I am from a different country, I moved to the US during Covid for work. I used to be a flight attendant and honestly it was my dream job and it still is. I only left because I was made redundant due to Covid. My plan was to move back to my home country when the opportunity to go back to being a flight attendant would arise.
10 months after I moved to the US, I met my partner. He is honestly such an amazing person. Him and I both have the same values and outlook on life. When I met him, he owned a small business but wasn’t doing well because of Covid, and a couple years before that he had some health issues and was in debt because of that. I was well aware of these things and it wasn’t an issue for me.
A year after we got together, I had the option to move home to be a flight attendant again, but I wanted to make my relationship work. My partner had to close his business and started working on yachts (what I do currently), as it is a good way to make money. He became a yacht captain in a very short space of time. He doesn’t have much experience in the industry, but via me he got opportunity to become a captain for a small vessel that my boss has. So we have the same boss but work on different boats.
My partner is a hard working person, but he is not good at his job, due to not having enough experience in the industry. It has been quite embarrassing for me as my boss hired him because of me. I don’t know anything about running a yacht, I work in the interior so I didn’t know my partner’s capabilities. I know my colleagues on my boat have spoken about his performance, but not in front of me but I can tell that they don’t think he’s capable and it’s quite embarrassing for me.
My partner and I have plans to move back to my home country together. I have told him I don’t want to be here for more than 2 more years maximum. I already stayed for 2 years longer than expected because I met him, and I don’t blame him for that, I’m aware I make my own choices. Our plan is to save as much money as possible, but I don’t think my partner is capable for providing and creating a life that we both want. I feel he relies on me too much, for example, he checks with me to go over his texts/ emails with our boss before sending it himself (English isn’t his first language, so I tidy up his wording for him, but at this stage he’s an adult and I feel like I should not have to do this). I am supportive of my partner to a certain degree, I have been throughout our whole relationship, but I feel like he is holding me back and he is not my equal in terms of being at the same stage in life. He doesn’t have a clear career path.
Now the boat the he is running has just been sold, and he is out of a job. He has applied for many jobs but haven’t heard back for a single opportunity. I feel like I have been waiting through our whole relationship for him and now I’m worried that by the time we are ready to move back to my home country, I’ll be running out of time to have kids and start a family, and won’t be able to go back to my dream job of being a flight attendant.
I love this man so much, he will be such a great father and he treats me so well, but due to his lack of career path and his financials, I don’t see him as an equal partner and I’m not as attracted to him as I used to be. I don’t just want to give up on us but I don’t know if I should continue as I feel like I’ve already put my life on hold for him.
Does anyone idea on how to navigate this in a healthy way, I don’t want to say to my partner that he‘s not good at his job and that his lack of career path is holding me back.

Howdy I am not selling nor promoting anything simply stating to give comfort that someone is doing something nor will I share any thing on here about where to find said nonprofits and what not then I’m about to mention
Having my career taken away from me and disability insurance. Will live a nice stress-free life. I get three days into accepting I build scaffolding in the carpenters union and no job site. Will let anyone with cataplexy be able to be just out of liability alone
So I know we’ll be the poster boy for my nonprofit of narcolepsy awareness and hope to create multiple others such as research and help people through the process of testing and after due to not working and maybe still having a family like myself did thru this.
As well as appeal company that donates percentage of profits back and be the only place that I make money because everything else. Will go as it should, and I will be different in the sense of a nonprofit and show where all the money goes without being asked, just simply presented on the platforms of my nonprofit page and how much we’ve invested into.
The only thing I will here is my term for us if you guys like it cause I do plural is narcalites
As well as I do believe being on amphetamines and or methylphenidate hydrochloride such as ADHD meds caused narcolepsy and many others
There should be more restrictions put on for kids not to be on and I feel can be proven already For restrictions. In the matter of a dopamine deficiency, considering the only study I can find which was provided to me by a doctor because they have access to more. 1 year on 2 years off to take dopamine to get back to the same level you are ignorant to think that this isn’t messing with kids, brain chemistry, and Greatly can give us an answer on the Unknown. And at the end of the day, they’re creating drug addict considering it’s already titled highly addictive and they restrictions put in place allow people like myself to be on 60 mg a day as a fifth grader without any say.
Simply look at when this medication came out and the increase in narcolepsy diagnosis from those kids growing into adults. It’s a huge peak as well as just keeps getting bigger every year. Hmmmmmmmm wonder y why And how is it a dumb carpenter figured this out.
I’ll tell you, I am not against the medication I think if properly put out there such as 18 years old and minimum of 15 years old anything other than that extreme cases and I mean extreme such as narcolepsy in a child not ADHD. A hugely ADD. Myself obviously yes it will be hard. However, I wish I learned to cope with them at 18. Decide for myself if I wanted to help. I need the help. For a while I was accused of being a drug addict till I found out actually it’s narcolepsy that’s why I needed more or it wasn’t because it not being treated properly now I’m proper treatment. I’m sorry but I just can’t ask why. Not a yes man. Never have been never will.
And reason for me being poster boy is because you tell me a better one than a division one wrestler winning multiple state titles throughout the childhood working double shifts in the carpenters union all the time out of sheer will power and adrenaline. to when finding out pregnant really feeling the first actual stress of my life that stress not bad to have it comes with life although causing my narcolepsy to be so so bad
And I know you guys can understand the statement of it’s very hard to tell going through life if something happened in a dream or didn’t or just déjà vu well I’ve learned not to just go with and I’m not insaneb I’m a vivid dream Think about that with normal sleep to distress, causing me to only sleep in and out without medication for longest period of time a month and a half able to stay up for four hours so yes I do believe awareness needs to be out there, especially when it’s the last thing on the list they test for at least causing two years of hell
And if I have done anything wrong in this post I do not want to change any of what it is about but the creators of this platform please when blocking my post from being seen inform me what to change. Because I feel I’m doing nothing but good for us the narcalites And only bettering us as a whole because I fear for the next case like mine to give up or the ones that I’ve already have and maybe ended up dead from her car wreck or resulted to drugs, I refused

(20,F) Idk whats wrong with me and idk if i was like this before too. Im fine at home but as soon as i go out, am around people, friends amd such, its like i lose my personality, like im a hollow person. I forget the memes or funny things ik, things I like when im with my friends. It makes me so bland and like a person without any life. Im awkward and idk why in the topic of justice or any prejudice I get so idk riled up? I fight with anyone, people in authority, just anyone without stopping. I cant stop and think, my mouth just runs and runs and I hate it. Idk how to stop. My brain is always foggy, and i cant think or remember anything. And when my friends are being silly and dancing or singing, i just freeze?? even when i know the dance steps and the songs. All of this sounds so stupid while typing here but it bothers me sm. This is all over the place too but I'm trying to not miss anything i want to rant about. Idk if its relevent but I do take meds Lamotrigine 100mg morning and night and Atomoxetine 40 mg in the morning. I was first diagnosed with anxiety and depression then BPD then I got preecribed atomox because I told my psych i may have adhd. And it works. I dont trust my psychs or my prev therapist at all. All this psychology and psychiatry feels so shallow. They only take u seriously once u show severe physical symtoms. I also took ketamine for 2 years, 6/6 months and did rTMS later. My brain keeps on telling me its because of rtms that i've changed. I feel like im a different person than i was before the treatment, idk how to ask my friends. Also, i feel like im a fun person when i meet someone for the first time but as soon as they start becoming "old" i lose the person i was before, i start becoming boring. And since on the 1st day of meeting them, im all bubbly and fun, people talk and act to me like that now and im always wondering why are these people talking like this to me or hanging out w me because im so boring. Idk whats wrong with me, i dont understand. I hope theres someone who understands even a little. This is all written jumbled up but thats how my thoughts are.

How can we stop going around in circles with these corrupted nihilists? (basically an extreme religious-nut but in reverse; no meaning, no value, no good/bad, nothing matters) I've compiled some of my thoughts/comments.

But first If you are not caught up yet:
1 Re: Vegan Gains ...The Militant Vegan Raffaela Interview - (May 12, 2024)
2 Vegan Gains is a sub-Jerkivest [5/11/24]
3 Moral Realism Debate w/ Inmendham - (May 16, 2024)
4 WTF #899: The vegan gains debate ... Value realism - (May 19, 2024)
5 Vegan Gains ...Denialism is the only nihilism [5/19/24]
also saw this Controversial Topics with Vegan Gains (Horse Riding, Bivalves, Depression, and much more!) - (May 11, 2024) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (he thinks in terms of some dogmatic religious brain-rot morality source of right/wrong, but a kind of reversed/opposite conclusion of it's absence, nihilism)
the very reason religion was invented in the first place was because humans by nature had a value-engine driving them & NEED for meaning, that's the irony. value gave rise to religion, religion never needed to grant value. The fact people can't grasp this. 🤦 ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Now onto the various arguments, sorry how long and out of order it is But the idea is to provoke you coming up with better ideas/arguments, and if you can critic and strenghen my and ultimately inmendham's arguments. The GOAL should be to Create a formal argument AKA a syllogism, modus ponens. Something clear and concise that can't be taken out of context or misinterpreted, as happened with the debate...

On the subject of Efilism, tread lightly, the philosophy and argument extends beyond merely focusing on suffering; it also includes the critical issue of consent violation. Its proponent and creator, Inmendham, argues for value realism, which contrasts starkly with the notion of subjective morality which I find illogical. While objective morality is full of baggage... often linked to outdated religious doctrine so on face value it's not fun or easy subject to broach... many contemporary non-religious ethicists ground it in realism. Personally me, inmendham and others see no use for the term "morality" as it's tainted. value-realism is the subject. Is it a value-laden universe or not?
it is not necessary to call TRUE/REAL right or wrong Objective, because if objective is defined as mind-independent than without minds there's nothing right/wrong to happen to, therefore THE discussion should be just regarding what is TRUE or NOT, subjective doesn't necessarily mean mere contrived opinion or preference but can be logical conclusion, e.g. you can conclude 2 + 2 = 4 as we understand these concepts of numbers to model reality but can you call it objective or mind-independent 2 + 2 = 4, or that math exists? Not really. As you require a modeler to model reality, an observer to make the observation, a mind to come to such accurate conclusions. To me, claiming there is no real right or wrong is akin to asserting that moral standards and ultimately the subject of Ethics is as fictitious as religion or Santa Claus, you just believe it cause you want to or have preference to. Why maintain this pretense if it's all a mere fabrication / contrivance?
Regarding subjective judgments such as determining "What's the tastiest potato chip or the most beautiful painting?", these are not factual assessments about the things themselves, The question itself is misleading, because the thing itself has none of those qualities objectively, Instead, such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by the interaction of our bodies and minds with these INPUT items, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences. You might get off more on certain female body part than another, it doesn't matter, the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant... not what specific fun or hobby gets you or them off or pushes their buttons.
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to that personal individual, or gross to another, and we can talk about intersubjective truths with averages overall. But one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually, as you are likely not even sharing the same exact experiences to judge differently. And one's very perception or framing of the experience changes the experience itself, no way around this truth. Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
It's important to recognize that differing opinions of personal taste do not inherently conflict in the way ethical contradictions do. With ethical matters, asserting that two diametrically opposed views are equally valid is problematic, either one is right and the other wrong, or both might be based on flawed reasoning. Pretending 2 opposing ethical views can be both equally right/true/correct is utter contradictory mush, either one of them must be right / wrong, or both are contrived meaningless nothing opinions, just made up. you wouldn't say whether one believes in god or not IS mere personal opinion/preference and such 2 opposing views can be equally right at same time, that's utter contradictory nonsense, by saying 2 opinions that gRAPE is both good & bad at same time are equally right opinons, right loses all meaning and you might as well say neither is right and both are wrong, they each have their own contrived fairytale delusion.
Now with Ethics of right / wrong, it does not depend on one single individual's preference or opinion, but taken as the whole, if you violate one without consent you still have to account for that since you are seemingly putting the weight on the preference otherwise preferences are utterly meaningless and irrelevant.
ALSO, Do you call whatever you prefer what's right, or do you prefer to try to do what is right?
Do you prefer to seek out what is the right most accurate conclusion given all the facts of reality, or contrive right to be what's in your preference/interest or personal gain?
I don't think VG or most these talking heads understand value-realism (problematic events within subjectivity/a non-physical but REAL reality of the mind). Obviously there's no objective divine or otherwise prime-directive moral-rules we must follow. Unfortunately Religion has poisened the conversation so much with archaic ideas and mushy terms like 'Morality'. Understand there is no 'moral truth', let alone an objective one, ofc if you pigeon-hole me or all realists into defending such nonsense it's easy to refute them. What I'm interested in is subject of Ethics, and to start whether or not value/problematic events exist or do not exist.
Here's a silly question by nihilists: "why is suffering bad?"
Response: How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
Or this: "prove suffering bad, objectively"
Also question-begging, obviously it is subjective. If such badness cannot exist mind-independently by definition.
"Prove suffering is bad, objectively"
is begging the question, because...
It strawmans / assumes the badness must be bad mind-independently, it isn't therefore, it isn't bad.
Answer this, evolutionarily do animals PERCEIVE being tortured skinned alive nail in the eye as BAD, or does it impose torture which we RECOGNIZE and define as Bad by definition?
If true PAIN/torture isn't bad then why does it exist evolutionarily? Answer: (problem -> solution) mechanism which functions as ability to learn & improved survival, this mechanism was reinforced over time as it worked.
inmendham & realists like myself argue: it is the case Descriptively, Objectively evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-value-judgements onto animals which function as a learning/problem solving mechanism. Fact is, the invention of 'PROBLEM' is something I/we/animals had nothing to do with... (no-free-will-choice) but are simply byproduct in observation of this fact.
If real PROBLEM(s) didn't truly exist then Arguably the word and conceptual understanding it points 👉 to wouldn't exist either. As if beings could be truly blind never seeing colors/vision yet pulling the idea out of thin air and conceiving of such a thing, how preposterous, that'd be giving human creativity/imagination way too much credit. The only nihilist argument then is that by evolution we & all feeling organisms are somehow ultimately deluded or have illusion of problem where there is none, which I find deeply implausible. Run the torture study/experiment a million times putting people's arm in the fire "yep still bad". Filtering out people who lack ability to feel pain of course.
As evolutionary biologists even states pain is a message to the animal "don't do that again". Can't get descriptively prescriptive more than that.
Are You Getting It?
The Ought is literally baked in as an IS. The is-ought gap to be bridged is a complete Red-Herring, yes you can't derive an Ought from an IS, because if you oughtn't do something, then it can never be BAD... problematic/BAD/torture can't mean anything if it doesn't scream OUGHT-not.
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
This is Checkmate. These are irrefutable Facts & Logical deductions.
So much for it all being false-perception, the very fact placebo patients perceive an otherwise harmless laser as BAD/painful makes it so. It's the TRUE reality in their mind and you can't deny that fact. It's also a fact believing a pain isn't really all that bad can make it so, but this doesn't make these value-laden experiences NOT real/true.
As per evolution, your body/brain's mechanisms must generate & impose a prescriptive-value-judgement / problematic event within your mind,
It's nagging, complaining, telling you keeping your hand on the hot stove is a mistake/problematic/bad. (not in itself but as a consequence)
I believe this brain making me write all this... is making an accurate assessment when it observe certain events to be problematic/bad where it's happening which is within subjectivity, where's your evidence my perceptions are fooling me or I'm somehow deluded? I witnessed the crime take place and you were nowhere near the crime scene yet you have the authority to claim otherwise as fact? (You are not simply agnostic to my problem suffering but a De-nihilist)
Once one accepts this evolutionary fact we can move on to more complicated questions regarding ethics, like how do weigh the good & the bad, conflicting preferences, etc. Otherwise, it's all pointless & futile, like arguing bivalves or wild-suffering with a non-vegan. They're just not on that level yet and it's a waste of time.
revised version of my other comment: I believe that many discussions around morality miss a crucial point about value-realism, which acknowledges problematic events within subjectivity, a non-physical but real reality of the mind. It is evident that there are no objective, divine, or prime-directive moral rules we must follow. Unfortunately, religion has muddied the conversation with archaic ideas and terms like 'morality'.
There is no 'moral truth,' especially not an objective one. If critics pigeonhole realists into defending such notions, it becomes easy to refute them. My interest lies in ethics and whether value/problematic events exist.
Consider this question by nihilists: "Why is suffering bad?"
Response: Suffering is identified because it feels bad, subjectively. Just as we subjectively understand 2+2=4, we can recognize suffering through its unpleasant experience.
When asked to "prove suffering is bad, objectively," this is question-begging, as the question assumes that the badness must exist independently of minds, which it does not by definition. This question straw-mans the issue by requiring mind-independent badness, ignoring the subjective nature of suffering. As if the quality of it being BAD must be granted by something outside the experience itself.
Evolutionary Perspective: Animals perceive and react to torture (e.g., being skinned alive) as bad because evolution has imposed mechanisms that signal harm. Pain serves as a problem-solving mechanism, reinforcing behaviors that enhance survival. If pain and suffering weren't inherently problematic, they wouldn’t exist in the form they do.
Realists like myself argue that evolution has objectively imposed prescriptive-value judgments on animals. The concept of 'problem' or 'bad' arises from these evolutionary mechanisms, not from free will. The existence of these concepts indicates the reality of these problematic experiences.
If real problems didn’t exist, neither would the concepts describing them. This is akin to how beings blind from birth wouldn’t conceive of color. Suggesting that evolutionary processes have universally deluded all feeling organisms into perceiving problems where there are none is implausible.
As evolutionary biologists state, pain signals to the animal, "don't do that again," which is descriptively prescriptive. The 'ought' is embedded within the 'is.' Thus, the is-ought gap is a red herring because prescriptive judgments are evolutionarily ingrained.
Again, How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
Conclusion: By acknowledging that evolution created inherently negative experiences like torture, we accept that these experiences are bad by definition. Denying the badness of creating bad experiences is contradictory. Therefore, once recognizing the true reality of subjective experiences, only then we can move on to complex ethical questions about weighing good and bad and addressing conflicting preferences.
playing devil's advocate let's try Steelman their position and then arrive at the logical conclusions of it and then perhaps refute it. If they say: "veganism = right" realize there is no contradiction IF by 'right' they just mean it's literally nothing but their preference...
There's no goal to prefer to know/do what's right, RATHER what's right is whatever matches our personal preferences, so unlike flat earther vs round earth beliefs/CLAIMs which can contradict/conflict with each other since either 1 is right or both are wrong. Individual tastes don't.
Whereas if VG says 9 people gRAPE the 1 kid for fun is WRONG because he's a threshold-deontologist but Also RIGHT to a hedonistic utilitarian, Those views only contradict/conflict if they are making VALUE-claims or recognizing a problematic event take place. However, with VG apparently he would have to say he's not claiming or labelling anything as TRULY problematic at all but merely describing his preferences like flavor of ice cream...
Now, of course, as the realist, I find such a view more deplorable/worse than if they were merely agnostic on right/wrong. Cause it's one thing to say there's a right answer to questions of Ethics but we have no objective scientific basis to determine it yet or lack knowledge VS saying they have knowledge there is absolutely no right or wrong.
Under Anti-realism nihilism, what they mean by wrong/right, is just their preference, if I understand correctly (which I'm quite sure) Anti-realism nihilism reduces the Subject of Ethics down to nothing but you or someone else pontificating/opining (i.e "me no like torture") . It defends some sort of expressivism, emotivism, normative, prescriptive reduction of Ethics. Which I find lubricious and has to be a mistake,
I don't see anyone playing any different game even the nihilists invest their money and plan ahead for self-interest, no one truly signs up for torture for fun like it's no problem, and runs away from pleasure happiness as bad. Further, it stands to reason... since we can recognize objectively evolution created a punishment mechanism to enforce learning and survival, BAD/PROBLEM as a concept is something I/WE/Animals had nothing to do with. We didn't invent it, we recognize it and respond accordingly. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated that pain is a message to the organism 'don't do that again!'
We must address further the flawed logic of VG and other nihilists reducing Ethics down to mere arbitrary preferences like potato chip flavor, or how much salt you prefer in the soup. As it is completely disanalogous & dishonest upon reflection. QUOTE: "There's no arguing against Efilism, it's just personal opinion. Like arguing what tastes better... ice-cream or potato chips?"
Say if you believe that the mona-lisa is beautiful, and I personally find it ugly, this conflicts/contradicts nothing because it claims nothing in terms about that object or reality outside of our own minds.
such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by body/mind from these INPUTs, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences.
it doesn't matter what specific fun or hobby gets them off or pushes their buttons in order for it MATTER, those differences don't make it any less real OR all mere subjective opinion. the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant...
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to some personal individual, or gross to another, one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually because it is the reality in their mind, Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
while one person may find a certain food delicious, another may find it repulsive, without invalidating each other's experiences because they are true for them individually. both experiences are valid/correct.
However, actions that disregard another's negative experience invalidate their reality. if you find being boiled alive problematic and I do it anyway believing it's ok, I am invalidating your experience as either not real, relevant, doesn't matter, or my preferences are more important (carry more weight) than yours. Or simply believe it's ALL equal or arbitrary and I just prefer to exploit you so I do that.
Positive or negative experiences are largely consistent among people, making them relevant, regardless of the specific stimuli. Individual truths about taste or preference coexist without contradiction, reflecting each person's value-generated reality.
This cannot honestly be applied to one's mere opinion it's fine to boil kids alive, as you are invalidating the fact that it matters to those victims. You saying it doesn't matter or your gain of pleasure outweighs their loss of pain, is a claim about the reality of events going on in their mind, so there is room for conflict/contradiction. They can't both be right/wrong at the exact same time.
A strong non-intuition argument/claim & facts presented render value-nihilism implausible:
It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Therefore, BAD/PROBLEM isn't mere subjective opinion but something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are mere by-product reacting to an observation.
This is pretty much the only base-axiom needed to ground my own torture as mattering as the original actual value-currency at stake. That paired with the fact I sampled consciousness and know it matters to me whether or not I am tortured, the fact that I personally observe it as problematic makes it the true reality for my own mind...
...AND it's not mere opinion/proclamation / or idea humans creatively invented out of thin air... as if like everyone could be truly blind yet conceptualizing colovision, makes no sense. plus that's giving humanity way too much credit of imagination.
Can't really have thoughts about information that you don't have. The concept of bad/problem arguably wouldn't even exist if it never was so.
Yes, I agree very semantics. I am attempting to shed clarity on this topic. Looking at the word "BAD" purely in a descriptive sense (e.g., that which can be categorically applied to extreme suffering) it loses all meaning if it's not truly consequential (i.e., it matters whether one experiences bad or not). If it doesn't actually matter ("no problemo") then it can't be bad, only an illusion/delusion of it, yet it's an effective one evolution imposed on organisms as a learning/problem-solving mechanism. The value-realists like myself have every reason to believe evolution created the real thing, not some contrived pseudo-problem organisms feel compelled/obligated to solve.
One only requires the axiom of a Descriptive Bad to ground Ethics. Why? Because it can be argued that a descriptive statement of BAD/problem is prescriptive by it's very nature in the meaning the of word/language.(otherwise its psuedo-bad/fake langauge, redefines bad as aversion/mere preference against) Otherwise, it can't mean anything to be bad, torturously obnoxious, unwanted experiential events couldn't mean anything. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even state pain is a punishment signal/message to the animal: "Don't do that again!" If those aren't prescriptions imposed, then I don't know what is. The animal doesn't simply decide/prefer to avoid the event and finds it bad, it's told/finds it bad and so prefers to avoid the event/problem. If god or there were some logically or physically possible way it were to be invented how else would it exist?, or what you think evolution's reward & punishment mechanism accomplished? If it didn't synthesize problematic sensations to force organisms to solve?
Evolution prescribes Needs/wants, at the same time imposes a PAIN/PROBLEM of starvation/hunger which by it's very nature is a prescription for solution (i.e. sustenance/relief/comfort.)
By the very nature of "PROBLEM" it prescribes -> "SOLUTION" not merely a contrived or trivial-like on paper math problem, but the origin of why the word even exists: the problem of pain, a true whip/punishment mechanism, real currency to play with, real loss. Idk how you can describe something categorically as a PROBLEM in the true sense of the word if it doesn't come with it a necessary prescription for its solution. Because if there is no NEED for a solution, then it turns into no longer a problem again...
I don't see how it could be any other way because if there's no real game to be playing with value baked into it, then money would be worthless/not even exist, animals wouldn't bother evade standing in the fire, etc.
Saying It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Is the same as saying Evolution IMPOSED torture/BAD, as that's what torture/bad is... a prescribed need for solution to a problem which is some form of relief/comfort.
The prescription arises as a result of accepting step 1. (which nihilists reject/deny) problem solution. The latter does not follow/exist without the former. basic 2+2 = 4 logic. There's no point figuring out the answer to the math equation, if we don't agree first and foremost a problem exists. Nor how to solve a disease, if we don't first and foremost recognize a disease exists. And so, Any debate with nihilists on step 2: of determining what is the most likely solution / right answer becomes irrelevent and a waste of time. Arguing about whether x or y IS the right answer to fixing/preventing diabetes is pointless when they don't even agree the really disease exists. They don't believe an actual real BAD / Problem exists.
VG reduces it down to mere preferences, his reasonings that even if universally sentience prefers not suffebe tortured... Well, just because it is the case descriptively we prefer to avoid suffering doesn't mean we ought/should prevent suffering. He hasn't bridged the IS-OUGHT gap. But he got it backwards,
the claim/argument... ISN'T that because descriptively, sentience universally has a preference to avoid suffering, it is therefore bad,
the claim/argument... IS that it's descriptively bad/problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it,
Again you can't classify/label something as a problem if it's inconsequential whether it is solved or not. The word loses all meaning. If something NEEDs solving/fixing it means there's a problem, if there's a problem it means there's something NEED solving/fixing. Evolution manufactures these needy problems in organisms to manipulate and control them.
Merely what our preferences are IS NOT relevant, preference "frustration" arguably IS. (if preferences couldn't be frustrated "i.e., no value" than it wouldn't matter which way things turned out)
You can have a preference for some art style over another, if we were just programmed non-feeling robots that preferred to avoid standing in the fire, but there was no real kernel of value/bad, then it wouldn't matter.
Let's imagine something was Objectively PROBLEMATIC, an IS statement. What would a real problem look like? something in NEED of a solution. Again, why? because If it doesn't matter whether or not it exists or is Solved or not, it could never be a problem in the first place. So either this problem exists or it doesn't. (NOTE: it doesn't need to be an objective problem to be REAL, "i.e mind-independent")
Next, if ASI or sentient beings were to sample this "problem", would it not be the case they would logically deduce it's in need of a solution? And assign their preferences accordingly to solving it? Cause again otherwise then you just see it as "no-problemo" again.
"If Inmendham's argument is that sentient beings create value, and that the universe has no value without the presence of a sentient being generating it, would it not follow that the ought is inherently built into sensation?" yes but the way VG unfairly reframes it is that we subjectively place value on it, THAT it's entirely subjective, like you prefer salty or sweet, or certain ice cream flavor. emphasizing that it's entirely subjective opinion. Take a look at his unfair silly example: "we can't say pineapple on pizza is objectively tasty or not..." this shows a complete ineptitude in grasping the subject and misrepresenting the argument like crazy, no one is arguing whether Mona Lisa is objectively beautiful or some such thing.
What is being argued: the positive or negative mind-dependent event produced in response to the sensual or perceptual stimuli, the input (object) is irrelevant, only the output (experience) matters and what the value-engine (BRAIN) produced. What pushes your buttons so to speak, blue jelly beans or green jelly beans, could differ between 2 individuals but the shared experience is the same more or less. Whether you wired to find pineapple on pizza tasty or gross is irrelevant, some people find bricks edible.
Main issue is they talking past each other: what inmendham is arguing for was either not expressed as best it could be, and/or VG does not quite comprehend what is being argued... inmendham claims/argues evolution created the real bad/PROBLEM and we respond in recognition of this fact/truth with preferences that follow accordingly, Logic cannot be escaped, once you know 2+2 = 4, you can't will or believe it to be 79. If you know the right answer "torture be Bad M'kay?" obviously you won't act or behave otherwise and say you love it. What could it mean to have a preference against experiencing torture... does such a statement even make any sense? All that is required is a real BAD to exist... and then the preference to avoid it logically follows, an inescapable truth. Unless he thinks I also choose or prefer to believe 2+2 = 4 ?
Essentially VG keeps counter-arguing that: "yes we want to avoid torture, but that's just your preference... just cause universally sentience has a preference against torture (a Descriptive / IS statement) doesn't logically follow some Normative/Prescriptive claim/statement. That just because something IS the case it doesn't follow that we OUGHT / should do X, like help others, prevent suffering, etc. That's a non-sequitur he says. Ultimately it's just a preference." sure but...
His argument only applies/counters a strawman position in his head: Because of this I and other realists can account for / side-step it completely, we aren't attempting to derive an OUGHT from an IS. e.g strawman: "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore it's BAD." Or "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore we OUGHT prevent it"
The actual argument is that it's Truly Bad/Problematic by the very nature of the word, Therefore first-hand observation follows universally a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around.
"If the only thing that can have meaning in the universe is the experience of a sentient being, ought we not maximize its value just by nature of its experience being the only thing that can matter?" yes the ought is a further logical extension of recognizing it to be a problem, which denotes/demands a solution, otherwise if it doesn't matter to solve it or not then you've turned it into a non-problem again. So it can only be categorically one or the other.
Issue of semantics, different terminology and definitions: as long as VG defines objective as "mind-independent" and sets the goal-post to the realist to find a mind-independent "wrong/bad" as if somehow we need some divine-command or absolute rule in the universe that declares it so... then there is no fruit to the discussion. suffering/bad takes place in the mind/experience, so of course it's unfair to ask one to present a mind-independent suffering/bad in the universe, it is begging the question. To be fair inmendham uses the term objective and could have done better job with defining/pushing his terms "e.g. objective as truth/real/fact" and not let VG impose in his own. However, I don't ascribe a requirement to demonstrate an Objective BAD to ground a BAD as real, valid, and true; it can be entirely based on Subjectivist grounds/axiomatic foundations.
Just because the BAD takes place within subjectivity doesn't make it any less real (non-physical/immaterial sure... but not unreal). VG and nihilists can't understand this. 2+2 = 4 is subjective as is all science ultimately as a root axiomatic-fact... as an observation requires an observer. This doesn't mean realism can't be proven/grounded, it can just like we can know 2+2=4 and the moon exists. If anti-realism is gonna deny subjective truths because it's subjective, then one can't know much of anything and reduces to solipsism. I am more certain I exist and the reality of "perceived" BAD I experience is actually a real BAD... THAN that the moon even exists or any other scientific empirical claim.
PROBLEM is something I/we/animals had Nothing to do with, we didn't invent it.
If Anti-realism nihilism was True and Real "PROBLEMS" didn't exist the word wouldn't exist. It is like being born never knowing or seeing or experiencing vision & color, it's impossible to contrive or imagine it. Some knowledge & information is only accessible through experience.
Even Richard Dawkins stated, "pain is a message to the animal Don't do that again!"
If the ought exists within subjectivity, as preferences, why would them being Subjective vs Objective determine whether or not their violation matters? If one experiences disgust looking at something AND another finds beauty... both are true realities for them, they don't conflict or contradict like empirical or fact claims, but instead both are correct and relevant, not one or the other, BECAUSE when someone says the mona Lisa is beautiful they are just saying it arises in them a sense of beauty, the thing/input is irrelevant whereas the output in mind is what is relevant and true for their reality.
Subjective =/= not true, I don't understand the dichotomy between objective vs subjective ethics, as if there isn't facts to glean about subjectivity.
There's also definition or semantic problems:
objective (mind-independent) vs subjective (mind-dependent)
Under such definition does it make sense to say Objectively evolution created feeling experiencing organisms having sense of taste, smell, sound, hunger, pain, to survive. So can we apply word objective to mind-dependent experiences or not?
And of course under such definition there is no objective mind-independent ethics as without minds there is no feeling subject of concern to even talk about in first place. So how silly...
Yet they take objective to mean True & Subjective made up or mere contrived opinion.
For me these are semantic word games that distract, I just care about what's fact/true. What many don't get is Even science, math is subjective invention, byproduct of subjective tool of language, doesn't mean we can't create an accurate model and picture of reality.
I believe the Is-Ought gap is a red-herring, sure it's true you can't contrive an Ought from just what IS, but with evolution the OUGHT statement is built-in, it's descriptively a prescriptive value statement imposed on me, I/we/animals literally have nothing to do with it, I'm just by-product an observer. This is key understanding.
There exists no objective or divine commandment "you OUGHT do X" written into the fabric of reality, and therefore if you don't that's Bad, No. That's nonsense/impossible logically.
Rather an Descriptive IS statement of X is a real bad/PROBLEM, denotes/demands a solution by it's very nature of the word, otherwise if it doesn't need solving then it becomes into a non-problem again, so either x categorically IS a PROBLEM or it's not.
The claim/argument... Is that it's Descriptively BAD/Problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around. Our personal preference against torture forever doesn't make it therefore bad. The prescription is built in, forced onto us.
It's like "STOP!" & "GO" What do you say to a dog? "BAD dog!" This is saying it should or shouldn't do something. basically = "No!" "Stop!" That's a prescriptive statement/signal/conveyed message.
Or simply, alls required is Descriptively diagnose Torture as Problematic. Which implies Problem Solution Without necessity of solution there is no problem at all, likewise without problem solution means nothing.
​So you essentially boiled my position down to: "Evolution programmed preference to avoid torture." or "we evolved preference to avoid torture" Does that sound incoherent or what... as if I would make such a silly claim. Keep straw-manning.
Do you think animals have PREFERENCE by default to avoid being tortured burned alive and have sex, or logically preferences are born out of observing problematic negative / positive assigned accordingly through punishment & reward mechanisms aka prescriptions, think long and hard about this one...
This is why value or ethical nihilism is incoherent to me. IF torture be bad, how can it be NOT-bad/neutral to create BAD?
It either is truly BAD or it isn't. It's either real or it's an illusion/delusion and false perception.
Their position must reduce to there is no MEANINGFUL difference between Torture & Bliss. And evolution didn't create any problematic sensation or true punishment whatsoever. Instead, were somehow deluded to view being boiling alive as problematic sensation/BAD, and relief as good, we can't tell the difference or label which is which...
Vegan Gains or any anti-realist needs to substantiate these anti-realist nihilist claims & concede if he agrees with the statements below:
"The value-laden problematic BAD experience of being tortured boiled alive in a vat of acid indefinitely... isn't really bad, evolution didn't successfully impose a real negative punishment mechanism on animals, torture isn't something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are just byproduct observing the imposition, NO! Instead our opinion has everything to do with it... what's problematic torture, one is merely subjectively interpreting/inventing/proclaiming it to be so! Evolution failed!"
"Animals run from fire cause they irrationally unreasonably subjectively interpret it to be bad/problematic sensation or experience, not cause DNA molecule made it so objectively for evolutionary reasons"
"It is all subjective preference like flavor of potato chips, problematic torturous experience isn't bad you just think it's bad or have preference against it."
"You don't logically recognize intrinsic problematic torturous experience then logically assign solution to problem which is preference to avoid that experience, No, you merely have subjective delusional preference against a nail in your eye and there is no logic to it"
"Good is Bad, and Bad is Good depending on opinion, no right or wrong, all subjective tho"
value anti-realism nihilism. INSANE! WORSE than a flat-earth theory!

We have had an UPS account from almost 50 years and ship hundreds of packages per month, yesterday, with zero warning, UPS told us they will no longer be picking up on Mondays and Wednesdays. We weren't given any notice, the driver simply called at 5pm (the time they normally pickup) to tell us that they weren't coming and would no longer be coming on Monday's or Wednesdays. No email, no notice by mail, no call from our rep...nada.
Is this typically how UPS gives notice or did I miss something?
We understand the difficulties of running a business and that our zip code has some very rural areas...however our shop is 2 blocks off a main highway that the UPS truck will still be traveling on a daily basis.
We just can't believe that this is how they treat a customer who's spent easily a half million dollars over the years with them. I get it the cut backs but we literally had packages for pickup and customers with expectations and the way they give notice is a phone call from the driver, day of?

Motion to amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004

To move– that the House of Commons recognises
(1) That any individual who is over the age of 18 is able to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate to change their official biological sex under the law to reflect their preferred one;
(2) That there are concerns that the current way in which a GRC is obtained are too expensive, too intrusive and decisions too often are not reached in a timely fashion within the courts;
(3) That it is necessary to act on ammendng the GRA to avoid the risk of unnecessary contravention of our obligations to the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment in the Equality Act of 2010;
(4) That it is also necessary to consider ensuring the correct balance between a system of only Self-ID and the convoluted documented evidence currently required to be reviewed by a panel of Judges.
Therefore–the House of Commons calls upon the Government to
(1) Change the cost of obtaining a GRC from £140 to £5;
(2) Replace the current criteria for obtaining a GRC to a legally binding statutory declaration signed by the applicant and the following witnesses:
A solicitor of the Crown; A judge of the Crown; A statement of agreement from an independent psychologist selected by the courts; All or over 50% of the members of the applicant’s Integrated Healthcare Professionals Team, which may include but not be exclusively limited to the following:- Licensed mental health therapist Endocrinologist Plastic Surgeon General Practitioner A close family member of the applicant; Alternatively or in addition to a romantic partner of 12 months or longer or spouse of the applicant.
(3) The statutory declaration as named above should confirm that the applicant is confident in their choice of preferred biological sex;
(4) The applicant’s intention can thus be interpreted as wanting to live as their preferred biological sex for the remainder of their life, with the understanding that it is permanent.

This motion was written by the Rt. Hon. Gimmecatspls, Conservative and Unionist MP for Dorset, Wiltshire and Somerset South

Deputy Speaker,
I rise to present this motion on behalf of my constituents and my party to highlight an issue close to my heart - the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 and its role in equity of the law for binary transgendered individuals (also known by the outdated term transsexuals). Whilst I understand some will be wondering why I am not also including into the discussion nonbinary individuals, it is simply because the GRA as it stands caters only for those who identify within the binary gender scale, and my expertise does not extend to how the provisions may be replicated for that demographic. Nevertheless, I believe the proposed changes in the bill as it stands to be necessary, and would be willing to support consideration of extending the scope to those outside the gender binary.
There is another reason that I feel so proud of being the one to introduce this motion and it is because I believe this ammendment finally covers ground that prior to this had proved too hard to solve. That is the conflict between those who have genuine reasons to seek out a Gender Recognition Certificate and those for whom it may not be in their best interests to do so. The latter group is composed of those who are either non-binary or those who are still questioning their gender; and the former is a much smaller and very rare group of opportunists who seek to exploit the system by claiming to be transgender when they are not.
In relation to the former group, one of the proposed solutions that had been put forward in the past to resolve the issues with the GRA overall was one of only using Self-ID, which removes the medical aspects of what is otherwise a medical condition altogether in favour of self identification. The main reason I don’t support this, and is also the source of concern for some of those who oppose reform altogether, is because opportunists can then exploit the system with no checks and balances. In summative terms and in terms of my solution to this issue, I believe that we need medical confirmation of an individuals’ transgender identity to provide the necessary checks and balances not just to weed out the fakers, but also to make sure it can work as intended for those who do need it.
In terms of the latter group, the provisions of this motion serve to make even clearer the fact that as the law stands, the GRA is not appropriate for those who are still deciding which gender they identify as, or if they are nonbinary. By making certainty of congruence of an individual’s gender identity one of the eligibility criteria needed to get a GRA, I believe we will safeguard from hasty decisions being made that will be hard to reverse, and thus have solved the issue that so many were concerned by.
In conclusion, I hope those who have found the current system intrusive or found obtaining a GRC too expensive know that someone in Parliament has their back. I hope colleagues on both sides of the house will join me in showing that we have listened to their concerns and acted on them, and I commend this motion to the house.
This debate shall end on Friday 24th at 10PM BST

Below you'll find information and links to help advocate for Reproductive Freedoms and Abortion care in Canada and emerging policy issues with the Reddit platform. This is a recurring post and will be periodically updated as needed. Feel free to post additional information and discussions in the comments.
Advocating for Abortion Care in Canada:

• There is a serious lack of Abortion Care options in Canada, particularly in the rural areas, and for those living on reserves, they have almost no access to Abortion care. People may have to travel more than 100km and across provincial lines to access abortion. Some have to travel by plane from their rural community to one with an abortion clinic or hospital. This puts an unfair financial and logistical burden on those that need to access abortion care. Provincial Health Insurance Plans do not cover travel costs related to receiving medical care.
• Because many provinces have few facilities that provide Abortion care, this places an unreasonable load on the clinics that do exist, forcing clients to look elsewhere for facilities with capacity to help them. In Alberta, there is one clinic for every 209,077 people who can become pregnant (number of assigned-at-birth females between the ages of 15-29). PEI, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory each only have 1 Abortion care provider. Nunavut only has 2 abortion providers, and of those, only one offers medical abortion covered by the provincial health insurance plan. In fact, 9 (out of a total of 13) Canadian provinces and territories have five or fewer facililities offering abortion care in their entire province. And 10 Canadian provinces and territories have one or fewer (0) rural facililities offering abortion care.
• Some provinces, have more restrictive guidelines regarding abortion, limiting access to abortion care to those with a gestational period of less than 12 weeks (meaning, 12 weeks since the first day of your last period, not 12 weeks since you discovered you were pregnant or when you had sex). Many people who menstruate have irregular periods. Some people might only menstruate every 2 or 3 months, and might only discover that they are pregnant near the gestation limit of 12 weeks.
• Insurance coverage also limits access to abortions. Some provinces, like Nunavut, do not offer coverage for medical abortions unless they are prescribed and performed in a hospital. And being a rural province, there also happens to be only 1 hospital in Nunavut - Qikiqtani General Hospital in Iqualuit. New Brunswick will only cover abortion services in a hospital setting, which means that abortion medical care provided in clinics are not covered by their Provincial Health Insurance Plan.
• Sexual and reproductive health services are among the services that physicians, pharmacists and nurse practitioners are most frequently unwilling to provide on moral or religious grounds. People who have been harassed and/or attacked while visiting an Abortion clinic may experience stigma and/or discrimination from their peers, especially in smaller, rural communities where everyone knows one another. People refused care by health care professionals because of personal beliefs may experience stigma and/or discrimination, forcing them to travel outside of their community to receive the care they need. This can all be particularly daunting for young people or those with limited resources.
• Everyone in Canada is supposed to have equal rights to access health care, regardless of race, age, class, immigration status, gender expression, sexuality and ability. Nevertheless, anyone's right to seek abortion care can be be impacted by discrimination and bigotry, both systemic and as a result of individual prejudice on the part of service providers. Racism, xenophobia, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and ageism in Canada are all direct and intersecting barriers to accessing abortion. It is much more difficult for a person who doesn\u2019t speak English to access abortion services, despite the presence of a translator. Transpeople also experience discrimination at higher rates in reproductive health care settings. Providers may also lack the knowledge or training to provide trans-affirming abortion care and abortion services are typically housed within *women\u2019s* health care departments.
• Further compounding the issue of inequitable abortion access are unregulated crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), which are anti-choice pregnancy centres that advertise in hospitals, doctor's offices, churches, schools and community centre. They deceive people coming to them for options and advice by giving misinformation about abortion or by insisting on options that may delay or interfere with the clients ability to access the care they need. CPCs far outnumber abortion care providers in Canada. In Ontario alone, there are 77 active CPCs but only 38 abortion care providers. Overall, in Canada, there are 165 known CPCs compared to 147 abortion care providers (as of August 2022).

Reference: Policy Options, via the Institute for Research on Public Policy and Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights
What can you do to improve access to abortion care in Canada?

1. Listen, research and learn. This is always the first step to understand any problem.
2. Send a letter to your MP and MPP. Tell them that access to abortion care is important and how difficult it can be to access it in your province. Urge them to prevent anti-choice groups and CPCs from receiving charitable status, and to revoke the charitable status from CPCs that already have it. Encourage them to include reasonable reimbursement for travel costs related to receiving medical care when it is not available in your community. And push them to pass Safe Access Zone Legislation to protect patients, practitioners and their staff from anti-choice harassment and intimidation.
3. Give a donation to a pro-choice charitable organization of your choice. Remember, if you give a total of $201 CDN or more to Canadian charitable organizations, you'll get a credit of 29% of your total annual donations on your income taxes (for those that file Canadian Income Taxes, only).
4. Sign up for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Newsletter. https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/
5. Participate in local marches and rallys in support of access to abortion care.
6. Spread the Word. Tell your friends and family. Encourage them to research, listen and learn. Encourage them to contact their MPP and MPs.
7. If you work in a Doctor's office or as a family physician, consider incorporating Mifegymiso into your practice to ensure patients have timely access to this essential service. If you are a Doctor, or studying to be one, consider opening an Abortion Care practice when you are licensed and qualified to do so, especially in rural areas where there are a lack of options.
8. If you work in politics, consider proposing legislation that will ensure safe access zones for abortion care providers and their clients and covering reasonable travel costs for constituents when medical care is not available in their community.
9. If you are a journalist or work in media, consider preparing pieces sharing the difficulty Canadians can have accessing medical care such as abortions.
10. If you work in the area of Not For Profit/Advocacy, consider partnering with a Pro-choice organization and helping them spread information and lobby for improving access to abortion care for Canadians.
11. If you know someone who needs abortion care, consider giving them a ride to a clinic, helping them access the advice and care they need, and provide non-judgemental support.
12. Ensure persons of First Nations, Metis and Inuit heritage know about Jordan's Principle, which ensures that First Nations children (which includes people who can become pregnant under the age of 18) can access the products, services and supports they need, when they need them. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1568396042341/1568396159824

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Policy Issues with Reddit
On July 1, 2023, Reddit raised the price to make calls to their API from being free to a level that killed every third party app on Reddit, from Apollo to Reddit is Fun to Narwhal to BaconReader. This policy change meant that mobile users would have a lesser experience browsing Reddit, users with visual difficulties could not browse reddit as screenreaders are not compatible with the official Reddit app, and mods lost tools that they depend on to keep communities on-topic and spam-free. Many subreddits protested this change in June 2023, and the Reddit admins enforced draconian measures such as removing and replacing mods who privatized their subreddits in protest of this policy change.
On September 12, 2023, Reddit will eliminate reddit coins, including removing all accumulated coins, a perk that Reddit Premium users pay for every month. Coins are used to reward comments and posts by showing your appreciation for the effort. Some reddit coins offer the ability to use reddit without ads.
In March 2024, Reddit had an IPO (Initial Public Offering), and the founder and current CEO, as well as the COO have sold $500,000 of their shares. How does this effect you? Reddit may face pressure to increase revenues to attract investors. This could lead to more ads or new monetization features. There could also be changes to the platform to attract a wider user base, such as bans and censorship on certain topics or words and control over content to appease more conservative shareholders or users.
What can you do to protest policy changes at Reddit?

1. Listen, research and learn. Check /modcoord for updates
2. Cancel your Reddit Premium membership
3. Participate in subreddit led protests
4. Look for other forums to patronize. We have a forum on Discord called Auntie Network Canada. Message the mods here for an invite link to the Discord group.
5. Complain. Message the mods of reddit.com, who are the admins of the site: message reddit: submit a support request: comment in relevant threads on reddit. Leave a negative review on their official iOS or Android app.

Introduction:
Welcome to the definitive guide for aspiring champions of the Rift. Whether you're battling out in solo queue or striving for excellence in flex, the journey to mastery is a challenging path. However, with the right coaching, tools, and strategies, you can elevate your gameplay, mindset, and overall experience in League of Legends. This guide aims not just to enlighten you about the value of professional coaching but also to introduce you to a community that shares your ambition: LeagueCoachingGrounds.
Why Coaching in League of Legends?
League of Legends is a multifaceted game where success hinges on more than just mechanical skills. Strategy, game knowledge, team communication, and mental fortitude play equally significant roles. Coaching provides personalized feedback, tailored strategies, and the kind of insights that self-analysis and general guides can't offer. Whether you're aiming to climb the ranks, improve your champion pool, or understand the deeper nuances of the game, coaching can be the catalyst for your improvement.
The Role of a Coach:
A coach wears many hats - mentor, strategist, analyst, and motivator. They help you identify weaknesses in your playstyle, refine your strengths, and adapt to the ever-evolving meta of League of Legends. From one-on-one sessions to team workshops, coaches offer various approaches to suit your specific needs and goals.
Key Areas of Focus in Coaching:

1. Mechanical Skill Improvement: Refining your control and efficiency in executing champion abilities and movement.
2. Strategic Gameplay: Enhancing your understanding of macro play, objective control, and game pacing.
3. Mental & Psychological Conditioning: Building a winner's mindset, improving focus, and managing in-game stress.
4. Communication & Teamwork: Optimizing in-game communication and collaborative strategies with teammates.

Why LeagueCoachingGrounds?
LeagueCoachingGrounds is a subreddit dedicated to players who are serious about improving their League of Legends skills. It's a community where aspiring players meet expert coaches, share experiences, and grow together. By joining, you gain access to a wealth of knowledge, coaching sessions, and the support of players who are on the same journey as you.
What Sets Our Coaching Apart?

1. Personalized Sessions: Tailored coaching that addresses your unique needs and objectives.
2. Experienced Coaches: Access to a network of seasoned coaches who are experts in various aspects of League of Legends.
3. Community Support: A supportive community that offers peer reviews, group discussions, and shared learning experiences.
4. Continuous Learning: Regular updates, guides, and tips to keep you informed about the latest strategies and meta changes.

How to Maximize Your Coaching Experience:

1. Set Clear Goals: Understand what you want to achieve with coaching - be it climbing the ranked ladder, mastering a role, or improving your game knowledge.
2. Be Open to Feedback: Growth comes from acknowledging weaknesses and being receptive to constructive criticism.
3. Practice Consistently: Apply what you learn in coaching sessions diligently in your games.
4. Engage with the Community: Share your progress, ask questions, and contribute to discussions on LeagueCoachingGrounds.

Joining LeagueCoachingGrounds:
Getting started is simple. Visit our subreddit, introduce yourself, and share your League of Legends goals. Whether you're seeking a coach or looking to offer your expertise, LeagueCoachingGrounds is your platform for growth and connection in the world of League of Legends.
Conclusion:
League of Legends offers an unparalleled competitive landscape that rewards skill, strategy, and teamwork. With the right coaching, you can unlock your potential, achieve your gaming goals, and enjoy the journey to becoming a better player. LeagueCoachingGrounds is more than just a subreddit; it's a community dedicated to your growth and success in League of Legends. Join us today, and let's embark on this journey together.

Introduction:
Welcome to the definitive guide for aspiring champions of the Rift. Whether you're battling out in solo queue or striving for excellence in flex, the journey to mastery is a challenging path. However, with the right coaching, tools, and strategies, you can elevate your gameplay, mindset, and overall experience in League of Legends. This guide aims not just to enlighten you about the value of professional coaching but also to introduce you to a community that shares your ambition: LeagueCoachingGrounds.
Why Coaching in League of Legends?
League of Legends is a multifaceted game where success hinges on more than just mechanical skills. Strategy, game knowledge, team communication, and mental fortitude play equally significant roles. Coaching provides personalized feedback, tailored strategies, and the kind of insights that self-analysis and general guides can't offer. Whether you're aiming to climb the ranks, improve your champion pool, or understand the deeper nuances of the game, coaching can be the catalyst for your improvement.
The Role of a Coach:
A coach wears many hats - mentor, strategist, analyst, and motivator. They help you identify weaknesses in your playstyle, refine your strengths, and adapt to the ever-evolving meta of League of Legends. From one-on-one sessions to team workshops, coaches offer various approaches to suit your specific needs and goals.
Key Areas of Focus in Coaching:

1. Mechanical Skill Improvement: Refining your control and efficiency in executing champion abilities and movement.
2. Strategic Gameplay: Enhancing your understanding of macro play, objective control, and game pacing.
3. Mental & Psychological Conditioning: Building a winner's mindset, improving focus, and managing in-game stress.
4. Communication & Teamwork: Optimizing in-game communication and collaborative strategies with teammates.

Why LeagueCoachingGrounds?
LeagueCoachingGrounds is a subreddit dedicated to players who are serious about improving their League of Legends skills. It's a community where aspiring players meet expert coaches, share experiences, and grow together. By joining, you gain access to a wealth of knowledge, coaching sessions, and the support of players who are on the same journey as you.
What Sets Our Coaching Apart?

1. Personalized Sessions: Tailored coaching that addresses your unique needs and objectives.
2. Experienced Coaches: Access to a network of seasoned coaches who are experts in various aspects of League of Legends.
3. Community Support: A supportive community that offers peer reviews, group discussions, and shared learning experiences.
4. Continuous Learning: Regular updates, guides, and tips to keep you informed about the latest strategies and meta changes.

How to Maximize Your Coaching Experience:

1. Set Clear Goals: Understand what you want to achieve with coaching - be it climbing the ranked ladder, mastering a role, or improving your game knowledge.
2. Be Open to Feedback: Growth comes from acknowledging weaknesses and being receptive to constructive criticism.
3. Practice Consistently: Apply what you learn in coaching sessions diligently in your games.
4. Engage with the Community: Share your progress, ask questions, and contribute to discussions on LeagueCoachingGrounds.

Joining LeagueCoachingGrounds:
Getting started is simple. Visit our subreddit, introduce yourself, and share your League of Legends goals. Whether you're seeking a coach or looking to offer your expertise, LeagueCoachingGrounds is your platform for growth and connection in the world of League of Legends.
Conclusion:
League of Legends offers an unparalleled competitive landscape that rewards skill, strategy, and teamwork. With the right coaching, you can unlock your potential, achieve your gaming goals, and enjoy the journey to becoming a better player. LeagueCoachingGrounds is more than just a subreddit; it's a community dedicated to your growth and success in League of Legends. Join us today, and let's embark on this journey together.

Hello,
I'm 25M, after couple months with my 15/9 readings, with 5 mg nebivolol hcl, and with losing a bit of weight, my readings are around 118/75 on average. But weirdly when I feel anything unusual (barely chest pain, feeling hard pumping on my heart, or even just feeling off) when I take a read it's always like 125/80, which I know it's normal, but how can even notice this litte rises?
Also, my BP is around 130/90 after I wake up, and it immediately goes around 110/70 when I sit straight for a minute. And I feel that 130/90 really really obvious, I feel my heart... unusual I'd say. It's like there is so often but so little palpitations. But my EKG was clean a month ago. Also my BP goes high really easily, I know spending energy does that, but it was never ever that obvious. Even if I move in my house, I can feel my heart is going crazy until I rest for a 30 40 seconds.
I tried to drop meds to see if that was it, honestly my average didn't even go that high, but when I move even in my house my heart was going so crazy with hard pumping.
Also an extra information that I'm not sure if that's important but, my BP is usually fine without meds until I eat. My average 119/79 with 80 pulse without meds, but after I eat, for couple hours it's over 135/9 which sometimes can go up to 145/90, and then it goes back to normal after 2-5 hours. My heart goes extra crazy if I even move after my dinner, I tried to have a walk while my reading was around 135/90 with 100 pulse at rest, I couldn't walk I had really serious palpitation.
I know I give lots of details, but even my doctor confused. You might think I have an anxiety, but I never even cared about that until it start gets weirder day by day, it just makes me so tired and that's why I'm here, I'm not even scared about anything, I just want to control this a bit and know what this is.

Throwaway here
Up until a few days ago I (39m) was dating/just establishing a relationship with a single mother (41f). We have been seeing each other for just over 2 months. Not a long time I know but the ease in which we connected really felt very unique and different than past relationships. A fact she acknowledged more than once. We share similar perspectives, find enjoyment in many of the same things, equally dorky and awkward. We really felt in sync.
I know the intensity of feelings I felt towards her were disproportionate, in a typical sense, to the amount of time we spent/knew each other. When speaking with friends I even said it was stupid I felt this strength of connection so quickly. I know it's easy to think I was naive or seeing things that weren't there, but I am confident that's not the case. There were real reciprocation of feelings and intensity in moments that we both identified. I think I communicate well, I am clear, and understanding, and a good listener. She really appreciated this quality and as such was very open and clear about her feelings towards me as well. Saying things like how she's never dated someone like me (I've been through some shit, did therapy, became pretty emotionally intelligent and self-reflective as a result), telling me how appreciative she is for me, gave me a card stating this on the day she started to pull back actually, how my touch gives her tingles. Straight up telling me a week before how she really likes me.
Yes we were intimate a few times. Intense and mutually satisfying, had improtu spicy chats during the day including the day before we last saw each other. On top of her words and discussions there were actions that also spoke to her really being serious about the connection we were developing. She happens to live right next to her parents and her sisters family. Now she could have kept me separate from all that, but she didn't. I met her sister pretty early on when having a date night at her house. Then a week later she invites me to her sister's house for a little BBQ, was an excellent night. And I ended up meeting her parents too. Not by happenstance either, but rather here come inside my parents house and say hello. And she was having conversations with her son about me and trying to get him comfortable with the idea of meeting me. I even helped her move appliances with her and her dad 3 days before the pull back and 1 week before she ended it. I even installed the washer and dryer for her, then encouraged her to go to an event for her son right after I got done, without me. I didn't do it for any other reason than I really liked her and acts of service are one of the ways I show how I care and it made me feel good to do it, to be there for her. This all has a certain connotation or level of seriousness in a relationship all in its own.
My emotions fed off of her words and actions, maybe my openness and honesty felt like a bit much at times, like I was oversharing. But it was honest and reciprocated every time. There were palpable moments of electricity between us.
Then came the pull back...she is a nurse who works 12 hour shifts and has shared custody of her son. I work a typical m-f schedule. So as we are building this whatever it was, spending time together was a challenge sometimes. I completely respect her keeping me separate from her son until the time was right, never pushed, always accepted that her role as a mother comes first.
So she asks me if I want to do dinner at my house for this past Tuesday. Tuesday is my golf night, but I made an effort to go to work early, leave early, get my match done early so we can have a nice evening. I even took the morning off in case we were up late, so we could maybe wake up next to each other and enjoy sometime together in the morning. She was really excited about this, or rather implied that she was. Even had the spicy talk the day before.
Then she arrives and I can tell something is off. Shes not as receptive to my touch, dynamic is off. After dinner we sit on the couch and she breaks down in tears. She's feeling like we are moving fast, she feels like our texting is taking away from time with her son, wants to dial it back. She has her son for a 5 day stint starting the next day, doesn't want to feel tethered to her phone, wants to feel present. Okay, I get it, respect it, no problem at all. She then tells me about how her divorce went down, kind of wild and not exactly how she made it seem at first. She definitely still is working through that stuff and the ex dynamic is poor and I think he bullies her and knows her buttons. I straight up told her that if I was her partner I would be there and defend her and not let his bullshit slide (maturely, I'm 40 and don't need to be physical). She did say a few times that she was always waiting for the other shoe to drop with us because of her past relationship trauma. But guys, I have no other shoe. I'm a god damn gentleman doing his best to operate in a time when women are more independent, and I support it and respect it.
I send her an email the following day apologizing if I came in to strong, I believe in what we are building, I respect boundaries and her and all her terrific attributes. She responds by saying it was beautiful and she looks forward to moving forward with me. I also suggest phone calls or Video chats in lieu of texting moving forward. And I assured her I didn't need to be in contact 24/7 and that I like my independence as well.
Over the next couple days I let her lead the conversation. If she texted I responded. Typically it wasn't immediately but within 15 minutes unless I myself was busy. I wouldn't try and engage in long discussions. Just little check ins it seemed like. Then her text style changed again, less frequent, no emoji, no real engagement from her in to my activities. I felt it coming.
She was ill over these past few days with bronchitis and was having her period, she felt cruddy and I felt bad I couldn't be there for her like I wanted to. I would ask how she was doing, if she needed anything. Her response was that I was sweet but she could manage. But she began to not ask me about what I was up to, or really engage much at all.
Saturday she ends it, says she hasn't really put all her focus on being a mom since her divorce (4 years ago), she made some relationship mistakes post divorce, still healing, really wants to be there for her son (kid sounds amazing btw). But okay, yeah I am bummed but I respect it. What else can I do right? Kid comes first, I get it.
But you know what really bothered me is that when asked about what we were felt for each other, if it was real, she denies we had this special connection and that she thinks she was forcing it....so my long winded question here is... After all that, does that sound like she was forcing it? She said she felt there was an incompatibility but couldn't identify what it was. She's sorry for leading me on, then tells me not to lose her number. Like wtf? I think she is either lying to herself to make herself feel better or there is something else going on. My hypothesis is that our potential scared her, she doesn't want to get big time hurt again and is anxious about it and somebody put the bug in her ear that the feelings she is having is because she is forcing it (she mentioned a comment a coworker made to this extent about it being forced because she wasnt as giddy as she had been, I think she was fearful and this person labeled it as force). I say this because it all doesn't make sense, I am probably wrong, help me make sense of this, please.
Tl;Dr built a wicked connection with a woman, have evidence it wasn't one sided, special connection, met her parents, installed her appliances, got dumped a week later and was told it wasn't real but forced.

I use Echo Auto in my car. For the most part it works well enough, with much better voice recognition than Siri on my phone, + you can press the button instead of yelling ALEXA! when the music's loud.
BUT, then there are the times it doesn't.
The times when it:
a) Refuses to connect my phone.
b) Will connect to my phone but then is silent when apparently playing music.
c) "Can't open Spotify, unlock your phone when it is safe to do so!"
d) Insists on playing music on Amazon Music instead of Spotify.
After many journeys swearing at the Amazon and Apple in equal measure I think I've worked out how to "fx" most of them:
1) Open the ALEXA APP before you set off. The device sets up a bluetooth link between it an the Alexa App, if the app isn't running or has been put to sleep by iOS it won't connect until the app is opened.
2) Also open Spotify, Google Maps and any other apps you need. The Alexa App can't open apps resulting in "Can't open Spotify, unlock your phone and open the app when it is safe to do so!"
3) It helps to have Siri/Google enabled as a backup. The phone uses the Echo Auto as a bluetooth speaker so you can still get Siri to play music if Alexa isn't playing ball.
4) Power interruptions really confuse Alexa resulting in non-connections. For example I used to turn my radio & Alexa on before starting the engine, on my car starting the engine means the power drops for a second & Alexa goes down, after that it often won't reconnect necessitating parking up and doing a full device re-pairing! I now just start the engine straight away.
5) "Play X on Spotify" usually makes it use Spotify rather than Amazon Music.
6) BONUS TIP: Setup routines with easy to say names to play your favourite podcasts with long names before you set off. E.g. I set up a routine for "play my star trek podcast" that then "says" to Alexa "play Star Trek Outpost: A Star Trek Fan Production"
Hopefully, these tips will reduce the amount of problems you get with Alexa Auto. If you have any more please add to the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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 haven’t vaped in 45 days. Used to use nic patches but stopped, tapered down from 10 to 6 mg zyns, started using 3 mg a week ago four times a day which is 1-2 more than I did before. I know it’s because of tapering down and stress from finals but I feel like I’m not progressing fast enough.
Been thinking about buying a vape and not using it often like 4 times a day but I know it’ll just lead to my addiction getting worse
I saw ppl posting here about how relapsing isn’t worth it and it’s stupid but I wanna have a slip once but it might lead into what I quit for

The world conspired in the best of ways to bless me with a whole bunch of new games at once and I happened to be able to get in a lot of plays quickly with them.
Always get an idea of who's talking before you take anything away from these reviews/impressions. Maybe we're really different people. I've been in the hobby for 10+ years. I've played a lot of games. I love interactive and mechanically unique games. I worship Reiner Knizia. Some of my favorite games are Tigris and Euphrates, Spirit Island, Race for the Galaxy, Agricola, Battle Line, and Oath. My favorite games of last year were Stationfall, Ra (reprint), and Zoo Vadis.
Okay, let's go!
Cascadito/Cascadero - Is this a Pokemon Red/Blue scenario? No! There's room for both halves of this pair of Knizias in a collection. I think Cascadero is the better game, but Cascadito slides onto our table more easily. I'm a bit of a believer in the Moneyball theory of games (does the game "get on base" (to the table)?) so, that matters!
Cascadero - 4 plays at 2 players - First, the production is perfect. Svelte box that's easy to pack, wooden pieces, great graphic design with built in rules reminders by Ian O'Toole, and a striking cover make this a joy to play. If you enjoy the general waves hands of Irish Gauge, you're going to love how this looks.
Cascadero requires a little patience, but I think I'm starting to see a heart of gold down in there. As a Knizia tile-layer, right away, this game is, unfortunately, going to get compared to some of the greatest games ever made. Games like Through the Desert, Samurai, Babylonia, etc. I say unfortunately, because I don't think you'll love this game on the first play. That's because I think the default/starter side of the board is less interesting. If you're familiar with games, do yourself a favor and flip to the farmer side as soon as possible. Even then, Cascadero is subtle. When played best, it's a quiet maneuvering of cubes up to just the right spots on tracks with pieces on the board in all the right places that build a little lattice of opportunity. Not just one combo ready to score, but a set of circumstances that hedge on an opponent's move. Paths are everywhere, and you're using them in just the right ways to get across a double score gap or to slip into a fold in the track that gives an extra bonus. I feel like the review circuit doesn't usually play games enough times to appreciate this one, and maybe it's subtle to a fault. It isn't great when you hear "it gets good on game 4", but I'm four games in and usually that's the point where I'm bored of most games. With this one I'm excited to play more.
Cascadero is great!
Cascadito - 5 plays at 2 players - Do you like My City? Do you like My City: Roll and Build? I do. I probably wouldn't list them in my favorite games, but they are such great weeknight-with-the-partner games that I appreciate them all the same. Cascadito isn't billed as a campaign game, but rather as four maps. Maybe a 4 game campaign doesn't sound long enough, but I'm busy. 4 games sounds like something I can do. If you've played Cascadero, map 1 is the less interesting version of that game. Stick with it though! Like My City, you get the joy of seeing Knizia riff on an idea. We enjoyed each subsequent map more and more and we could see ourselves replaying #3 and especially #4. In fact, on map 4 we kept looking at each other's sheets during the game - on a roll and write! I like that.
Cascadito is good!
Spectral - 6 plays at 2 players - I'm pretty picky about deduction games, especially as board games. As someone who has put hundreds of hours into Picross and sudoku I need there to be a good reason why I'm using my precious time with my friends on something that is usually so solitary. So far, I've really only liked The Search for Planet X. While it isn't known as a particularly interactive game, my friends and I have played it so competitively that we look for any scrap of information that might give us the edge, and the publishing system cranks up the incentive to take some leaps of faith in a tight race.
When I heard about Spectral I was excited - an interactive, bidding based logic puzzle - cool! Six games later, I haven't really figured out how to interact with my opponent. While The Search for Planet X has clear moments of intention to watch for (publishing papers), it's really hard to tell when your opponent is acting with intention or just exploring in Spectral. You also don't have those little clues like what your opponent is scanning for or researching like in Planet X to build some kind of theory around. The game is a breeze to play, yet barely leaves room to grapple. So maybe the interaction isn't super strong, but how's the logic puzzle?
Boring. Imagine playing sudoku, but the logic restrictions were only for rows and not also columns, or within squares. You can do some deduction with the curse cards, but the treasure cards (12 of the 16) are all essentially equally informative and don't allow for much in the way of chains of deduction. You can do a little bit with probabilities of where treasures are likely to overlap, but it rarely feels worth it to pursue when finding curses provides a much more reliable benefit.
I want to be wrong about this game. Please, someone argue this one with me.
Spectral is okay. If you play it once or twice, I think you'll have a good time, but I don't see it having legs.
Slay the Spire - I've had this game for less than a month and I think I've put in maybe 50 hours at the table with it at this point. I've played with people who have 1000s of hours in Slay the Spire - they have loved it. I've played with people who have never played Slay the Spire - I see them playing Slay the Spire on Steam the next day and asking when they can next come over. People who usually duck out of a game night at 10pm are still at the table at 1am.
I was really worried it would be bad. I wondered, why not just play the digital game? But here I am, holding the box and knowing without a doubt, this object sparks joy. Have you ever experienced a solitary piece of media, obsessed over it, and then gotten a chance to experience it together with other fans? Maybe something like watching Game of Thrones with friends after reading the books. It feels great to share in something you've loved. That's how Slay the Spire has felt. But it's not just that, as evidenced by the friends that have never played the digital game and still loved it. It's just a damn good deck builder, and the whole system of knowing exactly what the enemies are going to do before they do it goes over so well here. It's so apparent that this translation was a labor of love and so much has gone into preserving the spirit of the game. I love it.
Slay the Spire is excellent!
Leviathan Wilds - played the first 3 Leviathans solo and at 2 - I backed this as a Shadow of the Colossus fan, and hoped for the best. I'm honestly blown away by how much this game has exceeded my expectations. First, there's something about this game that feels so complete and efficient. There's no Kickstarter bloat. It's in a very understated, retail sized box. The game just gets so much out of each component. It feels like the people who made it have made a lot of games before (and they have!).
I have trouble finding mid-weight 1-hour co-ops that I like. I love co-ops like The Crew at the short and sweet end and Spirit Island at the epic and heavy end, but the games that hit around the Pandemic range have never appealed to me. There often seems to be too much upkeep and setup, and not enough to keep me interested in sharing a puzzle with other people.
Leviathan Wilds is sooooo easy to set up. Setting up a Leviathan involves opening a spiral bound map book and laying out five cards. Processing the enemy turn involves flipping a card and later doing what it says. I don't play solo games, pretty much ever, but I'm playing this solo because it's so damn easy to run.
The moment to moment gameplay has been a blast. The systems are very open and freeform and the cards are multi-use, so there's often this feeling of scrapping together just the thing you need from odd parts - burning this card, eating this mushroom, falling here, etc. The movement system really leans into the mechanics of Shadow of the Colossus and allows for a creativity and freedom while reinforcing the theme. Every game we've played has been tight and we've failed a few times. I like that. My only complaint was that the enemies will sometimes do "swift" moves that resolve before your turn so you don't have much of a chance to react. I didn't realize until a game or two later that you can still use skills on cards to react instantly which might be an easy rule to miss. I've felt much better about "swift" since learning that. I'll definitely be backing the announced small expansion for the upcoming reprint. What a pleasant surprise.
Leviathan Wilds is excellent!
Harmonies - 6 plays at 2 players - This game has been called a Reef killer, an Azul killer, and a Cascadia killer. I own all those games! So, what's the body count at my table? Well, first off this game is lovely. The art is beautiful, the spatial puzzle is quite satisfying, and the playtime is breezy (especially at 2). It is most comparable to Reef in that you are arranging and stacking pieces in configurations for points, but there's a second layer of tile arrangement, similar to Cascadia's habitats, that's always present, no matter what cards come up. The Azul comparison is probably due to the drafting of tiles from a central market. So, what's the outcome?:

• Reef - Dead. Harmonies gives me a similar spatial puzzle in less time, in a smaller box, with better art, and it feels more thematic (I want to make homes for all my animals!).
• Cascadia - Dead. (although I was tired of it already). I find the game to game strategies in Harmonies to be more diverse and I don't feel like I have an algorithm to follow like in Cascadia (Is there a tile that increases two habitats? Can I fit a fox between my other groups of animals?).
• Azul - Alive. It's a stretch to compare the two games, but the drafting portion is far more interesting in Azul with the combining pools of tiles. Azul sits with Carcassonne in this perfect zone of being a gateway game that starts out gentle and puzzley and more you play it the more cutthroat it becomes. This isn't Harmonies, but...

Harmonies is excellent. I wouldn't be surprised if its the best gateway type game of the year. I do think it could slow down significantly with more players, but I tend to play something more interactive beyond 2.
Dro Polter - Too many plays to count and at all player counts - I think this is Oink's cutest production yet. The chunky wooden ghost, the tiny bells, the little set of treasures you'll hold in your hand. If you like frantic dexterity games, this is great. You can explain the rules in about 2 sentences and it's very non-gamer friendly. The cleverest bit is how you have to hold onto points in the form of tiny bells and if you drop them you lose them. It's an excellent system of handicapping the leader that often turns to laughs. It's mostly a novelty, but if you can introduce it to a few different groups of people, it feels worth it. Great with kids too.
Dro Polter is great!

Hello!!
Thanks so much for clicking and checking this out. I've got quite a bit to say, so please make sure to read thoroughly!
I'm fairly new to D&D. I've been a part of several West Marches campaigns, completed one short campaign and completed a few one shots. I've been searching for a group, but it is so difficult to find people who are committed and have the same availability and vibe well. I think the D&D space is saturated with players and there are so few DMs, so i decided to pursue a my goal and dapple in DMing. So please keep in mind this will be the first campaign that I DM.
If this is fine with you, then hello :)
So here are a couple things to get an idea of what is going on:
1). I am looking for players who are 25 years old or older. I don't have anything against anyone younger, but my group consists of older players. Also I don't want to take romance between PC/NPC or PC/PC off the table, but I do not feel comfortable roleplaying a romance/relationship with someone 6 or more years younger than me. Unfortunately if you are younger than 25 (or are not turning 25 *this year*), I'll have to take a pass on you. 1a). While romance is on the table, I will absolutely not engage in anything sexual. Anything involving sex will be 'fade-to-black' or off screen. 1b). We are LGBTQ+, BIPOC and neurodivergent friendly!! (most of the players are one or more of these, I myself am SEAsian, pansexual and have ADHD)
2). This is my first time being a DM, two of my current players have some experience with D&D and the other player is a first time player. I would prefer a player who is equally new. That being said, if you have plenty of experience but you are patient and are willing to coach me after sessions, then great :)
I had another player who I asked to leave because he is a very seasoned player (since 3.5e), and he is currently in a homebrew campaign. He complained about many contradictory things, like how I wouldn't let him be super open with character creation but he would also call me out when I didn't know every single page of the PHB and DM guide. Please, do not be this person. If I feel you are something like this, or I feel like you are making me uncomfortable or making me feel insecure, I ask that if I let you know this, please be considerate of that.
3). I will be hosting Dragons of Stormwreck Isle, an ultra-short module, just as a warm-up campaign. I anticipate that it will be 6-8 three-four hour sessions. Some reasons for selecting this specific module is:

1. Myself and one of the players have done Dragon of Icespire Peak, so she would know what to expect.
2. Stormwreck is suuuper short, so it is a great way for me to learn how to DM, but it is also a great way for me to get a feel of my players play/roleplay style
3. it gives player a chance to get each others' vibe

4). After we complete Stormwreck Isle, I'm thinking of hosting Wild Beyond the Witchlight or Waterdeep: Dragon Heist. If you've read up to this point, the sekret phrase is goose duckies. Eventually, I would like to do a homebrew, but as I am new and learning the mechanics methods of DMing, licensed modules are the way to go.
5). Please remember to keep things civil and courteous. Respect myself and your fellow players.
6). We will be playing using voice on discord. For now, we will be using D&D Beyond + avrae (discord DDB bot) + owlbear rodeo (all my sourcebooks are on D&DBeyond)
if you've read through all these and still find yourself interested, please fill out this unreasonably meticulous form. My current table and myself will review these forms and will get back to you once we've had 6 or more applicants that we like -or- we hit June 21, whichever comes first.