rant/vent
🔍I had pretyped this just ranting then I realized i can post it anonymously here bc i’m really struggling and would like some outside advice human to human feels like i’m gaslighting myself lol. They have supported me and given me everything I need materialistically and do what they are supposed to as parents in that aspect I am very grateful and appreciative of that. in no way shape or form will I ever complain ab them giving me food, shelter, clothes etc. I’m not seeking to be coddled or get sympathy either i just need to know if it really is that bad or am I tripping.
🔬emotionally manipulative & guilt tripping parents will be their own demise. lol. finally dropping that mask you have with them, making them look at themselves and see the torment i had to mentally internalize & take on over the years > sitting back & letting them continue their behavior and control to keep destroying your identity & self continuing to deal with immense shame, guilt, sadness, and anger because you know how they are and you think theres no point in opening up to them or telling them what they do wrong bc they always do the same shit & continue to blame you for everything. note this though when I finally released all my years of internalized emotions on them and started texting them very knowledgeable shit about themselves, how they treated me, my mom trying to control and ruin me and my girlfriends relationship when we first got together (+ we have continued to be together for 1yr and 3 months still going strong she ain’t ruin shiiiit) & shit talked my gf for no reason at all. When I started texting paragraph after paragraph (+ texting them back and forth.) I was met with my mom thinking something isn’t right regarding my mental health and telling my dad and brother she thinks something is wrong with me again (she was surprised how I could speak so knowledgeable bc I barely even interact with them anymore) them texting my phone asking if everything is okay and they are worried ab me (she’s also made many comments before this situation like “you seem like you need to get back on ur medication you’re being irritable” etc when clearly that was the correct response to some fucked up comment she made i’m sick of that shit.) (sorry that was lowkey irrelevant but holy shit). them throwing what they do for me as PARENTS in my face, blame shifting, manipulation, lying, her saying she has no acknowledgment of ever treating me like that over the years, trying to ruin our relationship, or saying any of the vile shit she said about my gf. OH and how she thought It couldn’t possibly be me that’s writing these exceptional level paragraphs and she thought my gf was controlling me and making me send all of that to my parents(me texting her ab this shit went on for like 3 days, 3 days of her not taking accountability for anything, lying, trying to manipulate by making me feel bad as well and she had the nerve to say “it feels like i’m being abused” GIRLLL STOPPP HUH im still confused ab that one) it’s honestly sickening and baffling knowing ppl can think & say shit like that. i’ve been so detached from them since I was little (never knew why at the time) but THIS makes that detachment 100x worse and I feel like that’s a GOOD thing for me even though the outcome wasn’t what I wanted, bc i’m feeling free, released, not pint-up, etc most importantly more like I can finally be MYSELF!!! i’m way more comfortable in who I am and my Identity now at 19 could you imagine that like damn (just hoping it’s not temporary)!!! just putting this out there in hopes that someone else going through the same thing or similar will see and maybe help them a little. now i just gotta move out.
⚛️ she can’t see how what she says to people effects them drastically and takes 0 responsibility and acknowledgement of doing so and passes it off as “you don’t know me” “i’m a good person” “i have a good heart i love everybody” etc or blame everything on me for examples “we do everything for you” “you’re going to treat us like that when we sacrificed so much for you” etc um .. yeah they signed up for that when they decided to have a child so it’s fucked up to throw that in my face. THEN she loves to do this the most playing the victim card “you’re abusing me” “it feels like you are abusing me” “we feel like we can’t say anything right we are always walking on eggshells around you it’s exhausting” she knows damn well I’m not abusing her in any way shape or form that’s disrespectful to many people who actually had to go through and endure actual abuse. “do you want to hurt us? is that your goal” “you’re destroying the family” “you’re destroying our marriage” etc literally used to be all the timmmme when i was going through sh and stuff too. i didn’t do anything wronggggg all I did was speak up for myself FOR ONCE (bc it’s been YEARS) ab the shit she does and how i’m not okay with it i internalize literally everything (that’s y it took years. just sick of their shit idk what to do). low and behold after all that expressing I get met with all that blame shifting and lying. the reason why i never open up to her is bc when I do ever since i was little she always blamed me and made it seem like this whole other thing so hell yeah i’d rather internalize then talk to her that’s a way better option than getting met with guilt tripping and shit what else could I do but internalize n doing that fucked my head up BAD. there are MANY more examples of what else she would say and my dad too but i really think he’s brainwashed by her so idk that’s just off the top of my head .. lmao. she makes me feel so insaneee i even feel like i’m exaggerating and making a big deal n being too sensitive writing all this😵‍💫. there’s SO MUCH more context but fuck all that i typed enough. thx for coming to my ted talk🕷️.
🤢not to mention they are closeted RACIST & HOMOPHOBIC

So I have been thinking, and there is a concept that is just not really explored, the deeper consequences of the existance of an object (potentially obtainable on paper) that has tremendous power (power that is, at the very least, crudely but instantly usable for most if not all of the potential owers of such an object)
Yeah I know, it is not the thing most related to dragons... but you can see the ties if pay enough attention.
In fiction, such an object is often desired by the villain(s) and the heroes(who want to stop the villains from reaching it), but if you think about it, almost everyone would want to obtain such a thing (to be safe, to be the best, for honour and glory, to protect what they love, to have almost ultimate freedom), even if they do not the means.
So because of such an artefact's existence, we have a sort of challenge/opportunity that the world has to offer:
Go all in and risk everything, use all that you have and more to obtain ultimate power and realize your dreams/end all of your nightmares
Now, of course, that is an extreme, but the more informations you have on the all-powerful artefacts that makes it more concrete in your mind or closer to obtain (the location of such a thing), and the more this opportunity arise.
So I am asking, why is there not far more people trying to get closer to the artefact, why is there not a mass of people near the old temple, why is there no one that makes a suicide attempt on the heroes or villains to steal the object of power? If you have almost nothing to lose and everything to gain, the choice makes sense.
Now for a more philosophical/self reflecting approach...
Power exist in various form, but not all are equal.
You can have a lot of money or even political power, but these are far from being the closest form of power to you.
So in the "dull" real life (where technology brings a lot of comfort but is not great enough for... you will see), you could have so much money or have control/lead an entire country that saying you have the power of a god (a god being a very, very, very high amount of power) is not false.
But that is the fundamental thing, you have the power of god, but you are not necessarily a god.
But what if you could be closer to that?
A tool is useful craft, something that can change how you think and one that you can learn how to use it, similar to how you train your body. A tool is form of power very close to you, so close it could be called an extension of your being. So where does all of that reasoning lead?
The powerful artefact is an all powerful tool, meaning instead of having the power of god but greatly separated from your being, you have godlike power at in your very hands, and that will affect you more than anything in your life.
The only way to go even higher would be for you to literally become a god.
So thank you for reading this, and if you want to say something (like why is there no dragons?), you can write your words below.

rant/vent
🔍I had pretyped this just ranting then I realized i can post it anonymously here bc i’m really struggling and would like some outside advice human to human feels like i’m gaslighting myself lol. They have supported me and given me everything I need materialistically and do what they are supposed to as parents in that aspect I am very grateful and appreciative of that. in no way shape or form will I ever complain ab them giving me food, shelter, clothes etc. I’m not seeking to be coddled or get sympathy either i just need to know if it really is that bad or am I tripping.
🔬emotionally manipulative & guilt tripping parents will be their own demise. lol. finally dropping that mask you have with them, making them look at themselves and see the torment i had to mentally internalize & take on over the years > sitting back & letting them continue their behavior and control to keep destroying your identity & self continuing to deal with immense shame, guilt, sadness, and anger because you know how they are and you think theres no point in opening up to them or telling them what they do wrong bc they always do the same shit & continue to blame you for everything. note this though when I finally released all my years of internalized emotions on them and started texting them very knowledgeable shit about themselves, how they treated me, my mom trying to control and ruin me and my girlfriends relationship when we first got together (+ we have continued to be together for 1yr and 3 months still going strong she ain’t ruin shiiiit) & shit talked my gf for no reason at all. When I started texting paragraph after paragraph (+ texting them back and forth.) I was met with my mom thinking something isn’t right regarding my mental health and telling my dad and brother she thinks something is wrong with me again (she was surprised how I could speak so knowledgeable bc I barely even interact with them anymore) them texting my phone asking if everything is okay and they are worried ab me (she’s also made many comments before this situation like “you seem like you need to get back on ur medication you’re being irritable” etc when clearly that was the correct response to some fucked up comment she made i’m sick of that shit.) (sorry that was lowkey irrelevant but holy shit). them throwing what they do for me as PARENTS in my face, blame shifting, manipulation, lying, her saying she has no acknowledgment of ever treating me like that over the years, trying to ruin our relationship, or saying any of the vile shit she said about my gf. OH and how she thought It couldn’t possibly be me that’s writing these exceptional level paragraphs and she thought my gf was controlling me and making me send all of that to my parents(me texting her ab this shit went on for like 3 days, 3 days of her not taking accountability for anything, lying, trying to manipulate by making me feel bad as well and she had the nerve to say “it feels like i’m being abused” GIRLLL STOPPP HUH im still confused ab that one) it’s honestly sickening and baffling knowing ppl can think & say shit like that. i’ve been so detached from them since I was little (never knew why at the time) but THIS makes that detachment 100x worse and I feel like that’s a GOOD thing for me even though the outcome wasn’t what I wanted, bc i’m feeling free, released, not pint-up, etc most importantly more like I can finally be MYSELF!!! i’m way more comfortable in who I am and my Identity now at 19 could you imagine that like damn (just hoping it’s not temporary)!!! just putting this out there in hopes that someone else going through the same thing or similar will see and maybe help them a little. now i just gotta move out.
⚛️ she can’t see how what she says to people effects them drastically and takes 0 responsibility and acknowledgement of doing so and passes it off as “you don’t know me” “i’m a good person” “i have a good heart i love everybody” etc or blame everything on me for examples “we do everything for you” “you’re going to treat us like that when we sacrificed so much for you” etc um .. yeah they signed up for that when they decided to have a child so it’s fucked up to throw that in my face. THEN she loves to do this the most playing the victim card “you’re abusing me” “it feels like you are abusing me” “we feel like we can’t say anything right we are always walking on eggshells around you it’s exhausting” she knows damn well I’m not abusing her in any way shape or form that’s disrespectful to many people who actually had to go through and endure actual abuse. “do you want to hurt us? is that your goal” “you’re destroying the family” “you’re destroying our marriage” etc literally used to be all the timmmme when i was going through sh and stuff too. i didn’t do anything wronggggg all I did was speak up for myself FOR ONCE (bc it’s been YEARS) ab the shit she does and how i’m not okay with it i internalize literally everything (that’s y it took years. just sick of their shit idk what to do). low and behold after all that expressing I get met with all that blame shifting and lying. the reason why i never open up to her is bc when I do ever since i was little she always blamed me and made it seem like this whole other thing so hell yeah i’d rather internalize then talk to her that’s a way better option than getting met with guilt tripping and shit what else could I do but internalize n doing that fucked my head up BAD. there are MANY more examples of what else she would say and my dad too but i really think he’s brainwashed by her so idk that’s just off the top of my head .. lmao. she makes me feel so insaneee i even feel like i’m exaggerating and making a big deal n being too sensitive writing all this😵‍💫. there’s SO MUCH more context but fuck all that i typed enough. thx for coming to my ted talk🕷️.

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

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

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

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

Last night I realized I got every single SP I chased to turn around and ask me to meet them. This should be proof that ALL of your desires actually want you.
Chasing means you believe they don’t want you. You can initate conversations that’s fine but you need to come from a place of self worth.
We are talking about 5 different SPs here. And most of it was actually unconscious cause I didn’t realize the law but it was working.
Sp 1 (a girl) had me blocked on all platforms. Definitely the most hopeless circumstances I’ve been in. Refused to speak to me when I saw her in person and walked away. Lol it was BAD. But after one year of trying to reconcile I was like she will eventually want to talk to me. Then 2 months later this same person who kept ghosting me in person was waving at me when I saw her from a distance lmao. But this was unconscious. So I didn’t really try to reach out to her for years and then when I did we became extremely close just the way I wanted. Just the way I craved. She asked to meet me. Not to mention I maintained a belief that she was into girls for years despite her denying it and she eventually came out lol.
Sp 2: I chased and begged him to meet me and he kept refusing. I called him and begged for months lol. And then I was like fuck that. He will regret and then not too long after he was texting me again. And then kept asking me to meet him . I kid you not 6 years later this man is still asking me to meet him.
SP 3: : (a boy) I spent hours and hours day dreaming about us making out and having sex. But my god my self concept was on the floor at this point. He rejected me. I got into self love mode and started thinking he is not all that and bro was complimenting me and hinting how he wanted to make out and things. Again this was unconscious and therefore it took years to materialise cause i didn’t maintain assumptions. But we eventually did do EVERYTHING I day dreamt about. This is also the guy that said “I will never ask you out” and then two months into FWB he was hella nervous trying to ask me out and he did. And we dated. The relationship ended cause of my fears and doubts and that got me into conscious manifesting. I initially chased him and tried to manifest him. Stopped moved on. I eventually got back into manifesting him. All I did was convince myself and change my assumptions. Got him to chase me, ask to meet me and text me everyday just like I had craved for after the break up.
Sp 4: I did every manifesting technique in the book to get him to change his mind. All I had to do was change my mind. I started thinking “his loss” and then just weeks later he started saying he was thinking about me at 2 am. “Tables have turned” and asked me to meet him. (I also got rid of his 3p in 2 weeks)
Sp 5: my current SP. I asked him to meet him twice and realized nah he is gonna ask next. Then I kept thinking oh I know you want to walk around York with me in the summer. He literally word for word said he wants to walk around York with me in the summer.
Literally just tell yourself they want you, and they want what you want. Don’t think against it. Don’t question it. Accept it as true. It won’t take that long to show up in the 3D.

“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.

This is more for me to work out my own feelings than needing advice although advice would be helpful. I am still debating on if I want to talk this out or let it go. So yeah, as the title says, only one person from my friend group showed up to my (28F) Birthday Dinner. I am primarily coming to Reddit because it is embarrassing and shattering my vision of myself. I fear seeking comfort from my out-of-state friends because I do not want them to think less of me. I have always been deeply aware of how lonely I feel/am. It is one of my biggest vulnerabilities, so should other people be aware of it? or imply it with none of my friends who came to my birthday dinner? I can open up about anything else, but this feels too exposing.
But yeah, my friends did not show up for my birthday dinner, and I am not sure how I feel about it. One person did, but he(M29+) is my boyfriend's(32M) friend more than mine. To be honest, this makes it even more embarrassing. Having to search The Feelings Chart, I primarily just feel abandoned, embarrassed, fragile, disrespected, etc. Watching the door and waiting for your friends to show up while conversing with your partner and their friend is difficult. Suddenly, I was 17 again, only having one singular friend going to lunch with me before having other friends and dropping me off at an empty house. I think my parents were at a sibling's game or tournament. or a party? I am not sure; I just remember being home alone for my birthday a month after a suicide attempt. Or I was back at 11, having my birthday overshadowed by my sister's first communion. Or I was back on my 20th birthday, taking myself to see Captain America: Civil War.
Most of them did not even tell me they were not coming. That is what really hurts. I know my birthday sucks for everyone, time-wise. My parents made that very apparent by pushing any family celebration to Father's Day/my dad's & uncle's birthday. Yet only one of the four got back to me two hours beforehand about being unable to make it because they were tired from preparing for their family member's wedding a week from now. However, the thing is, I had gauged the group chat about doing it this weekend a week ago. To be fair, there were acknowledgments of seeing it, but no one directly responded with a conflict. I even sent a message 24 hours before letting everyone know I made a reservation, and people, again, liked the message but did not directly say if there was an issue. That is what is primarily keeping me from having a conversation with anyone. There was obvious acknowledgment of the plans, but no one asked if they could go.
It is apparent I have a lot of baggage around my birthday. I worry I unconsciously make it a test for people and myself. I saw how much people love and value me and based my self-worth and relationships on that. Possibly hope they do not show in a sick way of confirming my deepest insecurity. The rationale part of me acknowledges that it is a lot to put on someone, and things, unfortunately, just do not work out sometimes. On the other hand, this is the third event I have planned as the host where people were busy and canceled at the last minute. Usually, I would just take that as a sign of people not wanting to be friends, but some of them were legitimately interested in it when I briefly discussed it in April. Furthermore, they keep inviting me to their events.
Fundamentally, I do not know where to go from here. Only one of them has reached out, apologizing for not communicating more and saying that they will celebrate at a better time, while the other two have been silent. I think I need more time to process it before having an actual conversation with anyone about it. I am still primarily in the hurt phase, and no communication will be about their actual behavior. For example, with the apology, I was dishonest and said no worries. I wish I did not do that; it caught me off guard, but I did not want it to sit for too long and have them think I was ignoring them out of malice. If I had been in a better headspace, I would have responded with a thank you, acknowledged reading their message, and just be honest about needing more time before talking about it. I just feel sad.
Added context: We are all in graduate school. This is their last quarter before graduating, so they are legitimately busy and finishing up their practice experience/integrative projects and applying to fellowships. Ages range from 25-30.

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

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

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

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

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

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

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

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

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

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

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

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

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

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've been together for 7 years now. The fight itself stemmed from long term problems but was a small thing, ultimately. I have really serious trauma history and can sometimes project the feelings of neglect and abandonment I experienced on others. I'm pretty much always working on this, but it's also a reality of life currently. I was playing a co-op game with him and some friend when I had technical issues that made enjoying the game and communicating impossible. I asked my partner for help but from my perspective they were cold and short with me and not tolerant of my frustration and confusion when troubleshooting. From their perspective I was mean and didn't accept their help. Ultimately when I talked to my brother about it he reminded me that I should have helped my self and taken initiative for myself and that's most healthy. But I got upset and felt like he was abandoning me and having fun without caring about me so I froze and stopped playing before leaving entirely to go cry alone in another room.
After the game ended he came in, but from the outside of the door I heard him say "oh God not again" and he came in and asked if I was okay. Then when I said no and started talking about how I was feeling he berated me for supposedly not wanting to tell him anyway and tried to make an exit. I could tell he didn't want to be there but made the mistake of pining for his emotional validation and support anyway. He told me later that he would only have been able to do that if what I was upset about was something less hurtful than warped projections onto him. Since he was just trying to get through the game and give me space to advocate for myself. We've also talked on the past about not bringing these kinds of emotions to him. Yet I partially feel since I was mid meltdown by myself *trying* to regulate and he came in and tried to help but then became agitated, that he really should have stayed away!! Or left respectfully!! But he started arguing with me, and I just kept getting more upset and crying and accusing him of not loving me like he used to. When things escalated to shouting he got in my face. When I his opinion, I got too loud, he ran at me and grabbed my body and restrained it while placing his hand over my mouth to shut me up. I fought him off me and it took strength and screamed not to touch me!?! Ultimately we shouted until he ran out of the house and didn't come back for 6 hours.
During that time I called my brother and tried to make sense of it all. I realized I had done wrong and betrayed my commitment to not put my anxieties about him abandoning me on his plate and should of kept it all to myself. I reflected on my partners condition lately, which is very poor as he is depressed and recently fired. He has gained dramatic weight over the last 3 years and is basically miserable lately. Both the external world and our relationship have been sour for us leading to constant arguing.
The next day we reconciled and I was upset he wasn't immediately remorseful for grabbing me because it was serious. He said he doesn't think guilt or remorse are useful, only punitive. It's important to me though, I don't know if that's wrong. So I told him I didn't forgive him and asked if he even wanted me to forgive him. He said yes and asked me to be more specific about what showing remorse meant to me. I asked that he sit next to me and held my hands. I told him to say "I'm sorry. I crossed a line I should never cross and hurt you. I will never do anything like this ever again. I betrayed your trust." And he did and it seemed genuine but he also felt the need to keep bringing up why he thought in the moment it was ok to do. He said our roommate said we had been noisy lately so he did "for me" knowing it worries me to upset my roommate. I told him it was ridiculous to say it was for me, even if that was his reasoning and that I would never grab him to make him quiet.
I forgave him, and I think I really do but I want this to never happen again. We made new plans on how to interact when I'm processing big feelings that aren't best shared with him. I'm also making new plans to intervene in my mental and physical health to just take better care of myself to further prove personal responsibility for my own issues. He told me he didn't want to have any more sex for a while because of the seriousness of my accusations (that it was an assault against my physical autonomy) and that we would sleep in separate places and get space. I agreed but it's very bittersweet. The space helps me too but I'm also so sad and the gap between us is suddenly so wide. How do couples who have hurt each other build new understanding, love , and peace? Please, all I want is that.

I was watching a video this morning from a YouTube channel called EconClips. It was about price systems : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xem0BPe3MNU&t=334s
I won't explain it here as this would make things quite long. The point made, as you can expect, is that regulations are bad, free market is good and non-intervention is great. They specifically explained this point using an analogy with innovative vs less innovative farmers.
The implicit assumption in this video is that consumers always act in their best self interest, and in so doing encourage producers from producing more or better, thus lowering prices and/or increasing quality.
The reasoning is of course sound if the axiom "consumers always act in their best self interest" is true. Everybody wants increasing quality, lower prices, more innovative techniques, etc.
But as much as I like austrian economics, ie sound money, free enterprise, etc... I am a bit skeptical of this idea that consumers always act in their best self interest.
Let's take a similar example to the video with farmers.
A group of farmers decide to use chemicals that are very efficient and greatly increase their yield. They can thus lower their prices and flood the market with their cheap cereals. Now the issue is that those chemicals are extremely harmful to humans, but the effects when ingested in small quantities only appears over a long time. The timeframe is still just enough that this is remains a health hazard, meaning you get sick before reaching your average lifespan.
I am doubtful whether consumers, even if made aware (perfect information) of the nature of the products, would prefer buying the more expensive cereals. After all, there is a market for cigarettes and drugs.
What then is the government to do? Spread more awareness through media and propaganda? Directly step in?
I know that those who are libertarians on top of being austrians will tell me that after all, the state has no business telling people what to do with their lives. If they want to poison themselves with cheap cereals, that's their informed decision.
It is also a philosophical dilemma: what is, what determines a consumer's best interest? I do not believe the consumer himself is 100% of the time equipped with the tools to carefully ponder his options nor is he always conscious of his own self interest.
Are experts better suited then? That's pretty much what we have in our societies right now, ie bureaucratic regulations. But bureaucrats can be lobbied and although their job is supposedly to care for the collective, they are corruptible human beings and their interests do not necessarily align with consumers.
Thoughts and opinions?

Something that's been a hard pill for me to swallow and keep down is realizing that most people are consistently desired and have people liking them up into older age, while I'm 25 and I don't think anyone has genuinely ever had as little as a crush on me...
Any guy I was bold enough to tell I liked them always looked uncomfortable and promptly rejected me. And no they weren't all straight. It really hurts when I see people younger and older than me being desired by hundreds of people. I can't even get 1 single person to like me or find me to be worthy enough of their time
Any one I've messaged for a little bit ghosted me. And that's blatantly them saying they don't find me good enough. It's not even about not being good enough as a partner or not good enough in terms of personality because when you're attractive enough people are willing to coax "personality" out of you
Being good looking to the person you're talking to is the only real way to secure their interest in you
People pursue people they find attractive period. Someone you find attractive naturally just becomes the most interesting person in the world to you even if they're boring. Your brain will see that was "omg they're soo different from the norm that's soooo attractive they're not afraid to be different"
When you're attractive to people 90% of the work is already done. When you're ugly to someone they couldn't give a shit about how interesting or fun you are that's what I had to realize
There was no assortment of words, or amount of making someone laugh that would make them fall for you if you aren't already attractive enough to them
I'm aware of the good qualities I have like being caring, playful, supportive, empathetic, etc, but it doesn't make up for being ugly
My stomach always drops when I think about the amount of times I've genuinely liked someone and been either ghosted or blocked... it hurts so much because it's the other person saying that you're basically worthless and not good enough to them
I know for a fact that if I was attractive enough even with the trauma and exact same qualities I have now good and bad, people would be crawling over themselves to get to me
When you're attractive enough the good things about you are appreciated even more and the "bad" things about you serve to humanize you and make you seen as "perfectly imperfect"
but for us ugly people we are told to go on 20 year long self discovery and improvement journeys before we can ever have our first date, but that was never the real issue
The issue is How attractive your face and body is

I went through a journey during the past six months that helped me explore a part of myself that I did not know. I feel that I have changed radically since I started following it (I am 17, but I feel that I have become more mature than other adults).
At first I didn't know about Grimes, but I was an obsessive, worshipful Elon Musk fan, interested in his daily habits like working 12 hours and sleeping 7 hours a day (which he lied about), and I stuck my nose into his personal life (like an obsessive K-Pop fan ), I found that most of his previous women were attractive (blonde and very traditional attractiveness) except for Grimes, who I found ugly and witch-like in their first appearance on the Met Gala, so I decided to search for her more (and it was the best work I did in my life), I was I was worried about this woman. I felt that she was a Freemason and belonged to the Illuminati (because of her strange clothes and her album covers) or that she was a witch and cast black magic spells in her songs to enchant her audience and kill them, and I was very afraid.
I had a strange feeling for her and went to her YouTube channel and listened to Oblivion and it seemed like a bad and ugly song the first time (I mean, my taste is bad) and I said to myself that I would never listen to any of her songs again since Oblivion was the most viewed song and I didn't like it (my view was superficial and ridiculous), I went to reddit and found that her fans were praising her playing. I was amazed to know that she produces her own music and melodies unlike other pop stars like Selena or Taylor. I listened to Oblivion again and this time focused on the vocal tracks and Then I listened to Genesis and it sounded like a fortune teller or something like that. I then listened to all of her songs and went to translate them. I was amazed that they did not contain the words of a prostitute girl and cursing, and she rarely sings about love. I was interested in her from that moment on and it went. To watch all of her interviews she seemed so spontaneous and unconventional. I loved that she expressed her political opinions even on unrelated topics (like her talk about challenging societal norms of diet and weight and her controversial talk about being a vegetarian and eating hot dogs). Teens and Kids benefit from interviewing her (even about preferences) unlike other celebrities whose interviews are mostly a waste of time.
I stopped by to watch her other interview with Lex Friedman, found it helpful except for a few points (I wrote down every word she said in the interview in a notebook) and bought those books she recommended like the "Culture Series" and even watched the anime "Totoro" which she recommended for kids. I used to watch podcasts about famous singers and almost the same thing is repeated by most of them and there is no value learned, but for me every interview with Grimes is a big change for my personality.
I finished all of her interviews and went to follow all of her accounts, and I was surprised that she responded to comments (such as her response to a comment about makeup) because I was accustomed to the culture of celebrities who leave thousands of comments without responding. I also compared the comments, as the comments of celebrities are frequent (such as: I love you (You're beautiful, you're sexy, heart and rose emojis...) and the comments on the grimes account are full of mature and creative people and I loved her interactions with fans and the awkward things like her talking to the grimes AI (which they designed to be immortal grimes...), and her tweets Regarding preferences about anime and manga, and her crazy looks that show her asymmetrical artistic body, her embarrassing interviews, and her big nose, all the way to her foolish and controversial opinions, although I do not like many of the stupid things that she says, but I love her frank personality without apology, she says Things she knows lead to her being hated, unlike other stars who flatter and pretend to be nice and kind to get as many obsessed fans as possible.
I've changed a lot during the 6 months I spent looking at anything related to grimes. I've become more confident in myself. Well, I hate something called self-confidence. I'll replace it with: "I've become more embarrassed." I used to be shy about revealing that I'm an otaku, and now I am... I became more frank and more open to declaring the world I had created inside my imagination - Vikings, cards, and science fiction. I became less anxious and considered my very thin, asymmetrical yellow body to be an unconventional standard of beauty. I became open to different cultures, ancient civilizations, and ancient poetry. And history, and I invented unique hair colors instead of blonde, and made my body and face a guinea pig for crazy tricks with liquid eyeliner. They also became more accepting of my damned embarrassing personality instead of searching for silly videos about increasing self-confidence and a strong personality that attracts men. I was obsessed with Elon Musk, but after I learned about his crazy relationship with Grimes, I learned that he is just a fat, narcissistic, sadistic child, and billionaires should not be taken as an example.
I'm not a huge fan of grimes but she is an interesting person and anyone who is trapped in the shell of being obsessed with Taylor Swift (but not limited to) should know about grimes