"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

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

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

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

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

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

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

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

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

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

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

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

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

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

So my mom and my brother have been living in the same apartment together for almost 25 years. My mom just recently (5/16/24) passed away from cancer. I had asked the leasing company if we could get my brother's name on the lease, and they said, sure, no problem. The new lease was to be sent in June. My mom died two weeks too early and we never got the new lease. Instead, I got an email with their 40-day vacate notice and her apartment is already up on the website to be available in July.
We have not even had my mother's services and is this how they're treating 25-year tenants. I'm sick about it it. My other brother was going to move in to help the brother who currently lives there pay the rent. At the end of the day, my brother is a middle school custodian but does not make enough money to support himself.
I'm upset they didn't reach out to me first to figure out an agreement, I'm upset that there are no places where he can move and I'm wondering if even if he wasn't on the lease, but he lived there for 25 years, does he have any rights to this place?

I am posting to check if anyone has advice/experience with thesis withdrawal from a PhD examination procedure in order to transfer to another university. It's a bit of a story as it's rather complex.. Thanks for reading!
I've found myself in a bizarre situation after the continued neglect by my supervisors caused my external examiner to withdraw over what she called an 'unprofessional' and 'unethical' course of events. My PhD is a practice-led research in Contemporary Art, for which a public exhibition of the artwork produced is to be examined in interaction with a thesis. Through the careless behaviour of my supervisors —responsible for communication with examiners—, neither of my 2 examiners made it to either of 2 exhibitions I organised around the submission of my thesis. My examiners continued to push me into entering the viva using video documentation of the artwork, which, due to the performative nature of the work, would jeopardise significantly the theory presented in the thesis. By accident I found out my external examiner had withdrawn 6 weeks earlier over the fact she was asked to examine based on video documentation of the artworks. She is a highly suitable senior academic and internationally practicing artist who accepted to examine on the condition she would have access to the practice in a live format. My supervisors chose to withhold her withdrawal from me and then claimed I would enter the viva with another external examiner they had allocated, yet whose relevance for my research is highly debatable. At this point I decided to approach the Head of the Graduate Research School who acknowledged the breach of trust and breakdown of communication, removing my supervisors from the research and suspending the examination.
I am now in conversation with 2 universities who are interested in my research, offering a period of development/public presentation of the next iteration of the practice. Clearly, I am eager to move into a new, supportive context. I am aware of a potential bottleneck however, which is that my thesis has been submitted for examination already. Even with help of the student's union of my university it is still impossible to find clear regulations, but what's available hints at the university 'owning' my thesis following its submission. I have received 4 years of scholarship for which I have always lived up to the agreement in terms of writing and practice. While this last-minute crash of the PhD is caused by misconduct of university staff, it is likely the university is unwilling to release my thesis from the examination, and might attempt to claim back the scholarship if I decide to not pursue the PhD with them.
Online I'm finding conflicting information regarding withdrawal from subsidised phd's in terms of reimbursement of funding, or the moment a university 'owns' a thesis. I would be extremely grateful for any advice, interpretation or sharing of experiences here. I am willing to fight for my research, but not sure I want to end up entangled in a legal procedure.
Thank you very much for your response!

I texted an old friend last night. I asked him if he wanted to hang out when me and my partner go to Seattle later this summer (he lives there). My "friend“ texted me tonight telling me he doesn’t want to. He said he thinks it wouldn’t be a good idea and he’s sorry he never explicitly said anything until now.
We’ve been friends since middle school. He never even said/ did anything implicitly that told me he didn’t want to be friends anymore. It just felt so out of the blue. It hurt a lot. He was one of the few people from my high school that I still thought fondly of. He totally unfollowed me on instagram and told me he wasn’t going to reply to any texts anymore. It just…. Kinda hurts man. It just hurts.

I’m not really sure what to say. I know the advice is to go to a professional but I feel embarrassed as if I’m faking it or want attention or something even though ive never told anyone about any of this and I don’t think I’d be able to voice it anyway. I think I have a girl with me mentally right now and she’s so sweet but it’s confusing because I’m a trans man. My head feels fuzzy I originally wanted to talk about my experiences and get your input but instead I want to ask anyone willing to answer some questions if it’s okay because I know the internet is full of misinformation or really basic answers that don’t answer my questions:

• does everyone with DID have a literal internal world? When I was in middle school or high school idk I remember watching vdeos of people describing this complex fantasy world with castles and caves and stuff. But I recently saw someone say that these people often fake it or spread misinformation or something (I have no idea about any of that stuff) and now I’m wondering if this idea I have of DID needing an internal world like that is always the case or not. When they aren’t fronting, where do alters go? Where would I go? Is it possible to have an internal world that you’re not aware of, or to forget about it while fronting?
  
• the person in video also said that the idea that each alter is a very distinct different person is also misinformation and it’s usually more like different versions of yourself that aren’t fully formed in a way sometimes or distinct at all. Can alters really almost blur together like that? Can it be hard to tell who’s who for multiple alters? Can you feel shifts in your body and mentality and awareness without really understanding who you are or who you shifted from? Again I’m confused about where people go when they leave
  
• how do you discover who you are or who others are and communicate with them? [TW mention of cannabis] I had a wild experience with weed and a bad high a couple years ago where my voice and demeanour and emotions were rapidly switching and feeling like I was teleporting from dissociation it was scary (and in front of people too! My roommates at the time.) and I don’t wanna exactly repeat that, I haven’t really tried weed since, would you guys recommend trying it again in a safer setting or are there better ways to try to understand what might have been going on
  

Thank you for any answers, I could totally not have DID as I’m pretty sure I have autism ADHD CPTSD PMDD maybe BPD so maybe some things are just overlapping symptoms, regardless I’m happy to learn more about DID either way, thanks :)

Seoul has announced the Foreign Residents Policy Master Plan, which will invest KRW 250.6 billion over the next five years to attract 1,000 foreign talents with master's and doctoral degrees in science and technology, and provide them with the same level of childbirth and childcare services as Koreans to help them settle in the city. This policy is a proactive measure for Seoul's sustainable growth, with the core goals of attracting talented foreigners and creating an inclusive multicultural society.
Seoul plans to pursue the following major initiatives:

1. Attracting and supporting the growth of talented people:

o Attract global companies to make Seoul a city where talented people from around the world want to work, similar to Silicon Valley in the United States.
o Work with major domestic universities to attract 1000 foreign talents at the master's and doctoral level in science and technology.
o Pilot the introduction of overseas workers in industrial occupations with severe labor shortages and in areas with long-term labor shortages.

1. Support stable settlement in local communities: o To help foreigners stably settle in Seoul with their families, we will provide support for childbirth an

d childcare services, educational activities, etc. without discrimination against Koreans.
o Select 10 universities in high-tech industries in Seoul and provide up to KRW 1.5 billion per year for three years to attract 1,000 outstanding foreign talents.

1. Strengthening multicultural integration and communication:

o Starting with Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, which has the largest school-age population among ASEAN countries, we will organize local Seoul Study Fairs twice a year and provide support to outstanding foreign students in science and technology by establishing the Seoul Tech Scholarship program.
o Opening the Seoul Foreign Residents Support Center and deployed real-time interpretation devices using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to help foreign residents communicate with each other.
o From this year to 2028, 1,000 AI interpreters will be deployed.

1. Support for childcare fees and educational activities at daycare centers:

o Support 50% of daycare fees for foreign infants (ages 3-5) and expand multicultural integrated daycare centers.
o We will support educational activity fees of 400,000 won for elementary school, 500,000 won for middle school, and 600,000 won for high school for school-age foreign children.

1. Rent Assistance Service for Foreign Residents

o We will launch a new service to help foreign residents pay their rent so that they do not suffer from communication problems.
o The number of 'Global Real Estate Offices for Foreigners, that can conduct real estate brokerage business in foreign languages will be expanded from 239 this year to 414 in 2028.

For context, may inoutsource ako na nameet ko online. Sobrang dami kong hinahandle and may team na talaga ko but overwhelmed na kami. This guy has been out of work for a few years already. And considering na same school kami, I know may mataas na standards kami, so I thought why not bigyan siya ng work? So I outsourced 1 project with a basic task with him, and ok naman. May mga kailangan lang icomment etc. but manageable and di ako nahassle. Sa susunod mas malaki na yung role niya, 50% of the project fee binibigay ko since nagtake over na siya.
Ok siya in terms of knowledge and ideas, but parang ang daming hurdles — kulang sa software na needed and may lack of resources to finish a task to the point na pinagamit ko laptop ko. Dito na ko na start mafrustrate, kasi para sakin if kukunin mo yung task daapat fully prepared ka. Ngayon I started feeling like hindi na sulit yung bayad ko kasi 1. My time is being consumed trying to adjust for him and 2. my staff can do the same work na less mahahassle ako, maybe mas matagal, but mas naka-set na yung process and expectations.
This weekend I’ve been checking kung matatapos niya and if need niya ng help and requesting for him to send work in progress para masimulan ko na yung comments knowing na sobrang dami kong gagawin pagdating ng Monday. Alam ko nang ngarag ako. And lagi niyang response later isesend, never sending a WIP — until umabot ng Monday ng madaling araw siya nagsend.
Gumising ako na anxious, and bombarded with messages. Then makikita ko na may mga kulang pa yung submitted work niya, asking me to just annotate ano yung details and siya na mag eedit. Take note buong araw leg work ako, I’ll be moving from one place to another. Literal wala akong space sa brain ko to sit down and check everything in one go. Out of frustration sinabi ko na sa kanya, “im paying you more than my staff, considering na 1 project lang to, sila they handle more. Pero parang mas nahahassle ako if isspoonfeed pa lahat”
From his end, ayaw niya isend na di complete kasi daw para isang edit na lang. but for me, I didn’t have the luxury of time para maupuan yung lahat ng yun hence have been asking for work in progress to comment as needed.
In all fairness to him definitely a huge bulk ng project was his brain. Kaya nga I outsourced kasi brain drain na talaga ako. But what I was frustrated was the circumstances na instead na gumaan pakiramdam ko, it felt like I was catering to his needs. I guess na-hurt siya dun. And he was offended saying things like sinisiksik lang niya sarili niya, and na feeling niya nagiging charity lang etc. He dropped the project kasi di niya kaya magwork na sinabihan siya ng ganon. and ngayon more delay because I have to pull out a staff to finish the task na iniwan niya. Sobrang frustrated ako kahapon and sobrang pagod I tried finishing the task he left and felt like ang gago lang ng situation na I asked for help sa tao na need ng work, and in the end, ako pa yung napasama.
ABYG for being straightforward with how I felt with the situation?

Hey there guys! I'm a first gen girl from North India in class 12 cbse from a middle class family of 7. Im putting this info here only for 2 days b4 deleting. Guys it would be very helpful if u can chance me and tell me what I can do to improve(advice me here or on pm ) . Im not posting this on chanceme due to the toxicity there . My school is basically a school where people have very little interest in applying abroad there is no counselor and very limited knowledge but yeah couple of teachers are supportive mainly prep for jee or neet is done here. So there are no clubs or extracurricular activities of any kind I have done this all on my own).
Major: physics Uchicago ed1 Sat:1580(800 math) Grades 9-96 10-92 11-70 ( this happened due to bouts of pneumonia and typhoid throughout year due to which I couldn't go to school and even missed a few exams . There was also heavy grade deflation)(this is my applications weakest point pls advice me about what I can do . I'll be mentioning this in sop and my teacher will also mention this in lor) 12-96(expected) AP: my school doesn't provide and they are expensive af Financial aid: no ( loans and external scholarship maybe I'll ask for 18-20k/yr from uchicago cuz coa is 97k/yr)
Awards and honours 1. Research paper award (international) 2. Conrad challenge top50
3.ioqm

1. aknowlegment by hon' PM Modi for continued efforts to bring improvement in society ( also got acknowledged by ministry of education)
   
2. School academic distinction 9-10
   

ECS

1. 2. 3. All three are research papers 1 on math reviewed by UIUC prof and 2 on physics (astro) that have also been acknowledged by iiser profs
2. Astronomy app
3. Braille and sign language educator at local school have held initiatives and workshops as well as working on making a free course right now
4. Research with iit prof ( ongoing)
5. Research project - an innovation hailed by ministry of health and iit profs.
6. Tutor for underprivileged children for 4 years
7. Book on physics (250+ pages still writing)
8. Mun and debates or a research project I'm doing this summer
   Essays i must say are nice ( I'm a good writer as well as quite into philosophy)
   

Letter of recommendation - my teachers love me and must say the draft of my chemistry teacher lor is a piece of art. And I'm hoping if iit prof will also write me one.
So yeah this is it. I know I was a bit vague it's because I didn't wanna get doxxed. PS I have also built a small electromagnetic particle accelerator at home. 🌟

​
https://preview.redd.it/vhc62qsfxq1d1.jpg?width=730&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be9fac2ed2870c8a30b0a027989625656848a56b
Traveling to Dubai from Thailand is an exciting prospect, but understanding the visa requirements and processing times is crucial for a smooth journey. In this comprehensive guide, we'll delve into the intricacies of obtaining a Dubai visa from Thailand, including processing times, application procedures, and essential tips for a hassle-free experience.

Understanding Dubai Visa Requirements

Types of Dubai Visas

1. Tourist Visa

• Validity: Typically valid for 30 or 90 days.
• Purpose: Intended for leisure travel, visiting friends/family, or exploring the city.

1. Transit Visa

• Validity: Allows a short stay for passengers transiting through Dubai.
• Purpose: For connecting flights or short stopovers.

1. Business Visa

• Validity: Tailored for business-related activities such as meetings, conferences, or training sessions.

Documents Required

1. Passport: Valid for at least six months from the date of entry.
2. Visa Application Form: Completed accurately and signed.
3. Photographs: Passport-size photographs meeting specific requirements.
4. Proof of Travel: Itinerary, flight tickets, and accommodation details.
5. Financial Documents: Bank statements or sponsor letters demonstrating sufficient funds.

How Long Does It Take to Process a Dubai Visa from Thailand?

Standard Processing Times

1. Tourist Visa: Typically processed within 3 to 5 working days.
2. Transit Visa: Expedited processing, usually within 1 to 2 working days.
3. Business Visa: Processing times vary but generally within 3 to 7 working days.

Factors Affecting Processing Times

1. Type of Visa: The complexity and purpose of the visa can influence processing times.
2. Application Volume: High application volumes during peak travel seasons may lead to delays.
3. Accuracy of Documentation: Incomplete or inaccurate documentation can prolong processing times.
4. Embassy or Consulate Policies: Each embassy or consulate may have its processing timelines and procedures.

Tips for Expedited Visa Processing

1. Apply Early: Submit your visa application well in advance of your travel date.
2. Complete Documentation: Ensure all required documents are accurately filled and provided.
3. Utilize Express Services: Some agencies offer expedited processing for an additional fee.
4. Opt for Online Application: Online visa applications may streamline the process and reduce processing times.
5. Seek Professional Assistance: Consider using visa consultancy services for guidance and assistance.

Conclusion

Navigating the process of obtaining a Dubai visa from Thailand requires thorough understanding and meticulous preparation. By familiarizing yourself with the visa requirements, processing times, and essential tips, you can ensure a seamless travel experience to the vibrant city of Dubai.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

1. Q: Can I extend my Dubai visa from Thailand?

• A: Yes, extensions are possible depending on the type of visa and specific circumstances. Contact the relevant authorities or visa agencies for assistance.

1. Q: Are there any restrictions on visa validity for certain nationalities?

• A: Visa validity and requirements may vary based on nationality. It's advisable to check with the Dubai immigration authorities or consulate for specific details.

1. Q: Can I apply for a Dubai visa upon arrival in the UAE?

• A: Generally, visas must be obtained before traveling to Dubai. However, certain nationalities are eligible for visa-on-arrival or e-visa facilities.

1. Q: What if my visa application is rejected?

• A: In case of rejection, you may appeal the decision or reapply with corrected documentation. Consulting with visa experts can also provide insights into the reasons for rejection and potential solutions.

1. Q: Are there any special requirements for traveling to Dubai during the COVID-19 pandemic?

• A: Due to the evolving situation, travelers are advised to check the latest travel advisories and entry requirements, including COVID-19 testing and quarantine protocols.

My boyfriend talks a lot. This is something I always knew about him. We’ve been together for 3 months but have known each other since middle school. I really love being around him and talking to him. We both have the same sense of humour and can have a great time together. However, when conversations get more serious I find myself being talked over a lot. I am a bisexual woman and this is my first relationship with a male in over 10 years. I’m not sure if my lack of patience is due to the switch in relationship dynamics or if he just truly does not respect me. I find myself blocking out a lot of what he is saying because I’ve either 1) told him I did not want to talk about it or 2) I was talking about something else. And when I try to stand my ground and tell him I was taking, he makes me feel like I don’t give him space to talk (even though he’s always the one talking)

Hi, everyone
My ex and I were together for almost 6 years, but we've known each other since we were middle school. One night just right after coming from a date and planning for Valentine's Day, he suddenly broke up with me. I never saw it coming.
Days before the break-up the topic of marriage came up from our friends and family, and he started distancing himself. I tried to reassure him that I was not in a hurry to get married, what mattered most was that I wanted to be with him, and we've had talks about moving in together and traveling in the future. I gave him the space to calm down and would check up on him as he was dropping hints too that he wasn't okay. I picked up on them, which led me to ask, but he'd always just say that he's okay, or just tired, and that he was going to talk to me about it when he was ready. I respected that and didn't want to force it out of him as that might cause different problem altogether. Then days after, the blindside happens. He said he no longer feels any love for me, it seems like he is losing himself, and that he couldn't see me as his partner in the future-- but he doesn't know why. It was just something he was feeling.
Our relationship was great, and healthy, and we've been best friends for the longest time. We've broken up before (he was the one who left), but learned from what we lacked in that relationship and worked hard to be better, so we had healthy ways of communicating what bothered us. Turns out, there were things he didn't communicate because he didn't know how to and worried how I would react.
It's been almost 4 months, and I honestly don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. I feel my self-worth has taken a massive hit, and am constantly thinking about why I wasn't good enough or worth it enough to stay and fight for. I am also slowly losing hope in finding love again because I never want to go through something like this ever again. It's just too painful. I heard from a friend of ours that he thought I'd be okay by now as we have had the "closure" talk last April. I don't know how he could ever think such a thing, after what he just did to me and our relationship. I honestly hope he realizes what he's lost and regrets it, because as of now, he doesn't.
I wanted to ask: does it ever get better? Any perspective that you guys could share that could help me look on the bright side? Any good stories? Thank you so much.
TLDR; BF of 6 years blindsided me, and after almost 4 months, I am having a hard time seeing how it gets better. Any stories/advice?

They pass passes you then failed you when you get to high school so you go get your GED and start working manual labor., I had my teacher started early as 5th and 4th grade my sixth grade teacher told me angel Martinez I would say present and he would say leave and don't come back to lunch lol passed I never threatened the teacher till they put their hands on me!!!! And then mostly with my eyes lol #world it's the future they had to pass through the six pack my class in the middle Mr Henderson and two classrooms Lifting me off the ground while Eric hung from my neck in a chokehold and I whispered you got to let me go you ain't going to put me to sleep you might as well let me go and the teacher join the two classes ingesting me around while kid hung from my neck and my head was being supported and my body was being supported separately

hi all, it’s my first time posting so i’m going to try and make this as clear as i can, open to clarifications if needed!
so, i am offered by SIT for their UoG nursing programme and i am very short in time to make a decision on which i should pursue because both have their strengths. I am considering SIT because of what they offer (specifically the glasgow programme) but i am also worried about the trimester system they’re using. i was also pre empt on how rigorous the lessons can be as well.
on the other hand, i was also looking into taking a part time degree in nursing prior to receiving an offer letter from SIT, as back then i wasn’t confident in even receiving an offer from them. I was considering la trobe at that point in time, and currently still reading more into other schools (i.e. kings college, curtin etc)
as i am just literal days away from the deadline, i hope people who have gone through the dilemma i am facing, or who have chosen either paths to share their experiences and why they chose that way.
thank you!

It is normal to be curious to know what is expected of you when you are told to attend a Driving Improvement Clinic Course in Virginia. These courses are targeted at aiding drivers in developing their driving techniques and ensuring safety on the road. Such schools are important because they provide knowledge you may need to acquire to attend school due to a court order, DMV requirement, or for other reasons; when you go to such schools you learn a lot of things about driving that are practical and helpful. It is in this blog that we shall touch on the outline for a driving improvement clinic course in Virginia. By completing this material, you will have the right understanding of how these courses work and why they are beneficial.

Classroom Instruction

The first format of a Driving Improvement Clinic Course Virginia is classroom instruction. This part of the course deals with the safety issues in driving. One of the lessons you will find is on traffic laws, driving in general and the safe way to overcome different situations.
You will also be provided with the study guides that will be used outside class. These resources will be useful for referencing topics that have been covered and preparing for future topics in the course.

Practical Driving Tips

One of the other main components of the Driving Improvement Clinic Course in Virginia is useful driving tips. These tips are aimed at making you a safer and being a responsible driver.

1. You will gain knowledge which will help you in recognizing the risks on the road and the actions that need to be taken to prevent them.
2. You will also know about the safe driving techniques like driving in the rain or snow as well as navigating a heavy traffic.
3. Lectures will inform you on how to avoid accidents and how to evade causing injury to yourself or others.

These practical tips should come in handy for any individual on the road who wants to become a better driver. They can assist you to maintain a cool head and focused state when driving and hence reduce the chances of accidents.

Evaluation and Feedback

The evaluation of a Driving Improvement Clinic Winchester is one of the most important elements of the course as it helps the participants get feedback on their work. One way to assess the students during the course is by testing their driving skills. This evaluation enables you to establish areas in which you can improve.
The instructing staff will give constructive criticism based on the performance. This feedback is meant to equip you with the information that can enable you to become a better driver. You will also find out the details of your personality and any of your habits that might be considered as bad and how to fix them.
The feedback is not just general but customized to your needs and skills. This makes it easier to put what one has learnt into action and the results that a person gets from his driving activity.

Conclusion

The Driving Improvement Clinic Course in Virginia is a worthy experience. The course is designed to equip you with wide classroom instruction, valuable driving tips and personalized feedback. This makes you a safer and more responsible driver and completes the course of classifying for the legal requirement. If you are searching for a reliable or trusted clinic, then Nova Online Driving School will be the one to trust. They provide high quality courses that are adapted to the client demands. Visit https://idrivenova. com/ or contact us now to enroll today.