Posted on his Facebook page that he is moving to a Communications job at SSU. Thanks for everything Dustin!
On Sept. 11, 2001, a series of terrorist attacks set me on a path to do three things: to correct misinformation as a life goal, to enter a field that in some way improves people’s understanding of their world, and to earn bipartisan respect in how I do it.
I’ve written an untold number of stories across 23 years and been taken to places new and old, familiar and fresh. I've interviewed rock legends, presidential candidates (well... one), and along the way met unforgettable sources ranging from a baby battling neuroblastoma to an elderly Lawrence woman growing a potato in her apartment and naming it like a son.
Of course, this path has had its drawbacks. I was told early on that “being a reporter doesn’t pay well,” and that I was entering a “dead industry” fresh from its collapse in 2008. But, after my first time talking to a doggie daycare that made the Today Show and becoming friends with a cat, I realized the career also paid in memories... amply... and there’s really no place I’ve worked that has created more memories for me than Salem. It’s the beat I’ve worked the longest as a reporter; the most recent Halloween marked my 10th in the city.
It also marked my last.
On Oct. 24, seven days before Halloween, I turned 40. I did so without having yet saved any money for retirement, and while working at least 70 hours per week at two to three jobs for the last several years. The combined paychecks still put me a good bit below median household income for the area — something that comes to mind every time I see a comment online that talks about how people should try living where they can afford to.
There's also a dark side to journalism that has emerged in the last half-decade, one that I’d argue doesn’t get enough attention. It’s one of the few industries that is entirely private while also being fully public-facing — journalists are effectively public officials, without the protections and benefits of being public officials. We take a lot of shots from readers, some of whom would delight in us being out of the job and financially destroyed, and we just chuckle and move on with our day.
For the dark side, there’s also the light. In some parts of the real world, journalists are thanked for their service as if we’re active military. I’ve been compared to nurses working the pandemic, held up as a leader stabilizing a maligned society, and invited to share my perspective and experiences with high school classrooms, podcasts, even Boy Scout troops.
Being a reporter pays well in the memories you collect along the way (thankfully they aren't subject to a tax). To that end, I’ve at times felt wealthy for having the privilege of covering a city like Salem — even with its dark underbelly actively arguing that I shouldn’t have a job or be allowed to exist.
With this double-edged sword equipped for so long, I knew I’d put it down at some point. When thinking about the kind of job it would take to leave the news industry, I found there was really only one that kept coming up in my mind: an opening in Communications at my Alma Mater, UNH. That would honestly be a dream... a position like that opening at a college campus I knew so well. To my fortune, that exact position opened in my backyard toward the end of 2023, on a college campus I know just as well as UNH — if not better.
In early June, I’ll be switching careers as I assume the role of Associate Director of External Communications at Salem State University.
I loved my college experience and always joked that if I won the lottery, I'd go back to school and get a degree in physics, do something nutty with string theory. But really, there’s something about the college environment where I’m most comfortable: everybody is there to learn and grow, and, from each graduate, society receives an opportunity for transformation. The feeling you get walking through a space like that can't really be replicated anywhere else... At least that's the fuzzy feeling I get when walking onto a college campus.
It’s hard to imagine leaving the only world I’ve known professionally and no longer covering the city I love, but I’m not going that far. I’m still working in the same beautiful city and would love for you to say “hey” when you see me out doing whatever. You may also see my byline from time to time, and I think I'd even like to continue doing “the spreadsheet” each night polls are open.
But, for now, this bro is going off the record to go back to school.

This week's book club list is as follows (enjoy reading and comment which your favourite is below):
​

1. The Lost Art of Compassion: Discovering the Practice of Happiness in the Meeting of Buddhism and Psychology by Lorne Ladner: Dr Lorne Ladner rescues compassion from this marginalised view, showing how its practical application in our life can be a powerful force in achieving happiness. Combining the wisdom of Tibetan Buddhism and Western psychology, Ladner presents clear, effective practices for cultivating compassion in daily living.
2. Choosing Happiness: Keys to a Joyful Life by Alexandra Stodda: Happiness lies in the passions we pursue and in the pressures we decline. It is in knowing how to work and when to play. It is in the treasured objects we keep nearby and in the ordinary moments we elevate into small celebrations. It is in the note we write to a friend and the kindness we show a stranger. It is in the colors we love and the music that transports us. It may be as simple as sunlight on your face; as sudden as a shared smile; as sensuous as a single flower on your desk, candles on your nightstand, or cookies hot from the oven. Happiness is what you make it, where you make it. Happiness is our best choice.
3. Health, Wealth and Happiness: You Can Control Your Destiny by David Singh: David Singh's dramatic journey from the jungles of Guyana to the helm of one of Canada's largest financial planning companies provides the backdrop for this guide to lasting happiness. Advocating wise investments, careful planning, and healthy eating choices, this inspirational book uncovers the secrets to a happier and more successful life.
4. What All the World's A-Seeking: Or, The Vital Law of True Life, True Greatness Power and Happiness by Ralph Waldo Trine: Ralph Waldo Trine was an influential member of the New Thought movement. He was one of the first people to write about the Law of Attraction. Long before Rhonda Byrne discovered the secret that one's positive thoughts are powerful magnets that attract wealth, health, and happiness, Trine already knew it.
5. Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment by Martin Seligman: I have read about 80 pages and I am enjoying Seligmen's friendly, engaging writing style so far. Also, there are interesting facts about each person's 'range' of happiness being fixed on a spectrum.Great so far. Will attempt to update review when I have completed the book.
6. Happiness Hypothesis: Putting Ancient Wisdom to the Test of Modern Science by Jonathan Haidt: Jonathon Haidt is a terrifically productive thinker about psychology. This is book is a credo and a guide book to your own happiness via an accomplished romp through the psychological literature which Haidt uses to explore the truths of ancient religion. I'm surprised it's not a wild best seller, but I think I know why - it doesn't have an singular and catchy formula for your salvation which you can learn in your lunchtime and hear about ad nauseam on late night TV infomercials. Just well written, well thought out commentary on the formula for a happy and fulfilled life distilled from the psychological literature.
7. It's All in Your Head: Thinking Your Way to Happiness by Stephen M. Pollan, Mark Levine: If you've ever wanted to have a conversation with someone on a normal level about undoing negative thinking patterns, this book is about the closest you'll ever get in written form. The style is conversational, pragmatic, and realistic. Kind of like talking to a favorite uncle or aunt who is just "on the mark" about dealing with life. The book focuses on 8 behaviothought patterns that hinder us from being happy NOW, and provides simple, easy "exercises" to do to help overcome them. It is also one of those rare self-help books that the whole family can read, enjoy, and profit from. In my opinion, this book is better than any other I've read by Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Nathaniel Branden, and many others. If you've ever thought you can be happier, YOU CAN, and this book can help you get there.
8. Handbook on the Economics of Happiness by Luigino Bruni, Pier Luigi Porta: This Handbook provides an unprecedented forum for discussion of the economic issues relating to happiness. It reviews the more recent literature and offers the interested reader an insight into the vast scope of the field in terms of the theory, its applications and also experimental design. The Handbook also gives substantial indications as to the future direction of research in the field, with particular regard to policy applications and developing an economics of interpersonal relations which includes reciprocity and social interaction theory.
9. Freeing your child from negative thinking: powerful, practical strategies to build a lifetime of resilience, flexibility, and happiness by Tamar E. Chansky: This book is excellent for those who wish to embrace Food Combining i.e. what has become known as the Hay Diet. It is where one avoids mixing starch-based foods and protein-based foods in the same meal.
10. The 7 Steps of Spiritual Intelligence: The Practical Pursuit of Purpose, Success and Happiness Volume by Richard A. Bowell: Pioneering researcher and educator Richard Bowell delivers the first and only self-help guide to the power of spiritual intelligence (SQ)-the next evolutionary stage in our pursuit of purpose, success, and happiness. He introduces the latest breakthroughs in neuro-science. Life lessons from such exceptional individuals as Nelson Mandela to Ghandi and Mother Theresa take readers on a self-guided journey to personal development and growth.

So, which one are you picking up next or have read? Let us know with a comment and upvote and share this post and our sub bodychemistry to stay tuned for more reading lists every week!
Love, marmalada

I swear to god if TTPD wins album of the year and not this i’ll be AMAZED there’s not a single song on this album that is skippable. There’s no genre either it’s EDM, R&B, Pop, Hip-hop, Folk at same time but none of those at all simultaneously. Like she’s singing in a void creating something new.
A lot of the scales are borrowed from music of other cultures like how the phrygian scale common in middle eastern music was used at the end of blue. The beat on Diner was crazy. All of the songs are EXTREMELY WELL PRODUCED. Finneas was amazing.
This level of fineness on the production is usually found on hip hop albums but here we have it in whatever genre she just created. The transitions between the loud parts and silent parts are perfect and build upon one another.
Not only is the album unskippable all the moments are too. Like there’s not even a single part that isn’t satisfying melodically, lyrically, musically, ANY-ally.
Lyricism is CRAZY there’s no comparison.
It’s tied together insanely well with same melodies being used for different songs. The way lyrics from other songs pop up and kinda change the meaning of those songs.
She made an insanely good decision with the split of the songs where she can tell long stories and put 2-3 different distinct songs in a single track having different tempo, beat, instrument while remaining on the same topic which is also why i think it is short if it was conventionally split this would have around 17-18 songs.
The way each song has her feelings but then always transitions completely to her now changed feelings or perception about the same situations.
Not only that but despite each song being a very different topic:-
i) Skinny: Body image, fame, bullying
ii) Lunch: Queer anthem, chill, sexuality
iii) Chihiro: People changing, plot of spirited away, vulnerability in a relationship or the lack thereof
iv) Birds of a feather: homophobia, societal pressure, long lasting love, that dream love of your life
v) Wild flower: ex best friend, betrayal/guilt, confession
vi) The greatest: Self appreciation, dissapointment
vii)L’amour da Ma Vie: Jesse, satisfaction, goodwill
viii) Diner: stalker, obsession, frightening
ix) Bittersuite: Attraction
x) Blue: I think this summarized her whole life beautifully or where she is at in life
Despite all these different topics with all these different songs which are very very different from each other and have distinct and different parts within them the whole album has some sort of theme i can’t pinpoint but you can see how it is all connected i have never ever seen an artist summarize this much stuff about their life and still convey so many feelings and so much detail especially the use of colors in this song was amazing
i have never invested this much time writing about an artist but this album turned me from a casual fan to a diehard and i’m very much anti celebrity worship type of person but billie is just too beautiful which made me waste so much time writing this when i have a lot going on in life.
love the album and relate to a lot of parts can’t wait to relate to birds of a feather one day

I decided to read the original version because I find One's art style to be similar to my own. Like. He can't draw. Or he refuses to spend a long time on each drawing. But he's trying his damned best to get this story on a page, paying so much attention to the panelling. And then one day you realise he's improved and his art looks great.
The story became a lot more text heavy towards the end. There is crazy plot shit happening in the hero arc. It was hard to continue at the pace I was going, but I got there. RIP Blue.
I decided to take a look at the manga version, just the last chapter. Imagine my surprise when Blast - a character only referenced in the webcomic, who is supposed to be such a big deal - shows up and punches someone.
I can tell that the manga deviates from the webcomic a lot. I'm not sure about that specific change though, Blast kinda seems like something the webcomic was holding out on this whole time for a good reason. He hasn't shown up even when the world is getting destroyed by robots, whereas in the manga he casually appears in a low stakes fight and just looks like a normal superhero rather than another jaded guy in a jumpsuit like he appeared to be in tatsumaki's flashback.
Anyway I really enjoy the art here. I like the evolution of the webcomic, vs the sheer artistic skill in the manga. The anime also represents this, especially the first season where animators went insane. I watched that around when it came out.

MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES, DEAR VIEWERS.
THIS INCIDENT ENDED ABRUPTLY A LITTLE *TOO* EARLY, THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN REPAIRED NOW.
I WILL PLAY THE LAST PART WHERE IT CUT OFF.
ENJOY!
...
THIS MOTHERFLUFFER, I SWEAR...
"That was the third violent weird guy I have killed today.. This day keeps getting better and more thrilling by the minute!"
Grabbing his phone and turning it on, The Badass Sheriff starts to scroll through random pictures that his best friend, Louie, sent him. All of them are normal and wholesome, which is nice. Clyde giggles happily while he looks at them. Then, he begins texting him, asking if there's anything exciting going on where he's at, his friend tells him no, nothing yet.. but the street vendors are giving their food away for free right now! 'Ah, neat..!', Clyde thinks, smiling cheerily. Before he gets to ask him to grab a hot dog for him, he hears a terrified player outside, screaming for help, they also sound like they're crying. The Badass Sheriff grins, it's time for more action! Not wanting to forget his shotgun again, he picks it up and then runs out of his office. He spots a violent weird guy chasing down a teenage boy in a distant, but not that far away. The poor kid trips and falls to the ground, then fearfully begs him not to kill him as he pulls his sign out. So, what does Clyde do? He takes a slightly big rock near him and then tosses it at the violent weird guy. It hits him right on the head, to which he immediately turns his head to look at The Badass Sheriff, growling angrily.
"HEY, GLITCH-FACED DITCH! Let's play..!"
Now that he's focused on Clyde instead of the horrified teen, the violent weird guy charges towards him, letting out a heavily distorted screech. The colorful badass adult waits and waits... and then instantly whacks him hard across the face with his shotgun, causing him to fall down to the ground. The violent weird guy attempts to get back up, but Clyde kicks him in the face and does the same to his right hand, making his sign fly off a few feet away. With a triumphant grin, The Badass Sheriff puts his left leg on his chest, keeping the violent weird guy down. Cocking his shotgun, he aims at his face.
"Say cheese, baby."
*BANG!*
The weird guy has been killed. The teary-eyed teenager approaches Clyde, and thanks him profusely for saving his life. Chuckling joyfully, he reassures the boy that no one would harm or kill anyone when he's around, then asks him if he wants to go to his office and chat with him. The teen's eyes light up. He says yes! Going back to the building, they start talking about things. Apparently, the boy accidentally bumped into the weird guy and thought he apologized to him, but realized he didn't, actually. The Badass Sheriff nods a little, thinking, 'Sadly, an extremely common mistake..'. A few more minutes of them simply chatting, the teen tells him that his friends are in the supermarket, waiting for him. Kind of awkwardly, he asks Clyde if he can take him there, he would love to! The boy thanks him again and they leave the office. Four minutes pass, they reach the supermarket, the teen gets out of the car, waving good-bye to The Badass Sheriff. He does the same, then drives off back to his office.
It's getting dark now, seems like a perfect time to go shopping! Clyde and Louie are heading to the largest mall in the game, StarDawn Mall. It was his friend's idea, so why not? After parking the car, the two sheriffs exit the vehicle and enter the massive building. As they walk around and talk, some players spot and greet them happily. A few approach The Badass Sheriff, asking for his autograph on their notebooks, completely ignoring Louie. The Cowardly Sheriff is sad... the poor guy. Clyde notices and comforts him, telling him that eventually, they will respect him too. But when? Who knows. Clyde then informs the players that he's not gonna do anything for them yet, as he's on a short break with his best pal at the moment. They understand and move aside for them to continue strolling. Going up to the second floor, some MORE players greet them cheerily. A little happy, Louie asks his friend if they can go and buy bracelets for the both of them, Clyde says of course, let's go there! The Cowardly Sheriff is excited!! Walking through a couple of hallways, they enter a shop. As he looks around, Louie finds a pair of matching star-shaped bracelets, he picks them up and goes to the counter, he then purchases them. He gives one of them to Clyde, who wears it on his right wrist. Louie also wears the other one, on his left wrist. The cashier joyfully thanks them for shopping as they leave the store.
They proceed to stroll through the floor, talking about stuff and sharing stories. ... Then, The Cowardly Sheriff notices something behind them, and pats Clyde on the shoulder twice, sweating nervously.
"Umm, Clyde..? There's a weird guy next to the glasses store, he's carrying a teenager. The kid looks distressed..!!"
Stopping in his tracks, The Badass Sheriff turns around to look at the weird guy, who notices him. The teen boy is struggling to set himself free. Clyde's smile turns to a frown.
"Put him down."
The weird guy doesn't do anything, he's starting to sweat.
"Put the kid down."
Still nothing. There's a broken bench leg lying next to Clyde's left leg, so he grabs it.
"I'm not asking again. Do it.. now."
The weird guy finally lets go of the teenager, his arms slightly raised, sweating profusely. The boy flees and runs to another hallway, thanking The Badass Sheriff in fear. Clyde smiles once more, and drops the bench leg. He nods once at the mute grey adult, who then walks away, trembling. Him and Louie continue to walk around the mall. Nothing much is happening right now, everything is just fine! A few hours later, they leave the building and enter Clyde's car. It's time to go back now...
They had tons of fun... and their break is over.
It's time to protect and save more players!
...
THERE IT IS, THE PROPER ENDING TO THIS INCIDENT!
EVEN THOUGH I DESPISE ONE OF THE SHERIFFS, THIS STORY WAS QUITE ENTERTAINING AND INTRIGUING, AND IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES.
ONCE AGAIN, MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES FOR WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER.
SEE YOU SOON, SWEETIES!~
HEHEHEHEHEHEH...
​

I am attempting to go the route of making my server PCI Compliant. This of course requires hiring a separate company to do the scans and fill out the paperwork. The whole reason I got into this was because I wanted a customizable CC form on my website; not have the customer jump to another page. Gateways like Stripe seem to have hardly any customizable options to have it fit color schemes on a person's website. So, I figured I'd just do it myself.
I found one scanner, paid for the product, and they immediately are trying to sign a new SSL certificate. This throws me off because I just paid for my first SSL certificate a few days ago. The product said nothing about this extra process. I guess I was under the impression that PCI scanning would consist of something more along the lines of "input your domain here" and "scan now" with a readout of everything wrong - and maybe configuring the server on my end for trusted domains or something.
Is a new SSL certificate a normal part of PCI scanning? I've also tried to look at the list of PCI scanners on the main PCI Compliance website and most of them seem to be defunct, which makes it annoying to find a reputable scanner. I'm feeling lost.

WARNING: VERY HEAVILY DELTARUNE INFLUENCED. If you have no idea what Deltarune is, you should probably know that first before reading about this OC... I have a whole-ahh google doc on them and I am also currently writing a story for them hsgdkslsbdhdk yes they are a Deltarune OC, yes they look like Winter King but I assure you, I made them in 2022 which predates him, and yes, they look like a combination of Spamton and Rouxls. I'll just copy-paste their description from the Google doc-
Age: 20 Gender: transmasc nonbinary Sex: female Sexuality: bi demisexual Pronouns: they/them (preferred), he/him Height: 5’6” Date of Birth: August 11, 2003 ~ Notes ~ Lovesan is a virus(worm is a subcategory). A Creator reprogrammed Lovesan to be docile, but did not remove any code, putting up a firewall against the malevolent code instead. - can summon things via code tethers as well as change the properties of things via code - has a hologram computer with various ports as well as a universal (seriously universal) USB hub - is vulnerable to glitchy/corrupted code (might do something unpleasant to them...)
Extended notes: In Safe Mode: - Can summon energy shields. They make a habit of sticking with defense rather than offense. These energy shields are able to bear weight, block attacks, and can be used as a blunt weapon if necessary; however, if they are low on energy, these shields will be weaker and more fragile. They are bright blue and hexagonal. - Can manipulate the source code of an object. They can change the properties of an object and can make it do things it isn't normally able to do. - They have a gentle and calm demeanor, and they choose to be someone who blends into the background. They dislike showing their teeth, as their visibly sharp canines are a potential giveaway that they were, at some point, a malevolent program. Since they have the ability to hop universes (a minor ability granted by the Creator), they tend to look for people to keep in contact with so they are able to revisit a universe, if desired. - Their appearance is somewhat unusual for an Addison, as they are not naturally a uniform color. Their hair and eyes are white, and their skin is dark blue. The color scheme is rather reminiscent of an old bluescreen. Their hair and eyes also have a faint glow to them, in addition to thin white bands that are around their wrists and ankles. (The bands often get mistaken for jewelry.) Their eyes appear to have no pupil or iris, and they have poor eyesight; they wear glasses to see. - They typically wear a dark grey shirt with ivory-colored buttons, beige pants, and dark ankle socks with loafers. (The ankle socks are to cover up the bands.) In Virus Mode: - Can use their Safe Mode abilities offensively. - Can summon energy weapons. The weapon can be any type. Their signature weapon is a broadsword. Weapons have the same properties as their shields. In addition, their speed is faster. - Cannot die. Upon entering Virus Mode, they will trick their opponent into thinking that they are still mortal. Upon the first death of their body, they may reform somewhere else and perform a sneak attack. (They can continue doing this until their opponent realizes that they cannot be killed.) - They become much more violent and destructive. They will toy with their opponent, and will either become bored and kill their opponent, or take a liking to them and allow them to walk away from the battle. (The opponent will be killed upon refusing the option of mercy.) They care less about hiding their abilities, and are therefore more ruthless. - Their appearance changes slightly. Their eyes are no longer pure white; they instead are black with white pupils. Their teeth become sharp, and their fingers become slightly clawed, much like a cat's paw. (a proper visual would be looking at Spiderman 2099's hands.)They frequently smile at their opponent, which can unnerve said opponent. Their glasses are cracked, but they no longer need them to see. - Their original virus form does have all of these features, but in addition, their hair was blue and black instead of white, and they wore more formal clothing, consisting of a white dress shirt, black pants and shoes, and a dark cloak with a fastener made of their energy. - A last resort move, they only enter Virus Mode if they are about to die in Safe Mode. This also helps with giving them time to break down the firewall to their malevolent code, as their opponent thinks that they have nothing left. Since it is an internal process, they are able to hide their advantage.
They are the main character of my story, Second Life. (I feel like I need to change the title bc it feels uncreative but idk)
also, image descriptions!! 1. the doodle sheet of them I made when I suddenly had an urge to draw. I hadn't drawn for a few months, and it turned out I had a massive change in style, with much better anatomy and posing. 2. The second version of the poster I made for my story. The first version looks horrendous, trust me 3. Their virus form! 4. Their virus form, pre-plot! 5. plot happening to them, starting their story! 6. The most recent non-meme piece of them, showing their abilities in Safe Mode!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We’re a meat family,” my dad would proudly tell strangers. He’d wait for the quizzical look, then launch into detail, starting with how many freezers we had, how long we could sustain ourselves on the contents. It was just his way of starting a conversation, which made sense when you considered that raising and home-killing animals for food was, for want of a better term, his life-long hobby. His prize possession was one of those industrial-sized vacuum sealers: you could put half a pig inside and wrap it in plastic so tightly that every wrinkle and skin fold waxed unreal with shiny detail.
If we hadn’t lived in a rural area, albeit semi-urbanised, I guess it would have been pretty weird. But the mostly farming-stock locals only found his extra enthusiasm a little bit odd.
When he wasn’t being a bit embarrassing talking about it, I never really paid much heed to his hobby. I had a child’s vaguely grateful awareness that though our family went through some lean financial times, our stomachs never suffered like some of the families around us. All the beef, pork, ham and bacon in those big old chest freezers passed down from his dad really could have fed us for years.
I should preface all this by saying that I wasn’t a particularly bright kid, though neither was I dumb. I didn’t fail badly at anything in school, I just never achieved beyond a pass. I didn’t know it yet back then, still quietly dreaming about being a ballet star or a dressage champion, but mediocrity was my destiny. And I think that’s why I got on so well with my Aunt Liz.
Liz was my dad’s live-in youngest sister. She was one of those women who get described as ‘bubbly’ — not really pretty, not really smart, not a lot going on besides just being… well, all Liz. But she was salt of the earth; kind, caring, and great with kids. She was the only person who would willingly mind my two older brothers, who fought like hellcats and caused more trouble than the whole last generation of my family combined. People would privately lament to my parents that it was a shame Liz didn’t have kids of her own, but dad would just shake his head and say Liz liked it that way – that all the fun of looking after kids is being able to give them back to their parents.
I guess she was like me; nice, but mediocre. Lovely, but somehow forgettable when she wasn’t doing something for you.
But when Liz left us, I couldn’t forget her.
In hindsight, it was pretty weird timing that we had a big fortieth birthday party for Liz right before she disappeared. She was radiant that night; she’d hired a local girl to do her hair and makeup, and it was honestly the first time I’d ever seen her look pretty. She’d even worn a push-up bra under a tight red dress, which flattered her very plump curves well enough that the neighbour’s farmhand was spotted disappearing into the woolshed with her for a snog. In my dawning awareness, that gave a plain girl hope: if Aunty Liz could get a guy at forty, maybe things would turn out okay for me.
Anyway, I couldn’t forget how her pink cheeks, her eyes, her whole self, glowed that night before Liz went to bed. She said it was the best birthday ever, and that she was very much looking forward to the next stage of her life.
Would I have done anything different, if I had known? If I had realised what, exactly, that next stage was?
The week after the party, Aunt Liz said she was going on a little holiday up north, to visit some old school friends. She packed her things – she didn’t honestly have that many – and drove her little orange mini out onto the main road. And with a wave of one fleshy hand, she was gone. Nobody really thought much of it when she didn’t call, because nobody rural had cellphones back then. And Liz was, as I said, somehow kinda forgettable when she wasn’t right in front of you.
When we hadn’t had contact for six weeks, Dad tracked down the land line numbers for their old school buddies. They were surprised to hear from him — Liz had never arrived, so they had just assumed she’d cancelled her visit. No-one had thought to check. I eavesdropped on the conversation, and it sounded for all the world like *they* had forgotten about Aunt Liz, too.
From there it became a missing person case. The local cops came and talked to all of us; the farmhand who’d been seen snogging her was briefly detained, then let go, dad got grilled at length, even my hellion brothers were questioned thoroughly to see if this was one of their wild and dangerous pranks gone wrong.
But everything was a dead end. Nobody knew where Liz was, or what had happened to her.
The remains of her old mini were found halfway across the country, burned out on a beach, on a derelict stretch of ragged, rocky coastline. The police assumed murder and combed the area for remains. But even the most expert divers couldn’t conquer the incredible undertow and fast-shifting seabed of that coastline to look for evidence, so none was forthcoming.
Eventually the cops collectively shrugged and said that there was really nothing more they could do unless more information suddenly came to light. The locals knew nothing, no witnesses had come forward, and the trail was cold. As far as anyone knew, poor aunt Liz had been murdered on some desolate beach, far away from her home.
It didn’t feel fair to me. She’d once mentioned wanting her remains buried on our farm, in the graveyard plot beside grandma and grandad.
So, in my grief, I went into her room to look for something of hers to bury beside them.
Like I said, Liz didn’t have many things. Her room was pretty spartan, and her wardrobe was mostly sensible farm stuff. There was one exception: she, like me, did like to read, and she had a pretty good collection of well-thumbed books. I think it’s the escapism – even the most mediocre girl can lose herself in the plot of some trashy romance novel, imagine there’s still hope of being swept off her feet by that handsome stableboy, his inexplicable yearning for chubby plain girls.
So I set myself the task of going through the books, to find the right one to bury in the graveyard plot.
Most of them were exactly what you’d expect, but some of them were racier than I was used to. I felt various parts of my body flushing and tingling, as I read breathless prose about calloused hands touching the softest flesh of the protagonist. Okay, if I’m honest with myself, I might have got a little *too* invested in my project at that point. But that was also why I persisted going through her entire collection, until I found the ragged paperback from 1970, entitled Tawny Sands. And inside that trashy cardboard romance cover, I discovered not the tale of Tawny Sands, but some carefully hand-cut, stitched-in pages. A handwritten story in my Aunt’s rounded penmanship: Memoirs of a Long Pig.
I read her story twice in a row, utterly gripped.
Aunt Liz was no Stephen King – heck, she wasn’t even the Goosebumps guy – but her story was gripping and compelling, and I couldn’t put it down. Even if I hadn’t known her, I think that would have been true.
The gist of it was that Liz, when she was sixteen, had discovered that our family had a very long history of eating what she described as ‘Long Pork’. It’s an antipodean term, anglicised from the Pacific Islands: human meat.
Like me, young Liz still had some hopes and dreams. In one of her many failed attempts to find a special talent, she’d taken up cooking as a hobby. Naturally, with our family’s overabundance of meat, she’d scoured the freezers in the shed for ingredients: the racks of ribs and stacks of pork chops, butcher-paper wrappings all neatly labelled with the first letter of the name of the animal they came from.
She found familiar meat from Rodney, one of the pigs that had been recently slaughtered, emblazoned with an ‘R’ in her father’s strong, blocky lettering. There were cutlets labelled ‘M’ for Mary, from one of the lambs she’d hand-reared, and ‘F’ for Ferdinand, the steer they’d killed the month before. But she couldn’t explain the many, many curious parcels of meat on one side of the huge freezer, all labelled ‘J’ – at least, not until she took it all out and assembled it as well as she could on the scoured concrete floor of the killing shed. A big, frozen jigsaw puzzle without the box, her best attempt to discover what kind of beast the pieces had come from.
The animal, she quickly realised, was a Long Pig. Her own Aunt Jenny, who had died the month before – just after her fortieth birthday.
Fortunately, or perhaps not, for Liz, her father entered the shed right at that moment and realised his daughter had discovered the family secret. He sat down calmly on the lid of the freezer, and explained to her that this was a long-running family tradition, dating back to at least before his grandfather had been born.
“There are always people in life, Liz,” he’d said, “who won’t really amount to much. They want to be useful, want to be more. They strive and they strive, trying job after job, hobby after hobby, trying to hit on something they’re really good at. Something that makes them special. Those people can waste their whole lives, chasing dreams that never come true. Eventually they die unfulfilled, knowing that all their time has been wasted. That what they leave behind will fade quickly.”
His voice was oddly gentle as he leaned down and patted one of the neatly wrapped cuts of Aunt Jenny, still sitting frozen on the shed floor.
“Your Aunt Jenny was one of those people. So was my Aunt Irene.” He paused to gaze at his daughter, his next words peppered with emphasis. “But you see, my sweet Liz, they did find a purpose in life. They did find a way to be special, and they left this world utterly certain of their gift.” He stood up, stretched his back. “Let me show you.”
Liz waited while my grandad meticulously stacked the meat back into the freezer, all but one J-marked parcel that looked for all the world like a thick venison steak. He took her back to the farmhouse, and reverently unwrapped the deep red, heavily marbled meat to let it thaw. Then he laid it in the family’s ancient, cast-iron pan, basting it with butter and rosemary until a heavenly scent filled the kitchen, and Aunt Liz couldn’t stop her mouth from watering.
“Just try it. Let her show you. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.”
Even though she knew it was her aunt, Liz couldn’t stop herself from taking that first bite. There was something transcendent about the smell, overriding her natural revulsion that this was human meat, not one of their farm animals. For the first time, she truly realised it: we’re just another kind of animal. And weren’t her memories of Mary the lamb almost as fond as her memories of Aunt Jenny?
Liz explained then, in her curly handwriting, the explosion of taste that had assaulted her when she tried the steak. It was tender, it was succulent, it was rich beyond imagining. The fats melted on her tongue, lingering somewhere between pork and beef, but oddly neither. The flavour of the meat defied identification; something familiar, yet not.
But one thing she couldn’t deny; it was the most delicious thing she had ever eaten. Tears dripped onto her plate, mingled with the juice, the grease — not grief, but a pure, real, giddy delight.
“You’re tasting your aunt’s love for this family,” my grandad explained. “Her entire life was carefully curated, to eventually make unforgettable moments for us, just like this. This was her way of being special. This was the greatest gift she could possibly bring to our world – and because she realised that, she died with not a single regret. She knew her life had purpose. She was perfectly, completely fulfilled.”
I felt those words. I felt them lodge in my own belly, settling uncomfortably deep. I knew Aunt Liz, probably better than anyone else in the family. I’d seen how fucking happy she’d been on her fortieth, how goddamn fulfilled she was, despite apparently being a *nobody* and achieving *nothing*. Somehow, in the space of a single day, she had gone from being a forgettable background character to becoming the *main character*, immortalising herself in our family’s history with her sacrifice. Quite literally becoming part of all of us, forever.
I went to the killing shed after I finished with the book. I looked inside the freezers.
But there were no vacuum-sealed packages labelled ‘L’, no matter how deep I dug into the frozen stacks of plastic-wrapped flesh. Panicked now, not sure if I wanted to connect all the dots or unconnect them, I tried to think back over the last few months, recall any meals that had been unusually good. A few Sundays ago, we’d had a stew that really hit the spot and left me craving more. And I realised that the family had a really good night that night; my brothers behaved themselves, my parents didn’t fight, and grandma and grandad had been there. Hadn’t they looked far more… expectant than they should have?
I strained my brain, trying to recall if I’d seen the homekill bag on the kitchen bench – if I’d registered what letter it was. I knew it wasn’t an L. I would have remembered if it was an L.
And then it hit me, the memory, the connection, sizzling as if branded with a hot iron.
It had been an ‘E’.
E for Elizabeth. Not for Edward the pig.
I snorted at my own stupidity – of *course* Liz was short for Elizabeth – and as I comprehended my lack of smarts, I felt something give inside me.
I wasn’t clever, and nothing, nothing would ever make me smart. I had no big talents. I wasn’t beautiful, or even cute – and even if I had a million plastic surgeries, it still wouldn’t fulfill me. It wouldn’t be real.
I was a Liz.
I was a Jenny.
I was whoever the first aunt had been, the aunt who had dedicated her life to making her flesh as delicious as possible, who had worked every damn minute to be the best Long Pig she could ever be.
I wondered how many magical family evenings had been spent eating Aunt Jenny. How many glorious, satisfying, memorable dishes had been made out of her.
And… I wanted that. I wanted to finally know I had a *purpose* in life. One so simple, and so easy to achieve.
I wanted what Aunt Liz had.
***
It's my fortieth birthday today and I’m so fucking excited. For the last twenty-four years, I’ve dedicated myself to this moment; I’ve eaten exactly what I needed to, I’ve exercised just enough, but not too much, to maintain that perfect balance of marbling vs tenderness. I’ve relaxed and meditated to keep all those amazing flavours inside of me. I’ve researched all the greatest meats in the world, from prime Angus beef to A5 Wagyu. I really think I may have outdone myself.
I’m having my hair and makeup done at the local salon this afternoon, and I’m going to look so pretty; all prize piggy on show at the fair. I’m even going to have a big red ribbon in my hair, in memory of Aunt Liz.
Maybe there’ll be a cute boy I can snog in the wool shed, maybe there won’t – I don’t really care; because the most important, most certain thing is that I’m going to be the most delicious Long Pig in the history of our entire family.
I’m going to make everyone so damn happy, and I’m just so glad I can share my story with you all, instead of hiding it in a grubby book like poor Aunt Liz.
My only real disappointment? That you won’t get to taste me.
Reader, I have loved, loved my life. My Long Pork will be out of this world: once tasted, never, ever forgotten.

"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.]

Dramatic title, but I can't really explain it that well in few words. I also couldn't figure out a Subreddit that this would fit on, I think this one is best.
This one's a long one. TL;DR at bottom, but some details are important.
A bit of backstory first.
I'm a recently graduated HS Senior, headed to university in Fall. Around March, I applied to work at a mid-sized stadium in my area for a summer job-- I have about 2 years of stable retail experience, plus ServSafe certification and some good credentials outside of that. I've left almost all my jobs on good terms and I do my work fine. Never had any complaints.
I am a black woman. That is relevant to my story. I also have a very "white-sounding" name. For the sake of my privacy, let's say it's Sarah McIntyre. It's got the same vibe. I also have a "white-sounding" voice, especially over the phone. A lot of my family pokes fun at it, and it's not a huge deal.
So, I'm applying to this job, and the online application is pretty sparse. Few questions about my experience, age, and contact info. Nothing about my race at all. I apply, get a request for a phone interview, and hop on a call a few days later. My manager loves me. We have a great interview. She emails me a day later and says I got the job, and my orientation is in a week.
Orientation goes on, it's in a pretty large group and she doesn't address any of us directly or even ask for names, but I noticed her giving me a bit of a weird look. I figured it was about my hair which is dyed bright green so whatever.
We start working, and she's just very weird to me the whole time. Gives me weird looks, doesn't answer my questions, always watching me while I'm working at the concessions register. She doesn't do this with any of the other girls there. Concessions is about five other girls, all around my age. All of them are first-years at the stadium.
I get ready for work the next day, and I get a call from my Manager:
"Hey, OP. Don't come in today." "Oh? Is the game called off?" "No. Someone else is covering you. Bye."
Which was incredibly weird to me, honestly. But I wasn't going to press on the issue-- it was the first shifts of the season, maybe she wanted to train someone else instead of having me work. After this, there was about a month and a half gap between my next shift, which was May 9. Then I have another May 11; both go fine.
Manager posts the schedule for the next few weeks, up until June 9. I have one single shift. One. A four-hour concessions shift. I was insanely confused by this-- it's the start of the season with home games almost every single day, and multiple events with huge crowds. I texted the other girls I work with through our scheduling app and asked what their shifts looked like-- 3 to 5 shifts every week, about six hours each.
I was seriously wracking my brain for 3 days straight trying to think why on Earth I got the short end of the stick. I show up early and leave late every day, I help out as much as I can, customers don't complain, I'm experienced with the register and with counting tender, my co-workers and I get along fine, I've never had any issues with anyone.
The only thing I could seriously think about was my race. Which feels very cheap and victim-y, but it was the only thing I noticed that was an outlier. Out of every single employee at our stadium, I am the only person of color. Maybe somebody else is a minority, too, but they're incredibly white passing if they are. The only other brown people are the baseball players, which aren't on our staff team-- they're a separate entity entirely.
But that's all I can think of-- and my manager wouldn't have known about my race until she saw me for the first time at my first shift. And it's kind of difficult to have all-white staff considering we are in the suburbs of Chicago. Most people in our area are Black or Latino. It's seriously a considered effort to have an all-white staff in this area. I think I may have just slipped through the cracks because my name and voice are very misleading? But I can't tell if I'm overreacting or not-- I haven't said anything to my manager.
I don't want to quit because my coworkers are really nice, and I love the job. It's great being outside and being in a fun and fast environment like a stadium. But I'm trying to save for university and that's difficult when I don't work at all. Plus, I don't wanna give my labor to someone who despises me.
Am I overreacting in this situation and getting ahead of myself, or is this actually something worth looking into? Please help me. And yes, I know that it's very overdramatic to make things about my race-- this is genuinely the first time I've had to consider this with an employer.
TL;DR I'm the only minority at my job and I get barely any shifts while my white coworkers get more. I don't do anything wrong and I have lots of experience in similar roles. Should I look into this more, or get over myself?

In the dynamic world of online visibility, the quest for effective SEO solutions often feels like a labyrinthine journey. One common frustration? The enigmatic nature of pricing. But fear not, for Remarkable Digital strides forth with a beacon of transparency, illuminating the path to understanding SEO pricing and its intricacies.
Industry Pricing Determination
Delving into the heart of SEO pricing, one finds a landscape shaped by manual labor, where content creation, on-page optimization, and diligent hands-on efforts reign supreme. At Remarkable Digital, we meticulously calculate the investment in hours, drawing on a team of seasoned professionals dedicated to sculpting your digital success story. It's not just about short-term gains; it's about crafting a sustainable, long-term strategy for enduring SEO triumphs.
Key Considerations
In the quest for SEO excellence, the choice between Australian and offshore labor emerges as a pivotal factor. While offshore teams may offer cost benefits, the richness of local knowledge and cultural relevance often eludes them. At Remarkable Digital, we prioritize quality, harnessing the prowess of Australian labor for content creation and SEO strategy discussions.
Furthermore, the competitiveness of your business category acts as a compass guiding SEO costs. From the ferocious battleground of home loans to the serene shores of local chiropractor clinics, each arena demands a tailored approach, with resources allocated accordingly.
Remarkable Digital’s Pricing Guide
Our pricing guide serves as a roadmap, charting the course towards digital prominence. Whether you're embarking on a local, metro, national, or eCommerce SEO journey, our transparent rates empower you with knowledge. From the bustling streets of Melbourne to the sprawling landscapes of Sydney, our tailored solutions cater to diverse needs and aspirations.
In House Vs SEO Agency
The perennial debate between in-house specialists and SEO agencies unfolds, weighed against the backdrop of economics and expertise. While an internal specialist offers intimacy with your business, the cost-effectiveness and flexibility of an agency often tip the scales in its favor.
Summary
In the realm of SEO, quality reigns supreme. As you navigate the labyrinth of options, remember that true success demands investment, not just in dollars, but in trust and collaboration. At Remarkable Digital, we stand as stalwart companions on your journey, guiding you towards the summit of digital excellence.
For further insights into unlocking your digital potential, contact us for a personalized consultation with Ryan.
SEO Pricing Guide Melbourne

The Scriptures seem to imply that the kingdom of God isn't exactly synonymous with what is called "the Church." The Church was a temporary eschatological community of believers that existed on earth in preparation of a kingdom where God Himself would reign, and said community had Christ reign over them in the meantime. The head of the Church was Christ, with the Father serving as his head (1 Cor. 11:3). The Scriptures teach that, when all Christ's enemies were to be made his footstool, he was to give back all authority to the Father (Psa. 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:22-28), and it is this page's belief that this happened in 70 AD.
The following quotation is from the above hyperlink:

As for the "1000 years" mentioned in Revelation, they are apocalyptic metaphor for the 40 years Christ "reigned" (triumphed) over his enemies both human and spirit, with the final triumph being the judgement of apostate Jerusalem. The "1000 years" began with his ascension, and ended with this judgement.

Thus, the community to replace the Church on earth was to be the kingdom of God. But, what even is the kingdom of God, and why did God have to reclaim authority of His own creation in the first place?
To be as succinct as possible: man sinned, and so the great level of authority God initially granted us ourselves over the creation was stripped. As a result, the human condition has suffered and it must be redeemed for God to allow us to reign with Him in the way that He originally intended for us. God has always been sovereign, of course, but He seeks the good of man to make us stewards over His world with Him, as that was His original plan and this was His original view of what a kingdom of His truly looks like: a kingdom characterized by man's love for Him and love for others.
A Biblical understanding of Adam's sin, contrary to popular thought, isn't that we are guilty of what he did personally. We simply inherit his fallen nature and a fallen world as a result of his sin, the same way a baby could leave the womb already addicted to certain substances because the mother abused said substances while pregnant. It's not the baby's fault for its condition, it was the parent's. But the baby is born with this condition and enters the world like this nonetheless.
The implication of this is that we are all only guilty of our own sins, and whether or not we ever seek to treat (or possibly cure) our condition in the first place is on us. We were dealt a bad hand due to Adam, sure, but God doesn't hold us responsible for what our forefather did. God only holds us responsible for what we do, and whether or not we seek to be liberated from the dark forces which keep us in bondage to our sinful condition (Gen. 4:6-7, Deut. 24:16, Jer. 31:30, Ezek. 18, Matt. 9:9-13).
The whole Old Testament is essentially a record of God's people constantly breaking their covenant(s) with Him. There are individuals mentioned throughout that were, of course, commended by God and the Biblical authors for their righteousness in honestly pursuing to remain faithful to their covenant with Him. But even the best of these people often faltered and, in fact, did rather heinous things in their lives at one point or another. One of the greatest examples of this is king David, who was literally called by the Scriptures "a man after God's own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14, Acts 13:22). Yet, this same man at one point committed adultery and then murdered the man he stole the wife of to try and cover it up. This was a heinous thing, and David repented of what he did with genuine sorrow and guilt toward God. God ultimately forgave him, but not without a heavy hand of chastisement and earthly consequences for his actions.
All throughout the Old Testament, you see various men of God who were deemed righteous, but these same men were usually shown to have some major flaw that prevented them from living a life that could be characterized as consistent obedience to the commandments to love God and love others as themselves. There is something deeply wrong with man's heart, according to the Bible. Something so wrong, in fact, that a whole prophecy had to be given that promised to address the issue of man's seeming incapability to accomplish fulfilling the commandment to love consistently on their own without some sort of divine help from above:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."-Ezekiel 36:26

Naturalistic philosophies see the physical world as all that exists. Humans beings are the result of mindless, chance causes and processes. Humans are essentially animals – highly evolved, but no different in significance than any other living thing. Thus naturalistic views demote humans. But this view leaves a lot unexplained. Why do humans practice altruism, benevolence, or acts of heroism? And what explains acts of incredible evil? Sure, naturalistic arguments have been made that true altruism doesn't exist, and that "unconditional love" is really just an illusion that's been disguised very well by our survival instincts that we've developed over a long period of time at certain stages of our evolutionary process. However, many people have found such arguments to be unpersuasive and naive when compared to their actual experience of the world as they mature in their lives and have what they know to be truly meaningful experiences that can't simply be reduced in the way that the naturalist wishes them to be. This realization was ultimately why I transitioned from hard atheism to agnostic spiritualism at one point or another.
On the other extreme of these things, transcendental worldviews and philosophies say that the physical world is illusory. Only the spiritual world is ultimately real. Humans are an expression of the divine spirit that is the essence of all things. If naturalistic views demote humans to the level of animals, transcendental views promote human beings. God is not “out there” somewhere; we are God. God is all, thus God is us. But this view doesn’t explain real evil. Why are people selfish? Why do they hurt others? What accounts for personal acts of evil like rape or terrorism? If we are all truly "God," then why would we ever do such things to what is ultimately "ourself"? And why can't a person who practices the belief that we are all actually "God" be only loving? There are so many people who adopt this view of reality who are constantly, day by day, finding that they struggle to be as truly loving as they wish to be because they will still sometimes find themselves thinking and doing rather evil and selfish things. I can speak from experience here, remembering throwing myself into the New Age movement when I was desperately seeking what I did not know at the time was forgiveness for and redemption from my sins because of who I was as a person up until that point. I was seeking the mythic "ego death" that promised me that I could truly be loving and find the forgiveness and redemption I was searching for, because I thought that if only I truly realized I was "God" all along, I could then accomplish these things all at once and simultaneously. I eventually found even this philosophy unsatisfactory when I came to the aforementioned conclusions concerning our great capacity for evil, and also realized that forgiveness can only exist if there are two parties: forgiver and forgivee. Such a thing is impossible if there is only really one being at play at the bottom of reality, and I knew deep down that forgiving oneself (at least, on its own) will never satisfy one's pursuit for redemption that we all inherently take part in whenever pursuing to mend even our own relationships with each other as humans. Further, love would be an illusion in this philosophy too, being that there is only really one party behind and in all of existence if "everything is God." Such an idea would make true altruism a farce, as well. There would be no such thing as real sacrifice for another, because there is no "another."
The French mathematician and Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal said, “Man’s greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach both.” Any philosophy that cannot fully account for human greatness and human depravity at the same time should be abandoned because it misses something obvious about the human condition. The religion of the Bible has a valid explanation for human greatness: people are made in God’s image. Thus we have dignity, value, and capacity for good. The Bible also explains human evil: the image of God has been defaced by sin. Our great capacity gets used for the wrong purposes. Our creativity is placed in the service of evil and our best intentions twisted for selfish gain. Something has gone terribly wrong. While other worldviews unduly demote or promote humanity, the Bible gets the tension just right.
Thus, human nature is puzzling and conflicting. Other worldviews—both secular and religious—struggle to account for this enigma, and don't offer satisfying solutions to the problem itself. The Bible, however, explains what happened when it tells us that man rebelled against God in the paradise that was prepared for him called "the Garden of Eden." We fell into temptation and estranged ourselves from God by tarnishing the image we were created in, and now are born with a natural proclivity to do evil, despite our best efforts to do good (that is, to do good consistently).
And so, the Bible promised a solution in the prophet Ezekiel that God will literally change our natural human condition, if we simply choose to humble ourselves before Him in faith to allow for such a change. While as unbelievers our inner disposition towards God is often rebellious, we at least still have the capacity to choose to do the righteous thing in seeking God that He may change us and forgive us if we so let Him. This is one reason why Jesus, (the one who made the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy even possible by his coming, sacrifice, ressurection, and outpouring of the Spirit upon his ascension), said that only faith the size of a mustard seed was required for something so miraculous as moving a mountian to happen, because so little is required from us to allow God to change us into the kind of person He's always wanted us to be, and yet changing the condition of our own heart can be compared to literally moving a mountain if we were to try and do so on our own strength alone. The mustard seed was the smallest of seeds, and yet if one simply planted it and nurtured it, it could become a bush so large that it was comparable to a tree with branches that stretched to the heavens for the very birds of the air to rest on.
It was when I came to these realizations that I prayed to God for the first time again, having been years since I did so, going so far back as to when I was a little child even. I prayed in the dead of night in my room, and asked God to show me the truth and to reveal Himself to me if indeed these things were true, and in an instant I felt His very presence in my room, and my heart was changed. To describe such an experience would be like trying to describe the taste of something to the man born without tastebuds, the color of something to the man born blind, or the sound of something to the man born deaf; there are no words, and it is only something you can know by experiencing it for yourself. Suddenly and all at once, I knew right then and there that Jesus really was who he said he was, that the one true God is the God of the Bible, and that I have been forgiven. As the time of this post, it's been 5 years since then, I'm 23 now, and I'm still walking with God.
My prayer for anyone reading this that may not know God for themselves yet is that one day, you will too.
Back to the topic at hand.
When Adam sinned, we fell under the tyranny of death, corruption, evil heavenly powers, and sin itself. When Jesus came, Jesus was the new and exalted human, the new Adam, through whom humanity could now realize their original destiny that was laid out for them in the Garden of Eden. Because Jesus, being a man, obeyed unto death, he has defeated the powers which held us so long under bondage; we are now promised liberation so long as we simply place our faith in his sacrifice to wash us of our sins and receive the Spirit of God that is also promised to all who exercise this faith.
We often think of ‘the gospel’ as the part that brings the forgiveness of sins (and of course, that is part of the idea), but ‘gospel’ is the announcement that everything has changed in the coming of Jesus and it leads us to a new kind of living.
The gospel Jesus preached and the gospel the apostle Paul preached were different, in that Jesus preached of a kingdom where God reigns directly and with all His faithful subjects as participants in that reign. The gospel Paul preached was about the exaltation and reign of Christ, and because Christ reigned, the consummation of the kingdom of God with earth could now finally take place (Col. 1:12-13). This consummation was put on hold during Christ's "millennial" reign, which transpired between his ascension and his return. However, the consummation has come to full fruition since that return.
We will be arguing for some of these claims by pointing out how central the kingdom of God actually was to Jesus' earthly ministry and message, and demonstrate what Jesus taught about how it actually looks like.
The term 'kingdom' appears 53 times in 42 places in Matthew, 17 times in 13 places in Mark, and 41 times in 29 places in Luke. When the 'kingdom' is qualified, Luke always refers to the 'kingdom of God' (32 times) and Mark follows this pattern (14 times). Matthew, on the other hand, prefers the term "kingdom of heaven" (31 times), using the phrase to refer to the same idea "kingdom of God" only four times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 43.
The Gospel of Luke records an event where Jesus responds to the population that lived near Simon Peter's house who believed in him after he had done his miraculous work there, but saw that he was leaving them:

"And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them. And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore [i.e., for this pupose] am I sent." (vss. 42-43)

The Greek word euangelion is often translated as the word “gospel.” In the Bible, this word is always used whenever it concerns the announcement of the reign of a new king. And in the New Testament, the Gospels themselves use this word or the phrase "good news" to summarize all of Jesus’ teachings. They say he went about “preaching the gospel [good news] of the kingdom [of God]” (Matt. 4:23).
There’s this beautiful poem in the Old Testament, and it’s in chapter 52 of the Book of Isaiah. The city of Jerusalem had just been destroyed by Babylon, a great kingdom in the North. Many of the inhabitants of the city have been sent away into exile, but a few remained in the city, and they’re left wondering, "What happened? Has our God abandoned us?" This was because Jerusalem was supposed to be the city where God would reign over the world to bring peace and blessing to everyone.
Now, Isaiah had been saying that Jerusalem’s destruction was a mess of Israel’s own making. They had turned away from their God, become corrupt, and so their city and their temple were destroyed. Everything seemed lost. But the poem goes on. There is a watchman on the city walls, and far out on the hills we see a messenger. He’s running towards the city. He’s running and he’s shouting, “Good news!” And Isaiah says, “How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings [news]” (vs. 7a). The feet are beautiful because they’re carrying a beautiful message. And what’s the message? That despite Jerusalem’s destruction, Israel’s God still reigns as king, and that God's presence is going to one day return with His city, take up His throne, and bring peace. And the watchmen sing for joy because of the good news that their God still reigns (vs. 10).
Jesus saw himself as the messenger bringing the news that God reigns. Jesus also claimed to be the Son of man. This was Jesus' favorite self-designation, being used some 80 times in the Gospels. Notice, not just a son of man, but the Son of Man. Jesus was directing our attention to a vision described by the prophet Daniel:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him:"-Daniel 7:13-14a

At Jesus' trial, the Jewish high priest accused Jesus: "Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed [God]?" His answer left no room for doubt. "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62). Because Jesus' was rejected and killed for threatening the power the religious authorities had over the people, the consummation of God's kingdom with earth had been put on hold until all of Christ's enemies would be put under his feet after his ressurection and ascension.
But again, what is the kingdom of God? What does it look like exactly?
Well, the way that Jesus described God’s reign surprised everybody. I mean, think about it. A powerful, successful kingdom needs to be strong, able to impose its will, and able to defeat its enemies in physical combat. But Jesus said the greatest person in God’s kingdom was the weakest, the one who loves and who serves the poor (Matt. 23:11-12). He said you live under God’s reign when you respond to evil by loving your enemies, and forgiving them, and seeking peace (Matt. 5). To us, this is an upside-down kingdom. But to God, it's right-side up. This was what God had originally planned for us: a kingdom where God reigns in our hearts.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."-John 3:3

Jesus was being quite literal here. You can’t see the kingdom until you’re born again and have the life of that kingdom. When you’re born again, you start 'seeing' differently. You see what others don’t see, you hear what others don’t hear, you know what others don’t know. And yet you may be physically in the same earthly location as they.
The kingdom of God is the totality of God’s influence that covers the world and heaven. It’s everywhere, but its manifestation isn’t everywhere. It manifests on earth wherever there are those who are born again and live as if God reigns in their hearts.
Before Jesus, John the Baptist announced to all people, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:1-2), as he saw a soon coming kingdom of God that would be ushered in by the Messiah. Notice that John the Baptist didn’t say that something “like” the kingdom would come and he didn’t say that the real kingdom might be thousands of years away. He said over and over that THE kingdom was at hand! Do you believe him? Did God inspire him to give a clear and accurate message or a mistaken one? If we dare to believe him, things might become surprisingly clear, simple and exceedingly optimistic.

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."-Matthew 6:10

Jesus taught his followers of his generation to pray that God's kingdom come and that His will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Why pray for something that will just inevitably come by force, unless it was actually through our willing participation? That is, unless God's will is carried out through us "in earth, as it is in heaven"?

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."-Mark 1:14-15

It's very telling that these are the very first words the Gospel of Mark chooses to record Jesus as saying.
The kingdom is NOT something to wait for. Jesus says the kingdom is NOT something visible, and it is NOT something in the sky. The Kingdom Jesus taught is a spiritual reality that comes into the world through us. Considering that Jesus even said the kingdom was in and among the Pharisees in Luke 17, which seems almost offensive to consider, perhaps it is like a spiritual seed that has been planted inside each of us, and that activating faith in God makes it grow.

"Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it."-Luke 13:18-19

Jesus talked about the kingdom as if it would be a present reality, yet one that was growing in the world like a seed grows into a tree.

"And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."-Luke 13:20-21

To Jesus, the kingdom was something growing in us like yeast through dough, increasing in effectiveness.

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."-Romans 14:17
"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."-1 Corinthians 4:20

Paul says the kingdom isn’t something you taste or touch like physical food. It’s not even saying the right words. But rather the kingdom comes in the realities of righteousness, peace, joy and power that flavor our lives when we live empowered by the Spirit of God and God's Spirit in us.
Since Jesus the Messiah returned only 40 years after his earthly ministry, putting all enemies under his feet, the complete consummation of earth with the kingdom of heaven has finally taken place.
The kingdom of God has come, and it continues to come through us as believers. It makes progress like light shining into the world and dispelling the darkness.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 5:14-16

I'd like to share a lengthy and self-indulgent note about my history with the Baha'i community and the impact it had on my family and me. It's worth noting that I'm sharing this using a throwaway Reddit account that I generally reserve for browsing porn. I find funny to imagine a Baha'i apologist reading this, becoming angry and judgmental, and then, investigating my profile and ending up jerking off. With that said, let's dive into my story.
I want to share my experience in case it resonates with someone else, a lot of the stories on this Reddit helped me, and perhaps my story will give some comfort to someone else. It has taken me a while to write this down, and I'm glad I finally got around to doing it.
My parents emigrated from their homeland for reasons of principle and value. Upon their arrival, they were greeted by Baha'is who met them. And so, lovebombed and lavished with love, praise, and celebration for moving countries due to values that they portrayed as being closely aligned with the Baha'i faith, my parents fell for this validation and worked very hard once they became Baha'is in the mid-1980s.
My dad got rid of all of his whiskies, and swiftly, my parents began hosting potlucks and fireside chats, diligently working to integrate into the Baha'i ecosystem. Back then, the atmosphere was fairly light-hearted, with devotional gatherings, prayers, and a somewhat 1960s-esque hippie vibe. There was live guitar music, and joss sticks.
However, I remember Baha'i classes having an interesting edge. We were taught that Buddhists were not following a religion but merely a way of life, and that Hindus had become pantheistic because they had lost the core of their faith and religion, which had become corrupted over time. Thanks to Google, I can discover that yes indeed, this is from Lights of Guidance.
There was a significant emphasis on the importance of gender equality and the oneness of humanity – because, hey, the eighties. I feel sad there isn't anything anymore about the Virtues project - even if the Virtues project was sort of framed like it was created by Bahais.
Even in the 1980s, there was an overwhelming atmosphere that the key to being a good Baha'i was how you presented yourself rather than your actual behaviour. I recall learning an apocryphal tale of a young Baha'i who, while fasting, participated in an aerobics class and nearly fainted (yeah, aerobics, this is a real 80s fable), but was told by another Baha'i to prioritize representing the faith well over completing the fast because *it looked bad*. From a very early age, I learned the importance of putting the right face forward.
My parents then took their relationship with the Baha'i faith to the next level and volunteered at the World Centre in Haifa. As a child, this was a pretty interesting experience. I was suddenly immersed in the Iranian, or rather, Persian community, with its strong culture of martyrdom. Even as a child, every event seemed to feature graphic videos depicting young kids being taken from their homes. It was quite frightening, and I remember being afraid.
I also recall a strong sense of hierarchy within the community. My family lived in a small apartment with a very old, busted-up car from the 1970s, while others resided in nice homes with pleasant views and drove nice cars. I attended a local Israeli school, which was a cultural experience in itself, while my peers my age went to the much fancier American school. It's important to note that, at this point, the conversation about the "great catastrophe" – two-thirds of the world's population dying, leading to a period of peace and the entry by troops – was a prevalent topic openly discussed at the World Centre.
We completed our stint there, even living through the Gulf War. Upon returning to my birth country, my parents chose to live in places with smaller Baha'i communities, as they wanted to support and help establish Local Spiritual Assemblies. Things had changed by this point, not only because I was a teenager but also because the community itself had transformed. There was a significant Iranian presence everywhere, and the focus had shifted heavily towards rules, especially those related to sex, drinking, and drug use. There was also a huge emphasis on financial contributions to the faith, and it was the first time I began to see a somewhat materialistic outlook within the community.
As a preteen and teenager, I engaged in activities like dropping off flyers in mailboxes and soliciting strangers to talk about this great new religion, all in the name of “teaching”. I joined the local choir and sang, inspired by a crush I had on a girl there. This was probably the golden time of the community, with the choir doing outreach and a balance between Western and Iranian believers.
However, things began to accelerate. The Ruhi Institute and teaching became significant focal points. I was encouraged to bring a good friend of mine to a Baha'i camp, and once there, I was pressured to ask him to convert. It was very uncomfortable.
This Reddit loves cringe stories, so here is a winner: I had a birthday party with my non-Baha'i friends, and two older Baha'i girls attended. One of the girls ended up stalking my friend, showing up at his workplace and calling him at home with sexually suggestive comments. The matter was escalated to the Local Spiritual Assembly, but instead of talking to me about it, they basically ended my friendship with this kid. To me, this somehow captures so much of what it was like to be a Baha'i child and how Baha'i adults treat children to this day.
When I turned 15, I signed up for Baha'i membership because it was the expected thing to do. However, by the time I was in my early 20s and studying at university, I had started to interact more with the local, real-world community. This might seem like a small thing, but it was actually quite significant. You see, my parents had always felt a little bit on the outside compared to the average person on the street around them. This sense of elitism was really exacerbated by being a Baha'i because Baha'is would walk around in a cloud of self-assurance, slapping each other on the back and saying , "We don't do drugs. We've got all the answers and solutions, not like you." That was pretty much the attitude. It felt very socio-economic, with a lot of judgment towards working-class people. When the Iranians arrived, the cultural judgments grew even stronger.
But I was working in restaurants and learning about booze from bartenders. I had gotten to know real people. I had lost my virginity, and all that Bahai jazz seemed so much less relevant. I hardly even noticed when the year 2000 arrived without the predicted apocalypse, entry by troops, or any of the other anticipated events. Life went on. I lived in another country and met a girl, and we lived together.
Here is cringe story #2: my girlfriend /fiancé and I hosted a Bahai couple from my hometown. Despite being in my late 20s and engaged, and even though I hosted this gentleman in my house and helped him with his preparations for his business and presentations in the country where I lived, he reported to the Local Spiritual Assembly that I was living with a woman and we weren't married. It was absolutely amazing. The level of judgment still grosses me out.
I started to reflect on what the religion had meant to me and saw how it had changed. The obsession with fundraising was becoming ever more strident and panicked. The gaps in the actual scriptural logic of the religion were becoming more exacerbated as real-world problems still ran rife, and real-time discussions on social media brought these issues to light. It took me a while to start really digging into it, and it was only much later, when I started therapy, that I realized I needed to formally resign from the religion.
Looking back, it's astonishing how this religion, which professes to have such blind equality between the genders, as if other religions have some kind of hardwired sexism, actually had hardwired sexism in how the Universal House of Justice operates. A religion that taught the oneness of humanity, as if all humanity is equal and other religions don't recruit from anyone they can find, places divisors. Although of course, Bahai’s can’t recruit from Israeli Jews, so much for oneness of humanity. But this religion has taught that all humanity is equal, unless, of course, you're gay. Then you can't get married, let alone have sex.
There are other principles I haven't touched on, such as non-involvement in politics, unless it involves things happening to Baha'is or politics in Iran. The principle of independent investigation of the truth doesn't seem to work if you might investigate something that's not in line with the Baha'i perspective. The idea of a universal language? I don't really see any evidence that they're even really thinking about that one. The unity between science and religion? A religion that only allows men to sit on its senior board of a global theocracy probably isn't going to jive with a contemporary scientific perspective…. I mean, apparently you don't need a penis to be a man anymore, right?
In between these moments are my colorful memories of random things, like endless discussions about the boundaries of physical intimacy, people getting married at the age of 16 because they had exemptions for being Persian, and meeting Ms. Khanoom in Israel, feeling some sadness that the lone woman who at least brought some feminine energy to the World Centre is now gone, replaced by 12 boring men.
I've had conversations with my wife where I tried to explain what Baha'is actually do. She just wonders why they aren't doing stuff like normal religions do, like reading to the elderly or supporting schools for the disabled. I explain that's not the target demographic. I remember a wealthy man brought to firesides who obviously nobody else wanted to listen to, but we all sat around and applauded him like he was a great ukulele player and a clever man. He pointed out a hilariously Iranian man who was an alternative healer, and they got into a debate about modern medicine. The wealthy man said, "Well, you should see my daughter and what she studied. She studies Law." And then quickly changed the subject when asked about her name since I studied at the same Law school. Here's this man who's self-aware enough to join the adoration of his crowd but doesn't want his daughter mixed up in it in any way. Absolutely hilarious. Make that cringe story #3.
This reflection was sort of sparked when my wife and I discovered that the writings attributed to Rumi, which Baha'is often quote, is the same guy who started the Whirling Dervishes. We read about Rumi and I realized just how different he is from Baha'u'llah. Rumi wrote poetry, but he didn't pretend to be a prophet of God. He was just offering a different dynamic for how to interpret spirituality. He didn't say he was part of some sort of cycle. There's something beautiful about that simplicity. And needless to say, Rumi lived long before the Baha'is ever started.
It makes me wonder, will anyone ever watch the equivalent of a whirling dervish dance for the Baha'is?
The obsession with appearances sounds like a joke, but it isn't. It wasn't for me. Some bad stuff happened to me on my trip to Israel. When we got there, my parents didn't understand why I was so upset about everything. It was a culture shock, attending a local school, not speaking Hebrew, being lumped together with Russian kids who also didn't speak Hebrew, and getting beaten up in the toilet. It wasn't a very good time for me.
So, I was sent to counsel with a local Israeli counselor. After several sessions, she instructed that I had to sit down with my parents and tell them what I needed to tell them, particularly about the shadow that had come over me since coming to Israel. My parents were enraged when I said, “I wish we never became Bahai”.
And so, we returned from the Holy Land and moved to a tiny community that was struggling to get members. To this day, my parents are still members. I've resigned so I'm never dubbed a "covenant breaker." I'm pretty sure my parents know that I resigned because they literally never raise the topic of the Baha'i faith with me. I wish the religion had some interesting cosmology, something mystical, some interesting new take on the universe, or provided my family with tools to handle being migrants or raising teenagers. At the very least, it could have given us a common language we could have used to bond together. It did none of that.
But to be fair, if it wasn't the Baha'is, some other rinky-dink cult would have love-bombed my parents back in the 1980s. Of course, it would have been so much more fun if it had featured more sex and drugs 😊

Long story short my bf and I moved in together and then he started yelling at me a lot and screaming at me and then he put hands on me, he grabbed me and shook me, he never hit me or slapped me but I was so afraid he would because he hit himself every time he yelled at me. Anyways I moved out, quit my job and moved back to my parents to get away from it all and hit the reset button. He’s told me over and over how is life is ruined because I left and he doesn’t deserve anything nice or happiness or anything because I would be there with him if he did. Some of his stuff accidentally got packed with my stuff when I moved out, just some collectibles and a blu ray or two and so I boxed it up and mailed it to him. In the box I included a coloring I had colored because I don’t hold any ill will towards him, I’m not mad at him or anything and still care about him. So he texts me and asks if I put a crayon in the box because it ended up in the washing machine and ruined his clothes. I have no clue how this happened and it wasn’t done intentionally, the box didn’t even have any pants or shirts in it, just a lone sock and two pairs of underwear in a separate ziplock bag as to not get it ruined. But now his work shirts are ruined and I hate myself even more for ruining more stuff for him, I’ve already ordered replacements but I hate I ruined more stuff for him. It feels like every time I take one step towards healing myself I get pulled back into all of it.

Welcome to the book club New Voices! In this book club we want to highlight books by debut authors and open the stage for under-represented and under-appreciated writers from all walks of life. New voices refers to the authors as well as the protagonists, and the goal is to include viewpoints away from the standard and most common. For more information and a short description of how we plan to run this club and how you can participate, please have a look at the announcement post.
It's time for second chances! I've selected a few books from previous polls, that didn't quite make it and deserve a second chance:

Under Fortunate Stars by Ren Hutchings

Fleeing the final days of the generations-long war with the alien Felen, smuggler Jereth Keeven's freighter the Jonah breaks down in a strange rift in deep space, with little chance of rescue—until they encounter the research vessel Gallion, which claims to be from 152 years in the future. The Gallion's chief engineer Uma Ozakka has always been fascinated with the past, especially the tale of the Fortunate Five, who ended the war with the Felen. When the Gallion rescues a run-down junk freighter, Ozakka is shocked to recognize the Five's legendary ship—and the Five's famed leader, Eldric Leesongronski, among the crew. But nothing else about Leesongronski and his crewmates seems to match up with the historical record. With their ships running out of power in the rift, more than the lives of both crews may be at stake.

Bingo squares: book club

The Magic Fish by Trung Le Nguyen

The book tells an intergenerational story of a mother and son struggling to relate to each other—the mother an immigrant to the United States who wants to make a home for her family in an unfamiliar country; the son trying to figure out the best way to come out to his parents. Through telling each other fairy tales, they're able to find common ground.

Bingo squares: bookclub

Bacchanal by Veronica Henry

Evil lives in a traveling carnival roaming the Depression-era South. But the carnival’s newest act, a peculiar young woman with latent magical powers, may hold the key to defeating it. Her time has come. Abandoned by her family, alone on the wrong side of the color line with little to call her own, Eliza Meeks is coming to terms with what she does have. It’s a gift for communicating with animals. To some, she’s a magical tender. To others, a she-devil. To a talent prospector, she’s a crowd-drawing oddity. And the Bacchanal Carnival is Eliza’s ticket out of the swamp trap of Baton Rouge. Among fortune-tellers, carnies, barkers, and folks even stranger than herself, Eliza finds a new home. But the Bacchanal is no ordinary carnival. An ancient demon has a home there too. She hides behind an iridescent disguise. She feeds on innocent souls. And she’s met her match in Eliza, who’s only beginning to understand the purpose of her own burgeoning powers. Only then can Eliza save her friends, find her family, and fight the sway of a primordial demon preying upon the human world. Rolling across a consuming dust bowl landscape, Eliza may have found her destiny.

Bingo squares: bookclub

The Hacienda by Isabel Cañas

Mexican Gothic meets Rebecca in this debut supernatural suspense novel, set in the aftermath of the Mexican War of Independence, about a remote house, a sinister haunting, and the woman pulled into their clutches...
In the overthrow of the Mexican government, Beatriz’s father is executed and her home destroyed. When handsome Don Rodolfo Solórzano proposes, Beatriz ignores the rumors surrounding his first wife’s sudden demise, choosing instead to seize the security his estate in the countryside provides. She will have her own home again, no matter the cost.
But Hacienda San Isidro is not the sanctuary she imagined.
When Rodolfo returns to work in the capital, visions and voices invade Beatriz’s sleep. The weight of invisible eyes follows her every move. Rodolfo’s sister, Juana, scoffs at Beatriz’s fears—but why does she refuse to enter the house at night? Why does the cook burn copal incense at the edge of the kitchen and mark its doorway with strange symbols? What really happened to the first Doña Solórzano?
Beatriz only knows two things for certain: Something is wrong with the hacienda. And no one there will help her.
Desperate for help, she clings to the young priest, Padre Andrés, as an ally. No ordinary priest, Andrés will have to rely on his skills as a witch to fight off the malevolent presence haunting the hacienda and protect the woman for whom he feels a powerful, forbidden attraction. But even he might not be enough to battle the darkness.
Far from a refuge, San Isidro may be Beatriz’s doom.

Bingo squares: bookclub

The Heretic‘s Guide to Homecoming by Sienna Tristen

WINNER OF THE 2019 READERVIEWS AWARD FOR FANTASY! WINNER OF THE 2019 IPPY AWARD FOR FANTASY!
“Life is transformation. You change or you die.”
Ashamed of his past and overwhelmed by his future, Ronoah Genoveffa Elizzi-denna Pilanovani feels too small for his own name. After a graceless exit from his homeland in the Acharrioni desert, his anxiety has sabotaged every attempt at redemption. Asides from a fiery devotion to his godling, the one piece of home he brought with him, he has nothing.
That is, until he meets Reilin. Beguiling, bewildering Reilin, who whisks Ronoah up into a cross-continental pilgrimage to the most sacred place on the planet. The people they encounter on the way—children of the sea, a priestess and her band of storytellers, the lonely ghosts of monsters—are grim and whimsical in equal measure. Each has their part to play in rewriting Ronoah’s personal narrative.
One part fantasy travelogue, one part emotional underworld journey, The Heretic’s Guide to Homecoming is a sumptuous, slow-burning story about stories and the way they shape our lives.

Bingo squares: bookclub
Do you like the selection? Have you already read one of the books and want to recommend it to others? Do you know any additional Bingo squares for any of the books? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Click here to vote

Voting will run until May 27 and the winner will be announced on May 28

Hi everyone! Welcome to the official Tuesday Drop Discussion! Chat here about your reactions to the new drop, what you're planning on buying (or not buying...), and anything and everything in between!
————————
The link to the Drop Thread will be in the pinned comment when the drop begins.
————————
Tips and Tricks:
- If something isn't showing up for you, search by item/color name, open the link, delete everything after product name and refresh. You may need to do this a couple of times. If that doesn't work, try clearing cache and cookies and try again.
- Edit in cart trick: Add the item you want in any size and color to your cart, and then once it's in your cart change it to color you want.
- Don't look at the What's New page, use the site search bar.
- The app is laggy, use the website.
- The new drop has generally been starting around 2:10 p.m. EST in the U.S. and just after 3 p.m. EST in Canada, but sometimes (very infrequently) it varies.
- USA and Canada pretty much always get the same new items, just as mentioned above, Canada's drop happens around 40 minutes later, thus there's no Canada thread.
Good luck and happy shopping! 🥰

Now listen, “THIS MESSAGE IS NOT” for those who truly are trying to be good people. Good for you, I’m sure GOD is proud of you. This is for those who are easily forgetting how and why they should be good.
Now to start, I’m not perfect, none of us are. I have my own mountain of issues, my own sins, my own daily missteps. Do I think that “I MYSELF” am good, or better than you, or superior? No, I do not. Not one bit. So this advice is for me too:
I’ve noticed that there are so many christians out there, my own brethren, who easily forget so many parts of The Bible. So many of my fellow christians easily portray a self righteous and judgmental complex in their minds and beat down or mistreat others, whether those others are christians or not.
I’m “NOT” trying to pass judgement, only to make peace and hopefully begin a correctional movement amongst us. Because we all are doing something very wrong. Many non-christians hate GOD because of us. Not just that they don’t believe in HIM, they flat out hate HIM. And it’s our fault. We are not portraying the love HE wants us to show.
I myself am struggling with a hot topic issue in our community. I tried to reach out and was scolded by people I thought were my spiritual family. I’ve read posts from other communities and have heard many words said for many years, (off of Reddit), that our people are careless about others. We can’t let that be true anymore.
This is not what GOD wants. JESUS said the two most important commandments were to love GOD with all your heart, soul and mind. And the second was to love others as you would love yourselves.
Now listen, I know each and every one of you has a good heart. You still have your purity that GOD has bestowed upon you. Show it to others. Show them who GOD truly is, how HE wants to be seen.
General rules to remember:

1. “LOVE” GOD.
2. “LOVE” others as you would yourselves.
3. Be “KIND”.
4. Be peacemakers.
5. Do not “JUDGE” others.
6. Do not sin, but don’t judge others’ sins.
7. Be “PERFECT” even your FATHER in Heaven is perfect.
8. Turn the other cheek.
9. Read “ALL” of The Bible. Not just the small parts that you agree with.

I’m seeing everything that’s happening in the world and I am beyond sick and tired of it. I’m numb to it. But I don’t think I or anybody should be numb to it, I think we should take action, and it’s simply just to show love. You don’t have to become mother Theresa, but to just show GOD’S love through your actions to everybody. Not a select few, everybody.
I wish you all good blessings and for GOD to guide you through your lives.
I look forward to seeing you all in HIS kingdom, where we can worship HIM and share our stories and tales of old.
GOD bless you all! ✝️❤️