In the dream we "fell" into a weird city. By we I mean me and a few family members including my grandparents.
.
Anyway the city is exceptionally clean and the people there very religious with regular sermons.
.
Now I instinctively hated it because everyone was smiling all the time and had this "be like everyone else" attitude. It was a bit creepy.
.
Over time I got to know a few people there well enough to get invited to a wedding. Here's the odd part, for how religious they were the bride was practically naked! I tried to hint that the dress might not be appropriate for a church wedding but got laughed at since it was a TRADITIONAL wedding dress... it was a slip of see-through fabric with beading covering her privates...
.
Then the brides entourage came in and yeah they confirmed it was a lovely traditional dress. Also why was I dressed like that? Clearly that was too much and the bride's aunt tried to take my bra off to match everyone. (one of us, one of us, one of us).
.
When I refused she took of her own bra and offered to swap since it's smaller so will cover less. I managed to escape to the bathroom promising to practically strip in private.
.
Well, not the bathroom, turned out to be a broom closet / storage area. but at least the crazy people were on the other side, thought I might be able to wait it out.
.
Looking around the storage area I found something odd. There was "old" tech here. By that I mean from our day but the whole city was practically amish that I though we got teleported to the past. I found one device I didn't recognize so when the coast was clear I got out in the open and tried it out.
.
It caused me to shoot through the sky. No literally up through the cloudish part only to discover this wasn't the sky, it was the waters surface. The whole city was under water but since we could breath and move normally we didn't notice! It explained why the sky never had a gradient, it was all one solid color depending on the time of day.
.
On the "sky" two things were notable. First, two groups of golems were fighting and throwing rocks at each other. Rock golems (yellow-orange so maybe sand rock) & slab golems (grey rocks, very smooth). The debris fell to the city blew as gods judgement when it hit someone!
.
Also here was another city. This one was old and basically a ruin over grown with vegetation. Looking through it I found a few people who were far more normal and reasonable.
.
Going back a few time I was convinced something went wrong with our civilization, the city above was clearly one from our time now in ruins while the one underwater was more recently built. The ones living below had such a strong herd mentality that my own family was starting to get compliant and integrate. I tried to talk them into visiting the city in the sky, to see that this is all under water but they weren't interested, especially grandma that was feeling comfortable that grandpa was back in this world (died in 2012). Also wouldn't it be dangerous with the fighting golems? Solve that first then we'll see.
.
Going up I asked the golems why they were fighting... it turned out that was because the sand golem leader had boobs and the slabs saw that as obscene... yeah really... I had them talk it over because the debris was hurting the people below.
.
The sand golem shrugged and said they weren't people, just ants. When I asked about the people in the sky city they said "you don't know already?". As for who I was, well, they were going to talk to the slabs now so if I wanted an answer keep sailing towards the light in distance.
.
This part I didn't mention, during my trips to the sky city I started to notice odd things. Yes it was a modern one now in ruins, yes it was full of plants so it was weird that the people that lived here acted and talked so civilized. But also another thing, witch symbols. Those were everywhere. Shrubs that were cut in the form of a witch's hat or pointy boots, statues of witches, magic symbols carved into the trees... etc. it was like a halloween set up in an ancient ruin. I kept trying to overlook it because the underwater city preached against witchcraft and heresy, clearly those were the nut job so anything they say should be disregarded... right? Also the people in the sky city were so normal & reasonable that no way they'd really be the bad guys. The undewater city had to be ignorant, that was totally it.
.
The day I confronted the golems however was the day I found out the truth. While exploring the ruin I came across the communal kitchen. It was just a bunch of old fridges with forged food. One of them however contained a bag of blood. The girl showing me around said "Oh goody, there is one left" and snatched it from my hands sucking it up like capri sun. "Sorry but this is for our coven, Blood is how us witches get our knowledge and stay young after all. Can't share that without a price." Which is when it hit me that everyone here while taking like an adult looked so young and ageless. Also that they didn't know that me, and probably my family, would be considered food in a place like this, they thought I was a visiting witch hence the civility.
.
The golem's words hit me hard. Yes, I knew. I just didn't want to acknowledge it because it meant I can't stay here. At the same time I didn't want to go back to the underwater city.
That only left sailing away into the known. My family refused to join, they were staying in the underwater city so... just me... Sailing into the light. Took awhile stuck between the two worlds, but in the end I made my own raft and set sail... towards the light in the distance.

Now that the sun has set on another season it’s time to reflect on our performance throughout and look forward to how next season could go.
TLDR; Much improved season but game management has cost us throughout. Continued strong recruitment for next season especially at Manager position.
Let’s begin with the raw stats.
We finished 10th for the second successive season but amassed our highest points total of 18 in the WSL alongside our best goal scoring season with 26 goals for and our best defensive season conceding 45 goals against. An improvement of 11 more goals scored and 3 fewer goals conceded than last season.
We finished third in our Continental Cup group losing only one game to Manchester United which ultimately cost us progression to the knockouts.
Furthermore, we reached the FA Cup semi final for the first time in our history, dominating lower league teams along the way.
Our top 5 goal scorers (in all competitions):
Rantala - 10 Cayman - 7 Petermann - 6 Tierney - 4 O’Brien/Whelan/Rose - 3
Top 5 assist providers (in all competitions):
Rantala - 7 Momiki - 5 Petermann - 4 Tierney - 4 Takarada - 3
End of season awards winners:
Player of the Season - Rantala Players player - Rantala Goal of the Season - Goodwin vs Liverpool Academy Player of the Season - Kiera Bell
Congratulations to all. Now on to the review proper.
We start with the positives. Recruitment has been great this year. The additions of Petermann, Rantala and Cayman have increased our goal scoring output and the acquisitions of Lietzig, Kop, Thibaud, Rose, Momiki and Takarada has added greater depth and quality to our squad and made us a more competitive team throughout the season.
We very rarely sat in against teams, aimed to play out from the back and press opposition back lines which served us well and earned plaudits from around the league especially early on in the campaign.
Additionally we have a very solid tandem of goalkeepers in Leitzig and Kop that have shown they can be rotated in for each other and not effect the confidence of the team in front of them which is a great bonus.
Finally, we continue to see success in our youth academy with them winning the double of the PGA Plate and County Cup as well as academy players continuing to get minutes in the senior team.
Now, unfortunately, the negatives.
Elephant in the room is the managerial situation. After Kirk’s dismissal for unprofessional conduct and Foster stepping down as interim manager with the conclusion of the season we are now searching for our fourth manager in three seasons in the WSL.
Something is very clearly not right behind the scenes when our last 2 male managers have crossed professional boundaries with players and our last permanent female manager was unceremoniously dismissed hours after a giving a pre match press conference. Questions have to be asked about how our next manager is going to be recruited, monitored and assessed by the higher ups. This inconsistency has been reflected in our on pitch performances and the players must be commended for how they have handled the off pitch turmoil.
To be optimistic, whomever the next manager shall be they need to keep pushing the progressive, attacking football we have developed under Kirk whilst making us a less porous side defensively and able to manage games better and see them out especially when we have the lead.
Which very neatly leads me to our biggest downside this campaign, our game management.
All of our 4 league victories this season came against two teams (Bristol City and Everton) half of those came in the opening two games of the season (where we were briefly top of the league 🙌🏻) and the other 2 came in three games at the end of January/beginning of February. That is a long time to go without success without it effecting not only our league standing but the morale of the team.
It has been a reverse of our previous seasons where instead of seeing us floundering at the bottom to pop up at the end of the season we have watched us have an electric start only to slowly but surely watch our league position erode away.
The story of our season was giving up leads and losing points from winning positions happening 7 times in the league. The most defining examples is being 2-0 up at halftime at home to Arsenal, being the better side only to be decimated in the second half and lose 6-2. Drawing 1-1 in stoppage time to a 10 player West Ham and both games against Brighton. First surrendering a two goal advantage in the final 10 minutes of the away fixture to draw the game and then taking the lead at home to only go 2-1 down, fight back to level the tie but lose to another goal conceded in the last 5 minutes.
Of those 7 leads and potential 21 points lost, if we win against West Ham and Brighton, that’s 9 points in our favour and we would be celebrating a much stronger finish to our season.
With regards to looking forward to next season I do feel we have very strong foundations to build upon and become even more competitive not only in the league but have strong cup runs as proven by our results in a tough Conti Cup group and our semi final appearance in the FA Cup.
As for personnel we have a squad full of internationals with at least half a season of chemistry with each other, excellent training facilities and the privilege of playing at the King Power for home league games.
Obviously we need a quality manager to lead us. I would have jumped at the chance to take on Carla Ward but she is taking time out to spend time with her family. Aside from her I am not so well versed in the women’s managerial landscape to make an educated suggestion. Maybe Melissa Phillips, formerly of Brighton who seemed to have good respect from her players and a decent track record with London City Lionesses and Brighton.
For players I would like to see another striker brought in. When Petermann isn’t available we lack a focal point up top and Siemsen hasn’t been relied upon much when fit.
Cover at full back would be a priority as well. Bott is outstanding and we can always rely on the experience of Cayman but depth is definitely an issue. Ale did a decent job towards the tail end of the season but is only on loan and Nevin has seemingly dropped down the pecking order.
Further depth in the middle with the departure of Whelan and a younger, more modern centre half (think Plumptre) to complement the guile and physicality that we have in place.
A third experienced keeper wouldn’t go amiss to cover for injury to Kop or Leitzig.
I’m genuinely excited to see how he play with a fully fit complement of wingers next year as that is where we are stacked with promise: Rantala, Rose, Cain, Goodwin, O’Brien and Momiki (on occasion) offer a truly dangerous outlet for us and pose any defender a headache.
One final note. Thank you to Whelan for her services as our club Captain for the last two seasons. She has lead by example, never kicked up a fuss not being a starter this season and always given 100% on the pitch. May she enjoy her retirement from football.
Feel free to add your own thoughts and opinions and we look forward to improving further in the off season.
COYF 🦊

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

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

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

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

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

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

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

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

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

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

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

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

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

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

So basically, I want to get it off my chest about how much I hate for Raiden of all people to be the cyborg ninja. A couple of months ago, I finished my MGS2 play through, and it's genuinely one of my favorite games of all time and has encouraged me to get through the rest of the series, the only games I haven't played are PW and MGS5 & 4 (I can't get myself a copy of 4 or PW, so I made due with lore vids). I was planning if MGS5 was really the last game I wanted to play or buy MGSRR, but Raiden's design looks like trash, and I'm not really sure if his character is all good either too. I just find it ironic with the codec conversation in MGS2, he just falls more in line of how his future turned out, rose called him a drunk and left him prior to MGS4, although doing the most frustrating and nasty way of going with the colonel, it just falls more into his irony. Not only that, but I hate how he was just portrayed as a cyborg ninja, from most of his scene he seemed lifeless. Is it the same in MGRR, or does he get more character? If he does, please let me know because he's my favorite character in the series and I hope MGRR really sticks his character, but I'd like to know before I buy it.

So around a month ago I posted on here explaining how my ex boyfriend reached out after 3 months NC and asked to hang out but I politely declined. He responded saying her understands and he’s sorry. He ended things so I don’t know why he’s “sorry”. Anyways….another month later I not only got an email but flowers delievered to my door!!!!!!
It’s been 4 months since we broke up, he broke up with me because we had been arguing about small things and never really talking them through. i was an absolute mess and went into a deep depression when he left so when he reached out the first time i knew i had to say no because i couldn’t put myself through that again.
then yesterday i got another email since he’s blocked on everything else
"my name" i know you said meeting up isn’t a good idea, but that was last month and i was wondering if you had changed your mind. i miss you so much, "my name". i took you for granted, i took your support, your intelligence, your emotional maturity and all the love you had for me, for granted. "my name" i know what i did has caused irreparable damage and i am eternally sorry but i wont give up on you. you are truly one of a kind my love. in the event that you never forgive me or speak to me again, whoever gets to be loved by you next is the luckiest guy on the planet and i hope he treats you better than i did. "my name" i will wait for you. thats a promise. you are a human embodiment of sunshine and I've lost you, i know. i was dumb and made an irrational decision. thats all i have to say "my name". I'll love you in this universe and the next.
i was actually mind blown when i read that. when he broke up with me he told me we were done for good so that just confused me so much. i never replied because i was in too much shock. i didn’t even know what to reply because i didn’t know if i wanted to reject him or say yes. then the next day flowers at my door. a huge bouquet of white and red roses and a note.
"pretty flowers for my pretty girl, "my name" i love you"
WHATTTTTTTT?????? how can you dump someone then say you love them???? WHAT SHOULD I DO????!!!!

Wade's visor beeped to life as his alarm system went off, the murder drone's clock showing the time, "8:00 AM", changing to his green-yellow eyes as he woke up. Tina's visor activated as well, the drone girl's own alarm activating she awakened from slumber with Wade.
Stifling a yawn, Wade looked to Tina as he rubbed her back, easing her as she rose upright. "Good morning, sweetie."
"Morning, Wade." Tina replied quietly as she looked to Wade, the two drones smiling warmly as they took in each other's presence. Noticing they were both almost completely bare of clothing, the two drones blushed as Wade began to move off the bed.
"Well, I should get something on." The former worker drone stated as they touched down on the floor, Tina grabbing her green shirt from the counter as she tried to get dressed as well.
"So should I." Tina said back as she put the shirt on, memories of their recent night together still fluent in her mind as she slowly walked over to the kitchen.
The last hours of the past night had been calm for the most part, Wade and his friends detailing their tragic capture, the loss of his brother Ron, the rescue of the drones, and finally, Tina and Wade's miraculous escape from the factory before returning to the base. After the chatter in the bar, the group split off to go their separate ways for the time being, Jasmine going with Wade and Tina to help them into her place before leaving them to watch it while she went to get some food for the next day. During their quiet stay in the apartment, Wade and Tina made small talk over what to do in the future before having what humans would call a... very pleasant night together.
And now, with the new day approaching, the drone couple had to get ready for whatever came ahead. Walking over to his clothes on one of the vacant chairs in the living room, Wade picked up his shirt, slapping it on him before glancing to Tina, who merely wore her copper brown pants and green shirt from yesterday. Smiling at his girlfriend, Wade spoke to her as he turned back around to continue redressing himself. "Seems Jasmine went out somewhere this morning. I don't see her anywhere."
Tina listened to Wade as she inspected the counter, noticing a small sticky note lying on it as she took hold of it. Tina could tell it was left by Jasmine, given the handwriting. The note said, "Morning you two! Went to get some food I forgot to pick up, I should be back shortly after you wake up. - Jasmine"
The pilot drone smiled as she read her sister's note, then turning to the living room to speak to Wade. "She went to get some breakfast, we should expect her to come back any minute now." Opening the fridge, Tina grabbed two cool cans of oil, one for herself and another for Wade. Setting the cans down on the counter, Tina closed the fridge before taking hold of the cans again, taking them with her to the living room where a fully dressed Wade now resided at.
As Tina took a seat next to Wade on the couch, the disassembly drone examined his built-in smartcomm, trying to add all the still active contacts he remembered off the top of his circuits as he spoke to Tina. "It's gonna be hard, being my own person without Ron." Chuckling, Wade smirked at Tina, finding himself unsure at his own words. "Or maybe I'm just overreacting."
Tina chortled at Wade's inconfidence as she tried to bring him some, handing him one of the oil beverages as she spoke. "I think you'll do fine, honey. I've run into some disrespectful humans in my life too."
Wade nodded in understanding as he took a sip of the oil, the sound of the front door opening catching the drones' attention as Jasmine walked in. Carrying a paper bag full of food items, the human pilot spoke aloud. "Morning, you two! Just had to finish an errand I screwed up last night."
"Oh, it's not a problem for us, Jass." Wade replied as he took a sip of his oil, Tina looking over to the kitchen wall as she listened to her sister.
"How was your night? You lovers passed out on me when I came in, so I just rested on the couch." The lover drones gave looks of apologetic concern as Jasmine walked back into the living room, the woman noticing Wade and Tina's faces as she continued speaking. "It's nothing, though. I slept well."
"I hope so, we didn't mean to take up the whole bed." Tina responded as she gave a blush of embarrassment, Wade nodding in agreement as Jasmine replied back.
"I did, really. Besides, you two deserved the bed after all you put up with yesterday. Gotta have some place to blow some steam."
Wade and Tina smiled at Jasmine's comment, then blushed as Wade questioned about her phrasing. "Wait, you mean that as a euphemism or...?"
A knock at the door shut up the discussion, Wade standing up as he offered to handle the visitors. "I'll get the door." Tina nodded as he walked over to the apartment entrance, checking the small peephole before opening the door. Looking down, he saw two beings: a human and drone soldier whom he assumed were from the Coalition given their specific body gear.
While he took notice of the militia duo, the drone soldier spoke up to him. "Good morning, we're looking for a..." He lifted up what appeared to be an ID card, Wade glancing at the object as he heard the drone continue his question. "...Wade Carter? We heard he resided here since last night." Looking to Wade again, the drone stopped himself upon finishing his sentence, then picking himself up as he spoke further. "Come to think of it, you look like him."
Wade smiled warmly as he spoke to the two guests. "That's right. You need something?"
"Eh, more like the other way around, actually." The drone soldier replied as he handed Wade the ID, the former worker drone taking it in his hands as he glanced over it. The ID showed him from when he was still a worker drone, but was thankfully untarnished from the factory as Wade held it tightly. Before he could speak, the human soldier handed him a pouch carrying what Wade presumed were a few more of his personal belongings. The drone soldier spoke once more as Wade took the pouch. "We found these while scavenging the storage bays at the factory, we've been heading around delivering them back to those they belong to."
Wade smiled brightly before finally speaking in a grateful tone. "Thanks, Sirs. If there's anything I can do to help, just let me know."
The two soldiers nodded as the human one replied. "Just doing our job, Mr. Carter. Have a pleasant morning." With that, the troopers departed the apartment complex, leaving Wade to himself as he shut the door.
Heading back inside, Tina and Jasmine looked to Wade as the former spoke to him. "Who was that?"
"Just some boys from the Coalition, and just like Nathan said, they finally found my ID!" Wade answered before showing the card off, Tina grinned happily as she saw it, Jasmine giving a simple smile as he spoke further. "Feels good to have it back, I think that was what was keeping me down a little yesterday."
"Well, at least you won't have to worry about that anymore." Tina replied as Wade put the card in his pocket, taking his seat again before setting the pouch at his legs. Taking notice of the pouch, Tina asked, "What's in that? Battery candy?"
Wade shook his head as he began pulling out the items inside the bag, speaking to Tina as he examined them. "Oh, no, looks like some more of my belongings." Once he was done, Wade put the pouch on the couch's cup holder, on the space behind the drink holders themselves. The items were other various cards and papers with various personal information of Wades written on them, along with Wade's wallet. Wade found it almost comical that the items were all separated from each other, rather than being inside the wallet after getting cleared out.
Tina seemed to agree with Wade's thoughts as he began reinserting the cards into his wallet. "Well, that's silly. They just put everything in that little pouch instead of putting it all back in that thing."
Wade chuckled as he put his ID into the frontal window pocket of the wallet. "Yeah, guess they had to clear every little part of it before sending it off." As he finished restocking his wallet, Wade glanced to the pouch before continuing. "Besides, that IS a nice pouch."
"It sure is." Tina replied before taking another sip of her oil can, Wade putting his wallet away as she spoke again. "On another subject, however, you think we should go see if Nathan's around? Him and Kurtis could come by and have some small talk."
Wade nodded as he started to speak, but stopped as Jasmine spoke first. "Actually, I ran into F earlier while at the market. I heard from her that Nathan was going to be joining her for a date later this afternoon." Glancing to Wade, she finished with, "So he might be already busy for the moment."
Taking his own oil can, Wade shrugged his arm as he replied. "Eh, no problem with that. Don't wanna kill a growing relationship, now do we?"
Tina chuckled lightly as she agreed with her boyfriend. "Indeed, if it were us, they'd probably do the same fo-"
The chatter stopped as another knock sounded at the door, Wade moving to get up again as he glanced to the ladies in confusion. "Another visitor?"
"You think it could be F?" Tina made a wild guess as Wade approached the door, glancing out the peephole in slight surprise before opening the door.
Wade felt as if their talk about the Ceres couple had been a form of summoning as he saw F and Nathan standing at the door, bearing strangely serious expressions as they were greeted by the former worker drone. "F! Nathan! Funny timing, we were just talking about you. Come on in, have a seat."
As the two walked past Wade, F pat him on the shoulder as she spoke to him. "As much as I'd like to visit Wade, I'm afraid we're not gonna be here long, nor are you and the Fowleys."
Wade raised an eyebrow at her reply as he followed Nathan and F, the two simply standing in front of Tina and Jasmine as Wade returned to the living room. "Oh?"
"We're leaving? Should we get dressed and pack our things ASAP?" Tina asked with mild concern as F replied to her.
"Yep, you're on the ball with getting ready, but we're... not exactly leaving." The disassembly drone's words brought a confused face from Tina as Nathan clarified his crush.
"We got a call from J, just as we were heading to one of the diners here." The two drones paused for a moment, glancing to each other as they almost spewed out about their date, but shook it off as Nathan continued with little hesitation. "She told us that Tessa had intercepted some kind of transmission, one that might help us clear up this situation with the company faster than we initially thought."
F gave an affirming nod on Nathan's explanation before adding to it. "Her and J are playing host to a meeting held by the general stationed here, and she wants us to attend." Glancing over Wade and the Fowley sisters, she finished the explanation with, "They especially want you two to come as well, given what you both went through."
Wade and Tina gave blushes of embarrassment at the news, honored by the invitation but also a little uncomfortable with their elevated status as they glanced to each other. After taking a moment to process what they heard, Wade broke the silence. "Well, I did make that promise at the factory, and to J and Tessa earlier... and I intend on acting on said promise." Looking to Tina, his girlfriend gave an agreeing nod as she stood up with him.
"Glad to hear it. We don't have to be in that much of a rush, though, the meeting doesn't start until 10." F stated, Wade and Tina both glancing at the clock to check the time before looking back to their murder drone friend with nods of acknowledgement.
Standing up from her chair, Jasmine stretched as she announced her goals to the room. "Well, in that case, I should hit the shower."
"Right, I'll get myself fixed up too." Tina replied as she looked to Wade, the two sharing warm smiles before heading to the kitchen. Noticing the still unstored items on the counter, Tina spoke aloud. "Jasmine? You mind if Wade and I help store the groceries in the cabinets here?"
"Sure, thanks!" Jasmine answered in a grateful tone as she went off to the bathroom in the back of the apartment, Tina glancing to Wade as she began to take some food out of the bag.
"I'll get the refrigerated stuff." Wade stated simply as he took some items out of the bag, Tina putting her chosen food stuffs into one of the cabinets as they worked to unload the fresh consumables from Jasmine's errand.

In the bustling city of Rochester, NY, an extraordinary event was unfolding. The super mutant X gene, known as The Catalyst, was spreading like wildfire. This gene had the power to awaken latent abilities in those it touched, forever altering their lives.

Chapter 1: A Troubled Beginning

Our story begins with a girl named Daniella "Dani" Dixon. Dani was known throughout her high school as a troublemaker, the girl who always found herself in detention. Her record of misdemeanors was as long as her list of missed classes. But Dani’s rebellious streak wasn’t just a teenage phase—it was a product of her environment. Her father was a notorious drug dealer, and her mother managed the money from their illicit dealings. Inevitably, Dani got caught with marijuana, leading to her expulsion from school.
Expelled and with nowhere to turn, Dani was forced into the family business, becoming a reluctant drug dealer on the streets of Rochester. It was a grim existence, her dreams and potential smothered by the shadow of her parents' criminal activities.

Chapter 2: A Fateful Encounter

One dreary afternoon, Dani was walking along Lyell Avenue, a notorious street lined with abandoned buildings and the remnants of once-thriving businesses. The wind carried the sounds of distant sirens, a constant reminder of the city's unrest. As she passed an old, crumbling building, a soft, pitiful cry caught her attention.
Curious, Dani pushed aside some overgrown bushes and found a small skunk kit glowing faintly. The little creature was crying, its tiny body trembling. Dani’s hardened heart softened at the sight, and she reached out to comfort the kit. The moment her hand touched its fur, a surge of energy shot through her body. It was The Catalyst.
Dani fainted, her body overwhelmed by the sudden surge of power. When she woke up, she found herself lying on the cold, hard ground. The skunk kit was still there, now nestled against her side. To her amazement, she could understand the kit’s soft, anxious words.
"My name is Sable," the kit whispered. "I lost my mother. A car ran her over."

Chapter 3: Transformation

Dani looked around, trying to process what had just happened. She caught a glimpse of herself in a broken mirror leaning against the building. Her reflection was unrecognizable. She had transformed into a human-anthropoid skunk, with black and white fur and bright, intelligent eyes. She marveled at her new appearance and the strange new abilities she felt coursing through her.
Realizing she had the power to transform, Dani shifted into a small skunk, mirroring Sable’s form. This ability would allow her to move unnoticed during the day, a perfect disguise for someone who needed to stay hidden.

Chapter 4: A New Life

Returning to her home in her four-legged skunk form, Dani discovered her parents had been arrested in a police raid. Their drug-dealing empire had finally crumbled. With no home or family to return to, Dani made the abandoned building on Lyell Avenue her new refuge.
During the day, she walked on four legs, blending in with the city's wildlife. At night, she embraced her anthropoid form, using her new abilities to protect the city that had once turned its back on her. She named herself Kivet Kat, a symbol of her transformation and new purpose.

Chapter 5: Becoming a Hero

Kivet Kat and Sable became inseparable. Dani took care of the little skunk kit, vowing to protect her at all costs. The two formed an unlikely duo, using their unique abilities to fight crime and bring justice to the streets of Rochester.
As Kivet Kat, Dani's senses were heightened, and her agility and strength were unmatched. She could communicate with animals, gathering information that no human could. Her dual forms allowed her to navigate the city effortlessly, evading detection during the day and striking fear into the hearts of criminals at night.

Chapter 6: The Catalyst's Legacy

Word of Kivet Kat’s deeds spread throughout Rochester, inspiring hope in a city plagued by crime and corruption. She became a symbol of resilience, showing that even those from the darkest backgrounds could rise to become heroes.
But The Catalyst was still spreading, awakening powers in others across the city. Some would use their newfound abilities for good, while others would inevitably fall into darkness. Kivet Kat knew her work was just beginning. She would have to navigate this new world, where every ally and foe possessed extraordinary powers.

Epilogue: A New Dawn

As the sun rose over Rochester, Kivet Kat perched atop a building, looking out over the city she had sworn to protect. With Sable by her side, she felt a sense of purpose she had never known before. Her journey was far from over, but for the first time, she faced the future with hope.
The Catalyst had given her a second chance, and she would use it to ensure that no one else would have to walk the path she had. Kivet Kat was here to stay, a guardian of the night and a beacon of hope for all.
And so, the legend of Kivet Kat began, a tale of redemption, transformation, and the unyielding spirit of a girl who refused to be defined by her past.

TLDR AT THE BOTTOM.
This might be long, I'm sorry. My ex (23M) and I (25F) dated for an entire year in 2022, and then broke up and for the past year and little bit have not spoken or seen each other once. We met at a local bar and the way he came up to me as forward and sweet, he was younger than me but super confident and it worked. While we dated, we had a pretty great relationship and it was very much best friends/lovers, our whole group was amazing, and my current friend group now was essentially his group of friends first. He was always gentle with me, he let me be 110% myself, and I was his first love/his first girlfriend. He treated me really well.
Why did we break up, you ask? He was in his senior year of college at the time, and when he drank too much he'd get a little aggressive (not with me, like if someone bumped into him at the bar type vibe) and his sister was a fucking menace. She was my age, and so codependent on him she was mean to me because I took up his time instead of her. I was nothing but nice to her and tried to make it work, but she ruined my birthday that year, lied to him about how she treated me when he wasn't around, and was in general just really awful to me every chance she got. What's worse is I was his first girlfriend and that was her first time not having him to herself, and he didn't know any better and couldn't stand up for me when he needed to sometimes. It caused so many problems. Our friends hated her, too. That's the umbrella.
The actual breakup was because he was particularly difficult one night drunk and said something super mean to me, and when I wanted to talk to him about it he couldn't really face what he did. He had plans to go home that next day (an hour away, where his sister also lives) and said we'd talk on the phone later. Well, he called me, and he broke up with me over a 3 minute phone call. He didn't even sound like himself, he was distant and cold and the opposite of how he was with me any other time we'd ever gotten into an argument or discussion, and I KNEW it wasn't coming from him. I got over it pretty quickly because I was over his sister's shit and knew it was for the best regardless of how it happened.
We went this entire past year no contact, not seeing each other, nothing. Our friends saw him probably 3 times but he always left town before anyone went out and I'm 90% sure it was because he was avoiding seeing me.
ANYWAY. There's the back story, here's us seeing each other the first time.
This past weekend, one of our good friends had a really important event, and my ex was in town. My best girlfriend told me he would be, and my attitude toward it was truly whatever, I was fine seeing him and over it. We met everyone at the same bar he and I met at, which is basically our spot, and he was coming out of the bathroom when he saw me. His eyes went huge, he looked shocked. I thought it was a little funny, so I went up to him and gave him a a hug and said hi. He awkwardly said it was really nice to see me, and then went to the bar to get a drink. I went with my two friends to get a drink at the bar a few minutes later, and he was standing across from us literally glancing at me every 2 seconds.
I ended up going up to talk to him because we were obviously in the same group, and he asked me how I was. I said I'd been great, asked him how he was, pleasantries. He then goes, "but how are you really?" and I was like ?? No, like I've been great, dude. From there it was like nothing had changed between us. We were firing inside jokes off to each other, talking and laughing, and we pretty much turned into a unit from there. He was buying my drinks, giving me a piggyback ride to the next bar, arm around my waist the whole night, holding my hand, etc. If something funny happened I was the first person he was looking at.
At the end of the night we were talking and I asked him where he was staying, told him he could stay at mine if he wanted. He said he really wanted to, but he was seeing "kind of seeing someone". I asked him point blank if this was a girlfriend situation because I didn't want to ruin anything for him, then said I was seeing someone casually, too. He said he had no idea and basically brushed it off, was super nonchalant about it and didn't seem worried. I then said it wasn't like I wanted to do anything but it would be really nice to sleep next to him. He said he really wanted that, and we ended up back at mine. I had my head in his lap the whole uber ride to my house, he was brushing my hair out of my eyes, etc.
Nothing happened at my house, we stayed up and talked and laughed and cuddled and slept. The next morning we were up early talking and laughing more, catching up, etc. and went to our friend's brunch. The whole entire day he's looking at me like he did when we first met, watching out for me, at one point even pulled me into him and told me I was "really hard not to look at". It was like we were dating again.
We went back to our friend's apartment and hung out with everyone, and it was him in a being bag chair and me between his legs. He was playing with my hair the entire time, massaging my shoulders, leaning into me to laugh at everything we were the only ones noticing. We didn't even talk to hardly anyone else the whole 3 hours we were there. I left at the same time he did because he had an hour to drive home, and our goodbye was so emotional??
He hugged me so tightly for 3 minutes, said "well one of us is going to have to let go" and kissed me so hard it was like he was going off to war or something. I told him I had no idea what I was supposed to say, and he said he didn't either, and we kissed again really hard and we held hands until I was walked off far enough and had to let go. I got in my car and cried for 5 minutes, but I wasn't sad and I wasn't sure why.
I don't know what to do now. He hasn't texted or reached out and I'm sure he's just as confused as I am. I don't have rose-colored glasses on, I know there would need to be a ton of discussions before we ever revisited an "us", but this weekend just threw me because of how he ended our relationship. He's had a lot of things happen the last year that I know made him grow up and mature a lot, but I just don’t know. Am I delusional or does it seem like he's not over it either? He ended it but he also initiated all of this, so I shouldn't reach out, or should I?
TLDR; My ex (23M) and I (25F) saw each other for the first time after a year of no contact and it was like nothing between us changed, we were electric. He very obviously wasn't over me at all/looking at me the entire weekend like he did when we were dating/taking care of me/acting like he did when we dated. I'm not sure what to do because it made me realize I'm not over it either, even after going the entire last year thinking I was. I don't know where to go from here.
Any input is helpful, I'm sorry this is so fucking long lol

This is just my opinion and you're free to disagree or discuss further in the replies because I'm kinda just venting my thoughts, but I personally believe that the story of FFXV would've been a bit more coherent if LuNoct was a familial relationship and I'll explain why. I mainly say this because due to the game's emphasis on brotherhood, fatheson bonding, familial ties, etc., Luna and Noct's bond inevitably got pushed to the background, mainly with how Luna's character as a whole had so little screen time.
The fact that there's such a large amount of people who came to the consensus that Luna and Noct's relationship was poorly written, or that they were never even attracted to each other in the first place, kind of cements that regardless of whether or not LuNoct is "canon" isn't the issue, it's that its overall reception by players was below average at best because honestly, Luna and Noct...barely talk.
Normally, I'm okay with love stories in Final Fantasy games because they're generally well executed, but FFXV specifically is probably the one Final Fantasy game that I genuinely believe shouldn't have had any romance at all, because the relationship Noct has with Prompto, Ignis, Gladio, and Regis (and the overall theme of "family") is obviously meant to have more impact on the player and serve more importance to the story by comparison. But something that made me start considering a hypothetical solution with how many consider the romance shoehorned/unnecessary/etc., is specifically the scene where Luna dies.
In a vast majority of the scene, Noct is presented as his childhood self, while Luna transforms into her adult self fairly quickly and they remain that way until Noct blips into an adult at the very end. Contrary to what some people believe, Luna and Noct's physical states in Luna's death scene isn't actually meant to be a metaphorical representation of their maturity levels/mental states, but very, very literal. This is because in Japanese, young Noct in that cutscene uses the pronoun 僕 (boku), a pronoun mainly used by young boys, instead of 俺 (ore), the more masculine and rough pronoun used by adult Noct. Basically, throughout almost the entire cutscene Luna is speaking to an actual small boy, not a man merely in the image of a child.
When I remember that their relationship is meant to be romantic when presented with the image of the literal adult Luna speaking so fondly to the literal child Noct, it comes off as a very odd writing choice to me that could have some problematic implications. But I feel like a way to ease the discomfort of that scene's implication is if Luna and Noct's relationship was changed from romantic, to familial.
Here's my reasoning behind that.
There's barely any mention of her in-universe so I don't really blame anyone for forgetting her character exists, but the game briefly touches on the fact that Noctis's mother, Aulea, died when he was so young that he doesn't even remember her at all. IIRC, he was still a baby at the time. Regis was unfortunately too occupied with his duties as king to truly be there for Noct as a father, and although he had Ignis and Gladio, and later Prompto to ease the pain of his father's absence, Noct had nobody to fill in that familial gap that his mother left behind. Luna is important in that sense because she's his first source of guidance and warmth that isn't a boy, but an older girl.
(And as a side note: No, just because Ignis is a man that happens to cook, look after Noct, etc., doesn't make him Noct's "mother". A caretaker, yes, but the FFXV fandom's insistence on using the term "mom" to describe Ignis's role to Noct is honestly really irritating and overdone at this rate, not to mention it perpetuates a very outdated view on sewing, cooking, caretaking, etc. being "a mother's job". Ignis is not a "mother", that is a grown man with a cock and balls.)
Even more than the fact that their marriage is repeatedly mentioned to be arranged by King Regis and Emperor Aldercapt and solely meant to serve as a symbol of Lucis and Niflheim's armistice, Luna's emphasis on watching over (Or "protecting", if you translate the Japanese version literally.) Noct, and even more than Luna's fondness for looking back on her childhood with Noct and yearning for those days of innocence, I feel like it's Luna's actual role as Oracle that gives the most support to my opinion that making their relationship romantic wasn't necessarily a good decision. As Oracle, Luna's duty is to be a guiding force for Noctis to help him on his journey, from teaching him all about his destiny when they are children, to paving the way for Noct to forge covenants with the Astrals when they are adults. Despite her mentioning "I do not seek to guide him, merely to stand beside him." in one cutscene, it doesn't change that her very birthright is intrinsically tied to being a guiding force for Noct. The way the bros react after Luna's death prove this: Without Luna, they are borderline aimless.
All of this honestly would've felt more understandable if Noct and Luna's sentiments towards one another were meant in a familial context, like perhaps a mother-figure to her son-figure, thus filling the gap that Aulea's death had left behind and tying in better with FFXV's theme of "familial bonds".
In that sense, Luna's role as Oracle would be less like an overly selfless, obedient, and devoted girlfriend endlessly breaking her back to support her wayward, immature boyfriend, while never questioning this relationship dynamic or even getting anything in return, until she ultimately dies, and more like a mother-figure wanting to guide her child-figure into fulfilling his destiny/reaching adulthood with what little time she has left, since canonically the covenants are shown to be slowly killing her regardless and she would've died soon anyway, with or without Ardyn stabbing her. And her death scene in particular would then come off less like an 8 year old boy is losing his 24 year old crush (...That alone feels even more bizarre of a concept now that I had just typed it out.), and more like a small child being orphaned, losing his one remaining source of familial guidance and security after his beloved father had passed.
I think that small bit of tweaking to their relationship would've resonated more with players overall, and would also prove that stories don't always need to include a romance. But as I said at the beginning of this post, this is just my own personal thoughts and my reasoning behind them. Whether you agree or not, I'd love to hear what y'all think.

Is the Story of Adam and Eve literally true, parable, or pure myth?

According to The Book of Akash, the story of Adam and Eve is a Midrash (Jewish story for children meant to teach a moral lesson) based upon Pharaoh Ay (as Adam) and Queen Khiyah (as Eve), who lived in the walled Garden of Meru-Aten and were cast out of Meru-Aten by General Horemheb who wanted to become Pharaoh.The Book of Akash says:*Ay was a reincarnation of the the soul of the first Adam (Adapa of Eridu), who later reincarnated as Enoch, Adamu the second king of Assyria, Melchizedek king of Salem, and then as Ay son of Yuya.
*Ay was the father of Nefertiti who married Amenhotep IV who changed his name to Akhenaten. Nefertiti had six daughters and one son: Tutenkhamun (Tut). Akhenative closed down the temples to Amun, putting the priests out of business, and built the City of Aten (Atentaten), and also a royal residence called the walled Garden of Meru-Aten, in what is now Amarna, Egypt. Meru-Aten had fruit trees of all kinds, and a sacred fig tree dedicated to Hathor goddess of fertility. It also had a petting zoo and evaporation pond.
*After Tut died, Ay was made Pharaoh, at the age of 70, but his wife died years before. Soon after being made Pharaoh Ay's only son, Nakhtmin, died. This left Ay without an heir to the throne.
*Ay knew that if he begot another son, that son had to have the blood of Amenhotep III (father of Akhenaten) in order to have the divine right to the throne. So Ay marries Khiyah (Ankhesenpaaten) who was Queen as wife of her brother King Tut. Khiyah was the daughter of Akhenaten, the son of Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III was married to Ay's sister who was the mother of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten). Akhenaten claimed to be Aten in the flesh and Ay was given the title "Father of the God".
*Horemheb, general of the army, desired to be Pharaoh. So he had Akhennaten poisoned, then Nefertiti, then Tut, and tried to marry Khiyah, but she rejected him and she tried to marry a Hittite prince but Horemheb had the HIttite prince assassinated as soon as he reached Canaan (then controlled by Egypt).
*Ay married Khiyah (Ankhesenpaaten later renamed Akhensenpaamun), so that his "claim" to the throne would be strengthened (her paternal grandfather was Amenhotep III and her maternal grandfather was Ay son of Yuya father of Nefertiti. Yes, Ay married his own granddaughter. Why? So that he could beget a son (Nakhtmin was dead) who had royal bloodline back to Amenhotep III, and thus had a "divine right" to the throne of Egypt.
*Akhensenpaaten/Akhensenpaamun (nicknamed "Khiyah") agreed to marry her grandfather because she was "tempted" by the Cobra Crown: symbolic of the Wisdom of the Gods. Only the King and Queen of Egypt wore the Cobra Crown. This is the meaning that Eve was "tempted" by the serpent. It was not real serpent, but a crown. It "tempted" Khiyah like diamond rings "tempt" women.
*Eve being made from the "rib" of Adam is a play on Hebrew words, since "penis" and "rib" is the same word in Hebrew: TSELA. Eve (Khiyah) was made from the TSELA (penis) of Adam (Ay): meaning she was made out of his seed (i.e. daughter or granddaughter).*The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil does not refer to a literal tree, but to "carnal knowledge" (sex) which can be both for good and for evil.
*The Tree of Life is not a literal tree, but a symbol of the placenta. Every placenta has large veins that resemble a "tree" on it. YWHW "took away the tree of life" and prevented Adam and Eve from partaking of it: the meaning is that YWHW prevented them from conceiving a son (because what they were doing was a sin unto death).
*Egyptians in that time ate figs and wore fig leaves when they wanted to conceive a firstborn son. The firstborn son was heir of the family and responsible for taking care of the parents when they became too old to work. The fig tree was sacred to Hathor, goddess of wisdom. The Garden of Meru-Aten had a sacred fig tree. Eating figs and wearing sewn-together fig leaves (sacred to Hathor) was thought necessary to ensure that a couple would conceive a healthy first-born son.*Via his spies at Meru-Aten, General Horemheb discovered that Ay and Khiyah were trying to conceive a son. Horemheb then took his generals and raided Meru-Aten at night. They tied their swords with rags and poured oil on them and let them in order to see (flaming sword). Egyptian generals wore armor of polished brass and thus were called "Shining Ones" (Hebrew: "Cherubim"). Horemheb cast them out of the Garden of Meru-Aten into the desert where they perished. Their servants found them and buried them in sheep skins.*Horemheb becomes Pharaoh, but has no heir (he was gay).
*Ay was the reincarnation of Enoch. Enoch was made the Angel Metatron and adopted by YWHW as a firstborn Son (Third Book of Enoch). As Metatron he was "Mediator" between YWHW and human kind. But with his major sin as Ay, the Soul of Enoch lost his "station" as Metatron. He lost his inheritance. He became the Prodigal Son.
*Ay and Khiyah had to reincarnate, be born of literal virgins (Mary and St. Ann), live sinless lives, celibate lives, and Ay, being Adam/Enoch reincarnated, had to die on a fig tree in order to atone for the "original sin" of the Soul of Adam in the Garden of Meru-Aten in 1320 B.C. in Amarna, Egypt.*Jesus knew who He was. He called himself "the Son of Man" (a term for Enoch). He knew that he would have to die on a fig tree in order to atone for committing the "original sin" with Khiyah in the Garden of Meru-Aten: where Ay and Khiyah ate figs, and wore fig leaves, and tried to beget a son and heir to the throne
.*The punishment of Khiyah (who became Mary) was to lead a celibate life, and to watch her beloved Son be tortured and die on a cross made from a fig tree. This is why Jesus cursed a fig tree on His way to Jerusalem: because it reminded Him of the Original Sin, and that He needed to die on such a tree. He was not looking forward to it, but knew He had to do it in order to regain His lofty station as the Angel Metatron.
*Atonement was made, and the Soul of Adam/Enoch regained the station of Metatron (Mediator) and First-Born. Ay was the Prodigal Son who lost his inheritance, and Jesus was the Prodigal Son who was welcomed back by the Father.*How do I know this? Guessing ? No. I was to the right of Jesus, on another cross, and said to Him : "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and Jesus replied: "Truly I say unto you, today you will be with me in Paradise." My name was Ebion. I was an Essene, and the Romans crucified me for "stealing from Rome" (i.e. not paying taxes and telling other Jews not to pay taxes to Rome either). In the eyes of Rome I was a "thief". But I was a celibate and spiritual man, an Essene. I knew Jesus was the Messiah, and he called me to follow Him, but I refused because I did not want to lose my position as Treasurer of the Essenes in Jerusalem. I knew Who He was, but I could not leave my high station and the admiration of the other Essenes. How do I know this? I was told that by a psychic woman, and also Jesus appeared to me, emerging from a wall in my room, when I was 18. He was porcelain white, and had a crown of thorns. He moaned, and I saw a large drop of white blood running from a large thorn in His temple running down the right side of His head. As God and Jesus are My Two Witnesses: that is what I saw and what I heard.
*Jesus never wrote a book during His life. But He wrote a book through my hand, called The Book of Akash. It contains the truth about God and the Cosmos: the only two things that exist. Answers to all the mysteries of the Cosmos can be found therein.*The following YouTube video explains somewhat about the history of Ay son of Yuya, Khiyah, Tut, and Horemheb (played by a black man in the video). The video suggests that Ay had Tut killed in order to become Pharaoh. Not true at all. Ay loved his grandson Tut. It was Horemheb who poisoned Akhenaten (because he closed down the Amun priesthood and temples), and Nefertiti, and Tut, and Nakhtmin. Horemheb was a very evil man, and did evil, and gained the throne for himself by murder and strategy.
*The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is a Midrash (Jewish moral parable story for children). It was based upon the real story of Pharaoh Ay and Queen Khiyah. The "details" of the story were hidden in metaphors (talking snake, Eve being made from the "rib" (tsela) of Adam, Cherubim with flaming sword, etc.). The story is not "myth" but based upon real people and real events in ancient Egypt in 1324 to 1320 B.C.
*Jesus has reincarnated five times. I met His fourth reincarnation, who was a miracle worker from Lebanon who was born in Jerusalem in 1909 and died in New York City in 1984. I first saw His face in 1977 when I was 16 years old. He visited me with lightning with no thunder, to my home, in the year 2005. His fifth incarnation is alive on Earth today, incognito. No...not me (God forbid!) but a man who works miracles. Jesus will incarnate for the 7th time in the 24th century (2300s), and, after Armageddon, will establish His Kingdom, called the United Order, a political, judicial, economic, and religious Order, that will last a thousand years.*We all have up to 6,000 lifetimes in order to reach Nirvana, and if we do not reach Nirvana by that time we shall be thrown into the Lake of Fire (when the Giant Red Sun engulfs the Earth) and simply cease to exist.
*Our current life is our Day of Account for our deeds in our last life, and our next life will be our Day of Account for our actions, good and bad, in this life.
*We are all judged by the Universal Law of Karma, and we are all judged according to our works, good and evil, and receive an exactly just recompense for our actions: good and evil. Whatsoever we shall sow, that also shall we reap.
Watch the YouTube video. It is a good introduction to the true historical story of Ay and Khiyah. But, again, please note: Ay did not harm Tut, but loved him. Ay did not marry Khiyah for sex, but to beget a son and heir who had a divine right to the throne of Egypt. It was a sin unto death, and they died. And they came back and atoned. Jesus is the Prodigal Son. Watch the video. It is not long. Please share this post with others. Thank you.
https://youtu.be/J2dEV9MO8_U

Is the Story of Adam and Eve literally true, parable, or pure myth?

According to The Book of Akash, the story of Adam and Eve is a Midrash (Jewish story for children meant to teach a moral lesson) based upon Pharaoh Ay (as Adam) and Queen Khiyah (as Eve), who lived in the walled Garden of Meru-Aten and were cast out of Meru-Aten by General Horemheb who wanted to become Pharaoh.The Book of Akash says:*Ay was a reincarnation of the the soul of the first Adam (Adapa of Eridu), who later reincarnated as Enoch, Adamu the second king of Assyria, Melchizedek king of Salem, and then as Ay son of Yuya.
*Ay was the father of Nefertiti who married Amenhotep IV who changed his name to Akhenaten. Nefertiti had six daughters and one son: Tutenkhamun (Tut). Akhenative closed down the temples to Amun, putting the priests out of business, and built the City of Aten (Atentaten), and also a royal residence called the walled Garden of Meru-Aten, in what is now Amarna, Egypt. Meru-Aten had fruit trees of all kinds, and a sacred fig tree dedicated to Hathor goddess of fertility. It also had a petting zoo and evaporation pond.
*After Tut died, Ay was made Pharaoh, at the age of 70, but his wife died years before. Soon after being made Pharaoh Ay's only son, Nakhtmin, died. This left Ay without an heir to the throne.
*Ay knew that if he begot another son, that son had to have the blood of Amenhotep III (father of Akhenaten) in order to have the divine right to the throne. So Ay marries Khiyah (Ankhesenpaaten) who was Queen as wife of her brother King Tut. Khiyah was the daughter of Akhenaten, the son of Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III was married to Ay's sister who was the mother of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten). Akhenaten claimed to be Aten in the flesh and Ay was given the title "Father of the God".
*Horemheb, general of the army, desired to be Pharaoh. So he had Akhennaten poisoned, then Nefertiti, then Tut, and tried to marry Khiyah, but she rejected him and she tried to marry a Hittite prince but Horemheb had the HIttite prince assassinated as soon as he reached Canaan (then controlled by Egypt).
*Ay married Khiyah (Ankhesenpaaten later renamed Akhensenpaamun), so that his "claim" to the throne would be strengthened (her paternal grandfather was Amenhotep III and her maternal grandfather was Ay son of Yuya father of Nefertiti. Yes, Ay married his own granddaughter. Why? So that he could beget a son (Nakhtmin was dead) who had royal bloodline back to Amenhotep III, and thus had a "divine right" to the throne of Egypt.
*Akhensenpaaten/Akhensenpaamun (nicknamed "Khiyah") agreed to marry her grandfather because she was "tempted" by the Cobra Crown: symbolic of the Wisdom of the Gods. Only the King and Queen of Egypt wore the Cobra Crown. This is the meaning that Eve was "tempted" by the serpent. It was not real serpent, but a crown. It "tempted" Khiyah like diamond rings "tempt" women.
*Eve being made from the "rib" of Adam is a play on Hebrew words, since "penis" and "rib" is the same word in Hebrew: TSELA. Eve (Khiyah) was made from the TSELA (penis) of Adam (Ay): meaning she was made out of his seed (i.e. daughter or granddaughter).*The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil does not refer to a literal tree, but to "carnal knowledge" (sex) which can be both for good and for evil.
*The Tree of Life is not a literal tree, but a symbol of the placenta. Every placenta has large veins that resemble a "tree" on it. YWHW "took away the tree of life" and prevented Adam and Eve from partaking of it: the meaning is that YWHW prevented them from conceiving a son (because what they were doing was a sin unto death).
*Egyptians in that time ate figs and wore fig leaves when they wanted to conceive a firstborn son. The firstborn son was heir of the family and responsible for taking care of the parents when they became too old to work. The fig tree was sacred to Hathor, goddess of wisdom. The Garden of Meru-Aten had a sacred fig tree. Eating figs and wearing sewn-together fig leaves (sacred to Hathor) was thought necessary to ensure that a couple would conceive a healthy first-born son.*Via his spies at Meru-Aten, General Horemheb discovered that Ay and Khiyah were trying to conceive a son. Horemheb then took his generals and raided Meru-Aten at night. They tied their swords with rags and poured oil on them and let them in order to see (flaming sword). Egyptian generals wore armor of polished brass and thus were called "Shining Ones" (Hebrew: "Cherubim"). Horemheb cast them out of the Garden of Meru-Aten into the desert where they perished. Their servants found them and buried them in sheep skins.*Horemheb becomes Pharaoh, but has no heir (he was gay).
*Ay was the reincarnation of Enoch. Enoch was made the Angel Metatron and adopted by YWHW as a firstborn Son (Third Book of Enoch). As Metatron he was "Mediator" between YWHW and human kind. But with his major sin as Ay, the Soul of Enoch lost his "station" as Metatron. He lost his inheritance. He became the Prodigal Son.
*Ay and Khiyah had to reincarnate, be born of literal virgins (Mary and St. Ann), live sinless lives, celibate lives, and Ay, being Adam/Enoch reincarnated, had to die on a fig tree in order to atone for the "original sin" of the Soul of Adam in the Garden of Meru-Aten in 1320 B.C. in Amarna, Egypt.*Jesus knew who He was. He called himself "the Son of Man" (a term for Enoch). He knew that he would have to die on a fig tree in order to atone for committing the "original sin" with Khiyah in the Garden of Meru-Aten: where Ay and Khiyah ate figs, and wore fig leaves, and tried to beget a son and heir to the throne
.*The punishment of Khiyah (who became Mary) was to lead a celibate life, and to watch her beloved Son be tortured and die on a cross made from a fig tree. This is why Jesus cursed a fig tree on His way to Jerusalem: because it reminded Him of the Original Sin, and that He needed to die on such a tree. He was not looking forward to it, but knew He had to do it in order to regain His lofty station as the Angel Metatron.
*Atonement was made, and the Soul of Adam/Enoch regained the station of Metatron (Mediator) and First-Born. Ay was the Prodigal Son who lost his inheritance, and Jesus was the Prodigal Son who was welcomed back by the Father.*How do I know this? Guessing ? No. I was to the right of Jesus, on another cross, and said to Him : "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and Jesus replied: "Truly I say unto you, today you will be with me in Paradise." My name was Ebion. I was an Essene, and the Romans crucified me for "stealing from Rome" (i.e. not paying taxes and telling other Jews not to pay taxes to Rome either). In the eyes of Rome I was a "thief". But I was a celibate and spiritual man, an Essene. I knew Jesus was the Messiah, and he called me to follow Him, but I refused because I did not want to lose my position as Treasurer of the Essenes in Jerusalem. I knew Who He was, but I could not leave my high station and the admiration of the other Essenes. How do I know this? I was told that by a psychic woman, and also Jesus appeared to me, emerging from a wall in my room, when I was 18. He was porcelain white, and had a crown of thorns. He moaned, and I saw a large drop of white blood running from a large thorn in His temple running down the right side of His head. As God and Jesus are My Two Witnesses: that is what I saw and what I heard.
*Jesus never wrote a book during His life. But He wrote a book through my hand, called The Book of Akash. It contains the truth about God and the Cosmos: the only two things that exist. Answers to all the mysteries of the Cosmos can be found therein.*The following YouTube video explains somewhat about the history of Ay son of Yuya, Khiyah, Tut, and Horemheb (played by a black man in the video). The video suggests that Ay had Tut killed in order to become Pharaoh. Not true at all. Ay loved his grandson Tut. It was Horemheb who poisoned Akhenaten (because he closed down the Amun priesthood and temples), and Nefertiti, and Tut, and Nakhtmin. Horemheb was a very evil man, and did evil, and gained the throne for himself by murder and strategy.
*The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is a Midrash (Jewish moral parable story for children). It was based upon the real story of Pharaoh Ay and Queen Khiyah. The "details" of the story were hidden in metaphors (talking snake, Eve being made from the "rib" (tsela) of Adam, Cherubim with flaming sword, etc.). The story is not "myth" but based upon real people and real events in ancient Egypt in 1324 to 1320 B.C.
*Jesus has reincarnated five times. I met His fourth reincarnation, who was a miracle worker from Lebanon who was born in Jerusalem in 1909 and died in New York City in 1984. I first saw His face in 1977 when I was 16 years old. He visited me with lightning with no thunder, to my home, in the year 2005. His fifth incarnation is alive on Earth today, incognito. No...not me (God forbid!) but a man who works miracles. Jesus will incarnate for the 7th time in the 24th century (2300s), and, after Armageddon, will establish His Kingdom, called the United Order, a political, judicial, economic, and religious Order, that will last a thousand years.*We all have up to 6,000 lifetimes in order to reach Nirvana, and if we do not reach Nirvana by that time we shall be thrown into the Lake of Fire (when the Giant Red Sun engulfs the Earth) and simply cease to exist.
*Our current life is our Day of Account for our deeds in our last life, and our next life will be our Day of Account for our actions, good and bad, in this life.
*We are all judged by the Universal Law of Karma, and we are all judged according to our works, good and evil, and receive an exactly just recompense for our actions: good and evil. Whatsoever we shall sow, that also shall we reap.
Watch the YouTube video. It is a good introduction to the true historical story of Ay and Khiyah. But, again, please note: Ay did not harm Tut, but loved him. Ay did not marry Khiyah for sex, but to beget a son and heir who had a divine right to the throne of Egypt. It was a sin unto death, and they died. And they came back and atoned. Jesus is the Prodigal Son. Watch the video. It is not long. Please share this post with others. Thank you.
https://youtu.be/J2dEV9MO8_U

So wow this had to be one of the most epic battles cinematically I’ve ever had on the rim. I’m sure many of you have experienced it already but spoiler warning for this event.
The colony of Serna was going well. Three of us escaped from the shattered empire after being betrayed by our fourth while tortured to death for our identities. We found recluse in a cave and recruited, occasionally striking back at the empire for the cause.
Our numbers swelled, but there is something wrong with this dirt ball. Nearby allies that we’ve tended would call for help, and when we’d arrive, a strange flesh mass enveloped their colonies on more than one occasion, no survivors to tell their tale. Blood would fall from the sky without reason, throwing nearby colonists and animals into a frenzy, but then the darkness came.
Whispers about it came to Serna over the wire, an unnatural darkness that enshrouds an area until only direct light sources could save you from something slithering, lurking in the darkness. Even the shadow under your bed was vulnerable. Past me would scoff at this chatter, but we have felt the coming of something horrible, the unnerving ranting of those exploring the nearby ruins, the flesh walls, the bloody rain. No, we surrounded ourselves with light to the point that I questioned my own sanity. One ominous morning the sun never rose.
It wasn’t long after this observation that we heard clawing. Not just against the main blast door, but within our own walls. We pulled down a wall and our swordsmen were greeted with glowing yellow eyes, a body made of dark horror. While unsettling, nothing we couldn’t take care of, but the ear piercing clawing outside wouldn’t stop. We prepared to greet them with all the hospitality that the Serna chapter of the Damocles resistance could bring.
Opening the blast doors, we threw a flare into the inky blackness and watched in terror as sinew-like shadows seeped away from the red glow, staring at a distance. Nearby, a large, spiky rock had fallen. Between his brief ramblings of nonsense, our researcher screamed “Kill it! Kill the night bringer! The stone of foretold tragedy!” I’m no one to question the scholars, so we lit it up. This pissed off what seemed like the very air. Two sets of eyes, 5, 10, 20. A whirlwind of yellow descended upon us. 5 cascading hums began as our frontlines brought their shields online, the gunners chewing apart the block of spikes until it crumbled. A hope in the sky revealed the sun directly overhead, calling to us like a friend pulling our colony out of muck. But the darkness swallowed her again. Our sensors picked up two more of these stones further out.
A gathered resolve and determination to protect our 3 children and elderly bordered up inside subdued the immediate doom we felt in our hearts. We pushed outside our perimeter into the waters of black. Hopscotching flares until we reached the two stones conveniently next to each other. Hesitation set in, as each of us examined the long threads of flares back to the base, and the absolute anxiety-inducing darkness that we faced on almost every side. A primitive fear of the dark most of us have not felt since we were children. I gave the order and we began to eliminate the thorny stones.
Like stars in the sky, I could not count them all. The glints of yellow, we’ve upset the gods themselves. I commanded my small legion to hold fast, and stay as one, do not falter to your thoughts. Like the sacred timber wolf that we honour, we are strongest in a pack. Our minds now nearly working as one, the swordsmen prepared for the crush. There flares popped near our perimeter, the beasts shuttered as two incinerators began breathing dragon fire upon the shadows. They cook, and the smell uplifts our spirits. In every direction our tracer rounds can be seen, flicking into the dark and impacting. Monoswords tear, warhammers chew, and plasma swords sizzle. In the air, lit chemfuel flies overhead, the shouts of commands from the centre. The eyes still blitzing toward us. This beating heart of the colony, refusing to fall. Finally a crack is heard, accompanied by a shriek as if the ground itself was in pain. The last stone is turned to cinder and the late afternoon sky breaks through. The Sun, our ally this day, scorching the shadow beasts. We know not which deity helped us this hour, but certainly we owe them a debt.
Our wounds patched, the colony has returned back to normal. However, an ally asked us to take in a strange piece of cargo. When they dropped it off, they paid and didn’t say a word. It’s a corpse, but somehow it resembles me.

Thoughts on shogo makishima
“The game of life”
Makishima is stated to have genius level intellect, charismatic, and physically fit. He’s even managed to inspire a movement, coerce others into committing crimes. Yet, despite being a leader he has no ambition to look on high at everyone else. He wants to live through life as the player rather than the one who makes the rules and has control of the game. Playing the game is what keeps his mind and body involved. When he plays the game of life, his choices for better or worse hold weight. Similar to reading books or Martial arts, what he does is what affirms his existence. From that perspective, playing the game keeps him from feeling ignored by the world (or at least In Japan) which brings me to my next point.
“Loneliness”
Not recognized by society since sibyl is is control in how , not recognized due to his views against the system, and not recognized due to a personality that can take an interest in humans, but not really care about them. There maybe an argument to be made that makishima only does this as a means of lashing out towards his isolation. However, we have to consider that with Sybil’s ability to “read” someone, they can can weed out individuals who antagonize them, which is what happened with masaoka. Not to mention, he tends to be a social critic. Not to mention, rather rather than focus on kogami, he still chooses the destruction of the Sybil. He used his loneliness as fuel to further to antagonize sybil, but loneliness isn’t his only motive.
“Man vs society”
As the tile describes man vs society describes the conflicts of an individual vs the the social norms and customs that are common in their life. With Sybil’s reach branching into various aspects of people’s lives, many citizens see only the benefits, but miss the glaring issues. The limit on self expression as seen through artwork, the will to take action of your own accord, the ability to recognize danger, the rewriting of history, etc. Makishima puts into question how our views, upbringing, and personality put our opinions on society into question. This can also be seen with characters such as kogami, ginoza, akane, kagari (to some extent), and masaoka.
“An ordinary man”
Contrary to his qualities, and the praise that he gets, he considers himself as an ordinary man, similar to Gu-sung Choe. Choe grew up in a country without the Sybil, so it is easy to see how he, like makishima, would be against the Sybil. Makishima believing things should be done in a simple way, or to keep things as they should without tampering with what comes natural to humanity, which bring me to my next point, and Makishima greatest motif.
“Free will”
Makishima embodies the idea of free will. The good, the bad, and the ugly. From his perspective, Sybil has taken something from humanity that shouldn’t have been stolen. Which becomes the basis for his antagonism towards Sybil. I’d have to wonder though. If Sybil’s rule has taken free will from the people, then would makishima be the same individual that he is now if Japan was ruled by our modern day governance ?
Nevertheless, one thing I thought was interesting about makishima was his insistence on free will, but also punishing those who would do the very thing that he speaks on. However, I’ve realized that when makishima gives characters the opportunity to act on their own desires, they weren’t able to realize that Sybil has failed to let them take life into their own hands, for better or worse. Furthermore, by being comfortable in their own desires or placing unshakeable faith in the Sybil, they would do nothing except just be a part of the problem in makishima’s eyes. I believe part of makishimas test was to find other like minded individuals that would antagonize Sybil along with him. (I believe this ties in makishima’s aspect of loneliness). To makishima, it’s not only about free will, it’s about what you choose to do with it that matters.
“Kogami”
Now, I’m at the greatest dynamic in the anime (so far at least). Makishima ability to avoid Sybil’s radar puts the first sign of contempt towards the Sybil. Makishima kills sasayama but is “blessed” by sybil so he avoids capture while enforcing his own will, even if it comes at someone’s expense. Kogami wanted Justice/Revenge for what happened and he was punished for trying to enforce his will. Kogami became aware that the Sybil promoted an idea of perfection, but wasn’t actually perfect. Prior to makishima and kogami meeting, makishima talks about how if someone were to throw a wrench in his plans would be somebody like him, someone who is able to enforce their own will without Sybil directing them. Kogami was even the one who caught to how or you’d painting are “unoriginal”, which made makishima take an interest in him. This was further enforced by his “test” on kogami, who made the decision to act without any external direction.
Once makishima is arrested, kogami sense of Justice compels him to chase makishima while deducing that Sybil refuses to judgement; therefore, he loses faith in the law as makishima continues to be “blessed” for committing criminal actions despite substantial proof against him showing his wrongdoings. His ambition to hunt down makishima has now put him at odds with the Sybil, and in a sense, society as well. These primal aspect of kogami is considered a by product of an era without Sybil”. As a result this isolated him, similar to how makishima is isolated. Once makishima’s was executed, thereby achieving the validation he had always wanted. Consequently, kogami now has to leave Japan due to choosing to enact his own ideal of Justice. Overall, an amazing dynamic.
“Akane”
Although their dynamic isn’t as strong as his dynamic with makishima, I do believe there is some good in it. In a sense, they are both “blessed” by Sybil. Akane growing up only seeing the good of Sybil through its comfort, security, and makishima predisposition only made him see the flaws of Sybil. When the time comes for makishima to tests akane, it puts akane’s faith in Sybil to test. She relied on Sybil to pass judgements, and that faith killed her friend.
When akane is given the opportunity to kill makishima, she refuses due to choosing the collective will of the people (the law) over her own personal wishes.
When akane learns the truth of how their god (Sybil) is a lie, she’s begins to realize the value of the free will that Makishima often preaches about throughout the series. Therefore, she’s resolves to work with Sybil, however on her own terms.
“Lucifer”
The comparison to Lucifer isn’t too strong but I think the similarities are present. While Lucifer’s ambition was to take the throne of god, makishima would rather destroy god. Makishima wanted to return a sense of individuality to society, for better or worse.
Makishima’s wants to start a rebellion gassing gods in order to return to a world where humanity would recognize a quality that’s inherent to them again for better or worse. He wants to assert his existence in society without being cast aside. In spite of his psychopathic tendencies, he wanted a world where he could forge connections with others in ways that the current world cannot. Lucifer also started a rebellion to reach the level of god. Lucifer’s rebellion came from dissatisfaction with the role god assigned for him. Lucifer desired to surpass the limitations that were put on to him. Furthermore, both lucifer and makishima antagonist led the environment that they were born into, and acted in violence as a result.
Both makishima and Lucifer get punished for their rebellion with makishima being gunned down as a result of his sins towards humanity and antagonism towards Sybil, but Lucifer gets cast down to the depths hell as a result of his rebellion Agassi god.
“Conclusion”
As he’s bleeding he does his last bit social commentary towards Sybil.
“Everyone is alone. Everyone is empty. People have no longer any need of others. You can always find a substitute for any talent. Any relationship can be replaced.” I believe in this part, makishima remarks on how Sybil’s existence has caused a divide between people due to existence of psycho passes and hue checks, especially in regards to potential criminals. No would want to associate with people who can potentially “damage” them the same way that the latent criminal were damaged. Leading to half hearted relationships. Job aptitude placement that become the only determinant on what who is qualified for what job makes it possible to always have a proper substitute for the workload.
“That's the world I grew tired of… And yet, for some reason... I can't even imagine someone else besides you killing me”
Makishima’s simply can not resonate with the current world of psycho pass, which is why he tested people, and tried to bring down Sybil even if it would take bio terrorism to do it. However, the existence of people like kogami, makes things different. He values kogami existence enough to want to die by his hands due to kogami being the “fallen”. Someone who can choose to kill without an external agent influence their decision.
As makishima desperatly tries to run for his life, he also seems elated. Whether he losing or winning he’ll keep playing the “game of life”. As the sunsets on shogo, I believe this symbolizes that his time in the game is over ( also shogo means sunset so I can’t be wrong lol).
(Also the soundtrack for his death was beautiful)
Prior to his death, he asks kogami if he will replace him. Kogami tells him that’s he hopes that won’t happen.
Although makishima never achieved his goal of destroying Sybil, he got what he wanted it. Someone who take advantage of their individualism, and kill using their own will. Giving makakishima both the acknowledgment, and embodying the free will that was regulated by Sybil.
With a smile of relief, and a Bang! Shogo Makishima is dead.
A fitting conclusion for a 9.5-10/10 character.