Golf rules sprinkler head

1. Research altcoins
Expand your portfolio: Diversify your investments to include promising altcoins. Such coins can have a great potential for growth, although they carry greater risks
Project analysis: Study each project's whitepaper, development team, partners, and roadmap. Research technical aspects and real-world use cases
2. Study technical and fundamental analysis
Technical analysis (TA): Learn basic indicators (e.g. SMA, RSI, MACD) and chart patterns (e.g. head and shoulders, double bottom). Use these tools to predict market movements
Fundamental analysis (FA): Assess the fundamentals of the project, such as the team, technology, partners, market potential, and competitive environment
3. Using DeFi.
Decentralized Finance (DeFi): Explore the opportunities provided by DeFi platforms such as lending, borrowing, staking, and yield farming
Liquidity: Understand the principles of liquidity provision in DeFi platforms and the risks associated with permanent losses
4. Study staking and nodes
Staking: Earn rewards by holding certain cryptocurrencies on a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) platform. Explore different staking platforms and choose the ones that offer the best conditions
Launch a node: If you have sufficient technical expertise, consider launching your own node to support a specific cryptocurrency network and receive rewards
5. Mastering NFTs.
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs): Study the NFT market, its potential and risks. Consider investing in digital assets such as art, collectibles, and virtual real estate
NFT platforms: Use well-known platforms such as OpenSea, Rarible, Foundation to buy and sell NFTs
6. Understand the tax implications
Taxation of cryptocurrencies: Find out about the tax obligations for cryptocurrencies in your country. Consult with tax professionals to properly declare income from cryptocurrency transactions
Transaction accounting: Keep accurate records of all your transactions to be able to report your profits and losses correctly
7. Security and risk management
Advanced security: Use hardware wallets to store large amounts of cryptocurrencies. Check the authenticity of the software and regular updates
Risk management: Set clear rules for yourself regarding risk management. Use stop losses and other tools to protect against large losses
8. Mastering trading bots and automation
Trading bots: Learn and use trading bots to automate trading. Bots can help optimize trading strategies and reduce the emotional factor
Customizing bots: Customize bots based on your trading strategies and risk tolerance
9. Participation in communities and training
Crypto communities: Join communities on social media such as Reddit, Twitter, Telegram where you can discuss news and get tips
Continuous learning: Follow new trends, take online courses, participate in webinars and conferences
10. Portfolio management
Portfolio rebalancing: Regularly analyze and rebalance your portfolio to meet your investment objectives and changing market conditions
Long-term strategy: Develop a long-term investment strategy and stick to it, avoiding short-term market fluctuations

XBOX users: Are you looking to buy or sell something for money? This is your thread!

• There is a whole sub devoted to maintaining a reputation, which you can find here, but keep in mind that YOU need to copy/paste and search usernames here, not just trust links that get sent to you.
• CLICK HERE to search a user on the Universal Scammer List. This will tell you if a user has been banned or not. Remember that banned users can still message you.
• As a reminder, any reposting of the same/similar content within this post will be considered spam and against our rules. You may post to the PM thread later when it gets posted.
• You can find the detailed rules here. Please review them before commenting.
• Make an effort to condense your comment or it will be removed. Don't make it scream for attention; you're selling something, we get it. If it's taking up half a mobile screen...it's too much. If you're using the heading text, all caps, etc. it's too much.

PS4 and PS5 users: Are you looking to buy or sell something for money? This is your thread!

• There is a whole sub devoted to maintaining a reputation, which you can find here, but keep in mind that YOU need to copy/paste and search usernames here, not just trust links that get sent to you.
• CLICK HERE to search a user on the Universal Scammer List. This will tell you if a user has been banned or not. Remember that banned users can still message you.
• As a reminder, any reposting of the same/similar content within this post will be considered spam and against our rules. You may post to the PM thread later when it gets posted.
• You can find the detailed rules here. Please review them before commenting.
• Make an effort to condense your comment or it will be removed. Don't make it scream for attention; you're selling something, we get it. If it's taking up half a mobile screen...it's too much. If you're using the heading text, all caps, etc. it's too much.

Hello /keto Community!
Please use this support thread to talk freely and support each other. **We've switched up the format to last 2 days so that there's more time for interaction on questions and answers.**
All visitors, new and old, are kindly reminded to observe the sidebar rules, check the FAQ, and use the Search Bar before creating new posts.
If you're new to /keto and need some info, start with Keto in a Nutshell and the FAQ. Or, if you have a question that doesn't seem to be covered, head on over to the Community Support thread (pinned to the top of the subreddit) and ask the community!

• Putin + Kim Jong (Dictators)
• Blackwater (PMCs & Mercenaries)
• I5I5, H4M4S or 4L-Q43DA (Terrorist organizations)
• CIA & NSA (Governmental bodies and departments)
• Foreign invaders (Military & Special Forces)
• World leader (President & Prime Minister)

In terms of a dictator:

Figures such as Putin are the ones usually giving their subordinates such as mercenaries, special forces or the regular military the order to commit any crime against humanity, so they are the true mastermind, sitting behind the scenes while their subordinates commit the crime on their behalf.
They know that the police can't do shit to them, due to being in power of the country, so it'll not make sense as to why they would arrest someone above their pay grade. It does matter if you pursue the case via the ICC, that only works in absentia but not make them physically present.
They have their own military, law enforcement and equivalent of the CIA, so the police stand no chance on approaching them, despite these people being complicit with committing any crime, such as murder, torture, extortion, kidnapping, etc.

In terms of PMCs & Mercenaries:

Usually, they are employed by a private corporation. Even though the personnel look like soldiers, they are not fighting for a nation, solely for monetary gain, the rules for typical soldiers do not apply since they are not considered as part of the conventional military.
Heads of such PMC firms know that police can't arrest them directly, shifting accountability of their crimes to a third party just to save their own skin, so it'll be a challenge. A real example, there were American mercenaries who murdered 2 Iraqi nationals in cold blood but got away with it.
The most infuriating part is that they were pardoned by the president 9 years after it happened, plus the USA is not an official member of the ICC, making it hard for the victim to pursue justice, basically the government who hired them are deemed immune from legal repercussions.

In terms of terrorist organizations:

You will be in immediate danger if you dared to confront or called the authorities on such people and organizations, since they will kill everyone without mercy if they know you alerted the police of their crimes or atrocities. (Murder: Beheadings)
Police would be too intimidated to face them (since they will also target their loved ones), from terrorists ruthless as I5I5 are known to kidnap, torture and murder anybody regardless of their status and occupation. They have no problem on murdering both the judge and jury.
You can try to pursue justice, but it'll come at a huge sacrifice, plenty of judges, jurors, cops, lawyers, prosecutors, eyewitnesses, private citizens including yourself will all be prey, as all of you will be murdered by these people, so there is no trial or prison time for them.

In terms of governmental bodies & departments:

There is no luck, since they are politicians and have such a strong upper hand over the police, you can be the next Snowden but guarantee that you'll be labeled as a traitor and a whistleblower, you are basically doomed at this point. (There's not much you can do to save yourself.)
Organizations equivalent to the NSA or CIA can orchestrate an assassination staging it as an accident, while they utilize their governmental connections to conceal their involvement. The police are heavily tied to the state, so calling them while being targeted is useless.
These governmental bodies can also hire a hitman too, that is if you know too much. Since they can just order and pay a contract killer to assassinate you, who might subject you to torture eventually on considering killing you.

In terms of the military and special forces:

In a situation akin to what happened in Iraq, the soldiers will consider policemen in the country they are in as combatants, so the police will be murdered in cold blood, as the military remains steadfast about asserting their authority over them.
Despite if the military or special forces being complicit on murdering your loved ones, you got to consider that they are following orders from the higher authorities (usually their superior or government itself) so that will pose a challenge on arresting the true mastermind.
The cloest thing you can achieve is at least arresting one of the soldiers through military justice and a court martial to convict him or her, but not the official armed force branch itself. For instance, what happened at a prison in Iraq, the US troops abused the inmates there.

In terms of a world leader:

Again, like with dictators, they are the ruler of the nation. Whilst still in their tenure, they cannot be prosecuted, the only way that would work is to wait for their tenure to end, once they are no longer in office then you can pursue justice.
For example, Trump incited the insurrection of the white house, despite him not bearing arms, but his rhetoric exacerbated the influence on his supporters to storm the white house, it was too much for the police to handle, although they did arrest some figures involved.
Though Trump himself remained immune whilst in power, although after he was no longer president, there was a case against him for that, it is still dragging on until now. He is not been officially convicted of the insurrection back in 2021.

"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.]

Hi all. Just wanted to try getting a narrowed down idea of my type. Feel free to comment your thoughts! Thanks!
• How old are you? What's your gender? Give us a general description of yourself.
I'm a 25 year-old male. I'm a diligent student and am living away from my home country for now 9 years. Ive spent those 9 years trying to understand the way the society works here and have adapted rather well, to the point where people can't tell I'm a foreigner. I'm pretty active, although it's more so activity for the sake of activity. As such, I'm kinda fit.
• Is there a medical diagnosis that may impact your mental stability somehow?
Yes. GAD and PTSD.
• If you had to spend an entire weekend by yourself, how would you feel? Would you feel lonely or refreshed?
I would have fomo if I were to see everyone else that I deem as friend doing something cool on socials. Then I would become resentful. However, I myself am perfectly okay being in my own company. I prefer it. That is not to say I don't like being with my frens. I would feel refreshed but there would come a point where I would feel as if I can't bear being so alone. Especially after long periods of time. However, I am accustomed to being alone and finding the joy in it. Like I said, I would resent the very sociable folks because I felt left out
• What kinds of activities do you prefer? Do you like, and are you good at sports? Do you enjoy any other outdoor or indoor activities?
I like activities that i can enjoy anywhere. Though i think this is because of how used to using a phone i am. Mobile gaming etc... is pretty neat. I like activities in which i can see a story unfold. Reading is one of them, iwas a huge reader as a kid. But i gravitate more so towards watching cool shows. However i much prefer shows and things that arent as popular because then people wont annoyingly yap about the surface level of the shows that we mutually have watched. Though I do like creative activities, like painting, I also like shopping and walking around. I like doing things that I feel are leading towards something grand. So, for instance, journaling and practicing a skill daily brings me some pleasure. I used to be a huge football fan until I realized how corrupt the sport was. I do like some sports though. I've always liked tossing and catching balls, playing with bouncy balls as a kid etc... I like skateboarding, though I haven't owned one in years.
• How curious are you? Do you have more ideas then you can execute? What are your curiosities about? What are your ideas about - is it environmental or conceptual, and can you please elaborate?
Quite curious. I'm sometimes out of touch with reality just entertaining my mental musings. I will be sat and thinking about some random topic or thing iused to hear about and then research it. I'll try to make sense of the world and the "why" behind things. For example; why do I have nightmares when it's cold? Why are xyz so unreasonable? Why am I so attached to this toy? Why don't people do instead of y? I feel like social media has influenced this process tho. Giving us random things to consume, it leads us to clicking on videos and articles that spark new interests so easily and quickly, so I'm unsure. Though I tend to want to know why certain things are happening or WHAT is happening. Especially if theres like a crown gasping at something, for instance.
• Would you enjoy taking on a leadership position? Do you think you would be good at it? What would your leadership style be?
i have taken leadership positions in the past, and I did well. I much prefer to appeal to the good nature of my "teammates" and encourage them to do a good job.however, I prefer to select my team. I do not want laziness or incompetence in my crew. So I will scan my options and choose who I will team up with. If I have options that are limited to not-so-skilled individuals, I will play a leadership role and do most of the thinking. Tho I don't enjoy it.
• Are you coordinated? Why do you feel as if you are or are not? Do you enjoy working with your hands in some form? Describe your activity?
i'm coordinated, yeah. I actually prefer situations where I can grasp the essence of a problem and use my hands. I prefer writing over reading, so I guess I like using my hands fo effect the mediums I work with. I used to want to be like a spy who is interacting with a bunch of gadgets and mobilizing himself towards a goal. My activity is usually at my own pace. I frequently try to finish tasks ahead of schedule because I want to spend more time lazing around and doing whatever I want. I tend to seek clarity in instructions I am given and sequentially take care of each piece of the task I am given. I recently started using to do lists because the workload became HUGE. I will, however, not compromise my comfort.
• Are you artistic? If yes, describe your art? If you are not particular artistic but can appreciate art please likewise describe what forms of art you enjoy. Please explain your answer.
i am. I am skilled with pencil shading and line art and do pretty well with colours and aesthetics. I know what I like and try to make something that appeals to me and is objectively nice. I tend to also make pieces that resonate with myself, so things that I like. I even sought to learn to draw faces to draw myself and my friends ad fantasy characters. I'm good with visual arts but I'm also a pretty good actor. I've always excelled at making accents and role playing. I like thinking of people in terms of the archetypes they fill and even portray my friends in memes
• What's your opinion about the past, present, and future? How do you deal with them?
The past, I have a love hate relationship with it. I made mistakes that I regret and have been through horrible things. But I do appreciate things from the past that bring me meaning. Certain flavors, sceneries, good memories. As for the present, I tend to be locked out of the present moment. I struggle to live in the moment and can seem rather weird. I think more about things than actually doing them. It feels like I play a character at any given moment for any given interaction tho. As for the future, I tend to find it weird. I want a better future and sometimes think, in a tight situation, "don't worry. Tomorrow this will be over." I love thinking that the future is open and that better days are ahead. I often wonder what it will feel like doing things ive never done. Absent of anxiety, that is. With anxiety, whole different story. "Tomorrow is bound to be worse than today" when anxious
• How do you act when others request your help to do something (anything)? If you would decide to help them, why would you do so?
i help those i'm cool with or at least neutral towards. If the individual is full of nonsense and lazy or offers no value in return, no way.
• How important is efficiency and productivity to you?
I've been lazy all mylifr and I never stopped hearing about it. So just to prove people wrong, I will move bricks and mountains. Whichever is important to a degree of thinking "less is more". Productivity is alright too, but at my own pace ofc
• What are your hobbies? Why do you like them?
i listen to music, journal, watch cartoons and movies, work out, walk, try to find ways to "fix" my life (my friends tell me this is what I do most), play games, try some good food, meditate (I tend to neglect this one), research interesting things, draw, accomplish a goal
• What is your learning style? What kind of learning environments do you struggle with most? Why do you like/struggle with these learning styles? Do you prefer classes involving memorization, logic, creativity, or your physical senses?
I hate classes with lots of aural input from a lecturer, If it triggers my misophonia.i prefer learning things practically. explanations will just have me needing to read more and try to focus on boring notes. Using my hands and brains is preferred. I score high in Kinesthetic for VARK tests. Oh, and visual. I prefer classes that involve logic, creativity and physical senses. I can memorize things but this is the most tedious learning style for me.
• How good are you at strategizing? Do you easily break up projects into manageable tasks? Or do you have a tendency to wing projects and improvise as you go?
I can strategise when needed. I weigh the task up first. If the task at hand is hard, I will break it down and dedicate more energy to it. Else, I'll just do what feels right. I even ignore instructions sometimes.
• What do the "highs" in your life look like?
The flavour of the world feels warm, with a tinge of coldness. I would feel as if my suffering paid off and I am nowhere except where I am supposed to be. That there is no rush and no need to care of what others think about me. Where I can just do what I deem best amd find a balance between stability and adventure
• What do the "lows" in your life look like?
Nightmares, hypichondriasis, overthinking, rumination, anxiety, panic, jealousy, having no autonomy
• How attached are you to reality? Do you daydream often, or do you pay attention to what's around you? If you do daydream, are you aware of your surroundings while you do so?
I daydream quite a lot. But I will still feel what's around me enough to get somewhere where I can be in my head in peace. XD
• Imagine you are alone in a blank, empty room. There is nothing for you to do and no one to talk to. What do you think about?
I like empty rooms, especially if they used to be lively and full of people in past events. Goes to show that no matter what happens, some things remain. I would think of what life would be like if I were to live here forever. I would also be reminded of that meme where there's just a futon, a screen, a fridge and a katana: "all men need to be happy". If the room has no windows or doors, I'd be scared. Assuming it has windows and a door, I would look outside, eventually. How big is the room? If it's a HUUUUGE empty hall, that's so cool. I'd walk around and imagine myself in some great elvish building and maybe even lie down to see the roof. I even dreamt of such a building before, hexagon shaped cross section.
• How long do you take to make an important decision? And do you change your mind once you've made it?
I take a bloody long time to decide on anything important. For instance, i took 4 hours to decide what race my DnD character would be. Once I've made my decision, I will not regret it unless it goes wrong
• How long do you take to process your emotions? How important are emotions in your life?
I have always tended to act on emotion but i have been more balanced in the past 4 years. I regulate them to not make a mess and use them to deem what I will and will not tolerate in the future. I enjoy expressing them
• Do you ever catch yourself agreeing with others just to appease them and keep the conversation going? How often? Why?
No. Cause that's fake. If I don't agree, I'll just say "cool" and move on. Why talk if I'm going to say what YOU want to hear? I must say what I want to say.
• Do you break rules often? Do you think authority should be challenged, or that they know better? If you do break rules, why?
Yeah, but I often get told that what I'm doing isn't right and then I just get mad at the person that told me that. "No sir you can't wear shoes in this room" I'll think cwell, screw you too!" Besides that, I often follow the rules of any given institution well enough.

I don't know much about mall tours but I'm guessing they (Mercedes, Santana and Brittany) got a tour bus for it though we saw Britt and Mercedes hop in to a cab after their Shaking My Head mall performance.
Based off the troubletones dynamics we've seen prior, they probably had a blast on the road together and while I can imagine Santana and Mercedes occasionally butting heads over something minor, comes with having two big personalities in a limited space, they do seem to genuinely respect and like each other enough to not make it anything big. I can imagine they took the opportunity to do some personal shopping together while at each mall just for fun and hanging out.
Mercedes probably had to put some ground rules put in place for Brittany and Santana as travelling with any couple in an enclosed space seems like it can get potentially awkward otherwise. My own headcanon of course but I imagine that Mercedes and Sam video called a lot as well and you just know Santana would start with Trouty Mouth in the background at some point if she heard his voice.
I don't know if they had their own separate bus for the three of them, seems unlikely though as it would be very expensive, or if they also shared the space with the other dancers and any potential backup vocals, if so as someone who values my own personal space I can't imagine that being easy but then again celebrities go on tour buses a lot and seem to mostly manage so it might have been easier than I think.

Welcome to Tuesday Rulesday!
Please use this thread to ask and discuss your rules questions. Also make sure to use the upvote button to thank those who take the time to give correct answers. If you need immediate assistance, please head over to the IRC live judge chat or the rules question channel in the EDH discord server.
Remember that rules questions aren't allowed on /EDH outside of this weekly post, so if you have a rules question and aren't getting a response here you can head to the two links above, or to /mtgrules.

Recently an offensive player accused a defender of dangerous play after colliding with the defender because the offensive player's eyes were on the frisbee flying over his head (wasn't looking where he was going). The offensive player said words to the effect: you could see not getting out of the way was going to lead to a collision and you didn't get out the way.
Playing Ultimate UK but would be curious if the rules differ US<>UK
Thanks

Storm King's Thunder Is an amazing open world campaign where you will face Giants, Dragons and more. With lots of room to explore the world and room for me to ad in my own things including Characters backstories and personal quests if wanted
It is originally a level 1-10 campaign. But the first 5 levels is a bit meh so those will be skipped and we will instead start at level 3 with a bit of homebrew until we hit level 5 and dive head first into Storm kings Thunder and it will be a bit extended and take you to level 12 or more.
I try to run games with a good mix of Roleplay, combat, social interactions, exploration and all the good things that makes a good D&D game. But i try to listen to my players if they want more of something or less of something i try to adapt. After all we are here to have fun and i will try to make the game enjoyable for all.
I also try to personalize the game for my players by adding in some elements from their backstory if possible, some personal story arc and so on
Same with the campaign i try to personalize it by changing things up a little bit ad some things, Change some things. ad or remove others. and not running it 100% by the book.
I have Run this campaign several times and have made some changes to it while still holding true to the original. I use some updated maps. and other small things to make the experience as fun and exciting as possible
In my games you can expect
A Good mix of combat and rp
A living and Breathing world
Updated maps all with Dynamic lightning
A slightly reworked campaign to make give it that little extra
A game and a DM that welcomes new players
Combat, social encounters, RP, Exploration, Mysteries.
Many Memorable NPC's to interact with
A safe space, everyone is welcome. no racism or discrimination
All brought to you by an experienced and friendly DM
We use Discord for voice. Sessions will be 3 hours
Link to the game on Roll20 https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/399535/monday-beginner-friendly-storm-kings-thunder-starting-level-3-free-session-1
**Payment** $19 per session and player. Payed via Startplaying. Information about this will be provided Link to start playing https://startplaying.games/adventure/clw1nqd13000310qd80v66aqy
If you do not have a Starplaying account sign up here https://startplaying.games/referral/ckqo2gzfy23o4bopkamba7goz And you get a $10 credit
It is free to join and a good place to find games. and they take care of payment in an easy and safe way. you never have to share any payment information with me
**Rules:** Just be a decent person. No racism, homophobia, sexism and so on. No personal attacks, don't be rude. You know the drill. Treat others with respect. if you are unable to do so you will be removed from the game And be 18+ years old

Storm King's Thunder Is an amazing open world campaign where you will face Giants, Dragons and more. With lots of room to explore the world and room for me to ad in my own things including Characters backstories and personal quests if wanted
It is originally a level 1-10 campaign. But the first 5 levels is a bit meh so those will be skipped and we will instead start at level 3 with a bit of homebrew until we hit level 5 and dive head first into Storm kings Thunder and it will be a bit extended and take you to level 12 or more.
I try to run games with a good mix of Roleplay, combat, social interactions, exploration and all the good things that makes a good D&D game. But i try to listen to my players if they want more of something or less of something i try to adapt. After all we are here to have fun and i will try to make the game enjoyable for all.
I also try to personalize the game for my players by adding in some elements from their backstory if possible, some personal story arc and so on
Same with the campaign i try to personalize it by changing things up a little bit ad some things, Change some things. ad or remove others. and not running it 100% by the book.
I have Run this campaign several times and have made some changes to it while still holding true to the original. I use some updated maps. and other small things to make the experience as fun and exciting as possible
In my games you can expect
A Good mix of combat and rp
A living and Breathing world
Updated maps all with Dynamic lightning
A slightly reworked campaign to make give it that little extra
A game and a DM that welcomes new players
Combat, social encounters, RP, Exploration, Mysteries.
Many Memorable NPC's to interact with
A safe space, everyone is welcome. no racism or discrimination
All brought to you by an experienced and friendly DM
We use Discord for voice. Sessions will be 3 hours
Link to the game on Roll20 https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/399535/monday-beginner-friendly-storm-kings-thunder-starting-level-3-free-session-1
**Payment** $19 per session and player. Payed via Startplaying. Information about this will be provided Link to start playing https://startplaying.games/adventure/clw1nqd13000310qd80v66aqy
If you do not have a Starplaying account sign up here https://startplaying.games/referral/ckqo2gzfy23o4bopkamba7goz And you get a $10 credit
It is free to join and a good place to find games. and they take care of payment in an easy and safe way. you never have to share any payment information with me
**Rules:** Just be a decent person. No racism, homophobia, sexism and so on. No personal attacks, don't be rude. You know the drill. Treat others with respect. if you are unable to do so you will be removed from the game And be 18+ years old

By no means is this game bad. It's pretty great. I wouldn't be playing it 6 years later if it weren't.
But I always end-up putting it down for real long stretches of time before forgetting why, and then have a night like tonight where my lance slogged through 3 and a half enemy lances in a single mission and then think, 'right. yeah. this is why'.
I am glad for the mechanical changes in the video game; I think they make a lot of sense and add a lot of play. Not all are great, but whatever.
The rules for the TT are also extremely good overall with plenty of rough patches.
Systems-wise, both games work well and are thoughtfully designed. I don't think it is interesting to champion one game's systems over another.
But here's the thing about TT - it's a head-up lance vs lance game. 4v4. Basically always, unless you're IS fighting into a Clan Star (which we aren't in the era presented). There's of course lots of ways to set up other scenarios and yadda yadda yadda, but the meat and potatoes of kitchen table play for TT Battletech is 4v4 lance duels.
And that's not a small thing because such tight duels make the system easier to balance and never feel like a slog. The gameplay of those duels also reinforces the atmosphere of the setting, where everything is supposed to be just so damn precious and so damn feudal.
In my current HBS Battletech career I'm pretty sure I've killed more assault mechs than even exist canonically in the setting. And by itself that's not a problem... but there's this essence of Battletech's appeal in gameplay that just goes out the window when you take the tabletop framing and then apply the Mechwarrior power fantasy of being super pilot with a 20:0 kill ratio per mission. Mechwarrior is awesome, but that power fantasy only works IMHO because of how dynamic the gameplay is. How fast and frantic the play can be, so it doesn't feel like a slog.
Battletech is best, IMHO, as a lance vs lance game with matches that are short, brutal and typically come down to two battered mechs desperately slugging it out for the win. It is at its weakest when you are just gunning down wave after wave of enemies (and I don't even mean that in terms of cheese strats like headhunting - I mean even if playing vanilla and using stock builds, you're still just out of necessity racing-up absurd kill ratios because of how the game is balanced around the player defeating 3x / 4x their number in mechs).
If/when we get another turn based BTech, I hope the scope is scaled back and the depth in ramped up. I hope every shot just MATTERS, both mine and the OpFors, and the design ethos orbits the idea that lance v lance combat should ideally wind down brutally. That it should bee seen as a problem if you can shoot the OpFor to pieces and walk away with nothing but freely repaired armor damage.

FIST OF THE RUBY PHOENIX BOOK SPOILERS AHEAD
I want to share with you the story of Yamada Toro, my Kitsune Bard. They were an asshole. An absolutely cynical asshole who didn’t care for friendship, who used their Haikus to insult their opponents, who was only entering the tournament for the prize money. This was to the chagrin of Kailani, the Dwarf Kinesist, and Dekhana, the Vanara Monk, who were much more idealistic and were convinced that Yamada would learn about the power of friendship throughout the tournament.
And, for the first two books, they were wrong. Yamada pretty much went through the entirety of the tournament not caring about the other teams and took delight in harming them using magic. Perhaps, if things had turned out differently, perhaps they would have been recruited into the Lightkeepers instead. After all, despite being on opposing teams and hating each other, Yamada and the Lightkeepers had very similar attitudes to life.
Everything changed when King Mogaru attacked.
Witnessing the destruction of Gorka, seeing Syndara trap Hao Jin in the hourglass led Yamada on the slow journey of being a better person. Yes, they were still sassy and had a lot of quips. But, for the first time ever, they began to reevaluate everything that they felt and believed, which continued to change further when they were chosen as the next celestial envoy. We got the dragon’s blessing and headed to Syndara’s semi plane to challenge him head on.
….. and this is when I decided to try something really silly.
I saw the tenth level Fabricated Truth spell and saw that on a critical failure forces the target to believe a single statement for an unlimited duration and I decided to try casting it once during the fight. I was under no illusion that this would work. After all, Yamada’s spell save DC was a 44 (after getting the Troubador’s cap). The boss would have to roll a 34 for it to work. I decided to give it a go anyways, casting Bon Mot on him to give him a -2 to Will Saves.
The statement I went for? “I wish to seek atonement for everything that I have done.”
He rolled a 34 on a 2, and because my DM doesn’t like Incapacitation rules Syndara crit failed the Will save. He spent the rest of the fight under the Frightened 3 status effect as he was suddenly struggling with the guilt and remorse that he felt for everything that he had done. He wasn’t a threat in the end, and after beating his second phase our DM created a third phase for us where he had 1 HP, 15 AC and he was utterly broken after everything.
We chose to spare him. He let us free Hao Jin and, for the first time in a long time, Syndara and her could be friends.
If Yamada was writing this now, they would say that Kailani and Dekhana were right. Sometimes, stretching out a hand in friendship is important. Yes, one day there is a chance that the Fabricated Truth spell will wear off. But it gives Syndara the chance to grow, to recover from everything that he has been through and perhaps create something beautiful out of it. This probably was the first kind thing that they did throughout the whole of the Ruby Phoenix, and because of this they were able to perform a miracle and allow Syndara to live in one instance of Golarion.
(Though they’d probably write the above in a Haiku. They are still a pretentious bard after all)
Anyways, as someone who knew very little about Anime going into this campaign I had an absolute blast and I’m still in absolute disbelief that that actually worked. Now I need to learn how rangers and awakened animals work so I can play a military obsessed awakened pigeon in Wardens of Wildwood.

ANTI ARMOR
E25 10 mm pistol
Last shot 15fr auto grenade launcher
50c15fr pipe pistol
E25 44 pistol
25ffr15fr enclave plasma pistol no mods
50c15fr fixer
50c25 railway
E90rw pipe auto pistol
50c25 50 cal
50c25 minigun
25ffr15fr auto grenade launcher
ARISTOCRAT
25ffr25 enclave plasma rifle no mods
Ss90rw deathclaw gauntlet
50c25 fixer
ASSASSINS
E25 lmg
50vhc25 quantum thirst zapper
50c25 plasma pistol not enclave
50vhc15fr dragon
BERSERKER
25ffr25 enclave plasma pistol no mods
BLOODY
50c15vc alien disintegrator
E25 10 mm pistol
E25 44 pistol
25ffr15fr broadsider
E25 western revolver
50c25 m79 gl
50c25 db shotgun
25ffr25 drill
Last shot 25 cryo
Last shot 25 railway
50c25 missile launcher
Last shot 15 fr assaultron head
50vhc 15fr assaultron head
Last shot 25 uc laser rifle
Last shot 25 single action
50c25 combat shotgun
Last shot 25 tesla
40pa+1s knuckles
40pa+1s bone club
40pa+1s bone hammer
40pa+1s death tambo
40pa+1s assaultron blade
40pa+1s golf club
40pa+1s grognax axe
40pa+1s pole hook
40pa+1s pole cue
40pa+1s shovel
40pa+1s spear
40pa90rw power fist
50c25 mole miner
50c25 boxing glove
EXECUTIONER
50vhc25 elder mark
25ffr25 railway
50c25 assault rifle
25ffr25 assault rifle
40pa+1s baseball bat
Ss+1 s baseball bat
40pa40pa chainsaw
Ss+1s fire axe
40pa90rw grognax axe
Ss90rw super sledge
Ss+1s pole hook
Ss+1s pole cue
Ss90rw mole miner
ss90rw grognax axe
E25 minigun
50c25 cryo
50c25 alien blaster
50c90rw crossbow
FURIOUS
50C25 enclave rifle needs better mods
GOURMANDS
Ss+1s boxing glove
HUNTERS
Ss+1s power fist
INSTIGATING
Ss+1s switchblade
JUNKIE
Ss+1s shovel
MUTANTS
50C25 alien blaster
50c25 enclave plasma rifle reflex sight, true splitter
NOCTURNAL
Ss+1s switchblade
50c25 fixer
TROUBLESHOOTER
50c25 alien blaster
QUAD
50vhc25 hunting rifle
50vhc250 assaultron head
50c15fr gamma gun
E15 western revolver
50c15fr single action
Limb 25 enclave plasma pistol reflex sight aligned flamer barrel 25 damage aiming 250 tesla
Ap 90rw tesla
25ffr 50damage resist cryo
50c15vc alien disintegrator
25ffr90rw pipe auto pistol
STALKERS
50VHC15FR assaultron head
50vhc15fr dragon
2SHOT
Last shot 25 cryo
50vhc250 m79 gl
50vhc25 plasma rifle not enclave
50vhc25 enclave plasma pistol no mods
50c250 assaultron heads
E25 44 pistol
VAMPIRE
Ss+1s board
E15fr minigun
25 melee damage standing +1s drill
E90rw gatling gun
50c15fr tesla
E90 fixer
Ss90rw knuckles
ZEALOT
25ffr25 plasma rifle not enclave
E15fr lever action
50c25 submachine gun tommy
50c15fr dragon
ARMO ARMOR
ASSASSINS
Ap acrobat reverse painted fsa LA
Ap acrobat usa RA
CHAMELEON
25cryo fdc fsa chest
OVEREATERS
Ap energy damage trapper chest
Cryo sentinel heavy raider RL
Poison fdc heavy robot RA
Cryo sentinel trapper RA
Cryo wwr trapper RA
UNYIELDING
+1e sentinel trapper LA
Cryo fdc heavy leather LL
Radiaton resist fdc heavy leather LL
Poison htd fsa RL
+1e cavalier trapper LA
+1L wwr sturdy metal LL
VANGUARD
Ap cavalier robot LA
Ap sentinel heavy robot RA
Cryo fdc heavy leather LL
Cryo awr heavy leather LL
POWER ARMO POWER ARMOR
Overeaters ap sentinel jp arm uc set
ASSASSINS
Ap wwr t60 RL
Ap wwr jet pack uc LA
Fire resist wwr excavator chest
+1p wwr x01 LL
Led wwr x01 RA
Fire resistance sentinel RL excavator
WISHLIST- B50C25 ad, oe ap sent scout arms left leg, be15fr combat shotgun, chameleon ap sent x01 t60 pa, b ss 15 block or 1s combat knife

I am a 24[M] and I was dating a 21[F]. We are both East Asians (specifically 'South Koreans), she was born in North America and I moved to North America at the age of 10. She was my first ever girlfriend and she had 2 boyfriends before she dated me (3 months and 1 year). We both have parents who are conservative like most other asian parents.
We met on a dating app and on the first day we met, we hung out for about 13 hours (didn't do anything other than holding hands after drinking quite a bit). After that day, we chatted online and called for 4-8 hours a day for the next 7 days so on the 2nd day we met (which was 8 days after the first day we met) , i asked her out.
On the 2nd day of meeting her, which was our first day of dating, we made out at a friends place and she made huge kiss marks/hickeys on my neck. it was my first time getting them but I was aware that it would leave a mark, so it's not like she did it without me knowing, and i found the feeling of getting it to be pretty good. I just never knew that it would turn out so god damn big. I ended up getting about 4 hickeys on my neck and two of them are quite big, maybe the size of a golf ball, or even a tennis ball.
The next day after we woke up, she said sorry a few times, and I told her never to do it on neck or arm ever again, and she said okay. She then thought that it'd be best to hide it since Korean families are usually very conservative and it wouldn't be a good look. So using a concealer, we blurred it out a bit. She also said that it would be best to say that we are dating after the hickeys go away. But I thought it would be okay even if they saw it, as my parents have always been supportive on what I did. So I just told them that I got my first girlfriend ever on the night of the same day. It turns out that they got extremely shocked when they found out about my hickeys especially because they've never seen such a big kiss mark/hickey before.
My mom and one of my sisters cried a bit (i have two older sisters), and my family was determined to make me end it with her. Which was quite shocking to me because while I probably should've done a better job hiding the hickeys but I've never had any trouble with my family before and it was my first time going "against" them. It was more of me trying to convince them to let me just continue dating for 1 or 2 months and let me just experience it myself whether the outcome is bad or good. But they were 100% sure that this relationship wouldn't end well, and was worried that I would get hurt or traumatized from the "bad ending". They were certain that it will end bad since they said that it's not normal for a girl to give such huge hickeys, and it meant that she will be extremely possessive of me, which she might not show now, but they say that she will become that way and show her true "inner" side in the future.
So the issue is purely because of the hickeys, they were just too big and it shocked my family. Personally, I didn't care much about it since i knew it would just go away after max 2 weeks (source: google) but obviously my family didn't like seeing it on me and told me to really take care of my body next time.
After almost a day of talking, I just gave up trying to convince my family and I broke up with the girl through text after just 4 days of dating. I was sad because I felt like I was starting to build a good relationship with her but my family went against it and forced me to end it. I even asked them to give me some time multiple times but they would always end each talk with me breaking up with her.
I truly think that she isn't some random party girl that my family think she is, because even though I've only been talking to her for a week and a half now, she always communicates well with me and asks what I like. She is also okay with doing anything that I like doing so we can get closer. Although she is 3 years younger than me, she will have a better specification. we go to the same university (i just graduated with a cs degree a month ago, no job yet), she is aiming to get into meds and she seems to be very smart especially in academics.
Putting the education on the side, I am honestly interested in her and want to keep building a relationship with her. Which is why I argued with my family. I think she is a caring and nice person. And for sure, it was reckless and careless for her to make hickeys on my neck, but can't it just be seen as one happening that can be forgotten about?
Or did she do it knowing that it would leave a huge hickey and while having the intentions of embarrassing me when I go outside or do an interview, and maybe looking down at me even though I am 3 years older than her. (never would've thought this way if my family didn't give me the ideas)
What can I even do now? I feel like I broke the trust with my family and I don't really want to share any information with them anymore to avoid hassle. I do acknowledge that they are doing this for me but i just think this is over-reacting.
I broke up with my girlfriend but I later said to let's just stay as friends for now as the timing is not right and she is fine with doing that. She also said that she'll go with whatever choice I think is the best for us, and was supportive while talking about not being able to convince my parents.
I live with my parents so I should go by their rules, but I am also 24 years old, meaning that I'm a fully grown adult so I should be able to make my own decisions even if my family doesn't like them. I do see that if my family isn't supportive of my relationship, then it wouldn't be too healthy and that's why I tried to convince them. My parents are very conservative though, they say that they wouldn't allow any of my older sisters or me to go camping, travelling for more than a day, and that they wouldn't allow us to sleep with a partner until marriage so 0 tolerance for hook ups. Which I did not know until today, obviously because I never asked and never had any previous relationship experience, and I found it shocking since all my friends have done it before with their girlfriends after like a week or a month in.
please let me know what everyone thinks of this. If there may be ways to convince my parents or if they will be more understanding as time passes. Or if I should just continue secretly dating my girlfriend and bring it up to them after a few months of dating (assuming that it would go well)
or any other opinions.
TL;DR short summary: on our 1st day of dating, she gave me 4 hickeys on my neck and one of them was insanely big. My family found out (mom, dad, 2 older sisters) and forced me to end my relationship on the 4th day of dating because they don't see our relationship getting anywhere. They think my girlfriend is a party girl who has tons of experience since she made many and huge hickeys on my neck. (sorry this should've been at the end and not at the start)

I am a 24[M] and I was dating a 21[F]. We are both East Asians (specifically 'South Koreans), she was born in North America and I moved to North America at the age of 10. She was my first ever girlfriend and she had 2 boyfriends before she dated me (3 months and 1 year). We both have parents who are conservative like most other asian parents.
We met on a dating app and on the first day we met, we hung out for about 13 hours (didn't do anything other than holding hands after drinking quite a bit). After that day, we chatted online and called for 4-8 hours a day for the next 7 days so on the 2nd day we met (which was 8 days after the first day we met) , i asked her out.
On the 2nd day of meeting her, which was our first day of dating, we made out at a friends place and she made huge kiss marks/hickeys on my neck. it was my first time getting them but I was aware that it would leave a mark, so it's not like she did it without me knowing, and i found the feeling of getting it to be pretty good. I just never knew that it would turn out so god damn big. I ended up getting about 4 hickeys on my neck and two of them are quite big, maybe the size of a golf ball, or even a tennis ball.
The next day after we woke up, she said sorry a few times, and I told her never to do it on neck or arm ever again, and she said okay. She then thought that it'd be best to hide it since Korean families are usually very conservative and it wouldn't be a good look. So using a concealer, we blurred it out a bit. She also said that it would be best to say that we are dating after the hickeys go away. But I thought it would be okay even if they saw it, as my parents have always been supportive on what I did. So I just told them that I got my first girlfriend ever on the night of the same day. It turns out that they got extremely shocked when they found out about my hickeys especially because they've never seen such a big kiss mark/hickey before.
My mom and one of my sisters cried a bit (i have two older sisters), and my family was determined to make me break up with her. Which was quite shocking to me because while I probably should've done a better job hiding the hickeys but I've never had any trouble with my family before and it was my first time going "against" them. It was more of me trying to convince them to let me just continue dating for 1 or 2 months and let me just experience it myself whether the outcome is bad or good. But they were 100% sure that this relationship wouldn't end well, and was worried that I would get hurt or traumatized from the "bad ending". They were certain that it will end bad since they said that it's not normal for a girl to give such huge hickeys, and it meant that she will be extremely possessive of me, which she might not show now, but they say that she will become that way and show her true "inner" side in the future.
So the issue is purely because of the hickeys, they were just too big and it shocked my family. Personally, I didn't care much about it since i knew it would just go away after max 2 weeks (source: google) but obviously my family didn't like seeing it on me and told me to really take care of my body next time.
After almost a day of talking, I just gave up trying to convince my family and I broke up with the girl through text after just 4 days of dating. I was sad because I felt like I was starting to build a good relationship with her but my family went against it and forced me to end it. I even asked them to give me some time multiple times but they would always end each talk with me breaking up with her.
I truly think that she isn't some random party girl that my family think she is, because even though I've only been talking to her for a week and a half now, she always communicates well with me and asks what I like. She is also okay with doing anything that I like doing so we can get closer. Although she is 3 years younger than me, she will have a better specification. we go to the same university (i just graduated with a cs degree a month ago, no job yet), she is aiming to get into meds and she seems to be very smart especially in academics.
Putting the education on the side, I am honestly interested in her and want to keep building a relationship with her. Which is why I argued with my family. I think she is a caring and nice person. And for sure, it was reckless and careless for her to make hickeys on my neck, but can't it just be seen as one happening that can be forgotten about?
Or did she do it knowing that it would leave a huge hickey and while having the intentions of embarrassing me when I go outside or do an interview, and maybe looking down at me even though I am 3 years older than her. (never would've thought this way if my family didn't give me the ideas)
What can I even do now? I feel like I broke the trust with my family and I don't really want to share any information with them anymore to avoid hassle. I do acknowledge that they are doing this for me but i just think this is over-reacting.
I broke up with my girlfriend but I later said to let's just stay as friends for now as the timing is not right and she is fine with doing that. She also said that she'll go with whatever choice I think is the best for us, and was supportive while talking about not being able to convince my parents.
I live with my parents so I should go by their rules, but I am also 24 years old, meaning that I'm a fully grown adult so I should be able to make my own decisions even if my family doesn't like them. I do see that if my family isn't supportive of my relationship, then it wouldn't be too healthy and that's why I tried to convince them. My parents are very conservative though, they say that they wouldn't allow any of my older sisters or me to go camping, travelling for more than a day, and that they wouldn't allow us to sleep with a partner until marriage so 0 tolerance for hook ups. Which I did not know until today, obviously because I never asked and never had any previous relationship experience, and I found it shocking since all my friends have done it before with their girlfriends after like a week or a month in.
please let me know what everyone thinks of this. If there may be ways to convince my parents or if they will be more understanding as time passes. Or if I should just continue secretly dating my girlfriend and bring it up to them after a few months of dating (assuming that it would go well)
or any other opinions.
TL;DR short summary: on our 1st day of dating, she gave me 4 hickeys on my neck and one of them was insanely big. My family found out (mom, dad, 2 older sisters) and forced me to end my relationship on the 4th day of dating because they don't see our relationship getting anywhere. They think my girlfriend is a party girl who has tons of experience since she made many and huge hickeys on my neck. (sorry this should've been at the end and not at the start)

I am a 24M and I was dating a 21F. We are both East Asians (specifically 'South Koreans), she was born in North America and I moved to North America at the age of 10. She was my first ever girlfriend and she had 2 boyfriends before she dated me (3 months and 1 year). We both have parents who are conservative like most other asian parents.
We met on a dating app and on the first day we met, we hung out for about 13 hours (didn't do anything other than holding hands after drinking quite a bit). After that day, we chatted online and called for 4-8 hours a day for the next 7 days so on the 2nd day we met (which was 8 days after the first day we met) , i asked her out.
On the 2nd day of meeting her, which was our first day of dating, we made out at a friends place and she made huge kiss marks/hickeys on my neck. it was my first time getting them but I was aware that it would leave a mark, so it's not like she did it without me knowing, and i found the feeling of getting it to be pretty good. I just never knew that it would turn out so god damn big. I ended up getting about 4 hickeys on my neck and two of them are quite big, maybe the size of a golf ball, or even a tennis ball.
The next day after we woke up, she said sorry a few times, and I told her never to do it on neck or arm ever again, and she said okay. She then thought that it'd be best to hide it since Korean families are usually very conservative and it wouldn't be a good look. So using a concealer, we blurred it out a bit. She also said that it would be best to say that we are dating after the hickeys go away. But I thought it would be okay even if they saw it, as my parents have always been supportive on what I did. So I just told them that I got my first girlfriend ever on the night of the same day. It turns out that they got extremely shocked when they found out about my hickeys especially because they've never seen such a big kiss mark/hickey before.
My mom and one of my sisters cried a bit (i have two older sisters), and my family was determined to make me break up with her. Which was quite shocking to me because while I probably should've done a better job hiding the hickeys but I've never had any trouble with my family before and it was my first time going "against" them. It was more of me trying to convince them to let me just continue dating for 1 or 2 months and let me just experience it myself whether the outcome is bad or good. But they were 100% sure that this relationship wouldn't end well, and was worried that I would get hurt or traumatized from the "bad ending". They were certain that it will end bad since they said that it's not normal for a girl to give such huge hickeys, and it meant that she will be extremely possessive of me, which she might not show now, but they say that she will become that way and show her true "inner" side in the future.
So the issue is purely because of the hickeys, they were just too big and it shocked my family. Personally, I didn't care much about it since i knew it would just go away after max 2 weeks (source: google) but obviously my family didn't like seeing it on me and told me to really take care of my body next time.
After almost a day of talking, I just gave up trying to convince my family and I broke up with the girl through text after just 4 days of dating. I was sad because I felt like I was starting to build a good relationship with her but my family went against it and forced me to end it. I even asked them to give me some time multiple times but they would always end each talk with me breaking up with her.
I truly think that she isn't some random party girl that my family think she is, because even though I've only been talking to her for a week and a half now, she always communicates well with me and asks what I like. She is also okay with doing anything that I like doing so we can get closer. Although she is 3 years younger than me, she will have a better specification. we go to the same university (i just graduated with a cs degree a month ago, no job yet), she is aiming to get into meds and she seems to be very smart especially in academics.
Putting the education on the side, I am honestly interested in her and want to keep building a relationship with her. Which is why I argued with my family. I think she is a caring and nice person. And for sure, it was reckless and careless for her to make hickeys on my neck, but can't it just be seen as one happening that can be forgotten about?
Or did she do it knowing that it would leave a huge hickey and while having the intentions of embarrassing me when I go outside or do an interview, and maybe looking down at me even though I am 3 years older than her. (never would've thought this way if my family didn't give me the ideas)
What can I even do now? I feel like I broke the trust with my family and I don't really want to share any information with them anymore to avoid hassle. I do acknowledge that they are doing this for me but i just think this is over-reacting.
I broke up with my girlfriend but I later said to let's just stay as friends for now as the timing is not right and she is fine with doing that. She also said that she'll go with whatever choice I think is the best for us, and was supportive while talking about not being able to convince my parents.
I live with my parents so I should go by their rules, but I am also 24 years old, meaning that I'm a fully grown adult so I should be able to make my own decisions even if my family doesn't like them. I do see that if my family isn't supportive of my relationship, then it wouldn't be too healthy and that's why I tried to convince them. My parents are very conservative though, they say that they wouldn't allow any of my older sisters or me to go camping, travelling for more than a day, and that they wouldn't allow us to sleep with a partner until marriage so 0 tolerance for hook ups. Which I did not know until today, obviously because I never asked and never had any previous relationship experience, and I found it shocking since all my friends have done it before with their girlfriends after like a week or a month in.
please let me know what everyone thinks of this. If there may be ways to convince my parents or if they will be more understanding as time passes. Or if I should just continue secretly dating my girlfriend and bring it up to them after a few months of dating (assuming that it would go well)
or any other opinions.
TL;DR short summary: on our 1st day of dating, she gave me 4 hickeys on my neck and one of them was insanely big. My family found out (mom, dad, 2 older sisters) and forced me to end my relationship on the 4th day of dating because they don't see our relationship getting anywhere. They think my girlfriend is a party girl who has tons of experience since she made many and huge hickeys on my neck. (sorry this should've been at the end and not at the start)

Sorry for the long rant but im at my wits end and dont know how to broach with partner or if theres any point🤦🏻‍♀️
Been with my boyfriend 4 years and its been tough for the past 2 - 3 of those. Ive 3 kids, 2 still at home. Hes 4 kids, 2 at home with him full time as they dont see their mum. No kids are perfect but his are seriously hard work, theres no consequences though, he doesnt parent like me and just lets everything slide, hell rant and shout but doesnt do anything else. They dont respect each other, dad, me or mine. They cant speak nicely to each other or others. Ive been stolen off, spoken to like s**t of their shoe, assaulted, had my home damaged over the past 4 years, for over a year my child hated his due to bullying but have now made up and do get on lovely but i do see a change in my kids attitude when they're friends.
Things aren't as bad now but im struggling with the youngest (12M). He refuses point blank to do as i ask in my home just argues about literally everything and i dont feel backed up by dad. When i go to my boyfriends hes rude, argumentative, we can't even sit and eat a meal in peace of watch a film. Weekends now i dont spend time in the day with my boyfriend as i dont want to deal with the constant deviance, sh*ty behaviour and attitude, if i go over for a bit in the evening i just feel drained. We have managed 2 sleep overs this year and its may, i dont sleep at his as it stresses me out and he can only stop here when his mum watches kids but even when he does get a baby sitter they're constantly calling so its not quality time.
His youngest controls everything, ive raised this before and made suggestions so his other kids get some time with dad but he doesnt do it so theyre frustrated and resentful just like me. Its easy for him in the moment to give in to his kids than set boundaries and actually say no.
We have split over these issues multiple times, i love him dearly and i dont want to keep ending us but i cant cope with this much longer im becoming depressed and resentful and snapping more and more. I think the child has pathalogical demand avoidance, he cant do a single thing asked of him but in school meetings im hearing hes a perfect child at school, hes having alot of intervention but he does whats asked. His other kid at home is very narcassistic, shes charming when she wants something but vile when shes told no, shes in trouble all the time at school when she goes but refuses to go majority of time, i could write so much about her behaviour but im actually on a good keel with her now as she respects my boundaries majority of time and knows the consequences for breaking them she is however awful towards her dad and talks to him like s**t and he just lets it slide. Shes angry as she cant talk to him without her brother getting involved, she cant do anything with him even watch a film or go for a hot chocolate with her dad without brother kicking off and butting in, she can't even go in the kitchen without her brother following her and gate keeping all the food and drink, its toxic af tbh. Both the kids hate each other, bully each other, its insane and exhausting.
Id be more inclined to help if we were a team, i have given everything to this situation but dad doesnt follow through or back me up so im trying to detach now and not get involved but its so hard. His kids are grotty they leave a mess in their trail, dropping rubbish on floor as they walk and he moans but doesnt make them clean up after themselves or if he occasionally does he ends up doing it properly after them any way. I point things out when there to try to grt the kids raking responsibility but dad usually jumps to the defense (feel very much the outsider) When his son drops liter when out and i pull him for it he gobs off it was an accident and walks off dropping more as he goes. Went paddle boarding he got in a strop and refused to paddle i ended up having to drag him onto my board to get into shore, he wouldnt get his feet out of the water making it hard to get us in as caused alot of drag and rocked constsntly as he was kicking off, he refused to get of my board once in even though i explained i had to paddle back out to help my own kids (winds and tide had changed and they were being dragged out) i literally had to shove him off my board to get back out. It's not enjoyable being around his kids its stressful, argumentative just down right exhausting tbh.
How do i yet again say to my boyfriend i cant do this, i dont want his son in my home as he doesnt respect me or my rules, i dont want to go out with his son as he just argues and moans which means we cant spend time together as my boyfriend wont leave him home (tbf he cant as he attacks his sister and he is a strong, violent little sh*t) when he does bring him, his son monopolises everything so we cant talk i just walk in silence ahead and go off doing my own thing, if both kids come they fight so again i walk ahead. It is such a shit situation. My boyfriends just reduced his work hours so at least we get the odd daytime together when kids go to school but this situation isnt going to change for the forseeable, i can only see it getting worse when puberty hits and hormones spike 🤦🏻‍♀️. Am i being unreasonable saying i want a relationship without the kids? I got to this point with his daughter and im here again with his son 🤷🏻‍♀️ i keep my kids seperate they dont come on outings with us and at this point wouldnt want to as his kids do their heads in. Im actually starting to really detest his youngest child and i dont want to feel like this but hes an arsehole