Try creating mnemonic devices! Mnemonics are memory aids that help you recall information more easily. For example, to remember the order of the planets in our solar system, try using the phrase "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Noodles", where the first letter of each word corresponds to a planet (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune). Mnemonics can be fun and effective tools for studying!

Never thought these are the things that would be taking up brain space, but, how in the world do I improve my slide design? Work at a B4 in HR consulting so there are obviously tons of templates, quals, etc that I can work with. But often, unless things fit perfectly into the template I have a really hard time visually and presenting material in an appealing way.
As someone going up for promotion I feel like this is a crucial aspect of my more junior role, and I can see it impacting my performance negatively. Are there any tips people can share for the less creative among us? A million thanks in advance!!

The Premier Web Design Company in Qatar
In today’s digital-first world, having a strong online presence is crucial for any business. Whether you are a startup or an established enterprise, your website is often the first point of contact for potential customers. To make a lasting impression, you need a website that is not only visually appealing but also functional and user-friendly. This is where Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions, a leading web design company in Qatar, comes into play.

Why Choose Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions?

When it comes to web design in Qatar, Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions stands out as a top choice. Our expertise and commitment to excellence make us a preferred partner for businesses looking to enhance their online presence. Here’s why we are the best web design company in Qatar:
**1. Custom Web Design Services**
At Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions, we understand that every business is unique. That’s why we offer custom web design Qatar services tailored to meet your specific needs. Our team of experienced designers and developers work closely with you to create a website that reflects your brand’s identity and engages your target audience.
**2. Cutting-Edge Technologies**
We leverage the latest web technologies to ensure your website is not only aesthetically pleasing but also performs exceptionally well. Our webdesign Qatar services incorporate responsive design, fast loading times, and robust security features to provide a seamless user experience across all devices.
**3. User-Centric Approach**
Our approach to web design Qatar focuses on the end user. We prioritize intuitive navigation, clean layouts, and engaging content to ensure visitors have a positive experience on your site. This user-centric approach helps in converting visitors into loyal customers.

Our Comprehensive Web Design Services

As a leading web design company in Qatar, Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions offers a wide range of services to cater to all your web design needs:
**1. Website Development**
Beyond design, our web development services ensure your website is built to the highest standards. We use best practices in coding and development to create websites that are not only beautiful but also functional and scalable.
**2. E-commerce Solutions**
For businesses looking to sell online, we offer comprehensive e-commerce solutions. Our web design Qatar team creates user-friendly and secure online stores that provide an exceptional shopping experience, driving sales and customer satisfaction.
**3. SEO Optimization**
A great website is useless if it can’t be found by your target audience. That’s why our webdesign Qatar services include SEO optimization. We implement the latest SEO techniques to improve your site’s visibility on search engines, helping you attract more organic traffic.
**4. Content Management Systems (CMS)**
We provide easy-to-use CMS solutions that allow you to manage your website content effortlessly. Whether you need to update text, images, or products, our CMS solutions give you complete control over your site’s content.
**5. Graphic Design**
Our talented graphic designers create visually stunning graphics that enhance your brand’s online presence. From logos to banners, we ensure your brand stands out with high-quality visuals.

The Importance of Professional Web Design

Investing in professional web design is crucial for several reasons. A well-designed website can:
**1. Enhance Credibility**
A professionally designed website enhances your business’s credibility. First impressions matter, and a polished, professional site can make a significant impact on how potential customers perceive your brand.
**2. Improve User Experience**
A user-friendly website keeps visitors engaged and encourages them to explore your content further. Our web design Qatar services focus on creating intuitive, easy-to-navigate websites that provide a positive user experience.
**3. Boost SEO Rankings**
Search engines favor websites that are well-designed and optimized for performance. By leveraging our SEO expertise, we help your site rank higher in search results, driving more traffic to your business.
**4. Increase Conversion Rates**
A strategically designed website can guide visitors towards taking desired actions, such as making a purchase or filling out a contact form. Our webdesign Qatar team uses proven techniques to enhance your site’s conversion rates.

Success Stories: Transforming Businesses with Web Design

Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions has helped numerous businesses in Qatar transform their online presence. Here are a few examples of how our web design services have made a difference:
**1. Startup Success**
We helped a new startup launch their brand with a stunning website that captured their unique vision. Our custom design and SEO optimization drove significant traffic to their site, helping them gain a strong foothold in the market.
**2. E-commerce Excellence**
A local retailer approached us to revamp their outdated e-commerce site. Our web design Qatar team created a modern, user-friendly online store that resulted in a 50% increase in sales within the first three months.
**3. Corporate Transformation**
We worked with a well-established corporation to redesign their corporate website, making it more user-friendly and visually appealing. The result was a more professional online presence that enhanced their brand image and attracted new clients.

Partner with Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions Today

Your website is a critical asset in today’s digital landscape. To ensure it stands out, you need a web design company in Qatar that understands your business and has the expertise to deliver outstanding results. Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions is committed to helping you achieve your online goals with our comprehensive web design Qatar services.
Ready to transform your online presence? Contact Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions today and let us create a website that not only meets but exceeds your expectations. Visit Tech-Tayebqatar IT Solutions to learn more about our services and how we can help your business succeed online.

For example, CURL and CURLF are the same company but one is traded on OTC markets whilst one is traded on TSE. I assumed they would perform similarly but looking at the history they act like total different stocks!
If one just believes in the overall success of a company, how would this difference come into their analysis?

I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

TL;DR
Me (25M) have been dating my girlfriend (24F) for just over six months now. I really love her and she loves me so much.
But, I have been feeling very emotionally alone recently. I feel like she never wants to acknowledge my emotions and dismisses them, and I don't know what to do about it. There have been some serious instances and several minor ones, where she hardly ever seems to apologise or even acknowledge my feelings when she hurts me. Sometimes, she would say hurtful things, sometimes say that I cook up stories in my head etc.
For example, once we had an intense conversation about my law career where she insulted my idea of getting into academia. She called me a coward and even insulted my father. She said many other things which truly broke my heart. The next day, when I poured my heart out to her about how her words broke my heart, she went silent said sorry over text. When she did talk to me, she said she never disrespected me or my father. She also said that I always dump all my emotions on to her without any regard for her.
Another example is when she out of the blue told me that she made out with her guy best friend a couple years back and I should be jealous of him. I was really thrown by that, and felt a little uncomfortable in that moment. I was hurt too, but I understand that it was a long time ago and it should not affect me as much. The problem was how she reacted to me feeling hurt and uncomfortable the moment I found out. Only half an hour into our conversation, she said that I was obsessing over all this.
The bottom line is that I feel every time I bring up any negative emotion, especially one towards her, she simply gets aggressive, says mean things and resorts to hurting me in some way or the other. Now I am stuck in a paradox, where I cannot talk to her about this issue or any other things she did that have been on my mind, knowing she will simply dismiss them. I have brought up this problem about me not being able to open up to her when she hurts me, but she did the same thing as always, i.e., she made mean comments, said that I make up stories in my head etc.
What should I do?

I am really happy to introduce Loopple Boilerplate Builder - a tool that will help you accelerate your development in just a matter of days.
Our powerful tool integrates the best technologies to streamline your development process:

• Next.js for robust performance
• Tailwind CSS for sleek designs
• Paddle for hassle-free payments
• Open AI for intelligent features
• Supabase Auth & Database for seamless user management and data handling
• Loopple Drag & Drop for effortless customization
• 7 pre-built pages examples

Whether you're a seasoned developer or just starting out, Loopple Boilerplate Builder helps you launch your projects in days, not weeks!
See how you can boost your development speed and build amazing web-based software with ease.
Let me know what you think about it!
Below are some useful links if you want to contribute and give feedback:
Website: https://www.loopple.com/boilerplate

Since I already expect to be beaten by other fans, I will try to express this theory of mine in a very schematic way step by step
A) Apparently, although there are many nuances and even conflicting sources, we can say that the Jedi and the Sith have at their base two different motivations for acting: in theory, and i underline "in theory", Jedi are moved by altruism, by the idea to act for a greater good, are at the service of the community, give great importance to inner serenity, etc The Sith on the other hand, generally and i underline "generally", are driven by the desire to fully experience their emotions and satisfy their personal passions
B) However, this should not automatically lead all Sith to be evil: living following one's emotions and passions is not necessarily bad. Modern psychology would classify this type of behavior as "Dionysian", which is contrasted with the other classical behavior which is "Apollonian". But these two terms are in no way synonymous with good or evil. So why should a path based on emotions and passions, even emotions and passions of a personal nature, necessarily lead to evil ?
C) I'll give you some examples: a revolutionary who fights for freedom is driven by a great passion, the classic avenger of the night is often driven by a personal revenge against evil. A person who dedicates himself to becoming the greatest sportsman in the world or to becoming an excellent artist is dedicating his entire life to a personal passion and probably also has very strong emotional reasons for doing so but this does not necessarily make him a person evil. In short: there are not only negative personal desires and negative personal emotions, such as ambition, anger, etc Imagine if Anakin had simply killed the desert raiders who killed his mother, but without touching the women and children of that tribe. His act, driven by a strong emotion, would have been less negative and fit into the stereotype of the "avenger of the night": who is a dark hero, almost an anti-hero we could say, but certainly not a villain. The "road warrior" or the Punisher or the Gatsu model character from Berserk would fit perfectly into this category

D) I'll give a direct example of a popular character from another saga, who however has several points in common with a very famous Sith. The character I use as an example is Severus Snape from the Harry Potter saga: if we analyze Snape's motivations we can see that everything he does over the course of the seven books is driven by only two motivations, which are love for Lily and the desire to take revenge against Voldemort. Every single action of Snape, however cold he may apparently seem, is driven by these two reasons... which as you will notice are purely emotional in nature. At the beginning, and perhaps even at the end, Snape doesn't care much about the fact that Voldemort also kills Muggles or at least that isn't his main reason for fighting him: he wants to avenge Lily in the name of his Love for her. So Snape fits perfectly into the description of a Sith: he doesn't do what he does for a lofty reason of love for "community" and for an abstract ideal of the common good, he just does what he does because he is moved by emotion and passion. In this I notice a very strong parallel with Palpatine: both characters have a mask of cold and rational man, both are mentally disciplined enough to hide their true motivations and manage to hatch even very complex plans and plots BUT both are in reality driven by unbridled emotions and passions, simply in Snape's case we talk about love and revenge while in Palpatine's case we talk about ambition. Here we can notice another important thing: the Sith are "motivated" by emotions\passions but are not necessarily "dominated" by them. Not 24/7 at least: Palpatine has the galaxy believe he is a calm and rational politician, he has the clarity to make a very elaborate plan... all this despite being "moved/motivated" by ambition
E) So, having seen in the previous point that you can very well create a positive character who is driven by the desire to satisfy personal passions and fully experience your personal emotions, I return to my initial question: why no Sith is a positive character ? Now I don't pretend that all the Sith are Severus Snape but I can't even understand why they are all evil: I think that there could easily be some Sith who fight for a positive ideal... maybe they will fight in a violent and questionable way, maybe they will be similar to those who in Dungeons & Dragons are called "chaotic good", maybe someone will have a politically incorrect attitude like Deadpooll, but they should still exist
Possible Answer 1: the dark side just streams through emotions BUT the evilness is a Sith fault) I thought a possible answer might be not in the very nature of the light side and the dark side but in the training that the Jedi and Sith receive. In fact, we know that the Jedi are not the only users of the light side just as the Sith are not the only users of the dark side, so perhaps the fact that the Sith are always channeled towards negative emotions and negative passions could be due to the type of people who (by tradition) the Sith choose as students and because of the training they receive. However, if this hypothesis were true, then it would mean that it is not so much the dark side that is evil (at least not necessarily) but the Sith training! This would make a life based on emotion and passion dysfunctional. So there could be characters (who use the dark side and who are not Sith) who have an emotional & passionate but positive attitude. However, no such character comes to mind.

Possible Answer 2 : the dark side is evil BUT not necessarily streamed/link by emotions and desires) We might assume that the dark side is actually evil and corrupting, however you see it. The connection with emotions would derive from the fact that the Sith tradition has found a way of approaching the dark side in emotions and personal desires. However, if this hypothesis were true, then there would also be other ways of approaching the dark side that are not linked to desires and emotions, there could be users of the dark side who are calm, cold and thoughtful and not at all interested in their emotions : a sort of "monks" of the dark side or "jedi of the dark side" or "vulcans of the dark side". But I can't think of any example of a "dark side tradition" or "dark side order" that doesn't reference the Sith way in some way.

Possible answer 3: the dark side is a just a boogymen because the plot need villains) We could think that it is a structural problem of the dark side: dark side users must follow their personal emotions and desires but they will necessarily necome evil in doing this. The Jedi suggest many times that the dark side necessarily brings moral corruption, even if it is true that said by the Jedi it is a source a little biased. At this point my question becomes: if the dark side is necessarily evil & necessarily corrupts & necessarily based on emotion and passion, then honestly the very idea of ​​the dark side seems poorly structured to me. Because if this hypothesis were true it would make a strange and unfair comparison between emotionality and evil, between passion and self-destruction... This seems to me not only extremely bad narratively but also false. There are numerous historical examples of people who have saved lives, in some cases even many lives, simply by following their hearts, their emotions and their passions. It is obvious that even a Jedi has an emotionality that leads him to empathize with the evil suffered by other people, however even an emotionality focused on his own passions and deep emotions can be positive: I think for example of a Sith who fights evil not both because he thinks of the good of his community but because evil disgusts him or because he has revenge to carry out against a powerful evil organization. If you allow me another nerdy comparison I would say Gatsu from Berserk: especially at the beginning he is moved by very strong passions and powerful, very violent emotions, but we cannot say that he is the villain of the story because, even if with extremely harsh means, his aim is to eradicate a great evil... He doesn't do it to save the world: he does it for his personal revenge but his aim is still to stratify evil. Why was a Sith or a dark side user never conceived like this?
What do you think about my question ? Please be kind in the comments, thank you :)

How the hell does Sect keep something like their own cultivation techniques a secret? What happens when another Sect captures a Core Disciple or something and uses some technique to learn about their sect's cultivation technique? Does the cultivation technique have a built-in suicide bomb? Does the disciple know that what they are learning has a self-destruct button? Can't something like Movement techniques or any technique that requires you to physically perform it be understood just by looking even if it takes a long time?
For example, a Core disciple learns a high-grade Movement technique from their sect and it is forbidden to learn it if you are not from that sect, can't an Expert several realms above that disciple just deduce the technique just by looking at the disciple does it? why would an expert learn something so much lower than them? I mean boredom and seeking death is a thing so they just do it to piss off people, like "Haha, is THIS your super secret cultivation technique, well it not so secret now it is, lmao"
This post is very much influenced by the Death-seeking disease sickness after I read Cultivation chat group because not a single apex-powerful expert in that novel has any face and would definitely do something petty like that to piss each other off.

TW: discussion of ED Please note that this is my own (rambly) personal experience; I’m putting it out there in hopes it resonates with others. I am also not discussing any specifics of my ED.
Lately, I’ve become aware of the impact my Mothers shaming has had on my development. I (F19) recently started seeing someone, and they met my Mother. I’ve seen people in the past, but this is the first time that I genuinely feel there is good potential, and they were the one to ask to meet my Mother which I happily obliged too. At various intervals throughout their dialogue, my Mother put me down. It was nothing serious, but little comments; for example she had just come back from the supermarket and started unpacking. As she unpacked, she made comments along the lines of me eating most of it, and just generally being unhealthy. Now, the guy I’m seeing appeared unfazed by all this (which makes sense because why would he care about the exact foods I am eating) but I was deeply uncomfortable. I am now recovered but have a history of insecurity regarding food and body image, culminating in about 2 years of ana. This dialogue got me thinking about my Mothers propensity for putting me down around others.
Another recent example not related to body image is I’m interested in solo travelling, albeit just in the research stage. My Mother brings this up to most new people we meet in a negative light, even when it is completely irrelevant to the topics at stake.
This same kind of propensity occurred throughout when I had ana. She would brag to family members about her current diet, slim shakes, whatever she was taking, and within moments comment on the meal plan I was on in an attempt to recover.
When I had ana, other people’s perception of me was the worst part. I didn’t want to be perceived as skinnier, so much so I would wear baggy clothing and avoid situations such as sport where more revealing clothing would be required. I didn’t want people to be concerned; I was deeply insecure about taking up space in general. I believe she was frustrated with this; and drew attention to my issues in hopes that would make me get over them.
Thinking about this stuff made me go back further. To when little me, initially oblivious to my appearance, started covering up. And I thought about why that was. And I remember that my entire life, around strangers, she was always commenting something. When I was a kid and she’d joke about my arms being chubby. So I started wearing bomber jackets, even during summer, to cover up. I believe she was the biggest cause of my ED.
For as long as I can remember, when I am around strangers, or I am introducing my mother to new friends, she makes comments like this. Not just related to food, but generally small comments aimed at diminishing my presence. But, I notice that around old friends she doesn’t feel the need to act out in this way.
What all these things have in common is they are not so individually significant as to be abusive, but when they pile up they are exhausting. As a result, I was painfully shy as a kid in fear of being judged. For a long time I lived with so much internalised hatred of myself.
Looking at the big picture; it’s because of this behaviour I don’t unhealthily crave external validation. Unlike other friends whose parents brag about them and I notice fish for complements, I don’t feel the need to draw attention to myself in an excessive way. I am able to hold myself accountable and go after realistic goals. If I’m sick of tired I continue working hard (for better or worse). In the long run, I think it’s instilled me with resilience and a level headed outlook.
But I still struggle with introducing her to new people because of this. I’m aware that most people aren’t aware of my insecurities, and likely don’t pay attention to her comments. I also know that anyone truely right for me will see me well enough to know these comments are not a reflection of who I am.
I have this self awareness, but it doesn’t change that in the moment, her behaviour is exhausting. When I have confronted her about this in the past respectfully, I’ve been met with gaslighting and a complete lack of accountability on her part.
I apologise for the ranty nature of this all. In many ways saying it openly is therapeutic. I hope that if you’re in a similar situation you understand their behaviour is not a reflection of who you are; and those that care about you know that.

For most of my life I’ve been a negative thinker. Meaning I envision & predictive worry that things are not going to work out for me. For example, in a few weeks I’m moving cross country and I’m completely stressed out. A friend of mine is supposed to drive my car because I can’t do it because of arthritis and back pain. But of course after three weeks nothing has been firmed up. She keeps saying she’s going to call me but never does. I’m just assuming she’s not gonna do it. Also, when I move to my new state I’m going to live with my cousin and her husband. I’m already thinking about how it’s not going to work out. She did offer a place for me to stay for a year while I get on my feet. Part of me thinks she is not happy about it though. I don’t know if this is just my anxiety going crazy or just stinkin’ thinkin’. It is driving me nuts though and keeping me awake at night! Does anyone else feel this way? How do I get rid of these feelings and just fucking relax? I can’t predict the future so why can’t I just chill out and think more positively? Ugh!

Hi, i was analyzing these three great consumer defensive companies and i did up the data sheet in case anyone is interested.
All three are in a google sheet, you can get it here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16J-iyYcPQ6ae-XRvMXGslB1w3RdiE6aJGFSqLjtFPmc/edit?usp=sharing
some caveat on using the file:

• i removed all formulas, all valuation process and only included my conclusion
• also there is a table called "plan b", in which i try to work backwards on the expected earnings growth from to the current share price. for example, using the table, i find that the market is expected a 9% earnings growth from P&G.
• note that for UL, it is a ADR, but the financial nos are in EUR, but the Shareprice is in USD. I had to exclude several analyst estimates because they were clear as no currency was specified.

Questions i wanted to find out:

1. Which company is selling volume ontop of price increases?
2. Which company is the most expensive, valuation-wise ?
3. Which company has the better efficiency metrics, ROE decomposition, etc ?
4. Which has the highest growth in Revenue and Earnings in the past 10 years?
5. Which has the potential for highest earnings growth going forward?

In general among the 3, PG is has the highest market cap, and is almost four times larger than its next competitor Unilever, even though its sales is only 42% more than the Unilever. MDLZ is more similar to Unilever, however although Unilever has 63% more revenue than MDLZ, its market cap is only 12% larger than MDLZ. I believe MDLZ and PG have a developed country premium, or you could view it as a difference in where PG has a highest market share among developed countries, and Unilever the least.
( this premium can be argued both ways, noted investor Terry Smith says that Unilever’s 60% in emerging market is the future because when these countries reach middle-income they will buy more of UL’s products. I say “not really leh”, UL greater exposure to emerging markets means that they tend to bolt at price increases more than PG or MDLZ, which is exactly what is happening to UL. Their earnings call is a painful justification on how they intend to sell more volume versus price increase, analysts don’t see this as problem with PG and MDLZ even though their latest quarter had negative volume growth and more price increases)
In terms of margins, PG has the most beautiful margins that justifies the higher valuation, UL has higher gross margin but still loses out to MDLZ. In terms of ROE and the rockers, PG is the highest, followed by UL and in a distant, MDLZ. MDLZ’s ROIC is above the cost of capital, but it is pale in comparison to the other two.
If i want to be critical, i will say it MDLZ is bobbing up and down between the 9% line. This is not good if WACC is at 9% (most website puts it at 7-8% but I use 9% to be consistent )
In terms of growth rates,
Mdlz is supposed to have the highest sales but the reality is that they are probably all the same.
Argus Research puts 8/9/10% cagr for PG/MDLZ/UL but CS puts all three at 7%-ish EPS growth.
In terms of valuation, i used 5% for UL/MLDZ instead, except for PG at 7%, and Plan-B is sizing PG at 9% based on the current share price.

Let’s make it aware that there is a job offer scam that lies and take you to Scam Factories and you become a slave, and you may even die. Post here all cases of Disappearance of people who may be associated with this type of scam.

Know The Signs!

Have you been trafficked?

• Did you apply for the job via Social Media (e.g. Facebook, Instagram), WhatsApp, Telegram or an online platform?
• Did you have an online interview?
• Have you been promised a job with a company in Thailand?
• Were you promised a lucrative salary?
• Did you receive a letter of confirmation for your new role?
• Did you investigate the company you applied to and are they registered?
• Do you have an agent or consultant handling details for you?

How to prevent yourself or someone you know from being trafficked

• Never give anyone your passport!
• Research the company you are applying to join. For example, check their website, search for them on social media and LinkedIn, check the legal registration of the company.
• Ask for references (face to face or virtual) from current employees.
• Ensure you received an official letter of offer and check the email addresses match the companies contact information.
• Research the visa requirements for working in a foreign country.
• Notify your countries Immigration Office of your intention to travel or contact your countries Embassy once you arrive at your destination.
• If you are about to cross a river in north-west Thailand don’t, it is likely you are being trafficked into Myanmar.

Forced Scamming:

Trapped in secure compounds.

• Victims are trafficked into secure compounds within Myanmar along the Thailand-Myanmar border with no way to escape. They are watched by armed security and their movements monitored 24/7 by CCTV.

Physically tortured, Sexually Assaulted & brutalised.

• Victims are punished if they refuse to work, until they comply. They are sexually assaulted and brutalised to keep them compliant and their torture used as a warning to others. All have scars, some visible and some hidden, that they will carry with them forever.

Forced to work 20 hour days, 6-7 days a week.

• Victims are forced to work 16-20 hours per day and often 6-7 days each week. They are locked into offices with rows and rows of computers forced to participate in illegal activities, including cyber scamming.

Passports confiscated & phones strictly monitored.

• Victims have their passports confiscated usually under false pretences. All phone activity is strictly monitored with random checks are conducted daily. Victims are forced to use company phones and can only access their personal phones in their rooms.

Could this be your situation? If you or someone you know has been trapped in forced criminality, contact your nearest embassy or email the Global Alms Counter Trafficking Unit at admin@globalalms.com with the details

This is a post for awareness. Let’s help each other. Only serious comments.
Below are more links to other related posts.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/asia/chinese-scam-operations-american-victims-intl-hnk-dst/ (Scam Factory location: 16°38'53.0"N 98°31'15.8"E https://maps.app.goo.gl/hjxFLTUJ1SK1aLMM8?g_st=ic)
http://chinascope.org/archives/32233
https://youtu.be/m6qFCdHvYuI?si=rs2J71V1XIeFF7we
https://www.globalantiscam.org/contact
https://www.reddit.com/Thailand/s/L8OTm9Lvye
https://www.globalalms.com/protection
Fill up the form https://www.globalantiscam.org/contact

(My account created recently for privacy/scam concerns)

Okay, here we go. Big rant incoming. This post is going to be extremely long and a bit whiny, but I would only write something like this because I really do love this game, and I am passionate about the decisions that go into game design & player experience. Feel free to skip to the TLDR. Obviously: SPOILERS
I'll start this off by saying that I have like 1000 hours in Valheim and I absolutely love the core aspects of the game. I also like to think of myself as a pretty skilled player compared to the average/target audience. I've done many Valheim playthroughs over the past few years, including a hardcore playthrough through Yagluth with no deaths, and a no-map/compass only playthrough. Even so, while the Ashlands as a biome felt "off" from even before the release, I generally blamed this on "skill issue", and figured progression would ameliorate some of the issues. After doing basically everything there is to do in the biome, I've come to the conclusion that it does not get better: the Ashlands gameplay loop is fundamentally anti-player experience. Here' why:
Mob density and lava is anti-exploration: Valheim, at its core, is an adventure & exploration game. If you take out the exploration, you're left with a resource collection simulator with awkward movement and basic combat. Like the Mistlands before it, the Ashlands presents immediate barriers to exploration. To even set foot into the biome you need top tier gear from the previous biome and an industrial grade multi-biome farm producing all of the best foods and meads.
However, while the Mistlands progression allows you to eventually overcome its barriers to exploration with the introduction of magic and new mechanical items (like the feather cape), the Ashlands never gets any less hostile. There are no lava-immunity boots, no anti-spawning beacons, no nothing. You just get a pretty okay gear upgrade, and a big fuck you. In fact, because of the unrelenting charred hordes, Valkyries, and marathon-running Asksvins, you're actually punished for exploring too far from your steadfast.
The only reasonable way to map the biome is by sprinting in Fenris armor with an Asksvin cape and Moder, which fundamentally destroys the immersion of the exploration anyways. After all this time in the biome, I've explored less than a half of a single of the Ashlands continents in my world. And why should I? What do I even gain from it? This leads me into my next big problem:
The Ashlands is unrewarding: To invest such tremendous effort into a biome there needs to be an equally tremendous reward. Spoiler: there isn't! You can expect to die a LOT in the biome, meaning your hard-earned skills are going to wither away, making you substantially weaker overall. What are you offered in return for this? Not much! The new heavy armor is the standard upgrade, extremely expensive, and generally slow. The Asksvin hide and magic armor sets are definitely not worse than the previous armor sets, but they don't really feel that much better. A couple of the weapons were interesting... but again, not enough to offset the pain.
The Ashlands really doesn't reward players for dealing with all of its bullshit. It's totally isolated, not very visually appealing, hostile from start to finish, and doesn't really introduce or accelerate any of the out-of-biome mechanics like previous biomes do (farming, sailing, new cooking stations, new crafting stations, fall damage negation, etc). By far the most interesting thing you acquire in the Ashlands is a staff that sacrifices half your health to spawn a charred troll, and they aren't even allowed to be on your team!!!
The whole war-zone aesthetic would be tolerable if the biome just didn't take so damn long to finish. Like seriously, because all of the limited visibility and constant mob clearing it's extremely slow to even locate the things you need to do, never-the-less even do them! At this point, I kind of think of the Ashlands as a chore you must complete to progress beyond it. That is fundamentally not a fun thing to do, and I believe the vast majority of players will not make it to the deep north for this exact reason. Which brings me to the biggest problem.
The Ashlands does not understand what makes difficulty fun: According to the devs, the biome is hard. Really hard, actually. They seemed extremely proud of making a biome that would really give the players a true run for their money! Naturally, I was extremely excited! Unfortunately, the Ashlands is not hard because of new strategic or mechanical learning curves, it is hard because it is clumsy.
Flametal mining is contrived and hostile. The pillars are a pain to climb with the game's terrible collision. Have you ever been crushed between the underside of a sinking flametal vein and your basalt bomb platform? 'Cus I have! Even worse, every time I actually whack a Flametal pillar (which by the way, wants to kill me even more than the monsters do) I'm personally inviting every entity in a 10 mile radius to form a mosh pit right below me.
Grapevine harvesting and planting is too slow. They take forever to find, even longer to grow, and cant even be planted in their natural biome without a shield generator? (What's up with that by the way?) I will admit that I love the way they look and depending on where you land you might get lucky and find them early, in which case this point is pretty moot. In my case, I had fully upgraded gear and had already cleared a fortress before I even found my first Vineberry.
Fortress "sieging", as the devs would like to call it, is kind of... useless? The siege weapons are clumsy and ineffective, and are immediately secondary to the brute force method of building a wooden staircase and bombarding the inside with fireballs until everything in it is dead. By the time you even reach a fortress, the relentless mob clearing just to get there has sucked all the fun out of the would-be battle anyway. (By the way, who though that it would be a good idea to make the only unique fortress mob a necromancer that summons even more of the most annoying mob in the entire biome?? Hurray, yet another swarm of reskinned, stat-boosted greydwarves!)
Honestly, I wouldn't even call the biome "hard". I would just call it painful. Things that are hard are generally things you can get better at. I don't think it particularly fits this category.
Lingering questions: While there are many things I like about the biome as a concept, I don't know if there is a single mechanic in the Ashlands that I actually think is well-designed. Now that I'm basically done with the biome, I look back and ask myself a number of questions about things I encountered. Were these really fun? or were they just tedious. I'll let you decide:

• Why is the only ship you can take through the spires so difficult to steer? If you want it to feel large and heavy, that's fine... but then why do spires spawn so densely that it constantly gets beached?
• Why do basalt bomb platforms only last for like 30 seconds? If you want them to not permanently mark the landscape, why not make them last at least long enough for players to reuse them for approaching and escaping from the pillars? Why make the player interact with the admittedly funky aiming mechanics to throw more platforms as the pillar is sinking?
• Why can the charred and Asksvins go in the lava if you can't? They're not immune to fire damage from a staff, but they can wade through lava? Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage players to use the lava as a risky resting place? Something like, "go out into the lava with basalt bombs to escape the horde briefly, but make sure you don't slip!"? Maybe then, once the player has cleared a fortress and acquired their first set of lava-immunity potions (or boots or whatever), they will have an advantage over the horde in terms of mobility. You know, like in every single other biome?
• Why are there no lava-walking boots?
• Why do tamed Asksvins animals not have a "passive mode", or a "follow" command like wolves, or at least some kind of hitching post? If the idea of asksvins is to be able to ride over lava to pillars, why make them run away from the pillars and to their death the instant the player gets off of them?
• Why are there no lava-walking boots........?
• Why make the step heights on flametal ore pillars only convenient/resonable to climb when wearing the feather cape that is extremely weak to fire? Isn't the idea of the fire weakness to discourage its use in the Ashlands? If you know your movement & collision mechanics feel clunky, why design the pillars in such a way that scaling them is necessary to escape certain death?
• Boots in lava no walking on it why tho........?
• Why make the spawnrate for monsters so uniformly high? The combat is extremely simple, and these monsters do pretty substantial damage in melee. This leads to a boring and frustrating "swarming" experience, where players have to run from monsters, inevitably picking up more monsters on the way. Couldn't you fix this by just have areas of extreme monster density like in every other biome which can be "cleared". Doesn't this work better with the power-up based combat your entire system is based off of? Doesn't this also double as another reason to actually explore in the Ashlands, as when players clear one area, they need to continue on to the next?
• If you want a new paradigm where defeating the horde isn't enough to "clear" an area, wouldn't you at least want to counteract this with some new mechanic that spawn-proofs/suppresses large areas? Or maybe a set of armor that reduces player-made sounds? Why doesn't that exist?
• Why not reward the player with outside-the-biome progression? Why not use this as the reason to go to the Ashlands in the first place? Teleporting metals is an obvious great example, but it feels like it was an afterthought made late in development so that the Ashlands would be even remotely tolerable, given that it's a nightmare to sail to. With an entire community full of dedicated players who love the game proposing extremely popular changes all the time... why not use some of those? (shield generators could also repair builds! Redbeard Dvegrs could offer unique item trading! New cores & metal could somehow accelerate or automate farming! Any of the above...)

TLDR: After finishing the Ashlands I struggle to see why so many design decisions were made that make the biome so relentless, tedious, and anti-exploration. It's like they took all of the experiences and mechanics that people love about the game and replaced them with all of the ones people find painful and annoying. It is extremely disappointing, and will prevent most players from finishing the game, or even the biome itself.

General
I am looking for a lady between 28 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I tried to be as concise as possible while still providing what details I think are crucial to know; I realise this post turned out very long, but I prefer those because I can get as good an idea as possible with detailed descriptions, bar actually talking to the person, and find that very valuable, so if that also applies to you, that would be awesome.
Basics
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner (ranging from 5k to full marathon), training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with a fearful avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or in the stadium watching football and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I am looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus (and there have to be at least a couple things we have in common), emotional and sexual compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals (some of which in quite a litteral sense as they make for really amazing pillows) and ideally, you do too.
There is a saying that in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly, like I said, need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well – this just to put the picture I'm (somewhat haphazardly) trying to paint into perspective.
Second, sexual compatibility. I have a high libido and I have kinks, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy them together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, sexual fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. Someone on here has coined the term 'filthy best friends and partners' which I have no shame to be stealing because it's such an apt description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. I love the relationship model outlined in Stan Tatkin’s ‘Wired for Love’ and you should, too. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. I know codependency is the latest thing everyone’s afraid of, but experiencing someone you’ve grown very attached to just bailing because they’re counterdependent and can’t stand working on themselves while simultaneously letting you in is something I’d rather not go through again. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere. If you think’s it’s okay to lovebomb someone and then leave after a couple of months with the minimum amount of information and no proper conversation because you’re not ready to own up to what’s happening to you emotionally, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, be opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: many childfree people seem to be adventurous, but that is a trait I don't associate with myself at all. I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, seeing them change around us, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side (albeit not regarding height), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
The natural progression for me would be to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but having my heart broken because I already developed feelings due to a longer timeframe and then everything unexpectedly turning to shit is not something I want to have to live through again. I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself, I unfortunately had to learn that
Caveats/Possible red flags

• I don't like travelling as it stresses me out; I don't mind being somewhere else for a week or two, but the organisation part of it drains my energy very quickly and dealing with stuff that doesn't work out is overwhelming to me. Smaller trips are ok, but I'm not the right person to travel the world with.
• I am not the most awake person in the morning (i.e. I identify as nightowl)
• I need space for my own projects/time to recharge after social interaction.
• While I feel like I am in tune with my inner child and working on/with it through therapy, I realise this is something that could be a turn-off for people.
• I have been diagnosed with depressive episodes in the past and am taking anti-depressants right now. I realise that I am a work in progress, maybe more so than in times past, but I manage and the fact that I'm putting myself out here is based on me being ready to get to know someone new.
• I want to create a home together here, as I'm firmly rooted where I was born; I realise this is a lot to ask, but I have seen many people here being open to moving, so I want to at least try reaching out to them.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and include some pictures of yourself and I will reply with my own. Have a nice day (:

"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.]

I am looking for a lady between 25 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner, training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with an avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or at a football game and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I'm looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus, emotional and intimate compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals and ideally, you do too.
Apparently in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well.
Second, intimate compatibility. I am rather insatiable and love to experiment when it comes to the bedroom, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, this kind of fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. I found the term 'filthy best friends and partners' to be a perfect description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
I’d prefer to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself.
Caveats

• I don't like travelling as it stresses me out; I don't mind being somewhere else for a week or two, but the organisation part of it drains my energy very quickly and dealing with stuff that doesn't work out is overwhelming to me. Smaller trips are ok, but I'm not the right person to travel the world with.
• I am not the most awake person in the morning (i.e. I identify as nightowl)
• I don't want children and had a vasectomy
• I need space for my own projects/time to recharge after social interaction.
• While I feel like I am in tune with my inner child and working on/with it through therapy, I realise this is something that could be a turn-off for people.
• I have been diagnosed with depressive episodes in the past and am taking anti-depressants right now. I realise that I am a work in progress, maybe more so than in times past, but I manage and the fact that I'm putting myself out here is based on me being ready to get to know someone new.
• I want to create a home together here, as I'm firmly rooted where I was born; I realise this is a lot to ask, but I have seen many people here being open to moving, so I want to at least try reaching out to them.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and include some pictures of yourself and I will reply with my own. Have a nice day (: