insults will bump the scale towards War.
• Military buildup/border friction, as well as the currently existing Conduct Fleet Exercises event, will move the scale towards War.
• The opinion of either side decreasing further (ex. Harm Relations) will move the scale towards War- this also means a 3rd party could use Spy operations, like the existing Diplomatic Incident or Smear Campaign, to push the outbreak of hostilities!
• New Cassus Belli gained by either side against the other will push the scale towards War- for example, taking a Civic that grants CB, or becoming a Hegemon. So will Declaring War on a Vassal or Ally (provided this doesn't immediately pull the empire in).
• HOWEVER:
• Either side being Pacifist or Xenophile will add base progress towards Reconciliation, increased if Fanatic.
• Cassus Belli becoming invalid will push the scale towards Reconciliation- for example, Impose Ideology becomes invalid if the target adopts matching Ethics.
• Improving Relations by any means will move the scale towards Reconciliation. Eventually, Embassies and other Diplomatic actions can end the Cold War.
• De-Escalation can be traded under Actions- normally, Rival AI empires will never be willing to trade, but an exception can be made here, to for example allow one side to Trade systems, resources, etc as concessions in exchange for X progress towards De-Escalation. The AI may offer such deals if Inferior or Pathetic, and may request concessions to reduce tensions if Superior or Overwhelming.

Events: as with most Situations, the Cold War could feature various events for RP and mechanical purposes. Here are some examples I thought up:

• Fraternization with the Enemy (either empire is some degree of Spiritualist, Xenophile or Pacifist): Despite the tensions with Opposing Empire, news reports and viral videos have recently been circulating of groups of both Our Species and Their Species activists united in song and demonstration on multiple planets. Apparently, these individuals seek an end to the hostility between our empires.
  • [Support these noble and righteous souls.] - bumps the scale towards Reconciliation. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the corresponding Ethic.
  • [Ignore these misguided fools.] - situation does not change. Gain temporary Happiness debuff for pops of the the responsible Ethic.
  • (Militarist, Xenophobe, or Authoritarian) - [Arrest as many of the wicked traitors as we can identify!] - costs Influence, bumps the scale towards War. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the Ethic you used to take this choice.
• Arms Race Breakthrough (is currently using the Prepare for Hostilities approach, increased chance if Materialist or Technocracy): Amidst the large-scale preparations for possible conflict with Opposing Empire, a small team of scientists has independently developed a new military technology and presented it to our government for use.
  • [Excellent.] - bumps the scale towards War, and gain a low-mid tier military tech that was not yet researched. If no valid options, gain some Engineering research instead.
• Pro-War Rally (has any Xenophobe or Militarist leader): Recently, in front of massive crowds on Planet Name, Leader Name delivered a rousing speech extolling the glorious virtues of Our Empire and denouncing the horrific threat presented by Opposing Empire. It would seem many have been swept up in this pro-war fervor and are demanding action from our government. However, foreign emissaries and more moderate elements have cautioned against supporting such explosive, radical rhetoric.
  • [We stand with Leader Name! To war!] - bumps the scale towards War, changes our approach to Prepare for Hostilities if it isn't already, and gain Unity and temporary Ethics Attraction to Leader Name's Ethics. BUT reduces the Opinion of Opposing Empire and any empires Cordial or friendlier to them.
  • [Heads must be kept cool, and Leader Name must be reprimanded.] - costs Influence, but the situation does not change.

And now, for the conclusions of the situation:
Reconciliation Finisher (or if empires somehow become overlord/vassal or allies via external circumstances)
Both Empires get the Event: De-Escalation Successful
In a significant diplomatic achievement, the heated tensions with Opposing Empire have been comprehensively defused! Perhaps this will pave the way for friendlier relations and better days ahead.
If the Situation reaches Reconciliation, the Cold War and Rivalry will immediately be ended, with all their bonuses and effects. Both empires will gain a moderate lump sum of Influence and Unity, as well as a small burst of increased Opinion for each other.

• [That was a close one.] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [A glorious day!] - the rewards are increased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Disappointing.] - the rewards are decreased

War Finisher (or if empires are pulled in by other factors)
Both Empires get the Event: Cold War Turns Hot
The heated tensions with Opposing Empire have ignited! Negotiations have broken down, and fierce border skirmishes have erupted. The truth is now undeniable: we are at war.
If the Situation reaches War, the Cold War and Rivalry will transform into an actual, normal war. Both empires will gain a small lump sum of Influence and Unity and will have a window to pick from their available Cassus Belli and call in allies before the battle begins.

• [To battle stations!] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [Well, we tried...] - the rewards are decreased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Long have we waited for this moment!] - the rewards are increased

And that's all I've got for you all today. Thanks for reading and please send any suggestions or feedback! Here's a bonus: a new achievement based on the irl Soviet Colonel who may have saved the world
Legacy of S'tann Pet'rovv: De-Escalate a Cold War after tensions had at one point reached 95 or higher.

This a place to call out bad mods.
No threats or calls for violence.
If your are a mod who has been called out and wish to defend yourself or your subreddit then be prepared to debate.
If you are a mod that has been called out and you wish to defend the sub then be be prepared to present facts or a reasonable opinion why the post or comment is wrong. The burden of proof will be on you.
I stole these rules from badmods, it seems to be dead but our goals are closely alligned.
These rules are subject to change as this community develops.

I (20M) am currently studying engineering and I started to realize that I fell for my former classmate in high school. She (20F) is now currently studying nursing and I happened to come accross her during a meeting of our colleges as we coincidentially enrolled in the same university. A little bit of backstory; during my days in highschool I typically focused on my academics and never really became interested in dating/ relationships. One day, I partnered up with her during a class assignment and only talked with her regarding classworks.
However, day by day as I interacted with her I started to feel close and comfortable with her. We had the same interest such as in music and dancing. We started to hang out, singing songs and practicing dance routines. All through out our time together, I never showed any motive of having any crush or liking to her. I saw it as a platonic friendship. As for her, I observed that she was very understanding and caring. It was like having someone who was of the same mind and heart. The thing was that she was only specifically like this towards me and dumb stupid me at that time took it as a show of friendship (this is from my perspective and I did not like to assume anything romantic). This continued until we graduated highschool.
Fast forward to college. When we met at the meeting I was very nervous and fidgety while sitting next to her. I also picked up that she was feeling the same as most could have observed from out body language. No worries though, I started to strike up a conversation with her and we instantly felt comfortable sharing what we did in our new college life. I felt the love I have always felt for her during our conversation and as always tried to disregard it. The meeting ended and we soon parted ways. Consequently, I found her fb account and sent a request. As of now, I had a deep reflection of my self and sorted out my feelings. I will not confess my feelings, but I will continue to love her and make her my inspiration up until I finish University. I am afraid to assume what her feelings for me might be and I am afraid to know. Call me a coward if you will...
I might continue to be her secret admirer until these feelings fade or until it consumes me. I have no reason why and just because. It is known that a part of your brain shuts down when madly in love so as third party observers, ano po ang masasabi o pwedeng maipapayo nyo?

Hi! I am a 23 year old girl, my boyfriend whom I live with has the same age and he has autoinmune hepatitis.
He is very stubborn and did not take his pills for about a month because he said he was already fine but I insisted and he kept taking them about two weeks ago, this is when the pain started. I am really confused because we were also sick last week but I felt just fine just some cold symptoms, but he started having unbearable joint pain.
Now I am even more sick this week and my body aches a lot but still no where near what he feels, here in my country we are in a cold season and wonder if we gout double cold because I was already feeling fine, if it’s the same one or if I need to take him to a rheumatologist we have an appointment tomorrow with an ortopedist because there is no hepatologists available at the moment we have to keep calling. He will be having bloodwork done next week but still, I am very worries because Im not sure if this is a very bad flu or if he will have the same as his mom that is autoinmune arthritis.
He started having these symptoms last week so not sure what could it be, because I was fine that time. I started feeling really sick again yesterday but the cold never really went away ever since last week. SO CONFUSED. Help.
Can a cold really last two weeks for symptoms to flare up a week later, even if you were beginning to feel fine?
Could it last longer for people with autoinmune diseases?

[after an investigation by the police about a strange murder, a booked called "journal" was found in the bathroom]
I don't think i'm alone.... i've heard footstep when i was in the bathroom.
I remember my neighbour crying, or was it someone else.
I moved to the kitchen... Some knifes are missing and my tv is on a static position.....
My cat is laying near the tv with those ears downed on his head At this point i don't even know if my cat is still alive He moved like three days ago....
I need some fresh water on my face...
The mirror of the bathroom is becoming more and more dark as we are approaching midnight....
The footstep started again. Maybe if i don't make any brutal movement and go to my bed, that thing won't see or hear me.
There are those two eyes in front of my bed..... Those strange yellow...... There are looking directly at me..... My cat don't have yellow eyes..... What is happening..... Is that thing friendly ? I heard someone crying there was like two minutes..... I bring my book whit me...... Its dark and cold....
There is that slimy liquid all around my bed.... Maybe if i reach the bathroom all of that will stop....
The mirror of the bathroom is broken and the strange liquid was blood...... The blood is disposed in like a trail or i don't know.... Maybe something was pushed all around my house...... My cat is looking at me like i don't exist anymore...... Maybe if i exit my house.... All of that will stop..... ‌[The journal was stopped here, leaving only some mage and a red hand mark on the journal, the red mark was identified as blood]

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.

Question for the Married ladies here. How do you choose your husband?
I need a advice from happily married women here or women in happy long term relationships. I am 25F and I have been courted by two guys (30M and 33M) I have not slept with any of them nor have labels with any of them since I want to preserve my virginity for marriage. In our culture of which is very traditional we have this thing called courtship. I told them both I am more traditional and I will only do labels if the guy is prepared to marry me. 30M have been courting me for one year he is from Europe and he visited twice in my country with lavish getaways that made me feel like a princess, he is really honest and he is a hard-worker and career-focused. He would have 12 hour shifts and still manages to call me in his only lunch break. He values indepence while I value a partnership. He proposed to me I didn't say yes yet I told him I need time to think about it since he is against having children while I am 50/50. He was my bestfriend and he is caring when told what to do but never initiates gifts and plans. He provides for me now (with ticket costs and some postmates) but he doesn't like the idea of it in the future and he expects me to help out financially even if it is a small amount. He says that it doesn't matter if I earn less than him as long as I try. (I am college grad for 5 years already and from a top university so I don't mind working and I have a ton of savings with no debt but I am not used to setups like this where the woman is expected to pitch in in our culture the woman is the homemaker and tends to the house. She can work but ultimately she can do whatever she wants with her money) We fought lately because he does not want to quit porn at all and says that I should just suck it up, yes he was not nice about it. I am making myself okay with the idea of porn being in a relationship. Now 33M have been courting me for 4 months and he visited once here and proposed as well he is from the USA. A christian man with the same values, doesn't mind providing or supporting my career doesn't tell me I am annoying when I cry and he is willing to move to my country and get a higher paying WFH job to be with me. I see great qualities of a husband and father in him and he always says that I inspire him to do better. I still enjoy 30M's presence because he is extremely honest and he is trying even though he is explosive and can be harsh when I voice out my needs but he is truthful in what he cant do or do.
Should I spend 3 months in 30M's country and see how things are in person if things go great I will accept his proposal or should I just fly out to 33M's country instead. I want to focus on one guy now.
To be honest I still have faith in 30M since he and I shared a lot of great times together and I trying hard to accept him but I find that he is too rigid and it feels like he impose rules so often that changes my identity and I often find that he has zero interest in my culture and my values. 33M I am not that inlove with but I know love can be nurtured over time.
I am scared and confused because I don't want to have the same mistake my parents did which they ended up annulled.

Bit of a long post but I need to get it off my chest because honestly I don't know what to do. I've never been in this type of situation, therefore any advice from someone whos been through something similar would be helpful. Anyway, bit of backstory.
My gf (20) and I (23) met early December last year and we really hit it off. The problem was that she was in a relationship then, but they broke up not long after ( I honestly think it wasn't because of me, they had problems long before we met) and we started talking and hanging out more often. We either texted or talked on facetime entire day because I am in Switzerland and she is in Croatia. It got to a point where she told me point blank that she had feelings for me but she wasn't ready for a relationship just yet, which I was ok with (keep in mind this was a month and a half after they broke up). Anyway, we started planning to go on a trip for a couple of days as soon as I got back home. I asked her where she wanted to go and picked the best place to stay and planned the entire thing perfectly, I even offered to take some of her friends with us just so she could feel more comfortable (in the end her sister and her boyfriend went with us). The two of us were holding hands and were next to one another entire time, we slept in the same bed, we even made out and had sex when we were alone one night (no alcohol or something similar, just passion I think). And honestly I liked that because we were each others little secret at the time. She even stayed at the house I rented for 7 days because we wanted to spend as much time as we could together. It started to feel like a beginning of a relationship but we didn't wanna say it at the time, we just wanted to be together entire time. Call it honeymoon phase if you will, but we both knew we had feelings for one another. I even met her family and her friends and had dinner with them. It was almost perfect.
This is where magic stops and reality hits. A couple of days ago she wanted to go through my phone, which I was fine with because I have nothing to hide, no porn, no other girls, no ig models, nothing. Just my dogs, family, friends and work, so I said fine as long as I can go through yours, which she reluctantly agreed. And that's when I saw it. Not only has she been texting some other guy, she's been actively seeing him and telling him how much she needs him, but she slept with him the same night and day I was driving 1200km just to see her and take her and her sister on that trip that we planned for so long. But that's not even the best part. At the same time we were planning our trip, that guy booked some cheap ass apartment and texted her the date saying I will see you then. ON THE SAME NIGHT I WAS DRIVING JUST TO SEE HER. And she responded with "I can't wait". But what bothers me is that that guy put in so little effort. I remember on Valentines day we wished each other happy Valentines, and I even sent her a bouquet of roses, just to show her that I really do care about her and I wanted to be there with her right now but can't because of work, she asked him that same fucking day if he wanted to go for a walk. And he said "no, I'm going to play games with my friends, I told you we will meet on the 22.". AND SHE WAS HEARTBROKEN BUT SHE STILL CHASED HIM. HOW PATHETIC DO BOTH OF THEM NEED TO BE? And the entire time she was texting him and going out with him, she was telling me how much she misses me, and how she can't wait for me to come. Entire time while I was there for her, spending days and nights talking and laughing with her, sending her flowers every week ( FLOWERS THAT SHE SHOWED HIM), that guy was putting in so little effort and reaping all the rewards. What's funny is after they slept together she bragged to all of her friends and said how they fucked twice and no protection cuz duh. Same friends that she introduced me to, that said that they are all cheering for me. They all knew, they all saw how much I cared for her and nobody said a thing. Then when I put the phone down and asked her to explain herself, only thing she said was "that was before we were official, and it was just for one night". The same girl that sent me a checklist of her perfect boyfriend where it stands "NEEDS TO BE LOYAL" does something like that and then says it was before we were official. She didn't even show a little bit of remorse, only thing she said was "you need to get over it". How???
I'm sorry for this long post, but my mind is just going crazy right now. I just needed a place to vent, a place where I can get some advice on what to do. Thank you for any advice😅
TL;DR; : Am I getting played? Or was that really a mistake on her part?

Hiya just wanted to get your guys' input on this idea:
Basically I want to create a coffee for entrepreneurs/fitness enthusiasts. I want to mix nootropic and other vitamins so that it's a more powerful and complete coffee experience to nourish your body and elevate concentration and performance.
My idea is called NUUBREW and I am looking to have an app alongside this that will serve as a habit tracke productivity app alongside the coffee.
Basically you can interact with the app and acts as a coach to help you do what you need to get done. I believe this can be a global lifestyle brand that covers all areas of coffee and will mesh coffee lovers, entrepreneurs and fitness enthusiasts.
I planned initially to make this specifically in nespresso coffee pods because I don't think there are any on the market yet, and because in my opinion they taste better and they're easier to prepare.
And future projections to actually develop an AI automatic coffee machine that works like Siri or Alexa and links to the app to make a coffee via voice command.
But do you guys think It would be wise to have it in powder form as well in a bag like instant coffee?
You can check out the landing page here and I would appreciate any sign ups and feedback as it will help with future investor meetings.
Here is the website: www.nuubrew.com
Any early signups I will keep in mind and I will reward upon launch with something cool.
Thanks again,
Ryan.

Question for the Married ladies here. How do you choose your husband?
I need a advice from happily married women here or women in happy long term relationships. I am 25F and I have been courted by two guys (30M and 33M) I have not slept with any of them nor have labels with any of them since I want to preserve my virginity for marriage. In our culture of which is very traditional we have this thing called courtship. I told them both I am more traditional and I will only do labels if the guy is prepared to marry me. 30M have been courting me for one year he is from Europe and he visited twice in my country with lavish getaways that madr me feel like a princess, he is really honest and he is a hard-worker and career-focused. He would have 12 hour shifts and still manages to call me in his only lunch break. He values indepence while I value a partnership. He proposed to me I didn't say yes yet I told him I need time to think about it since he is against having children while I am 50/50. He was my bestfriend and he is caring when told what to do but never initiates gifts and plans. He provides for me now (with ticket costs and some postmates) but he doesn't like the idea of it in the future and he expects me to help out financially even if it is a small amount. He says that it doesnt matter if I earn less than him as long as I try. (I am college grad for 5 years already and from a top university so I don't mind working and I have a ton of savings with no debt but I am not used to setups like this where the woman is expected to pitch in in our culture the woman is the homemaker and tends to the house. She can work but ultimately she can do whatever she wants with her money) We fought lately because he does not want to quit porn at all and says that I should just suck it up, yes he was not nice about it. I am making myself okay with the idea of porn being in a relationship. Now 33M have been courting me for 4 months and he visited once here and proposed as well he is from the USA. A christian man with the same values, doesn't mind providing or supporting my career doesn't tell me I am annoying when I cry and he is willing to move to my country and get a higher paying WFH job to be with me. I see great qualities of a husband and father in him and he always says that I inspire him to do better. I still enjoy 30M's presence because he is extremely honest and he is trying even though he is explosive and can be harsh when I voice out my needs but he is truthful in what he cant do or do.
Should I spend 3 months in 30M's country and see how things are in person if things go great I will accept his proposal or should I just fly out to 33M's country instead. I want to focus on one guy now.
To be honest I still have faith in 30M since he and I shared a lot of great times together and I trying hard to accept him but I find that he is too rigid and it feels like he impose rules so often that changes my identity and I often find that he has zero interest in my culture and my values. 33M I am not that inlove with but I know love can be nurtured over time.
I am scared and confused because I don't want to have the same mistake my parents did which they ended up annulled.

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

Hello you filthy bastards.
Time to learn what a poor mans covered call is.
Let's start with the basics of a traditional covered call:

• You buy 100 shares of a stock trading at $125 per share.
• This will cost you $125 * 100 = $12,500.
• You then sell a Call option, above your strike, say, $128, and receive juicy premium for doing so.
  • If the stock price rises to $130, you short call is assigned, and you sell your stock at $128, and keep your premium.
• If you're a little timmy and you don't have $12K in the bank. What do you do?

Enter: The PMCC, the poor mans covered call, the diagonal call spread.

• Instead of buying 100 shares of stock -
• We buy a deep, in the money, call option, for a fraction of the price.
• Some criteria people like to follow:
• At least 90+ days to expiry, at least 70 delta
• Let's use AAPL as an example here (Trading at $187 at time of this post)
  • 17th Jan 25 180C is currently $21 and it's delta is sitting at 0.698, the DTE is 247 Days. and it costs $2100 to purchase, instead $18,700.
  • This call acts as our synthetic 100 shares of stock. We can now sell a Covered Call against this call option.

But what should the strike be?! Ah I am glad you asked Timmy.

• You need to make sure you are covering your ass and not selling below your cost basis if you are assigned. This is because the flow is as follows:
• Buy 180C for $2100
• You sell the $190 call for $1.65 and get $165 in premium.
• AAPL goes to $192, and you are assigned. What happens?
• Your 180C is assigned and you get 100 AAPL for $18,000.
• You have to then sell your stock for $19,000, congrats you made $1000 in profit.
• You also made $165 from the short call, so in total, you made $1165.
• But wait, your CALL was $2100?! So you actually lost $935.
• What you need to do is calculate the short call strike to ensure a profitable outcome:
• $18,000 + $2100 for the call = $20100 / 100 = $201.
• So now if we redo the trade and sell the 200C for $1.20, we get $120.
• If we're assigned - we buy $18,000 worth of APPL, sell it for $20,000, make $2000 + $120.

The idea is to ensure you are always in an profitable outcome, and reduce the cost basis of your original long ITM call.

We’ve all seen a microscopic image of neurons in the brain. But this image is misleading: Neurons don’t exist in isolation in the human brain. Some 86 billion neurons form 100 trillion connections to each other.
To make sense of these connections, Wei-Chung Allen Lee, Harvard Medical School associate professor of neurology at Boston Children’s Hospital, is working in a field of neuroscience called connectomics, which aims to comprehensively map connections between neurons in the brain. It’s a convergence of neurobiology, engineering, computing power and artificial intelligence.
“The brain is structured so that each neuron is connected to thousands of other neurons, and so to understand what a single neuron is doing, ideally you study it within the context of the rest of the neural network,” says Lee.
Read more here: https://magazine.mindplex.ai/mp_news/will-connectomics-and-machine-intelligence-map-the-brain/